View Full Version : Devil's Advocate
Hmm... Inspired by a thread in HW help...
The idea of this thread is a creative exercise at arguing the unarguable. The way it works is kinda like my Ask a stupid question... thread, but in a serious fashion.
Someone poses an argument that at first glance seems utterly unarguable.
Someone argues in support of this argument, even if he does not support it himself, and leaves another argument for the next poster.
Each argument can be as long as you wish, but with one requirement. Humor can be used, but not in mocking or sarcasm. You must try to argue each case as sincerely as you can, even if it appears absurd. Will anyone manage it?
Ok, I'll start: Killing is not wrong.
Anyone wanna argue this?
This is a great idea ! Do I understand you correctly; you want people to argue in favor of a position they do not genuinely support, but without setting up a "straw man" argument? This could prove quite difficult... should be good exercise.
The entirety of nature is killing. All animal life devours its nutrition from either plants or other animals. We humans have simply abstracted that idea a step further. We compete in ways that hide the cruelty. We earn more money, allowing us to buy nice homes and good food and to provide for our families. This hides the brutal truth. Every calorie we consume is one a starving child is denied. Every square foot of roof over our head is shelter denied to the homeless. Our salaries and stock portfolios are tally sheets of other peoples' deaths.
So, is all success evil? No. It is the natural drive of any being to thrive, and ensure their offspring thrives. It is clear that since success can not be evil, and success is killing, killing is not evil. The delusion is not in the bank statement which hides death, it is that civilized man does not kill to survive. Of course we do. It is time that we not just be civilized, but that we also se aside our hypocracy. It is better that we just come out and be honest about it and be proud of our capacity to kill our rivals.
Good hunting,
Njorl
PS - I'm going to go brush my teeth now.
LURCH: Yep
Erm.... Njorl, you forgot to put in an argument yourself.
I'll just do one then.
Why democracy is not a good form of government....
Democracy, invented by the greeks is a form of government considered most advanced by the majority of the western world. But this belief in the power of democracy is not correct.
Democracy is based on the idea of majority rule - it has a generally utilitarian philosophy where the happiness and contentment of the whole decides which decisions are made. However, this has many problems.
1st, democracy naturally leads to an inherently very unstable government. This is evidenced by incidents such as the creation of the Nazi regime etc. Any government sufficiently opportunistic and successful at pandering to the will of the people can hence cause anarchy, and thus jeopardise the well being of the majority of society.
2nd, democracy depends not on the actual effectiveness of government, but strictly on the will of the people. A candidate that is popular would be voted in favour of one that is actually hard working and good at his job. It is more effective to start off with a strong government and gather public support, than rely on public support to choose a strong government. In many ways, ignorance is bliss.
3rd, democracy is inefficient. Needless bureacracy and the need for consensus usually results in watered down and delayed decision making. This effect is greater for larger nations. It is no surprise that history is filled with great figures, not great committees.
Finally, the inherent failure of democracy is that it is simply unnatural. In the animal world, decisions are taken by the most effective and powerful leader, as chosen by natural selection. The existence of a leader based heirarchy itself is founded on the idea of a singular figure, not with the agreement of many. In terms of evolution and survival, it is simply not practical. This factor is not untrue in modern society, with new threats to society from sources such as terrorism etc. In these cases, freedom and representation should be sacrificed for the stability of society. Despite Romantic notions of freedom over all, what is important for the happiness of the whole is not individual freedom but a continued, uncluttered and stable surroundings from an appropiate government.
Next, will someone do:
Scientific progress is NOT a good thing...
I find it interesting that we both resorted to an argument based on what is natural to support something we disagree with. That leads to a good topic if someone wants to take a shot.
Nature is inherently evil.
Njorl
Dissident Dan
Mar21-03, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
Next, will someone do:
Scientific progress is NOT a good thing...
Science brings knowledge, and knowledge is power. Power yields itself to abuse. Selfishness exists in all people, and there is an uneven distribution of selfishness among people. The most selfish of us will search out the power that scientific progress brings to benefit oneself to the detriment of others.
Even in those who are not among the most selfish, selfish ambitions exist--ambitions whose collective destructivity are limited only by circumstance, and such circumstantial barriers are broken down by scientific progress.
Current examples include environmental destruction and the exploitation of laborers in sweatshops.
The founding fathers of the United States realized the problem of power consolidation and established checks and balances. Scientific progress is a consolidation of power.
Dissident Dan
Mar22-03, 06:32 PM
I forgot to present an argument idea. Either someone can do the one that Njorl presented, or this one:
Teddy bears are ugly and undermine our values as Americans.
Sgt.Hartman
Mar22-03, 11:15 PM
http://www.hepcatradio.com/hartmanyell.jpg
Well, I'm ready to argue!
quantumcarl
Mar24-03, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Teddy bears are ugly and undermine our values as Americans. [/B]
Teddy bears are ugly. They host 6 million dust mites at any given time of year. They can suffocate their owner in one night of terror and they are supposed to represent a fire fighter (Smokey) when they actually are potent fire hazards to most homes in the US of A and abroad.
The american president who endorsed the idea of teddy bears had no inkling about what he was doing. It is blatently obvious that putting blind trust in a pair of glass eyes will get you into the next world... pronto!
Please explain the virtues of eating glass.
The Grimmus
Mar25-03, 07:22 PM
Glass can help move waste along it is a super fiber. Not only but it eating glass helps bring temprorary relife to the recycling groups by save soem glass for next time. Glass also helps cut your insides bleeding out toxens and inpurities.
thats all i got
ok now i make one right?
Stealing the sickly's canes and oxygen tanks has alwasy been a good idea.
sorry for the spelling.
Yep, it is definitely a good idea to steal sickly peoples' canes and oxygen tanks. I say this because this is very fun for some people, and doing something that is fun makes you happy. Happy people, in turn, live longer, so while ending someone else's life - much quicker than they may have originally anticipated - you may just be increasing your own life span. And, as njorl (and others) have already pointed out, survival of self should take priority.
The Nazis had the right idea.
(BTW, excellent idea for the thread, FZ+)
How long do we wait, FZ+, before just responding to ourselves, and trying a new question?
"The Nazis had the right idea."
I have too much fear of success for this one. Some skinhead somewhere might read it and quote me. After he commits his hate-crime, the FBI comes to my door..."We'd like to ask you a few questions. Can you come with us please?"
Njorl
The Grimmus
Mar27-03, 07:13 PM
Ok i will take this one but if i dont show up later i will be in mexico under the alias of Greg Dicemen. OK the nazi's saw the worlds future crisis of overpopulation and decided to solve it BUT they target only one race instead of randome elderly people...
Women shouldent be able to vote for obvious reasons: enjoy
climbhi
Mar27-03, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by The Grimmus
Women shouldent be able to vote for obvious reasons: enjoy
Obviously women are more susceptible to random and dangerous mood swings and irrational thought. Becuase such bouts of insensibility occur regularly and often and can last for quite sometime, it is the only sensible conclusion that women must not be allowed to vote, becuase it is very likely that nearly one quarter of all the voting women would be crazy at the time. Such a great risk is obviously not acceptable and women should be regarded as convicted felons and have their voting rights stripped.
Okay now for the next guy. Argue for or against abortion. Choose the side which you do not support and try to make an argument for it. I think this might be too hard though, so if everyone is too chicken just try "Pres. Bush is a good/bad president" again arguing for the side which you don't support.
To argue this, we must prove 3 points.
1. Evil exists.
2. Something can have an inherent character.
3. Nature is inherently evil.
1. The assumption of the existence of evil is in itself an axiom. While logically we may formulate arguments for it's non-existence, in reality it is a concept that we apply each day. When we arrest a criminal we say it's evil. We say paedophilia is evil. So clearly the idea of evil does exist. Not just that, but the existence of concepts in common between different peoples indicates that beneath the mundane concept of this is good or evil for me, an objective evil does exist. We may see little evidence of it, but all signs of human existence point towards it.
2. While physics apparently invokes the idea of flexibility in the universe, at it's most innate is the idea of inherent properties. Quarks are inherently charged. Hadrons inherently have mass. Light has an inherent speed that is independent of all it's factors. The existence of these inherencies are indisputable, confirmed by dearths of evidence. Since nature is part of the human perception of the universe, it must resemble the universe. So the inherency that lies in the universe also lies in nature.
3. Throughout human history, we have always had the concept of progress. Technological progress. Evolutionary progress. Progress by the way of the universe is always something that is good. It follows logically that nature, the most old and basic is also the most backward, the most evil. We can see this by it's indifference. What is most evil is not hatred - that implies respect, but indifference, which only humiliates, condemns. Nature must neccessarily be evil.
Originally posted by climbhi
Obviously women are more susceptible to random and dangerous mood swings and irrational thought. Becuase such bouts of insensibility occur regularly and often and can last for quite sometime, it is the only sensible conclusion that women must not be allowed to vote, becuase it is very likely that nearly one quarter of all the voting women would be crazy at the time. Such a great risk is obviously not acceptable and women should be regarded as convicted felons and have their voting rights stripped.
Okay now for the next guy. Argue for or against abortion. Choose the side which you do not support and try to make an argument for it. I think this might be too hard though, so if everyone is too chicken just try "Pres. Bush is a good/bad president" again arguing for the side which you don't support.
Well, since I disagree with abortions, I'll have to argue for them, right? Alright:
What exactly is the point of saving one life to ruin 2 (and possibly more)? A person who has an abortion doesn't want that child. If they just keep the child, their lives could be ruined entirely, and the life of the child that they "saved" can be ruined as a side-effect. People need to realize that to never have a conscious thought is better than living a full life of pain. This world is not the kind of place where you can raise happy children - so even if you think you want a baby, consider the fact that you are most likely to just create another loser/addict/killer/rapist/thief/etc...
Now for mine, hmm... Government should be able to use torture as punishment for even the smallest of crimes (this one may prove to be too difficult (even though I am coming up with a few fairly good answers, right now), if so I'll post a different one.
The Grimmus
Mar28-03, 04:03 PM
Have you ever visted a country where such ideas are in place?
They are graffety free and except for some anti goverment crimes it is basically crime free. THis will send a message to our gangs our robbers and our J-walkers obay the law if you want to keep your other thumb
It is acceptable to kill a wonderful man if you stand to gain millions
arcnets
Mar28-03, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by The Grimmus
It is acceptable to kill a wonderful man if you stand to gain millions [/B]
Yes. If Jimi Hendrix was still alive, he'd be ~60 yo now, and probably
1) still playing the blues, but only in small pubs
2) doing a stadium gig once a year
3) the boss of a record company
4) in drug/psycho therapy
5) a Zen-buddhist or something
6) father of 3 nice children and 9 grandchildren, living on a ranch
7) starring in 'The Hendrixes' on MTV
but surely: not a legend.
See: It's better someone killed him by an overdose in 1970.
Reading books is bad for your health.
The Grimmus
Mar28-03, 07:12 PM
it makes you fat and lazy becuase you dont get out much
the paper could be printed on a hazardus substance like say aids. Book mites
and some peopel hide food in books so it also contributes to overweight
popen caps is only right if it is in whitey
mouseman
Mar28-03, 07:45 PM
Whitey is the root of all evil. His ancestors' racism caused the plight on the black man, and now even though its been about 150 years since the black man has been declared "free" by the crackers, that racism is still prevelent in today's society. They still tryin ta keep a brotha down. So eliminating this evil is the only way to truely free the african-american race.
A woman is a [tramp] if she sleeps with lots of guys, but its ok for men to sleep around. Hmmm... I kinda wanna argue this myself, but I'll let someone else do it.
eNtRopY
Mar29-03, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by arcnets
Reading books is bad for your health.
Books give people ideas. People are too stupid to handle ideas.
Besides, state-of-the-art health-prolonging technologies are available to anyone who can afford their extremely high prices. So, if you are concerned with your health, you should spend your time trying to gain money rather than ideas.
Most rich people, who can afford this premium health care, have never opened a book in their entire life. Some examples include: NSync, the Victoria's Secret supermodels, Anna Nicole Smith, the Osbourne kids, and George W. Bush.
Next Topic: It is NEVER acceptable to assume the Born-Oppenheimer approximation when calculating atomic structure.
eNtRopY
Originally posted by mouseman
Whitey is the root of all evil. His ancestors' racism caused the plight on the black man, and now even though its been about 150 years since the black man has been declared "free" by the crackers, that racism is still prevelent in today's society. They still tryin ta keep a brotha down. So eliminating this evil is the only way to truely free the african-american race.
A woman is a [tramp] if she sleeps with lots of guys, but its ok for men to sleep around. Hmmm... I kinda wanna argue this myself, but I'll let someone else do it.
Basic biology, people. A woman can only get pregnant ~once every 9 months. So, if she has sex with a lot of guys, all she accomplishes is a perversion of human morality. However, a man can get lots of woman pregnant at once (by living a morally depraved life-style), and thus can ensure species survival. Conclusion: it is Evolutionarily advantagous for men to sleep with lots of women (and evolutionarily advantagous = natural), but it is not "natural" (by previous definition) for a woman to sleep with lots of different guys.
Next Topic: A particle actually does have a definable position, at any given point in time.
chosenone
Mar29-03, 12:53 PM
A particles position is always know to the particle,it exists in real space in real time,if you where to observe a particle in motion the uncertainty principle always applies.and when you done watching it,where ever you saw the particle would'nt matter,it would to itself instantly appear where it would have been before you tries to observe it and goon its mary way!
Originally posted by chosenone
A particles position is always know to the particle,it exists in real space in real time,if you where to observe a particle in motion the uncertainty principle always applies.and when you done watching it,where ever you saw the particle would'nt matter,it would to itself instantly appear where it would have been before you tries to observe it and goon its mary way!
Fair enough, if you're going to refer to the particle as "knowing" something.
What's your next topic?
The Grimmus
Mar31-03, 07:31 PM
since the thread hasent been moving i will poke it with a stick and see if it is dead.
MIke Tyson had a good message when he siad i'll eat your kids
mouseman
Mar31-03, 09:17 PM
Children are highly nutritious, due to their active lifestyle and large consumption of protiens and carbohydrates. They are both tender and lean. They also make a great snack. I believe the motivation behind Mr. Tyson's statement was that he wished to benefit from the wholesome goodness of kids in order to get an edge over his opponent. So I feel we should all follow suit and have a baby for breakfast.
P.S. - It would also help our out-of-control population growth to eat a couple kids every week.
Here's my topic:
Smoking is good for your health and others around you.
Smoking will slowly kill you. This frees up resources that your offspring can use, thus improving their survival and, by heredity, the survival of your own genes. The slowness, however, allows you time to pass on your knowledge and ideologies and prevents too much psychologic stress, which could cause infertility. Without you to encumber them, your offspring are free to disperse and distribute your genes; they will also avoid inbreeding, which would be very unhealthy for your genes.
New Topic:
No one should live past forty years of age.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am the Devil's Advocate.
Alternatively, you could try defending this one:
Role-playing games can be useful for teaching science.
steppenwolf
Apr1-03, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Ben-CS
New Topic:
No one should live past forty years of age.
knowing we will one day not too far off be disposed of naturally or otherwise will motivate us to actually get off our arses and do something productive. how easy is it to sit around for 80 years saying 'oh i'll do it tomorrow', if we actually had a deadline there might be more mozart's, jeff buckley's, rimbaud's and maiakovski's in the world, all of whom did all they had to do within 30 years! not to mention the drain on the economy, geez! humanity will thus benifit culturally and economically from such an initiative.
ummmm; marriages should all be arranged by your parents?
Originally posted by steppenwolf
knowing we will one day not too far off be disposed of naturally or otherwise will motivate us to actually get off our arses and do something productive. how easy is it to sit around for 80 years saying 'oh i'll do it tomorrow', if we actually had a deadline there might be more mozart's, jeff buckley's, rimbaud's and maiakovski's in the world, all of whom did all they had to do within 30 years! not to mention the drain on the economy, geez! humanity will thus benifit culturally and economically from such an initiative.
ummmm; marriages should all be arranged by your parents?
It's long been accepted that parents know what's best for their children. However, even if this is not true, a person left to their own choice of a mate is so much more likely to make a mistake (since falling in love impares judgement) then his/her parents (who are not at all affected by whether their child is in love or not, but are just thinking of how compatible their child is with the propective mate).
(To get Ben-CS's question some recognition) Role-playing games can be useful for teaching science.
selfAdjoint
Apr1-03, 11:32 PM
(To get Ben-CS's question some recognition) Role-playing games can be useful for teaching science.
Clearly most people are bored out of their skulls with dull facts and awful math problems. Their minds turn off and they don't learn any science at all. But pretending you're a photon or an RNA plasmid is FUN. People learn much better from fun, and they might even retain something past the next exam.
Quantum Field theory does not exist.
steppenwolf
Apr2-03, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Clearly most people are bored out of their skulls with dull facts and awful math problems. Their minds turn off and they don't learn any science at all. But pretending you're a photon or an RNA plasmid is FUN. People learn much better from fun, and they might even retain something past the next exam.
well i just HAVE to disagree there, and you sounded so sarcastic [:D]
what could possibly be more traumatising for two prepubescant kids then being forced to stand out the front of a class of giggling kiddies and hold hands to close a circuit with the teacher inevitabely cracking all those terrible jokes about the electricity between little tommy and susan, OH THE SHAME!!! that sort of thing turns kids of science for life! ugh this is bringing back too many bad memories, excuse me while i go cry in a corner! [*(]
but anyway, back to selfadjoint's topic:
Quantum Field theory does not exist.
The Grimmus
Apr2-03, 07:48 PM
That is impossable if it was i would understand it...duh
Originally posted by The Grimmus
That is impossable if it was i would understand it...duh
This is your answer?
Well, OK, what's your new question?
The Grimmus
Apr4-03, 07:31 PM
oh well i figured that some one would elaberate on that. Also it got the fourm posted at the top agian, kind of like this post. But if someone dosent eleaberate on it i will post a question
Existence implies reality. Reality is defined as that which does not go away if you stop believing in it. It all those who work on Quantum Field theory cease to study it and to belief that it is worth studying, then it would as a theory cease to be present. Therefore, it is not real, but an abstract, imaginary entity. Therefore it does not exist.
Really, too easy...
Freedom is not worthwhile.
The Grimmus
Apr4-03, 07:58 PM
may i just take time out to thank you for creating this.
ok enough sucking up
Freedome is anything but worth it's prices. lets take Africa, it was imperlized by england mostly and they fought it. Many died and never saw freedome, others were weeded out and their villages burned down and sufferd that burdan of guilt. And the onese taht did aviod this never saw freedome it never happend it their life time. And when freedome finally came those who recived it did nothing comparead to the ones before. Freedome is a slow procces and gradually England let Africa free law by law village by village, so those living at the end of their imperlism did not appreciate it as much s thos ewho fought and died for it. also i am too lazy to do it so as*es to that...
Ok Question: i can not be charged if i where to say "i thouht the cop was a prostitute"
quantumcarl
Apr4-03, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by The Grimmus
i can not be charged if i where to say "i thouht the cop was a prostitute" [/B]
Plead insanity. (brought on by the clap or Karposi Sarcoma on the brain)
Your statement:
"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"
mouseman
Apr6-03, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Your statement:
"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"
Hey I thought "General Discussion" was supposed to be an escape from the world of physics! [s(] Us ignoramuses can't answer those kinds of questions.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Plead insanity. (brought on by the clap or Karposi Sarcoma on the brain)
Your statement:
"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"
Well, there is not other known particle to satisfy QM's need for "force-carrier" particles to attribute to each of the forces. I can't really prove this one though. How about a suggestion, quantumcarl?
quantumcarl
Apr9-03, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, there is not other known particle to satisfy QM's need for "force-carrier" particles to attribute to each of the forces. I can't really prove this one though. How about a suggestion, quantumcarl?
Try looking at the magnetic field of a planetary body and superimposing the gravitational field of the same body onto the former field. Now find the similarities and the variations.
Use rate of change (calculus) when introducing other bodies (such as the moon or asteriods) to determine any synergistic relationships between the actions (changes) in the two afore mentioned fields (gravitational and magnetic).
The magnetic field is electromagnetic in terms of static resulting from certain alignments of trace and random particles and their relative reactions to one another.
Does this help with your statement?
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Try looking at the magnetic field of a planetary body and superimposing the gravitational field of the same body onto the former field. Now find the similarities and the variations.
Use rate of change (calculus) when introducing other bodies (such as the moon or asteriods) to determine any synergistic relationships between the actions (changes) in the two afore mentioned fields (gravitational and magnetic).
The magnetic field is electromagnetic in terms of static resulting from certain alignments of trace and random particles and their relative reactions to one another.
Does this help with your statement?
Good enough. Are you going to post a new statement for us?
quantumcarl
Apr10-03, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Good enough. Are you going to post a new statement for us?
You don't need proof to prove something.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
You don't need proof to prove something.
Man! You come up with some really hard ones. Here goes nothing (please no debates about "nothing", it's just an expression [;)])...
Well first off, you could just appear to have proof, and someone could still believe you.
But, more importantly, Godel's theorems show that to attempt to prove a system by use of that system leads to paradox. Since proof itself is technically a system, I can't prove my proof, without resulting in paradox. However, I have, on numerous occasions, proven something to someone. So, obviously, since proof doesn't exist outside of paradox, I have never used proof to prove any of things I've proven.
That's the best I could think of, off the top of my head.
Here's my point, for you to try to defend:
Shooting someone in the stomach is better than shooting them in the head.
The Grimmus
Apr14-03, 07:42 PM
well when you pop a cap in the head their dead but when u pop a cap in nthe stomache they may die whcih will help the autopsy report by mkaing a huge gaping "insicion" in the stomache. I they dont die then they are rushed ot the hospital and their stomach is sewed back together, this makes it smaller and helps them lose weight. So by shooting in the stomahc your just calling them fat.
a hostage situation is like a tea party with EDIT:guns
Originally posted by The Grimmus
a hostage situation is like a tea party with gund
I assume you meant "guns".
At a tea party, you sit; do what the host/ess tells you to do; leave after being formally dismissed (please note the possibility of applying the term "formally dismissed" to being shot); try not to speak, and when you do, to speak of things that you hope the host/ess will find appropriate; most of the people that are at a tea party are trying to get out (as quickly as possible) and those that aren't are probably insane anyway.
Alright, enough goofy ones.
The next statement to be defended:
Evolutionary Psychology rules, in spite of the fact that the H and G tribes were relatively non-violent. (If you don't understand what I'm talking about, I reference you to RageSk8's reply to me, on the last page of the thread, entitled "Free Will. A hoax?".)
The Grimmus
Apr28-03, 05:59 PM
i dont have a good defencse but i wanted to revie this thread..if i think of soemthing i will edit this
Here, I'll just post a new point to defend:
Prophecy is solid proof of God's existence. (I can't argue this one, but I could argue it's inverse - "Prophecy is not solid proof of God's existence. I only posted it the way I did because most PF members are atheistic, in my experience.)
Mentat, there is a common misconception of the word "prophecy." Most people believe that the word means to predict the future, the word simply means to speak for.
So, if the prophet is a prophet of God, it means they are speaking for God, if they are speaking for God then God exists (if he did not exist, they would be a prophet of nothing).
My turn. I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread completely, so if I use a point that has been used, let me know.
Please defend this:
The United States should go back to being an English Colony.
BoulderHead
Apr29-03, 04:28 PM
What a truly excellent idea!
Think of the billions and trillions of dollars that could be saved by not having to provide its own defence. Sure, the Crown would get ticked off about this eventually and want to raise taxes, but a simple tax on tea and a 'stamp act' would cost nothing in comparison.
The events of 9/11 would likely never have happened either, or if they did it would have happened over there on 'the Island' which is certainly better a place than NYC. Besides, everyone secretly loves having a King and Queen anyway, and those who disagree are simply lying to show they have pride in their independance rather than admit the truth that they are frightened little sheep who need a mommy and daddy to look out for them. Not only that but it is such a natural thing to pin the blame on someone else that people would be much relieved to blame someone overseas for their problems...
Now defend this;
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.
They say that eunicks (sp?) could (can) actually create and sustain large erections for many hours (they just can't impregnate).
So who needs the pesky things hanging around anyway?
Here is the next one:
Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value.
(Actually, in a science forum the inverse may be the popular opinion, just state which ever you want to defend)
eNtRopY
Apr29-03, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by BoulderHead
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.
That reminds me of some words Jesus once spoke: "If your left hand causes you to masturbate, then cut it off."
eNtRopY
Originally posted by Artman
They say that eunicks (sp?) could (can) actually create and sustain large erections for many hours (they just can't impregnate).
So who needs the pesky things hanging around anyway?
Here is the next one:
Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value.
(Actually, in a science forum the inverse may be the popular opinion, just state which ever you want to defend)
Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value. Think of the great artists that existed in times past. When did their work become truly recognized? Many years after their death. They obviously can redeem nothing from this now, they are dead. The truth is, if you are good at art, it will not be appreciated until the world is ready to handle it, and by then you'll be dead. If you are not good at art, then others may recognize it, but you will redeem no self-respect/self-esteem from it, because you will know (even if you never say it) that it could have been better.
Defend this:
Homosexuality is actually natural.
steppenwolf
May1-03, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Defend this:
Homosexuality is actually natural.
well it is an oft observed phenomenon that men find lesbians to be a real turn on, the opposite is also party true although there have been no studies, homosexuality is therefore beneficial to the mating process and thus logical from an evolutionary and thus natural point of view.
and now... woman's right to vote should be abolished [g)]
Originally posted by steppenwolf
well it is an oft observed phenomenon that men find lesbians to be a real turn on, the opposite is also party true although there have been no studies, homosexuality is therefore beneficial to the mating process and thus logical from an evolutionary and thus natural point of view.
and now... woman's right to vote should be abolished [g)]
Women's right to vote should be abolished. Think about it. In the last Michigan election (for governor (sp?)), studies showed that most women were voting for Senator Grantholm (sp?), because they wanted to have the first female governor of Michigan. If women are easily swayed by gender, while men would vote for males or females equally (and believe me, quite a few men voted for the female candidate [;)]), then men are (demonstrably) more reasonable in their choice of leadership.
Plus, other studies have shown that women are more emotionally influenced than men. While this is ok in some areas of life, do you really want the majority of votes (there are more women than men) to be based on emotion, when choosing leadership?
(Please note, these are not my views. While it may seem that that goes without saying (because the name of the thread) I just want to make sure that I don't give offense.)
Point to defend
Only men should be nurses.
Now, it is a matter of fact that the evolution of society is based on the idea that men do the dangerous work.
*Hides from attacks of enraged feminists*
Look at primitive societies for example. The fact remains that the male sex is adapted towards risk taking, somewhat excessively, and that physically we are suited to this kind of work. It can come as no surprise therefore that males take on the majority of harzardous professions, and hence get most exposure to all threats biological, chemical, mental or physical. So men simply end up in hospitals more often. Obviously.
Now, hospitals in reality serve a double function. (a) actually treat the patient, but (b) discourage the patient from getting in the same predicament. The secondary function has been suppressed lately (damn you international convention for human rights), but it certainly fills an important function in society. And without it, we observe the problems in the medical service we currently suffer.
Now, a key part of the failure of area b is, dare I say it, sexual attraction. Remember your old films and fantasies about affairs involving nurses? Given that the majority of males are not homosexual, populating the system with ugly men would work well to generate a negative sexual impulse. Given time, this can insinuate itself into the subconscious, and reinforce the will to keep out of danger. There are further purposes too. Women are in general more empathic and gentle than men. Empathy is something to be avoided in the medical profession. At such high stakes, objectivity is paramount, and the ability to ignore distractions - eg. screams of pain, pools of blood etc etc. A cold blooded man would be far better suited in this category.
From a pure economic aspect, single sex occupations are cheaper. No longer having to design two uniforms. Having unisex toilets instead of wasting an extra room. The possibilities are endless...
Next:
The minimum age allowed to vote should be lowered to 4.
A lot of voters have a mental age of two. If we let them vote, why not individuals who actually are?
Topic: Regardless of age, only individuals with an I.Q. over 150 should be permitted to vote.
Originally posted by Ben-CS
A lot of voters have a mental age of two. If we let them vote, why not individuals who actually are?
Topic: Regardless of age, only individuals with an I.Q. over 150 should be permitted to vote.
Simple, we just plain know better (he said, grinning because of being almost exactly 150 in I.Q. [:))] [;)]).
New Topic: I.Q. should determine social status.
Originally posted by Mentat
I.Q. should determine social status.
Of course it should !
I.Q. tests are the ultimate intellegence scale
and smart people can only do things better.
New topic: All dogs hate all cats.
Originally posted by drag
Of course it should !
I.Q. tests are the ultimate intellegence scale
and smart people can only do things better.
New topic: All dogs hate all cats.
This is a demonstrable fact. I used to have a cat, and my dogs hated it with a passion. If there is a dog that likes cats, it loses it's "dog status" and becomes a "cat-lover" (IMO) [:D]
Next Topic:
We, and all of our percieved reality, are all the product of one Mind - the Mind of God.
Originally posted by Mentat
Next Topic:
We, and all of our percieved reality, are all
the product of one Mind - the Mind of God.
Hmm...
I mean...
Well...
I think...
Well... isn't it just plain abvious ? [:D]
Next topic :
PF's boring. (No ! Don't ban me ! I'm kidding ! [:D])
The Grimmus
May3-03, 02:24 PM
It is boaring, it takes 1 day for soemone to reply to your post and then post just die you never have an actual conversation with people just simple back and fourth e-mail technology...crap. And then when you dont know what is going on it takes for ever to find out that what soemone was tlaking about is just boaring jibber jabber talking about time space deelies.
Next topic- Green is not a color
Color is merely a figment of our imagination. In reality, there are only wavelengths of light, and these do not correspond exactly to "color". Hence, green is not a color because colors do not exist.
Next Statement to Defend: If two persons perception of reality agree perfectly, at least one of the individuals does not exist.
P.S.: This is post #1000000binary on this thread!
Next Statement to Defend: If two persons perception of reality agree perfectly, at least one of the individuals does not exist.
To test the validity of the concept that two people's perceptions of reality agree, we would need to be inside of the mind of two people at the same time. This is not a possiblility. We can only test this for one person (Ourself). Therefore, the second person cannot exist.
Please defend the following: (Please remember that I don't agree with this point, the topic is an undefensible point of view)
Children should be the last ones to leave a sinking ship.
Originally posted by Artman
To test the validity of the concept that two people's perceptions of reality agree, we would need to be inside of the mind of two people at the same time. This is not a possiblility. We can only test this for one person (Ourself). Therefore, the second person cannot exist.
Please defend the following: (Please remember that I don't agree with this point, the topic is an undefensible point of view)
Children should be the last ones to leave a sinking ship.
Children should be the last ones to leave a sinking ship. And the order should go from oldest to youngest. Think about it, if a very yound child escapes with his/her life, they can't tell the story of what happened accurately, to any of the people who want to know. And the child will probably be scarred for life by the incident, as children are much more impressionable.
OTOH, an adult will be able to recall details. S/he will more likely be able to explain what really happened (even if just relaying that which they over-heard), to those who question them later. And an adult is not likely to be "scarred for life" by the incident.
Anyway, there's a weak attempt to justify something that I don't agree with.
Next Point to defend:
Mathematics isn't useful for describing any "real-life" phenomena.
Mathematics isn't useful for describing any "real-life" phenomena.
Let's look at a typical mathematics problem: If John is on a train going South at 75 mph and Bill is going North on a train going 85 mph and they are meeting in Walawala Washington, which is 1/3 closer to Sam then Bill, And Sam is flying in a Helicopter circling the two trains, then who cares who gets there first?
The answer is no one! No one cares where Sam, Bill and John are going or how fast.
Or, If I have three sandwiches and I give you one, what do I have?
The answer is lunch! Stop complicating things!
Math is stupid!
Next one: Civilization should revert to Hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
In the interest of getting this post moving again, I will defend this one myself.
I think that the world should revert to hunter/gatherer lifestyle because it does not support large quanities of people, so that the population will dwindle to a size that the world can support. Layabouts such as insurance and business executives would probably go early on (although there is the killer instinct that could keep them around for awhile) followed by priests who are only used to working one day a week, lawyers would probably be domesticated and used for food (although I imagine they wouldn't be very good eating), street people would take over as the master gathering race and dominate everyone else, after their years of training gathering reclaimable soda bottles, cans, etc. You know the more I defend this lifestyle change, the better it sounds.
Next one: The beach should be air conditioned.
BoulderHead
May7-03, 03:52 PM
The beach should be air conditioned.Absolutely, why I’m certain that anyone who gives this idea even brief consideration will come to such a conclusion. There are several reasons that quickly come to mind;
1) Those beaches are often just too damn hot for most people to enjoy them. Going into the water is an invitation to be shark-bit, and for certain we humans are conceited enough to know that we have more inherent value than the number of calories we might provide to the marine life.
2) It is apparent from the above that the beach is such a tough environment that you need to be young, tan, and fit, in order to extract a significant measure of enjoyment out of a visit there. I think it would be a testament to human achievement if there were more paste-white, flabby, old folks at every beach. Air-conditioning could be a way to achieve this.
3) Lastly, if there were enough air conditioners aimed at the beaches, blowing on high speed, it might help to deflect hurricanes and tsunami’s away from inhabited areas.
Now, defend this;
We need to drain the oceans.
schwarzchildradius
May7-03, 09:38 PM
"Next Statement to Defend: If two persons perception of reality agree perfectly, at least one of the individuals does not exist."
by the definition of individuality as existing within the mind, this statement is true.
"We need to drain the oceans"
Yep. It's about time isn't it. Imagine the benefits to mankind. I propose drilling deep holes in the beds of each of the worlds oceans. The crust is thinner there and we can get down to the liquid magma more easily. When cold ocean water hits the magma - POW! Lots of free energy in the form of steam! It will take probably centuries for the oceans to drain completely, and by then, we'll have figured out some other way to make free power. Bech-Tel will of course contract to the government for the job. The excess steam will encourage plant growth, and pleasantly heat the earth's climate like in a hot-tub or spa.
***
Defend:
Christianity is the only valid religion, because no other religion can exist within the framework of Christianity.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Defend:
Christianity is the only valid religion, because no other religion can exist within the framework of Christianity.
Well, it is obvious that no other religion can exist within the realm of Christianity, because the Bible itself says that there is "one way, one truth, and one baptism". Thus, Christianity doesn't allow for sects/factions/divisions/etc.
The reason this makes it the only valid religion is obvious whenever you speak to a true Christian: Creation (and prophecy) prove God's existence, God is described (and His will is made apparent) in the Bible, true Christians follow the Bible. If it is God's will that all people follow the Bible, then the only valid religion is Christianity.
Next Topic To Defend:
Humans really are a Blank Slate, when they are born, and society molds them into what they will be. (Basically I'm asking you to defend Nurture over Nature.)
selfAdjoint
May9-03, 01:51 PM
Humans really are a Blank Slate, when they are born, and society molds them into what they will be. (Basically I'm asking you to defend Nurture over Nature.)
If you have ever looked at newborn babies you can see that they all behave in the same limited way; all they know how to do is suck. Psychologists have shown that the baby's brain is adding neurons during the first months of life. And since that process is going on while the baby is externally affected by parenting, household environment, etc., it is NURTURE that forms the toddler's brain. Scientist who hold the despised nature over NURTURE fantasy only claim to have found differences in two year old toddlers and loudly proclaim that that proves genetic slavery! But sovereign NURTURE has been forming thost kids' brains for two whole years!
Next up. The 9-11 attacks and Kennedy's assasination are the works of the same secret conspiricy.
quantumcarl
May10-03, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Next up. The 9-11 attacks and Kennedy's assasination are the works of the same secret conspiricy. [/B]
If you consider over active testosterone succretion and a tad bit of daftness to be a "secret conspiracy", then that explains your premise for you.
Next up:
The universe is melted butter that is in the process of congealing on a very big giant's plate.
"Lies don't change the truth".
Ohmi Gawdi
BoulderHead
May10-03, 03:13 PM
The universe is melted butter that is in the process of congealing on a very big giant's plate.This of course would explain everything. The Big Bang was preceded by several hours of heavy drinking and marijuana smoking. After copulation came the late-night munchies. Everything is alive; size can be infinitely large and infinitely small. We are such tiny little things compared to the giant that what we see as stars are reflections of discotheque lights in the butter. As the giant feeds his appetite our universe will be destroyed before it completely congeals, but not to worry because after a few hours it will travel through the bowels and pass out on the ‘other side’ and the circle of life will continue…
Defend; 17-inch long curling fingers are even more useful than they are beautiful.
[edit]
You might want to check out the world record holder first, haha;
http://www.happyfunny.com/content/641.html
The Grimmus
Jul4-03, 11:36 PM
this can easily be used for climbing and better food gatheing alogn with an excalent attacking skill i see no reason why natural selection wouldent' choose these fingures. Think about a world where your really mad eveyrone on the streen knows when your giant finger casts a shadow as you flip that basta the bird. You could prably walk on them as well and scatching is easly perfromed
Ok now the hardest one of all. ussing the search option look for my name read soem of my crap and try to find one competent thing i siad or try to find a good reason i should not be kicked from every forum site on the internet
Originally posted by The Grimmus
this can easily be used for climbing and better food gatheing alogn with an excalent attacking skill i see no reason why natural selection wouldent' choose these fingures. Think about a world where your really mad eveyrone on the streen knows when your giant finger casts a shadow as you flip that basta the bird. You could prably walk on them as well and scatching is easly perfromed
Ok now the hardest one of all. ussing the search option look for my name read soem of my crap and try to find one competent thing i siad or try to find a good reason i should not be kicked from every forum site on the internet
Well, you almost ended the thread because of this seemingly impossible request [;)]. However, I've found a gem of true wisdom, that cannot be ignored, posted by The Grimmus (in response to, "what do you do if you can only see behind you?"):
grow my hair like a reverse mullet wear my shirt backwoards and start messing with people ... as for sitting...i gusse i couldent get around sitting backwards. Or i could just wear optical lenses that transmit from 2 camreas wher my eyes should noramly be.
I'll be back with the next point to defend tomorrow, I have to go now.
The Grimmus
Jul10-03, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, you almost ended the thread because of this seemingly impossible request [;)].
ha haha ha awwww
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.