Devil's Advocate

[Artman]

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]

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.

 

[Artman]

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]

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

 

[Mentat]

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]

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

 

[Mentat]

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

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.

 

[FZ+]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[drag]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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)

Next Topic:
We, and all of our percieved reality, are all the product of one Mind - the Mind of God.

 

[drag]

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 ?

Next topic :
PF's boring. (No ! Don't ban me ! I'm kidding ! )

 

[The Grimmus]

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

 

[Ben-CS]

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 #1000000_binary on this thread!

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[Artman]

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]

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]

"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.

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

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]

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