Debates About Politics

[Alanon]

I want to enrich The Tavern with some political discussions. Should this topic catch on, it's bound to get a bit hot, but I would like nsane to become a more diverse forum, and I think that this is the way to do it. I would love to hear some contrasting opinions and, of corse, I'll offer some of my own when (better said IF) this topic goes foward. We can discuss about politics through history, politics today... pretty much anything political. :rolleyes:

[DKT27]

nsane.forums has had it's own set of (heated) political discussions and believe me. It never comes to any conclusions, some more doubts are raised and it only causes problems within.

But that's my point of view.

[Toshiro]

We could see how this is going to develope..

But lookout for shought.. he'll bomb you guys with stuff about the politics and how they suck :P

Warning you :fear:

[Bizarre™]

I agree with DKT27, and if this discussion gets out of hand I'll close it.

[Atasas]

nsane.forums has had it's own set of (heated) political discussions and believe me. It never comes to any conclusions, some more doubts are raised and it only causes problems within.

But that's my point of view.

We could see how this is going to develope..

But lookout for shought.. he'll bomb you guys with stuff about the politics and how they suck :P

Warning you :fear:

x2

[majithia23]

hmmm....

politics ......

i never got a hold of what it actually is !!! :frusty:

ever seen a live session in a parliament ,

if yes ,

then one really knows what turn a political debate can actually take and how things finally end up (.... well they never end finally , but what course it takes . u start of from one end and God knows what all crap comes up .....)

@Alanon

on a lighter note about politics i did post these funny but ironically true explanations here in jokes forum once ....

( and check ur inbox . PMed you something. i wouldnt like to post it here,, as it might be a bit too much for the forums peace level ;) )

Politics Explained

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

this should get the discussion started ;)

lets see which end do we start at and if we are able to hold on to it or not ,,,

else the Mods got a job to do ......:lol:

[majithia23]

nsane techies ,

if you would like to know what i PMed Alanon just tell here .

i ll PM you too ....

;)

[marshall39]

Before:

"Let's don't talk about politic"

After:

They talked about politic

[Alanon]

I am a great believer in debates and the fact that they are all about respecting your ''opponent's '' opinion. I believe that a debate it the true sense of the word is perfect for discussing, not arguing, about one of the most interesting fabrications of man. Of course, it should be kept civil, and originating from different countries should not be an excuse to loose our grip, and go from debate to war, until someone gets banned, and the topic closed. Nsane is one of the best forums I've ever seen, and it would be a great shame not to encourage its expansion to more serious subjects. I believe that politics is one of few things that everyone has an opinion about, which makes it the perfect starting point of a debate. We need not discuss specific regions, regimes, etc. and this need not become a democracy vs. communism thing (in case my avatar implied some sort of avid bias and a fixed or closed mind, let me remove any doubt: I am, and will always be open for discussion, and my views can change. My avatar simply ilustrates my preference.), we can also discuss politics from a psychological, sociological, philosophical points of view, etc. I'm sorry if this post is too long, but I just want to encourage those who hesitate to join the debate.

[shought]

The thing with discussing and debating is: for anything useful to originate out of it you will (a) need to be able to accept anything for the sake of an argument (when I say anything, I mean anything) and (B) have to define what you're talking about.

I've seen a lot of debates (staged debates in school, but also political debates between political 'leaders' in our country) and the thing is: as long as you and I do not agree that A is A and B is B, we will never agree on anything. So for instance in our philosophy class our teacher loves to talk about ethics, and I'm perfectly fine with that, but when you're talking about ethics, you're talking about what's right and what's wrong. (Taking a step sidewards in this reasoning:) An example:

Person 1: I would like to have gesausichem to happen.

Person 2: I would not like to have gesausichem happen.

Looks like a load of crap right? Unsurprisingly, it is. I dare you to find out what 'gesausichem' means, because even I got no clue and I just made it up (does kind of sound German, ah well...). Person 1 and person 2 disagree, but about what do they disagree? I'm sure everyone would agree when I'd say: 'Everyone should do what's right.', but what is right? Just like in my example, you can't talk about right and wrong without defining them first. That's the problem with politics, they talk about right and wrong all day, but none of them has even got a vague idea of what 'right' actually is (except for 'the opposite of wrong (or left :P)'). Imagine attending a business meeting where they all agree on the fact that the profit should rise, but they have no idea what profit is, would be kind of pointless, no?

*If you're religious then please don't read on, if you do then you agree that everything I type below this line is not meant to disrespect anyone or anything and is just a personal opinion.*

Oh yeah, one more thing: nobody gets to talk about religion in a political debate, ever. I know I'm pretty much not allowed to say this, but the hell with that: people, we're living in the 21th century, get a grip... Religion, almost every form of it (excluding some of them 'nature religions' and maybe Buddhism), is fake and thought of by (1) people who wanted to rule out insecurity, uncertainty and unfairness and (2) rich people who needed some kind of 'handle' on 'the people'.

I'm telling you, if there really is a heaven, and I highly doubt that, then those guys who wrote the Bible and those guys who wrote the Koran are pretty much laughing their asses of right now. I mean they thought it'd be cool to write a book with some ethical stories and all, to teach people how to live and stuff, and now there's like 2 billion people who 'follow their words to the letter'.

Just to be clear: I respect everyone; Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and hell, even goddamn hippies (that's my Cartman side :P Nah, for real, hippies are way too peaceful to take offense of what I just said :)). But the fact I respect everyone doesn't stop me from saying what I said.

Btw: We did once think about adding a section for debates like this, but it is not for the better. It'll only cause us to cut our fingers. The human society we live in isn't made for political debates and we shouldn't try to fool ourselves into thinking we're good enough to not screw up, because, I promise, we will. Even the more tech-savvy visitors of nsane (tech-savvy users are generally more able to have a proper discussion, in my opinion/perception) will make this mistake ;)

ps no, I really have no faith in humans, but yet, here I am, trying. Just proves how stupid I am and according to our schooling system I'm above average, isn't that sad :(

[Toshiro]

The thing with discussing and debating is: for anything useful to originate out of it you will (a) need to be able to accept anything for the sake of an argument (when I say anything, I mean anything) and (B) have to define what you're talking about.

I've seen a lot of debates (staged debates in school, but also political debates between political 'leaders' in our country) and the thing is: as long as you and I do not agree that A is A and B is B, we will never agree on anything. So for instance in our philosophy class our teacher loves to talk about ethics, and I'm perfectly fine with that, but when you're talking about ethics, you're talking about what's right and what's wrong. (Taking a step sidewards in this reasoning:) An example:

Person 1: I would like to have gesausichem to happen.

Person 2: I would not like to have gesausichem happen.

Looks like a load of crap right? Unsurprisingly, it is. I dare you to find out what 'gesausichem' means, because even I got no clue and I just made it up (does kind of sound German, ah well...). Person 1 and person 2 disagree, but about what do they disagree? I'm sure everyone would agree when I'd say: 'Everyone should do what's right.', but what is right? Just like in my example, you can't talk about right and wrong without defining them first. That's the problem with politics, they talk about right and wrong all day, but none of them has even got a vague idea of what 'right' actually is (except for 'the opposite of wrong (or left :P)'). Imagine attending a business meeting where they all agree on the fact that the profit should rise, but they have no idea what profit is, would be kind of pointless, no?

*If you're religious then please don't read on, if you do then you agree that everything I type below this line is not meant to disrespect anyone or anything and is just a personal opinion.*

Oh yeah, one more thing: nobody gets to talk about religion in a political debate, ever. I know I'm pretty much not allowed to say this, but the hell with that: people, we're living in the 21th century, get a grip... Religion, almost every form of it (excluding some of them 'nature religions' and maybe Buddhism), is fake and thought of by (1) people who wanted to rule out insecurity, uncertainty and unfairness and (2) rich people who needed some kind of 'handle' on 'the people'.

I'm telling you, if there really is a heaven, and I highly doubt that, then those guys who wrote the Bible and those guys who wrote the Koran are pretty much laughing their asses of right now. I mean they thought it'd be cool to write a book with some ethical stories and all, to teach people how to live and stuff, and now there's like 2 billion people who 'follow their words to the letter'.

Just to be clear: I respect everyone; Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and hell, even goddamn hippies (that's my Cartman side :P Nah, for real, hippies are way too peaceful to take offense of what I just said :)). But the fact I respect everyone doesn't stop me from saying what I said.

Btw: We did once think about adding a section for debates like this, but it is not for the better. It'll only cause us to cut our fingers. The human society we live in isn't made for political debates and we shouldn't try to fool ourselves into thinking we're good enough to not screw up, because, I promise, we will. Even the more tech-savvy visitors of nsane (tech-savvy users are generally more able to have a proper discussion, in my opinion/perception) will make this mistake ;)

ps no, I really have no faith in humans, but yet, here I am, trying. Just proves how stupid I am and according to our schooling system I'm above average, isn't that sad :(

Told you, no one ever listens to me :fear:

[Alanon]

As to the precise definition of politics, it may very well be defined as a living entity with the greatest potential for good, as well as bad. It can be defined as a sociological phenomena of allowing the few to decide for the many, of relinquishing certain freedoms, so as to experience other freedoms, such as not having to bear the burden of decision and chioce on a larger scale, out of fear, complexes of lower self-esteem , etc... It can also be observed as one of the most amoral things in existence... The definitions of politics are diverse, numerous, and quite often extraordinary. I believe that politics is a living thing, and as such, that it can change very quickly. It is perhaps the most astounding phenomena we see every day.

For instance, this is the way we coud debate about politics. Perhaps we should deal with the problem of defining it, grasping its full meaning. The title of this topic is not a limitation, nor should it be percieved as such. Politics is exceptionally diverse. Personally, I agree with almost everything you just said, but still think that such a fascinating subject merits a civilised discusion. Asar as religion is concerned, it is usually avoided in poltical debates becouse it is the greatest of stepping stones, and the most slippery a slope. Personally, I'm not that pious, but I would avoid joining a discusion about religion with one about politics becouse that would most certainly start a war. We don't need to present our cases, and convince a democrat to become a communist, or vice versa. Presenting our thoughts about politics will also make us present our opinions on other topics in order to better liustrate our claims. In short: we all must keep a level of calm when addressing serious matters. It may very well cause conflict, but I believe that the prospect of a succesful debate is well worth the risk.

[Atasas]

Political discussion about discussing politics...

Honestly, I do have very strong and forged views, but nSaneForums is the place where friendly and helpful techies come together, do have occasional of topic/ of theme discussion, but we (me) wouldn't like to get heated/other ways influenced opinion about stuff... basically there are load off unfriendly/over official line forums , but nowhere it would be so helpful or real life accommodating places - why to spoil it? :rolleyes:

[Alanon]

I don't think that starting this topic would in any way diminish the quality of nsane. I like this forum very much, and am only trying toimprove it with a little more elloquent off-topic posting. I think that by diversifying nsane, it would become better. If friendly techies were the only ones on this forum, and if they were interested in only software and/or hardware, there would be no need for a news thread or any kind of off-topic chatting. The fact that they exist tells me that there are people who think the same way as I do. Hoewever, if there is no one willing to have a friendly debate, I will not be a stick-in-mud, and will not insist on keeping the thread alive past its usefulness. Nevertheless, I do hope that that is not the case.

[Atasas]

dont get me wrong dude!

You no way on earth have gone too far in expressing your opinion and it is appreciated!

Here, I believe, to be speaking for majority, we love the fact of non political relations... Sorry.. :ashamed:

[shought]

Personally, I agree with almost everything you just said, but still think that such a fascinating subject merits a civilised discusion.

It may very well cause conflict, but I believe that the prospect of a succesful debate is well worth the risk.

Civilized? Don't get me started :P Humans are not civilized, if anything we're the beasts :D

I'm more than willing to proceed in this discussion, but I am too smart (don't get me wrong) to even try to believe that this won't end up in a fight. (If my reverse-psychology works and everyone reads this post then I just kind of claimed that I'm stupid, but I don't mind :P)

I do think you misunderstood me about the whole defining stuff though, a little. Defining politics isn't what I want, politics could be defined in many ways but we all 'kind of know' what it is. Things like good and evil, terms probably used in any political discussion, are way more important. Under ideal circumstances everything should be (strictly) defined, but this is practically (and maybe even theoretically) impossible so we'll have to consider a certain amount of words to be 'commonly understood', however we should define (not necessarily agree on) controversial words.

@Atasas

Nah, I love having political discussions, the thing is I don't trust any of you (any of you including me :P) to not 'screw up' (don't get me wrong, it's not personal, you're just all humans and well, they suck :P (Oh no, don't sue me, I just discriminated all man(and woman)kind!)).

I'm willing to give it, yet another, shot though :D

[HX1]

Debate on having the debate about debating politics.. :think:

Uhhh hmmm... :lmao:

@shought - No man you just still try.. because your not a loser.. thats all.. and yeah, even that will be debated and exploited..

[shought]

Debate on having the debate about debating politics.. :think:

Uhhh hmmm... :lmao:

@shought - No man you just still try.. because your not a loser.. thats all.. and ye even that will be debated and exploited..

The contrary is true, I still try, and therefore I am one of the losers. It all depends on how you define loser or winner, the most successful people would be the winners, if you ask me (they're not the best persons, but they do 'win'), and these persons are generally not trying to make the world a better place, they make their world a better place. Sure they run charities, sure they do this, sure they do that...

Edit: off to football practice now though :D

[Atasas]

OK then!

we (few of us- in very different levels of understanding on what political discussion is) are up for it!

Hell- please close gates!

here it is to come!...still doubtful of my own commitment, but hell yeas!

[HX1]

Yeah, I kind of agree... I started to stay 'BUT we get have something else still untainted inside..' but the truth is they don't and probably won't have that inside anyway.. or at least enough enlightenment to acknowledge it..

On the enlightenment side of things.. on a non-debate side... About the only good I could see come from such a thread, would be points of realization. Things that make people think more about the things that are going on around them... It can be rare but it can happen for a few. Maybe I am always looking for the domino that will fall which will make a difference somewhere down the line.. I don't know..

Awareness can be a horrible thing to ignore. I do however through watching countless types of discussions, wind up noticing in some cases that neither side may have it.. in this effect.. I am not sure of what I become aware.. I think only because its so rare... and I may be the only one, or at least feel that way on a planet that seems to be ripped apart by so much...

I have posted in several thread like this and some wound up in various places all over the forum. I think it may/can get a little too heated for the forum, and the ambiance which keeps people able to do what they do, even our regular 'Guests'. Guidelines would have to be set forth for such an area, would have to be heavily moderated, and probably even a disclaimer n there somewhere..

I am not however saying that this type of discussion is fruitless, by no means.. but I think it is a little hard to accomplish and keep, in check.. There are factors in body language, facial expressions, and verbal attenuation which help properly portray the thoughts, and responses in the intended tone.. This is one area which is key to maintaining a 'mature' and 'rational' mind when working to solve problems...Which is the only thing I ever this as being worth the trouble of supporting...

I think it best to keep items in the News, maintain awareness for all involved.. and discuss these things their as they come about..or preceding to...

When you think about it truthfully.. Politics, for all of the 'cloudiness' .. is very straight forward... The financial, and other elements are separate subjects.. which can be the same... So truthfully discussing politics.. could potentially be a 'band wagon' idea in the end.. Rather intended to be or not..

[Atasas]

@ heath- when where you last time winner of a poster of the week?

no offense, as personal input motivated, your posts sometime are long to read ;) , but hell, they do make sense! :king:

[Alanon]

@shought:

Your faith in mankind is quite minescule, and somehow I struggle not to accept that point of view. But (and I'm paraphrasing Huxley), there is something in man thanks to which, he has an enormous potential to do god and evil. That ''something'' is what makes us different from common bests. As Huxley tried to put it, humanity, in difficult times when left with nothing, has nothing but an ideal that keeps them alive. Striving for perfection is what distorts us, and everything we create. Politics, like any creation of man, is crippled by these truths. The good and evil in politics is bound with the good and evil in human hearts. As such it is an angle well worth, and in need of exploring, which is another example of the diversity of political thought, for it addresses almos every aspect of life. As life is very complex, and most politicians simple, they tend to avoid discussing it. ;)

@heath28m:

The potential for realisation is precisely why I started this thread in the first place. Politics is a fickled matter to discuss, and few forums have the intelligence to get to the gist of things. Here, however, we started to discuss advanced sociology abd philosophy in a half-a-dozen posts, and quite succesfully. Someone reading this might deem ita load of crap, but maybe, just maybe some ''techie'' might find a brave new world opening before him, which makes it all worthwhile.

P.S. Should I take this as sign to continue discusing the philosophy behind politics?

[shought]

Generally all I type is considered a pile of crap, but somehow it always works out :rolleyes:

'Striving for perfection is what distorts us, and everything we create.'

Can't say I agree. The problem is not the striving for perfection, it is the fact that imperfection (humans) is striving for perfection. We should all be striving for perfection, but at the same time realize that we will never reach perfection.

'As Huxley tried to put it, humanity, in difficult times when left with nothing, has nothing but an ideal that keeps them alive.'

With this, however, I do agree. Some of you might know a person called 'Geert Wilders', a Dutch politician, the English refused to let him enter their country some time ago I believe. He's an extremist and no good can come of him, which is exactly why I was going to vote for him (not anymore, since he said we wouldn't mind making concessions). That's a shocker, isn't it? Why vote for someone you know can cause only but harm? Because this is the way it'll have to be. Humans don't care, not anymore. They have no idea what political parties stand for and they pick between them just like they're picking a brand in the supermarket, their decisions are based on commercials. Manipulating the mindless herd is the key to victory.

There's two options to overcome this: give the herd a mind or adjust (or completely abandon) this crazy thing called democracy. 75% of the people in a country are probably incapable to rule the country (I'd say 100% is, but let's keep it at 75% to not ruin the whole argument, we can't have aliens ruling the country, can we :P), these people incapable of ruling the country are somehow considered capable of picking the best guy to rule the country?

ps I think you've got yourself a yes :P

pps I've got lots more to tell, but there's this thing called time, and some say it's limited, I disagree because time is forever, but my time is limited, I guess. There's also this new thing called sleep, not sure what's in it for me yet, but we'll see, always in for trying new things.

ppps from now on I obligate everyone in this topic to make at least one joke in every post, otherwise it'll become way too booooring to read everything :P (That's my joke for today)

[Alanon]

Definitely support the joke idea, after a long politics debate, we will need something to null the huge wave of depression.

Here's a joke: A cowboy rides into town on Friday, stays there three days, and leaves on Friday. How does he do it?

The horses name is Friday

[S3cretz]

sINput := Communisim ;

If conflict := true

Then Begin

Iorncordon.actvate;

end;