Welcome to Scribes Corner. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Debate Team!; All religious, political, etc. discussions go here
Topic Started: Jul 22 2011, 10:29 AM (943 Views)
Darkom
Member Avatar
Philosophizer

As per requested, we finally have a place on the forum specifically for arguing about politics, religion, and all other hot button issues. Be warned right now though that this thread ignores some of the forum rules, so if you are easily riled up or offended by controversial topics, do not come here and flame people for their opinions. This is the only place on the whole forum where it is appropriate to discuss these topics, but we'll still need a few ground rules. For one, this is meant to be intelligent debate, not inane bickering. If you want to insult or flame someone, do it at some other forum, because that will not be tolerated here. Likewise, do not claim to have extreme opinions just to troll; that shouldn't be a problem, but still, try and be adult about this.

That said, let's get to some debating! :D I would love to hear everyone's opinions on these topics, so feel free to jump in if you feel strongly about something. This is meant to be rather free form, so you can change the topic if you'd like, just be sure the one we were on was more or less beaten to death first.

So, to start, why don't we get to talking about the one thing you never want to argue about in polite company, religion! Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jainist, or Atheist, we'd love to hear your thoughts on theology. Remember, no flaming or derogatory comments, just intelligent discussion. I will not hesitate to close the thread if it turns out we can't handle it.

I'll save my own thoughts for now; I'm more interested in hearing what you all think. ;)
Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ambrose51
Member Avatar
The Resident Horror Enthusiast

I'm a Zoroastrian, clearly...

In all seriousness, I'm agnostic. I have a deep-seated dislike of organized religion, and most religions in general are filled with too many contradictions for me to believe them, and I refuse to just take things "on faith." That doesn't work with me. If you want to convince me of something, you need to provide a clear argument with evidence. That's the only way you can make me change my opinion, and no religion has ever been able to do that.

It's unfortunate, because I live in a heavily Christian area, where everyone is very devout and goes to church like clockwork. In fact, there are five large church complexes within walking distance just down one street, three of which are literally right next to each other. People take religion very seriously down here, in the "shove it down your throat" manner, which is immensely annoying, and a giant turn off to those groups.

I do believe that there is some sort of higher power. Whether that's a god or not, who knows, but given the size of the universe, that must be something greater than us out there, divine or not.
But mostly? The assorted plans at play here would be going very, very wrong due to the actions of a no-name, no-count, utterly talentless Magus by the name of Shirou Emiya. He had no magic worth mentioning, no combat experience of note, and no plan for or knowledge of the War he was about to enter. He did, however, have one trait that had derailed a countless number of such grand, far-reaching schemes throughout history.

You see, he really, really wanted to be a hero. -(Best description of the start of a Fate novel ever.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James
Caffeinated
I'm agnostic, moderate libertarian. In a conservative christain area. I feel your pain ambrose.
Number of Poems Written in the name of roleplaying, count: 1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Bah! Religion is so incredibly boring. I've been arguing or been watching arguments about religion almost constantly for the past three or four years. I'm just getting a little tired of it. It's also not really that controversial anymore. The only ones who care anymore are extremists and fundamentalists.

So, why don't we argue something that's actually controversial and will actually provoke some heated debate? We've got many topics to choose from, so take your pick. We've got age of consent laws, incest, beastiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, (or really anything that has to do with sex, I guess), cannibalism, abortion, or any other hot-button cultural issue. As for a quick rundown of my opinions on each, age of consent: significantly lowered; incest: legal; beastiality: legal; necrophilia: legal; paedophilia: complicated; cannibalism: legal; abortion: legal.

Any takers?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
quirk
Member Avatar
Apprentice
I follow some philosophical stuff or something religiously. Vague stuff that's largely irrelevant, and I've already tried and failed to explain on another forum.

Also, I happen to agree with you on each of those, Smugleaf. Of course, no killing for the cannibalism one, just eating a dead body itself shouldn't necessarily be illegal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Quote:
 
Of course, no killing for the cannibalism one, just eating a dead body itself shouldn't necessarily be illegal.
That would be a completely different topic: murder, or at least manslaughter. Those should, naturally, still be illegal.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
Incest should be illegal beyond a certain point for genetic reasons, humanity's genepool could probably do with spring cleaning as it is (civilisation, especially those that offer welfare allow people with serious genetic defects to survive where they otherwise would not. I'm not trying to say that it's a bad thing that these people live, far from it, but it does lead to a cascading problem where we don't breed out heredetary disease and illness which is a big problem that shouldn't be added too simply because Billy feels like banging his sister.)

What's the age of consent where you're from? It's 16 here which I feel is about right as a cut-off point. Not to say that enforcing it arbitrarily is what's required but having that legal boundary serves to discourage it in the grey areas whilst people are pretty likely to ignore it if they're confident.

Also: Drinking age? For me, there's no need except to discourage the extremely young, evidence actually points to cultures with lower drinking ages handling alcohol better, though this is also potentially a cultural thing as both Britain and Germany are incurable bingers :D Removing the existing drinking age will cause a lot of trouble short term as people who aren't used to being able to drink freely go wild.
Edited by Evilpigeon, Jul 22 2011, 05:41 PM.
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Quote:
 
Incest should be illegal beyond a certain point for genetic reasons, ...
Sex isn't just about reproduction, you know.

Quote:
 
What's the age of consent where you're from?
For me, I live in one of the 12 US states where it's at 18. As for what I think it should be, I actually have three ages.
For those 18 and under: 14
For those over 18: 16
For those in a position of authority (teacher, police officer, etc.): 18

Quote:
 
Drinking age?
That's not especially controversial, but alright. It should be eliminated. I consider that something that the parents should have control over, not the state.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James
Caffeinated
Quote:
 
For me, I live in one of the 12 US states where it's at 18. As for what I think it should be, I actually have three ages.
For those 18 and under: 14
For those over 18: 16
For those in a position of authority (teacher, police officer, etc.): 18


And it's less complicated than some of the other stupid things that happen. 16 year old being charged for coitis for 15 year old etc.
Number of Poems Written in the name of roleplaying, count: 1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
The drinking age works as it stands puts responsibility in the hands of parents, it isn't illegal for people below 18 to drink, merely to sell to them or for them to drink in pubs. No drinking age takes away some of the parent's control which will lead to problems with people too immature to handle alcohol -> ie 10 years olds getting pissed and injuring themselves or others. Giving full responsibility to parents works in the case of things like games and films because they're quite difficult to hide but i can assure you from personal experience that it's extremely easy to hide substance abuse (ie drinking,smoking, taking drugs) because they're consumables and if you're careful about it, it's very difficult for people to tell.

Sex might not just be about reproduction but I prioritise the future of society above a minute portion of the population wanting to fuck close relatives at the expense of their offspring. Law should prioritise the good of the many -> though this doesn't mean simply pandering to the majority as that isn't of long-term benefit to society, you need to keep all significant, non-destructive groups happy for a stable society. No, people wanting to commit incest are not a significant group and since their actions are harmful to society they should not be legal.

An 18 year old and a 14 year is not on, at 18 you're effectively an adult, at 14 you're barely more than a child also your policies are discriminatory as you're automatically assuming that people in a position of authority would abuse that power in their relationship which is pretty fucked up given the kind of person you want in those positions. I understand why you're saying that but you really can't discriminate like that.
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Funny how you go and say that incest should be illegal for the sole reason that a very small percentage of the population might breed some disease children, but then go and complain that I say that saying people in positions of authority should have a higher age of consent level because they might abuse that power is just preposterous. Double standard much?
Quote:
 
... you really can't discriminate like that.
I could use that exact quote for your argument against incest.

See, unlike incest breeding disease children, people in authority abusing their powers is a real problem. Hell, almost every police officer in the country does it, though not necessarily for sex. Abuse of power is a rampant problem in America. On the other hand, having a child with a first cousin only has a marginally higher chance of genetic diseases, about 2-3%. Are those kinds of numbers really worth oppression? It is my opinion that any two consenting persons should be able to have sex.

Quote:
 
An 18 year old and a 14 year is not on, at 18 you're effectively an adult, at 14 you're barely more than a child ...
Puberty begins at around 10-12, sometimes even earlier. By 14, you pretty much are an adult, at least physically. Plus, there's also the fact that they're going to do it anyways, so why bother trying to stop them? Prohibition has never worked, and it will never work. It didn't work with alcohol in the 20's. It's not working with hard drugs now, and it's not working with underage sex. Despite being very much illegal, 13% of teens have sexual experience by age 15, and that number only increases with age. By 17, more than half of all teens have had sex. More than half. And I can guarantee you that all those who don't have sex before 18 aren't doing so because it's illegal. They're not having sex for the sole purpose of just not being ready. As far as teenagers are concerned, the age of consent laws are more of a rough guideline that they can freely ignore at will.

Actually, there are people out there who even think that my recommendation is too conservative. Hell, there are countries that think that, too. Hop on down to Mexico, and you'll find their age of consent is set at 12, and that's not even unique to them. Plenty of countries around the world have it set at 12 or 13. Saudi Arabia even goes lower at 9. The only reason I have it as high as I do is because I just can't get past the squick factor, something I'm not all too proud of, honestly.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
Nope, not at all one rule is discriminatory for no good reason,

You couldn't use the line against me:

In the case of the person in position of power - You're treating them as inferior to the rest of the population and the law by implication suggests thaqt those in a position of power are more likely to take advanatge of those significantly younger than them. That is discriminatory against people in said position of power.

In the other case the law is the same for everyone and backed up with proof of the hazards, it's not a "we think you're more likely to take advantage of others without any prior evidence" as is the case in the first example.

No you aren't. At 14 most people are still very much in the midst of puberty, by 18 you're mostly done.

But anyway, you seem to be ignoring my original point about protection, it's more about sheltering young people from those significantly older than them than anything else, I have no problem with any age difference with the guarantee that it works out well for both however, by having an age limit you put in a barrier that at least means people, especially in relationships with significant age differences will err on the side of caution. That is the point of the rule, not to stop it completely that would be over-enforcing a generalisation.
Edited by Evilpigeon, Jul 23 2011, 05:30 AM.
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Quote:
 
In the case of the person in position of power - You're treating them as inferior to the rest of the population and the law by implication suggests thaqt those in a position of power are more likely to take advanatge of those significantly younger than them. That is discriminatory against people in said position of power.
And your point is...
In the words of the late Ben Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." Yes, it is discriminating to those in a position of power. Why? Because they are in a position of power. Those with power should be held to a higher standard. They are supposed to be role models for the rest of us. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable, no expected, for us to hold them to that higher standard.

Quote:
 
In the other case the law is the same for everyone and backed up with proof of the hazards, it's not a "we think you're more likely to take advantage of others without any prior evidence" as is the case in the first example.
What hazards?

Quote:
 
No you aren't. At 14 most people are still very much in the midst of puberty, by 18 you're mostly done.
Puberty takes 4-5 years, and even less for girls, not 8. Sure, boys don't finish growing until around 18, but everything else is done much sooner. With girls, though, they even finish growing at 15. They are completely and totally done with puberty by then.

You could at least do some cursory research before debating, you know. It would prevent you from making blatantly inaccurate statements like this.

Quote:
 
But anyway, you seem to be ignoring my original point about protection, it's more about sheltering young people from those significantly older than them than anything else, I have no problem with any age difference with the guarantee that it works out well for both however, by having an age limit you put in a barrier that at least means people, especially in relationships with significant age differences will err on the side of caution. That is the point of the rule, not to stop it completely that would be over-enforcing a generalisation.
And that's why the limit of 14 is only for people of 18 or lower. It's raised to 16 for those older.

Also, I am usually against such protection, anyways. Overprotection results in emotionally and socially underdeveloped adults who are incapable of proper interaction with others or proper control over themselves. Overprotection breeds stunted, maladjusted manchildren who are entirely unable to survive in the real world. Children need to experience pain and failure while growing up so that they can learn to deal with it while it's still mostly innocuous. This whole "protect the children" campaign does nothing but harm them in the long run. It also thoroughly destroys our culture.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
First off, wikipedia (yeah, yeah I know but I'm not going much time finding something that's actually more reliable) has it at 19 and 17 at its latest points so you're stating something as fact when there is at least some contention so don't call me out with no citation of your own when talking about something debatable.

I don't give a shit whether people are 'supposed to be held to a higher standard' law is generalised. Rules need to be generalised to work. You're treating people like criminals with no evidence, yes that is a repetition and it's somethign i'm going to keep repeating because it's a massive fucking flaw in your argument. You're telling people that it's alright to have sex if they're over 16, what's so inherently wrong with police and teachers that htey must be forced to wait? It's unfair discrimination.

If you have no problem with segregation of the populace on the basis that they might abuse their position to sleep with someone (with no evidence or history of them doing so), despite the whole point of an age of consent being to differentiate the point where most people are considered mature enough to deal with sexual relations, then that's a difference of opinion.

On the final paragraph: I agree, anyone who didn't spend their childhood wielding an AK and got their first kill before they were 10 is an underdeveloped manchild without proper life experience, using law and order to protect the vulnerable from themselves and others when they're lacking in life experience is a terrible idea and the best and only way to successfully ntroduce someone to adult life is via the school of hard knocks. Fucking well said.

Edit: brb finding stuff on incest - actually just go look up inbreeding, I've outlined it in earlier posts, you know, the whole unneccessary propagation of genetic diseases and health problems thing.
Edited by Evilpigeon, Jul 23 2011, 06:47 AM.
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Link

Quote:
 
You're treating people like criminals with no evidence, ...
Oh, hey. Nice strawman you got there. Have any real arguments?

Quote:
 
I don't give a shit whether people are 'supposed to be held to a higher standard' ...
So, you'd be perfectly fine if all of our country's leaders were allowed to act like regular citizens? You'd be completely fine with the president being a raging alcoholic? Or a senator who spends all his time at work watching YouTube videos? People in positions of authority must be held to a higher standard so that they don't slack off and don't do anything or, worse, abuse their powers. If we don't hold those with power to a higher standard, do you know what will happen? Well, let's just say that Medieval monarchs had no higher standards to abide by.

Quote:
 
... what's so inherently wrong with police and teachers that htey must be forced to wait?
They are in a position of authority. They have power.

See, the problem here is that your entire argument hinges on this "it's discrimination" thing, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Discrimination is defined as being unfair treatment to a particular group of people. Expecting those with greater power to have greater responsibilities is not in any way "unfair."

Quote:
 
If you have no problem with segregation of the populace on the basis that they might abuse their position to sleep with someone, despite the whole point of an age of consent being to differentiate the point where most people are considered mature enough to deal with sexual relations, then that's a difference of opinion.
Except that there is a big difference between having relations with someone and having relations with someone who holds very real power over you. I really don't see how you can be so blindly optimistic that even the mere thought that someone could actually abuse their powers seems insane to you. Just look around you! People are abusing their power every single day. The government is seeping in corruption. It's very plain to see that abuse of power can and does happen.

Quote:
 
On the final paragraph: I agree, anyone who didn't spend their childhood wielding an AK and got their first kill before they were 10 is an underdeveloped manchild without proper life experience, using law and order to protect the vulnerable from themselves and others when they're lacking in life experience is a terrible idea and the best and only way to successfully ntroduce someone to adult life is via the school of hard knocks. Fucking well said.
You just love those strawmen, don't you? This one even has a nice little bonus of reductio ad ridiculum, as well.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
Okay, fair enough you win on the sexual maturity, I didn't do my research properly.

On the second bit: I don't give a shit about the personal lives of the people running the country, merely that they do it well. That is the same standard to which i would hold anyone else. It's a job like any other.

No it's not a strawman your argument involves prohibitting people based upon no evidence ie where it's perfectly fine for a normal person to have sexual relations with someone over 16 a teacher/policeman must wait based upon the assumption that any relations they do get into before that point will be due to abuse of power. You are treating them like criminals.

I'm not being blindly optimistic I just work under the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Certainly hyperbole but whatever would you like to respond to the point behind it? That you're implying that vulnerable people don't need the legal barrier that are in place to ease them into the adult world.
"Overprotection breeds stunted, maladjusted manchildren who are entirely unable to survive in the real world."
"This whole "protect the children" campaign does nothing but harm them in the long run"
I strongly disagree with this given that you can't always undo the consequences of mistakes made in real life and it's much better to learn about the risks and dangers of life in a safe environment rather than by experience hence "protect the children".
Edited by Evilpigeon, Jul 23 2011, 07:44 AM.
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke Smugleaf
Member Avatar
Celestial Princess
Quote:
 
On the second bit: I don't give a shit about the personal lives of the people running the country, merely that they do it well. That is the same standard to which i would hold anyone else. It's a job like any other.
And abusing one's power falls directly under "not doing one's job well."

Quote:
 
No it's not a strawman your argument involves prohibitting people based upon no evidence ie where it's perfectly fine for a normal person to have sexual relations with someone over 16 a teacher/policeman must wait based upon the assumption that any relations they do get into before that point will be due to abuse of power. You are treating them like criminals.
You ever hear the expression "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" Yeah, that's what this is, only the cure also costs tens of thousands of dollars and many years of therapy. Molestation is a very serious crime with very serious consequences. Most people are lucky if they even manage to get over it at some point during the course of their life. When it comes to something like this, where abusing one's power to take advantage of another person is incredibly easy, I think we can afford to go for the prevention.

Quote:
 
I'm not being blindly optimistic I just work under the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
And the human race has already proven itself guilty of abusing power innumerable times already.

Quote:
 
I strongly disagree with this given that you can't always undo the consequences of mistakes made in real life ...
And children will never learn how to deal with or avoid those mistakes if you prevent them from ever making any while growing up.

Quote:
 
... it's much better to learn about the risks and dangers of life in a safe environment ...
Which they can't do if everything is candy coated to prevent them from ever experiencing risk during their childhood.

Quote:
 
... rather than by experience hence ...
Experience is the best teacher in life. Sure, your mom could tell you not to touch the hot stove, but until you actually touch it an feel the resulting pain, the warning just doesn't mean much. You'll always hold personal experience from loss and pain as far more important than some vague warning of danger from a secondhand source.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
Quote:
 
And abusing one's power falls directly under "not doing one's job well."

It does but the crux of my argument is that you're assuming they're going to abuse their power whereas I'm saying that they and everyone else should be given the benefit of the doubt, which is how law should, and generally does, work.

Quote:
 
You ever hear the expression "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" Yeah, that's what this is, only the cure also costs tens of thousands of dollars and many years of therapy. Molestation is a very serious crime with very serious consequences. Most people are lucky if they even manage to get over it at some point during the course of their life. When it comes to something like this, where abusing one's power to take advantage of another person is incredibly easy, I think we can afford to go for the prevention.


But the thing is, by setting the age of consent at a certain point you're effectively saying "these people are fair game" correct? So what i want to know is what's the difference between a boss coercing one of their employees into sleeping with them and a teacher doing the same thing? Why are teachers and police officers automatically considered more likely to abuse their power and for that matter what is so special about people between 16 and 18 that they get special protection specifically from police and teachers? Why is the 19 year secretary any less a victim of an abuse of power than the 17 year old student? I mean since education past 16 is no longer mandatory a teacher has no more power over a 16 year old student than that boss does over his employee.

You just can't discriminate like that.


Quote:
 
And the human race has already proven itself guilty of abusing power innumerable times already.

So what. You just are guilty unless they can prove innocence? Think about how easy that would make it for the police to put whoever they want in prison. I mean they can accuse whoever they like of whatever they like and, if there's no evidence to disprove their claims then that person is automatically considered guilty. That's straight out of fascism. Any preventative laws should be applied as equally as possible across the population and no law should be put in place without strong evidence to back it up, can you find statistical evidence that teachers are more likely to abuse their power over students than people in other lines of work?

Quote:
 
And children will never learn how to deal with or avoid those mistakes if you prevent them from ever making any while growing up.

It is possible to learn without doing. When it comes to things that have serious negative consequences it is in actual fact preferable to learn without doing.

Quote:
 
Which they can't do if everything is candy coated to prevent them from ever experiencing risk during their childhood.

The point of civilisation is, in part, to minimise the 'survival of the fittest' nature of evolution. People band together and cooperate to overcome individual obstacles. You do not need to put people through something for them to learn about it. Quick example: bullying http://www.stopbullying.gov/topics/effects/ read through the consequences and notice how many of them persist into adulthood. Still think that people are better off experiencing this, as opposed to recieving protection?

To express it as a gaming metaphor: Your dps isn't going to do you any good if you let him take aggro XD likewise, in life to maximise what you get from people you need to give them protection when they're vulnerable if you want to get the most out of them teaching by experience has far too many permanent consequences and very easy for these consequences to be experienced just because of bad luck. If you want to optimise something then you remove as much risk as possible.

Quote:
 

Experience is the best teacher in life. Sure, your mom could tell you not to touch the hot stove, but until you actually touch it an feel the resulting pain, the warning just doesn't mean much. You'll always hold personal experience from loss and pain as far more important than some vague warning of danger from a secondhand source.


Yeah but loss and pain are permanent and the learning not to touch the hot stove isn't worth the permanent scarring that could occur (gas stove, hair on fire, bang you're bald for life.) Won't happen to everyone by any means but why take the risk when learning without doing can be just as effective, if slower.
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
quirk
Member Avatar
Apprentice
See, the real problem here is that these roles are positions of authority, when they should, in all reality, be positions of service, with the power they possess something freely given (and taken) by the people. This should extend to all authority figures, from teachers to government leaders.

I think the real problem with these being concrete roles in society is that, simply because of how our societal system works, they become not areas of civic service, but careers. The issue with that being your job ends up focusing around advancement as opposed to serving the community who gave you that power.

Not that in the current social systems we have they could be made into anything besides careers. But that's an off-topic tangent.
Edited by quirk, Jul 23 2011, 12:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evilpigeon
Member Avatar
Apprentice
We need to found a religion based upon the wonders of communities and recruit monks, that'd fix it :D
Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply