|
Post by dargon on Jun 29, 2010 10:45:44 GMT 1
True I really do like having nations that interact alot. It just seems to be more fun that way.
Still I wonder if its how difficult it would be for a nation to become mostly self-sufficent.
|
|
|
Post by greystone on Jun 29, 2010 16:20:57 GMT 1
Good luck in politics greystone, but I'd like to point out that poverty is almost impossible to remove as the definition of who is poor will change based on the current average of wealth. Actually, this is half my point. I don't believe in aiding other countries while we still have problems, and we will always and never-endingly have problems. I don't know where my psedo-isolationist tendencies come from and when I start my career I'll never share them with my voting public but there you go.
|
|
|
Post by dargon on Jun 29, 2010 20:06:54 GMT 1
well that would benifit your country immensly but it could be a problem for your forign PR.
|
|
|
Post by Surly on Jun 29, 2010 23:07:42 GMT 1
Good luck in politics greystone, but I'd like to point out that poverty is almost impossible to remove as the definition of who is poor will change based on the current average of wealth. Actually, this is half my point. I don't believe in aiding other countries while we still have problems, and we will always and never-endingly have problems. I don't know where my psedo-isolationist tendencies come from and when I start my career I'll never share them with my voting public but there you go. Ah, but what about the problems that are solved by aiding other countries, such as preventing infectious disease from spreading to your own country, making people more willing to give you good terms on trade deals, and getting people who'll come in and help you if you are attacked?
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jun 29, 2010 23:18:00 GMT 1
So Grey, if you aren't going to campaign on isolationism, what issues would you focus on? and what party would you go for (not that party means all that much in terms of ideology)?
|
|
odin
Officer
Confused Wanderer in the War Zone
chuch
Posts: 161
|
Post by odin on Jul 1, 2010 19:50:50 GMT 1
This thread needs more debating.
Feel free to take one of the following and argue for or against it. I'll take the other side.
"God is dead"- Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead"- God
Free will is an illusion.
Only idiots choose to believe in determination.
The only good theist is atheist.
Atheists are nihilists in denial.
There is an external reality.
You probably don't exist, and neither do I.
|
|
|
Post by greystone1 on Jul 1, 2010 21:45:46 GMT 1
My Security Check to get in "War is Peace"
no joke.
"Ah, but what about the problems that are solved by aiding other countries, such as preventing infectious disease from spreading to your own country, making people more willing to give you good terms on trade deals, and getting people who'll come in and help you if you are attacked?"
I know that rationally, it is why isolationsim doesn't really work... I just wish it did.
"So Grey, if you aren't going to campaign on isolationism, what issues would you focus on? and what party would you go for (not that party means all that much in terms of ideology)?"
Focus on? Nothing, that is the way of a good politicien. More seriously, I'd probably end up as a democrat who is Bi-Partisan, or stick with independent (which is difficult from a voters standpoint).
I really am moderate on most points. I'm pro-choice, Pro-gay marriage, against gun control to an extent (assualt weapons are going to far), and a big lover of the death penalty.
I'm also a Boy Scout. ;D
One of my dream laws is a 'Darwin's Law' when it comes to motorcycles/bikes. If you get hurt because you aren't wearing a helmet then you die. Oh, we won't kill you, but no doctor can help you.
|
|
|
Post by Sayn on Jul 1, 2010 22:10:20 GMT 1
One of my dream laws is a 'Darwin's Law' when it comes to motorcycles/bikes. If you get hurt because you aren't wearing a helmet then you die. Oh, we won't kill you, but no doctor can help you. Kind of reminds me of something I read in the news just a few days ago here in Sweden. A guy who got his motorcycle license like two weeks ago was showing off, driving his bike on only the back wheel, and drove right into a wall and died instantly. It might sound callous of me, but in a way I do think he deserved it. If you are stupid enough to do something like that when you've barely gotten used to driving such a vehicle, then what the hell do you expect will happen?
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jul 1, 2010 23:51:07 GMT 1
In it's original context, or as a religious talking point? a probably truth stated by a smartass who's never read the source material? Either way, I'd be fine taking side of the first quote if someone wants to take the opposite. Ehhhh, I'll pass, thanks. I'd be fine taking the second side for either of these pairs, if anyone wants to oppose.
|
|
Murska
Officer
But I thought we were friends...
Posts: 155
|
Post by Murska on Jul 2, 2010 10:52:22 GMT 1
Eh. I believe free will is an illusion, but I'm not used to debates. And the 'only idiots choose to believe in determination', what does 'believe' mean here? Belief that everything is determined or actually believing that since everything is determined, this should affect my actions somehow and 'it's all just fate'?
|
|
odin
Officer
Confused Wanderer in the War Zone
chuch
Posts: 161
|
Post by odin on Jul 6, 2010 22:30:30 GMT 1
In it's original context, or as a religious talking point? Either one is fine with me. It might be a smartass' comment, but I think it has some point. It's true that Nietzsche is dead, but to what extent is his philosoply practiced, or continually impacting modern philosophical thought? I'd argue that the "master morality" has been paved over, and "slave morality" reigns supreme, to the point where discussing Nietzsche as anything other then a counter-cultural icon is pointless. Okay. I'm fine with ether as well, if you want to start off. Eh. I believe free will is an illusion, but I'm not used to debates. And the 'only idiots choose to believe in determination', what does 'believe' mean here? Belief that everything is determined or actually believing that since everything is determined, this should affect my actions somehow and 'it's all just fate'? I've never really liked the word believe either. I think there should be different words to explain that "I believe in capitalistic ideals", and for "I believe in unicorns". And whether or not you think the belief dictates courses of action it does. Take the U.S. Justice system for example. As if currently stands, it is designed around the belief that there is no such thing as free will. If you're a determinist, shouldn't "choose" be the word you take umbrage to? Since the existence of choice, as anything other then an illusion, is the subject in question.
|
|
Murska
Officer
But I thought we were friends...
Posts: 155
|
Post by Murska on Jul 7, 2010 0:31:28 GMT 1
I don't know anything much about the US justice system, other than that popular opinion is that it sucks.
There's no proof of anything that would be supernatural, in the meaning that it works beyond natural laws. My stance is that if something cannot be proven to exist and cannot be proven not to exist, the logical assumption would be that it doesn't exist at least until proof either way is presented. Otherwise we can believe in anything. Following this line of thought, I don't think supernatural things exist, and I believe everything follows a set of natural laws.
However, thanks to the uncertainty principle, we can't actually predict anything anyway, since we cannot know a state well enough to be able to predict the course of events. Thus, an interesting thought, but nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jul 7, 2010 3:17:22 GMT 1
Odin: okay, I misspoke when I referred to the second one on the atheism couplet, I meant the first. to go through you can look at this statement in two ways, either as understood when examined relative to the body of work it was created in, or as a standalone statement, I will now attempt to do the former, spoiler for space. To briefly explain the context, "God is dead" is not a random declaration, it's a response. The Last Man, representation of apathy, stricture, mindless following of routine, search of comfort instead of virtue, and so on, asks "Who is God?". The Ubersmerch replies "God is dead".
Now, in general, I agree with the sentiment, the assumption of authority and acceptance that there is ultimately no higher power to pray to, no infallible judge to punish sins (well, not like I'm an ubersmerch anyway, but meh). As I'll get to at the points about atheism, I don't really have a problem with this statement.
In denying anyone holding metaphysical authority over you, you implicitly accept total responsibility for your actions, no Nuremberg defense, and no "letting the shit flow down" so to speak. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with this, each persons an individual and if they wish to live outside society, they're welcome to their hermitage. I..completely agree. Nietzsche is the same as all the other philosophers responsible for the "cult of the hero" (most notably Rousseau), the only result they ever had was being twisted into a justification for fascism and naziism. I'll be taking the former side
Firstly, I would like to define the terms for the debate
Firstly, I would like to define "theism" as the belief a being, or group of beings, who are not subject to physical laws and were responsible for the creation of the Universe.
Atheism then, is the lack of belief in such. For this debate it will be defined as the belief in a wholly mechanistic Universe, where everything phenomenon occurs according to physical laws that nothing is outside of, and that every event, including the creation of the universe, is the result of chance and probability.
Therefor, the argument I will be putting forward will have the object of convincing the reader that the only reasonable choice to make between the above two beliefs in the latter.
My first and most important point is a simple application of Occam's razor. It is perfectly possible to explain the creation of the universe, and likewise all known events in it, without resorting to extradimensional beings outside all human reference capable of creating the universe. Why then, is an unknowable Demiurge necessary? What is the reasoning to defend it? How do yo argue for the existence of an omnipotent being to lay down universal laws when the plank era works just as well?
My second point is against the idea of the "Clockmaker Creator", the idea that the Demiurge of the cosmos created the world then wandered away to...do something. My point is simple: why? Why is such a belief in any way different form the atheist standpoint, save the inclusion of a needless, pointless, inexplicable elephant in the room. This leads back to my first point, the athiest version of event has the same result, is orders of magnitude easier to assemble evidence for, and si simpler, so how is the deist narrative defensible?
My final point is a preemptive refutation of the oppositions argument that "atheist are nihilists in denial". The only two possible explanations for this argument I can fathom are either something that originated as an ad homonim attack on the opposite side of a debate, or the result of a profoundly cynical view of human morality.
The explanation I imagine is something along the lines of" someone who does not believe in a higher power having no reason to be moral, and as such they will inevitably become a psychopath." This is effectively an admission that they believe a human who doesn't believe they will be punished for their crimes in the next life has no reason to follow laws, that without belief in divine judgment we would exist in a Hobsian state of nature, in other words. If someone wishes to be that cynical, I can't refute that but it does go rather against all experience I've had.
ehh, I might do the last one later, tired now. For the record, if I sound incredibly pompous debating, that's me slipping back int omy old training.
|
|
thefalcon
Squad Officer
Corrupt Corporate Executive in the Warzone
Posts: 51
|
Post by thefalcon on Jul 7, 2010 5:02:15 GMT 1
Just curious, has anyone else read the novel Grendel by John Gardner? It's a great work--I'd truly recommend it to anyone interested in philosophy.32
|
|
|
Post by puppyavenger on Jul 7, 2010 5:13:30 GMT 1
can't say have no. What's it about?
|
|