Debate2 - The undeletable's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Debate2 - The undeletable's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Sunday, November 30th, 2008|
|Friday, December 1st, 2006|
Defend the Weed
Defend weed. Give your best reasons for recreational use of pot, and why it might be fine to legalize.Do not...
...mention possible medicinal benefits
...bring up the negative aspects of anti-pot laws
...compare or contrast pot's benefits or harms with booze or other recreational chemicals
...quote names of famous folks who use(d) pot
...include references to the addictive qualities (or lack thereof) of pot
...refer to the use of pot for religious purposes
...list the myriad uses for hemp
Just explain the plus side for users and society, if smoking pot became legal tomorrow. What's your sales pitch?Note:
I was once told that this framing is "unfair", and that to have a true discussion, all aspects must be allowed. I disagree. If it helps, pretend you wrote a long paper defending pot, but you left most of the pages on the bus.
|Saturday, June 3rd, 2006|
One thing that I've always wondered about is why some things are apparently so bad that they need to be censored even on a completely "uncensored" CD that you purchase in a store. CDs which contain swearing come in 2 versions: Clean, and Parental Advisory. No more, no less. If you buy the clean version, swearing is blanked out or replaced. If you buy the Explicit version, swearing is present. However, even on Explicit CDs, there are apparently things that are so controvercial that they can never be released to the public. This bothers me because when you pay full price for a cd, you expect to get the artist's work. Their complete work. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings either, but I don't want my artists censored. Below are three examples from various Eminem songs. And yes, these are from the FULL versions of the songs, on the Explicit Parental Advisory versions of the cds.
The words in [ ] are blanked out on the cd.I'm BackI take seven [kids] from [Columbine], stand 'em all in line
Add an AK-47, a revolver, a nine
a Mack-11 and it oughta solve the problem of mine
and that's a whole school of bullies shot up all at one timeLike Toy SolidersIt wasn't my intentions, my intentions were good
I went through my whole career without ever mentionin [Suge]Marshall MathersShit, where the fuck you think I picked up the habit?
All I had to do was go in her room and lift up her mattress
Which is it bitch, Mrs. Briggs or Ms. Mathers?
It doesn't matter your [attorney Fred Gibson's a] faggot!Hailie's SongHow proud I am that I got her, God, I'm a daddy.
I'm so glad that her mom didn't [abort her]
The only way we even know what was supposed to go in those [ ] is by the artist's original notes which have been posted as lyrics on some sites. Nowhere can you get ahold of a copy of these songs that contains those words. Maybe, maybe
the original tracks in the studio have them, but my guess is that he never even said them, even when recording. I understand that talking about Columbine is controvercial, as is calling someone who sues people a faggot (not a smart move, true) but I would have thought with all the anti-censorship envelope-pushing Eminem does, he wouldn't have allowed this.
Should there be certain things you just can't say... anywhere? Or is that against our rights?
|Thursday, April 27th, 2006|
Debate: Why is it that people have the tendency to form needless dichotomies?
My stance: It's not typically necessary to break the symmetries between two things into two sepereate asymmetrical things unless one particular part of the symmetry is under inspection, in which case, considering the one part as packaged with the other part is unnecessary.
Sub-Debate: In light of this, why aren't the economic freedom supporters the same as the personal freedom supporters? Why does politics divide into right and left?
My stance: It's not purely a class issue. It's also an issue of ethnicity, faith, gender, and any other division in which society teaches one set of persons one set of things and another set of persons another set of things. If we are to unify former members of the left and the right towards agreement of anything, we must eliminate the dichotomy between economic activity and personal activity. With that in place, in order to restrict something that other people value, you must restrict something that you value, and in order to free something that you value, you must free something that other people value.
Sub-Sub-Debate: With this in mind, how many poeple do you think will actually choose tyranny over just government? Or, on the same token, anarchy over just government?
My stance: Both anarchy and tyranny are forms of irrational brute rule, since anarchy is rule of the strong in nature over the weak in nature, and tyranny is rule over the strong in politics over the weak in politics. Just government, on the other hand, is the rule of the just in society over the unjust in society.
Sub-Sub-Sub Debate: Given this, is it also necessary to illustrate a false dichotomy in nature and politics, IE are they both abstractions of society in the opposite direction? Or are they fundamentally not only seperable, but necessarily seperated?
My stance: Society is as much formed by natural elements and political elements as it is formed by personal elements and economic elements. Society is an abstraction that represents a unified whole.
Finally, the Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub Debate: Does society have any claim over the natural/political/personal/economic in any sense? Or not?
My stance: It does not, because that would imply a claim of society over the individual, since these are all fields involving individual freedom. However, this leads to a problem. Society is but a bunch of individuals all working together, or more or less, the abstraction as such. To give society a claim would either rely on things other than rights, which I can argue do not constitute a valid claim, or on rights, where it leads to a stolen concept, as it would violate individual rights and yet hold that society has rights which are inviolable. The former view simply is not justified, whereas the latter view is specifically a logical fallacy. Thus, individuals have rights, which are based off of nature and are held as a political necessity to living. Current Mood: ranty
|Tuesday, April 25th, 2006|
Can people change?
Nobody can stop being human, but doesn't being human necessarily imply posessing sentience and volition? And doesn't posessing these things mean that one can change?
For example. I am human. I can be nothing but human. So therefore I can change. Having been furry or otherkin at one point does not make me not human, since that implies that our minds have some sort of mystical ability to control reality outside of their influence on the body. However, we do have minds, since the contrary view implies that our muscles have some sort of mystical ability to act in an organized fashion without the mind.
Another example. Voters change. They vote for different people. Different parties. Different policies. If you examine socioeconomic, you will find that change is a part of nature. If you examine yourself, you will find that change is a part of yourself.
Partly crossposted to debate_classics
, the rest snipped. Current Mood: triangle
|Tuesday, April 18th, 2006|
|Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006|
Russian KGB and Nazi in Polish Parliament
This photo is absolutely real. The person on photo is the deputy of the Polish Sejm (national parliament) from populist Self-Defense (Samoobrona) party Mr. Mateusz Piskorski. He is known as editor-in-chief of nazi-rasist magazine “Odala”, as leader of Polish skinhead’s movement and radical anti-semite who has been elected in parliament in 2005.
In “Odala” Mateusz Piskorski sang the praises of the “Aryan Race”, Hitler, SS, Gestapo with their struggle against “world Jewish plot” and ideologies “foreign to our race, like Christianity, Liberalism, and Marxism” publishing interviews with Holocaust deniers. Except for that, he and the leader of parliamentary fraction of populist Self-Defense party Andrzej Lepper are the big fans of Russian president Vladimir Putin and of Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko.
Last five years skinhead Mateusz Piskorsky some times visited Russia where he has old friends among Russian Nazis. Many of them are connected with former KGB which has now renamed in “Federal Security Service of Russia” (FSB in Russian).
Vladimir Putin and Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs have accepted the special political program concerning Eastern Europe. So, in 2005 agent of FSB and well known Russian Nazi Alexei Kochetkov has organized the official visit of his friend Mateusz Piskorski to small, but very criminal “state” Transdniestria (rebel part of Moldova) with the purpose of political support of local dictatorship. Heads of Transdniestria are searched by the Interpol for the illegal traffic in arms and weapons, the murders, money-laundering, terrorism, genocide and drug traffic. But they have the Russian citizenship personally and use Russian support in their policy. Actually FSB supervises a situation in this rebel region and colleagues of Vladimir Putin receive a lot of money from Transdniestrian criminal business.
During his visit to Transdniestria the deputy of Polish parliament Mateusz Piskorski on behalf of Poland, on behalf of Self-Defense party and its leader Andrzej Lepper confirm “legality and correctness” of not free and completely forged parliamentary elections in this rebel region. After that Russia has started to provide nonofficial financial support of Piskorski’s and Lepper’s activity. So, now Self-Defense party (one of the most influential Polish political parties) is financed by Russians through the Polish Nazi and known agents of FSB-KGB.
Deputies of Polish parliament receive some of Russian money, as fees for the participation in election monitoring in the countries of former Soviet Union (Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko, dictator of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov, former Ukraine Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich and others) in their struggle against the democratic oppositions during the elections.. In 2005 Mateusz Piskorski has been registered, as the observer from CIS Election Monitoring Organization (CIS EMO) on elections of Transdniestrian parliament. This Russian nongovernmental organization has been created by agent of FSB Alexei Kochetkov under direction of FSB. CIS EMO purpose consists in public support of the proRussian state leaders.
Now Russian KGB-Nazi Alexei Kochetkov, racist Polish deputy Mateusz Piskorski and another members of Self-Defense party are registered on elections of the Ukrainian Parliament, as the observer from CIS EMO. According to Ukrainian mass-media, FSB (through CIS EMO) has already transferred money to Andrzej Lepper and soon Mateusz Piskorski will arrive to Ukraine with his colleagues from Polish parliament. Their purpose consists in support of the proRussian political parties on Ukrainian elections.
In more detail about relations of Polish parliament, Self-Defense party, the Polish Nazi and Russian KGB look in clause published in Ukrainian magazine "Tribuna", informational agency “Maidan”, Polish newspaper “Gazeta Wyborcza”, “Searchlight” and others media.
It is possible to receive comments from the Poland also:
Self-Defense (Samoobrona) party and parliamentary fraction:
Phones: +48 (22) 6942583 (parliamentary fraction), +48 (22) 6250472 (party office)
Faxes: +48 (22) 6250477 (party office), +48 (22) 6942606 (parliamentary fraction),
Deputy of Polish parliament Mr. Mateusz Piskorski:
phones: +48 (22) 6942583, +48 (91) 8122658, e-mail: Mateusz.Piskorski@sejm.pl
Chairman of Polish parliament Mr. Marek Jurek:
Fax: + 48 (22) 694 22 13, e-mail: Marek.Jurek@sejm.pl
|Wednesday, January 4th, 2006|
I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about this, we have each come to some conclusions but it was a thought I hadn't previously had and am curious to see what you all think.
What factors contribute to us calling a place "home"?
Is it possible to have more than one "home"?
Is it possible to not have a "home" at all?
Is the cliche' "home is where the heart is" true? Is still still something more to it?
To maybe inspire more thought I'll give the small back story.
I have lived on my own for almost 2 years now, totally new state, new house, new job, new life essentially, and yet when I refer to back in Denver (the house I grew up in where my folks live) I say "back home". It suddenly struck me as strange the other day that I do that. I began to wonder then when that will change, or if it ever will. When I get married will I start calling the house where my wife and children are home? Will I call them both home? Is home even a specific place (eg building/city) or is it a general place or dare I even say "feeling"?
What is the importance of having this thing known as a "home"? Would it be bad if you didn't have one and were always "on the go"?
I have no idea what kind of responses I'm looking for, I guess just a little study of words that fascinated me that I'd love to see others thoughts about.
x-posed ad naseum
|Wednesday, November 16th, 2005|
Debate2, the undeletable...
...because there's nothing to be deleted!
Seriously, where are all the peeps?
For debate: People like the crazed antics of many of the original debate users, and the original debate users like the fact that the mods are on their side and will delete anything that offends them.
Now granted not much offends these people, but some things still do. That is why I consider them pussies and don't want to go on debate anymore. They follow pretty much unenforced LJ rules. Like the use of the three letter 'f' word. It's been used on me and yet when I use it they delete my post.
However, I digress. My question is, why do people reject the notion of free speech in favor of censorship? It's because of the popular kids. And I use the word 'kids' to be mean, because that's how they act. My point is, censorship is in, free speech is out. Current Mood: contemplative
|Monday, September 19th, 2005|
Why do people hate serial adders? Why do people get annoyed when someone they don't know adds them as a "friend" on LJ? Why don't people just read the FAQ before they complain about it? What do you think?
|Tuesday, August 30th, 2005|
|Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005|
Well, here we are.. Current Mood: sad
|Saturday, July 2nd, 2005|
Stupid Media Battles
I just read another frothing-at-the-mouth article from a "sky is falling" left-wing commentator who is scared out of his pants about Bush's judicial appointees:
The crisis of democracy in America
Now I'm going to bypass all that "run for your lives" rhetoric and I'm going to get to the part that I'm really interested in:
The media is the biggest battleground. From the point of view of most progressives, right-wing voices - and often very harsh ones - dominate the airwaves, newspaper and magazine columns, and the web. This is not the place to go into the lopsided tally of right-wing pundits and talk-show hosts vs a few isolated liberals; the imbalance has been well-documented elsewhere.
From the right’s point of view, though, the media still has a liberal bias, which the right chooses to address by pursuing the rare bastions of independent journalism and opinion.
In the centrist media, Dan Rather has been a favourite target ever since he sharply questioned George Bush senior (then vice-president) during the 1988 presidential campaign. His mistakes in reporting on George W Bush’s National Guard record during the 2004 campaign were amplified and exaggerated by a relentless series of attacks on right-wing radio and television and in magazines like The Weekly Standard and The National Review, until he resigned. (The right-wing “blogosphere” also claimed CNN’s Eason Jordan after repeatedly distorting his remarks about US soldiers killing journalists in Iraq). With the retirements of Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel, and the illness of Peter Jennings, the remaining generation of network anchors who cut their teeth as working journalists is effectively gone.
With respect to Gara LaMarche, I don't think he knows what he's talking about -- and attacking the blogosphere isn't going to do him very good. As long as the media is concentrated in the hands of the few, there will always
be bias. As long as there are regulations on media -- no matter how impartial these regulations are -- there will be bias. The problem isn't that the FCC is biased; the problem is that there is an FCC at all. While liberals are trying to gain balance in the media through use of bureaucracy, this won't make the media balanced.
The solution of free expression is reform. Why should I have to pay a licence to start my own television network? Why should only the very filthy rich decide which content to produce? Why should such organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA decide which media by which I can view their content?
Funny enough, it is in the most socialistic of countries that old style intellectual property laws are strongest in effect. In Sweden -- left-wing bastion that it is -- it is against the law to download copywritten content. Even if you already own said content. In my native Canada, we haven't had satellite radio for two years due to my country's draconian "Canadian content" rules. Do you call this balance?
You have a problem with balance in the media, eh? How about becoming an advocate for Free culture? Oh yes, you get offended by the Rush Limbaughs of the radio and the Ann Coulters. How about starting your own radio show -- and make your media free to share for all to listen. Nothing is stopping you. Here on LiveJournal, we have literally millions of people who broadcast their opinions -- live and ready to consume. There is Wikipedia, Opentunes, and Ourmedia. Lots of places and means to communicate your message.
The only reason why there is
is a battle over media is because every political ideology wants to shout down the other political ideology. And to do that, there has
to be control over how we receive our media. I'm sorry, buddy. I think you are a whiny little crybaby who, yet again, seeks to gain control over media by arguing about "balance".
You want balance? Let everyone (and by everyone I mean not just yourselves) express themselves however they see fit. That means deregulation. That means getting rid of red tape. That means -- GASP! -- less government.
|Tuesday, April 26th, 2005|
Social Security Reform
The whole Social Security debate has been heating up in the news lately (if any of you guys follow it), and, once again, I am appalled at how little people actually know about Social Security. For your benefit, I've wrangled a number of pertinent websites:
The Factcheck.org article (I think everybody can agree they are non-partisan and objective, yes?) regarding Harry Reid's "Social In-Security Calculator":http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=319
The infamous "Social In-Security Calculator" itself (this one with a working FAQ):http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html#
The Heritage Foundation's "Social Security Calculator":http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/welcome.asp
and "PRA Calculator":http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/OWCwelcome_new.asp
The White House document entitled "Strengthening Social Security" outlining the administration's plans:http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/strengthening-socialsecurity.html
Now, very quickly, allow me to dispel some illusions:
- There is no "Social Security Trust Fund". The Social Security taxes you pay (or don't), don't necessarily pay for Social Security at all. They're just extra taxes, and when you retire (assuming the institution is still around by then) you get benefits from the general pool.
- President Bush isn't talking about killing the entire Social Security system. He's talking about giving every citizen the choice of diverting 4%
of their paid Social Security taxes to an account that can be invested in a variety of spread-out low-risk funds. Note that the system is completely by choice
. Nobody is going to be forced to "gamble" their life savings.
- Today's seniors have nothing to worry about, as their benefits would not be affected at all
by President Bush's SS plan, contrary to what some people have insinuated.
- The concept of the PRA has been around for decades, at one time having great support from the moderate Democratic Leadership Council (of which Bill Clinton claimed membership), and has been a part of the federal system for a while (http://www.tsp.gov
). It's called the "Thrift Savings Plan", and Bush didn't come up with it on his own.
Please take the time to look at each website (preferably reading
the last one), because I went through the bother of doing so just for you guys. :)( DisclaimerCollapse )
(x-posted to just_incorrect
) Current Mood: amused
|Thursday, October 28th, 2004|
|Wednesday, October 20th, 2004|
Did Reagan end the Cold War?
I saw a program last night on the Discovery Channel called "Decisions that shook the World" and it was on the US & the Soviet Union and how we kept from killing each other & near the end, it talked about Reagan's decisions concerning the USSR and certain policies with Gorbihouv(?) and it asked the question whether Reagan had a hand in ending the Cold War.
So...did Reagan have a hand in ending the cold war or was it policies of the Cold War era presidents before him?
|Friday, September 10th, 2004|
Good ol' Government
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,
and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
[Note: this policy was put into Texas schools when Bush was
governor; a new study shows that Texas leads the country in teen
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing
health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's cocaine conviction and military records are none of
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host (Rush). Then it's an illness, and you need
our prayers for your recovery.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest,
but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. Current Mood: amused
|Wednesday, September 1st, 2004|
HEY DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TRACKING ENTRIES MADE ON LIVEJOURNAL?! SO UNLESS YOU WANT THEM TO FIND OUT ABOUT YOU - AND THEY WILL, AND THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING THEIR LIES OUTED - PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU POST. OR MAYBE DON'T POST ANYTHING, JUST TO BE SAFE. Current Mood: hopeful
Dr. Boyd E. Graves postulates that AIDS was the culmination of biowarfare research conducted by the U.S. Government (and later, by the Soviet government) throughout the 20th century. He believes AIDS was developed and proliferated for the primary purpose of wiping out blacks, homosexuals, and other social groups considered to be "excess population." Dr. Graves has also suggested that Gulf War syndrome may be related to AIDS which was spread by contaminating soldiers with vaccines, and that an effective cure for AIDS has already been developed and patented (1997 United States Patent 5,676,977) by a company called Antelman Technologies Ltd., Providence, Rhode Island, but is being withheld. The evidence Graves cites that AIDS was developed in U.S. was based on a 1971 Special Virus Cancer Flow Chart that he obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Graves claims to have contracted AIDS, but was cured by a single injection of a special form of colloidal silver. Under the U.S. patent it is claimed a 100% destruction of AIDS using only 20 ppm of silver. The production of the product is based on 1994 United States Patent 5,336,499 by reacting silver nitrate with sodium or potassium peroxydisulfate. The company that makes the product is Weizmann Institute in Israel or Antelman Technologies, POB 382, Rehovat, Israel and Marantech is currently supplying the Imusil.
not sure about this...going to do some research on it.....will post if i find any info of relevanceUPDATE:
checked on this and it seems to be a pretty well known fact that this "CURE" exists.......yet the US Government will not allow testing even though it seems that this cure when tested on minor to mildly severe cases of AIDS has a 100% cure rate (80% cure rate total....some of the tests were done on individuals who were literally too far gone)
WHY ISN'T OUR GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS??? AT LEAST PUBLICLY TESTING IT???
makes no sense.....unless you believe that they are the ones that released the virus in the first place (which i DO) and it goes against there plans for their to be a cure readily available
JUST IN CASE ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED.....THIS CURE IS BEING OFFERED OUT OF THE U.S. "FREE OF CHARGE TO A VERY NOMINAL FEE" just look it up on google or yahoo or whatever
if you have AIDS..........THERE IS HOPE!!!!! AND IT'S NOT THE SHIT THE FDA IS LETTING YOU TAKE
|Tuesday, August 31st, 2004|
The bottom 80% of our society is being weeded out so the top 20% can own everything without interference......
when was the last time you heard of a president or anyone else in power dying from cancer??? or AIDS??? or Hepatitis C??? or Diabetes??? or any other disease that's killing us in droves?? they have cures for these illnesses (especially the ones they created....*cough* HIV *cough*) and they are using them....while they just sell us drugs to make them rich that only prolong our lives so we can keep paying for them......
we are being destroyed....very slowly and very systematically by those in power who want to keep the money and power....they hate a threat and that's exactly what we are...a threat......
i read something awhile back about a government bio warfare lab located in africa where a scientist had created a virus that destroyed your immune system and left you susceptible to death even from a common cold.....the scientist had developed the virus AND A CURE......coincidentally the HIV virus first popped up only 5 miles from where this virus was developed..........sounds VERY convinient to me.......