| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Debate Team!; All religious, political, etc. discussions go here | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 22 2011, 10:29 AM (944 Views) | |
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 23 2011, 02:28 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
Do you not know what "etc." means? A boss is still in a position of authority. Thus, there is no difference. Stop pulling at inane threads just because you don't have an argument. They're not, really, but the secretary is an adult and should know to look out for themselves better. Though, I really don't see why you're tilting at this particular windmill. It doesn't help you in the least bit unless your argument is that people in positions of authority shouldn't have sex, period. Or, I suppose, if your an advocate for now age of consent, at all. The hell are you talking about? School is mandatory up through 18. But the 16 year old is less developed and more easily controlled. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Dude, stop with the fucking strawmen. Can't you make one post without throwing out all these strawmen for you to knock down? Learning by doing is far easier, far quicker, and far more meaningful. When it comes to things that have serious negative consequences it is in actual fact preferable to learn without doing.[/quote] And here we have someone who doesn't understand the basic concept of applied knowledge. One of the neat things about the human mind is that we can learn one thing and then apply that knowledge to other situations. For example, if you touch a hot stove and get burned, you didn't just learn that touching hot stoves is bad, but that touching anything extremely hot is bad. If you see a burning house, you'll realize that running into it is a bad idea. If touching a hot stove was that painful, then running into an even hotter house would necessarily be worse. You seem to throwing out (yet another) strawman here by claiming that my argument is that people need to learn absolutely every possible risk by stumbling through it, which is just a facepalm-worthy assumption. Yes, because learning how to deal with childhood bullying will teach you how to deal with assholes in the real world. If someone never learns how do cope with being insulted while a child and never grows a thicker skin, then when they get out into the real world, they'll have no idea to deal with being insulted and will, most likely, make some very bad choices that they'll later regret. Everyone is bullied while growing up. It's just inescapable, and trying to "protect the children" by sheltering them from anything that could potentially hurt them will just cause them to grow up stunted, underdeveloped, and incapable of surviving the real world. And sheltering children from the "bad things" has even worse, farther reach consequences. Except that learning without doing is not in any way just as effective. If all you've ever known about touching hot stoves is that other people have told you not to tell them, then you simply have the intellectual connection of "hot stove ---> other people said it was bad ---> I trust other people ---> hot stove is bad." On the other hand, if you touch a hot stove, it becomes a very real, almost instinctual connection: "hot stove ---> PAIN" The connection is more direct and more concrete. Humans are naturally skeptical so, unless you actually physically touch a hot stove, there will always be some tinge of doubt in your mind. Once you've touched it, however, you know for an indisputable fact that it's true. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Jul 23 2011, 04:38 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
Well, interesting debates to be sure, but if you two wouldn't mind, it would make me a lot more comfortable if you could go about them a bet less hostilely. I understand that you're bound to end up frustrated with someone that disagrees with you, but you don't have to make it worse by shooting them down. Telling them that their argument is stupid or their abilities at debating are sub-par is bordering on insulting, not just refuting. You can present facts and opinions without practically attacking the other person. I like the ideas being debated, but the methods are a little too close to simply fighting for my tastes. Remember that we're all supposed to be "friends" here; at least, we have to act semi-civilized. And, above all else, what happens in the debate thread stays in the debate thread. Don't take any animosity from here to other parts of the forum, please. Thanks guys; interesting argument though.I'd like to comment myself on a couple things: notably the age of consent topic, with a bit about incest and drinking age too. If you don't mind me interrupting, of course. ![]() Anyway, I agree that you can't stop two underage teens from having sex; no law will ever be able to stop that, short of castration. However, when there is a significant age gap, there is a real problem. With two young people neither know better, so it's really just innocent experimentation (until the girl gets pregnant, of course, but that's another story), but if there's a fourteen year old girl with a twenty year old guy, that's a problem. The guy knows what he's doing, but the girl is very easily influenced; she's probably dating him to "be cool", or something equally pointless, without considering the consequences. The guy rarely helps matters because he's often manipulating her into having sex anyway; real relationships at that age are rare enough without a significant age gap. Of course, the genders can be flipped, but that's the most common scenario. So we definitely need something to keep young girls and boys safe from older men and women, especially if the teen's parents either don't know or don't care. The physical maturity is an issue for biological reasons- pregnancy too early in life is a health hazard- but emotional and psychological maturity is harder to pin down. Since everyone is different physically, we would need a standard that will be safe no matter what. Some people could safely have sex at fourteen, but others might not be biologically ready for a baby- a consequence of sex that always must be considered- until they are sixteen or eighteen. So it's not really a matter of the average person; the furthest outlier must be just as protected by the law as the mean. Thus the law must be set at an age that is safe no matter what, hence usually sixteen to eighteen. Psychologically, on the other hand, most teens aren't ready for sex even then. I am about that age myself, I know for certain the girls at my school aren't ready for some of the things they're doing anyway. The main thing to be considered is whether those having sex would be ready to raise a baby. And I know my girlfriend and myself definitely are not. Hence shows like Sixteen and Pregnant; dumb teenagers that thought they were ready for sex, when obviously they cannot handle the implications. Like I said, doing it with other teens can't be helped (though sex ed. is making an admirable effort, and I agree underage sex is a problem, even in America, not to mention places like India), but a fourteen year old and a twenty year old having sex isn't healthy for the younger person, physically or mentally. Someone that young is not prepared to make that decision yet. Something like that is likely to cause mental problems down the road. So, given the implications and risks, I would say that sex is too heavy a decision to leave to people under the age of eighteen to make for themselves. We can't really penalize two teens- they'll do that to themselves if they have a baby- but someone older than that should know better. At that age they are simply taking advantage of that person's immaturity and hormones. I do not believe the age of consent should be lowered, as there is really no plus side to young people having sex that I can think of anyway. Risks with no rewards? No thank you; law please. ![]() Sorry for the rambling; I'm not good at being terse with my arguments. I'll keep my opinion on incest short. Basically, I don't think it is really a pressing issue. If two cousins want to have sex, that's their own weird perogative. However, granting freedoms like that isn't worth even slight risk. The benefits of lifting that law aren't really enough to offset the risks, no matter how small it is. It's more a social custom than a real biological reason; culturally, we're taught not to have sex with our siblings. For one thing, it's just weird; for another, it does pose a slight risk to the offspring. It was a larger concern when our gene pool was smaller, and now we just keep it because it's tradition. Pointless, maybe, but traditions give us a sense of past. Without such laws, our society may change in ways we don't want. Maybe not, of course, but why risk it? Also, people can be stupid and drink too much at any age, the only reason we keep young people from doing it is because they then compound an inability to moniter their own actions with inebriation. Young people are irresponsible enough without adding drugs into the equation. Of course, we can't really stop it, but we can keep it from being easy for them. Giving horny, stupid teens alcohol is like giving a gun to a monkey; it's just something they don't understand how to use properly yet. Some adults know moderation, though some are still just as stupid; the number of stupid teens, however, is much higher. Alcohol has so many inherent risks, and with a culture like ours the youth are bound to exploit those risks. On the other hand, in places like Germany, where the drinking age is lower, they know culturally not to drink that much. They still have drunks and stupid teens, of course, but beer is more a beverage and less of a party commodity than it is here. It's our own fault, of course, for making America a place where too much is never enough; teens here don't just drink to enjoy it, they drink specifically to get drunk. Which is simply stupid. Hence, stupid teens shouldn't get booze to make them more stupid. Are there exceptions to the rule? Yes, but we don't make rules based on exceptions, we make them to keep the whole of the population safe. Sorry again for rambling, just trying to express myself fully enough to not be misunderstood.
Edited by Darkom, Jul 23 2011, 04:40 PM.
|
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| Evilpigeon | Jul 23 2011, 05:11 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Apprentice
|
Edit: There, re-civilised. You just can’t make that distinction for people in authority. The point I'm making is that once you declare it legal you can't have caveats in your law that discriminate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discriminate - yeah I'm afraid that teachers do actually count as a group of people, or at least according their unions they do....) against people without a factual basis. Putting measures into place that penalise people's civil right unnecessarily for having a certain job is treating those people like criminals, even if the relationship was entitrely consentual and would be fine were the person not a teacher you have made it illegal. I'm not adding to your statements at all. Second section: By having the 17 year old over the age of consent you have made them equally responsible for their fate it's a double standard. I'm picking holes in your argument in favour of a flat age of consent at 16 (where I'm living that's the age at which you can legally drop out of school and are thus teachers have no extra power over you.) If the 16 year old is too easily controlled then they should not be considered at the age of consent for most adults. Learning by doing is better faster, I know. It’s still a fact that it's riskier, and thus not something to be foisted upon people unnecessarily when the consequences of their actions are permanent. If you want to succeed consistently at anything you minimise risk. If your aim is to produce the largest % of well adjusted and healthy members of society as possible you introduce things gradually and in a controlled manner so that they don't get overwhelmed. If you fuckup badly in real life it has permanent, far reaching consequences that should, be avoided if possible. I'm advocating the minimising of risk whereas you’re advocating increased risk on the basis people being better adjusted to life because of it (correct me if wrong.) Now are you trying to argue that people will be better off on average? I could find you a myriad of links demonstrating that people with less troubled childhoods are generally happier and more successful which would disprove the above assertions about life experience. Finally as you yourself said earlier preventative measures are often better than simply treating the outcome you might learn faster but the cost is higher. Edited by Evilpigeon, Jul 23 2011, 05:59 PM.
|
| Whoever said nothing was impossible never tried to slam a revolving door | |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 23 2011, 05:48 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
Don't worry, I never do. Neither of us is asserting such a thing. I'd say that's actually wrong. Culturally speaking, a teenage girl who has sex of any kind, even with those of her peer group, she's generally seen as a "whore" or a "slut." On the other hand, when it comes to teenage boys, having sex is practically a requirement for "manhood," and dating an older woman is also seen as equally "cool," since he's managed to pick up a "milf," or at least a "cougar." Thus, it is generally more common for young boys to date older women, especially when the reason is to "look cool," not the reverse. Biologically impossible. Unless she is a genetic anomaly, the very latest it could possibly be for a girl to be fertile is 12-13. Making a stricter, more draconian law just so that a few extra percentages are "protected," is just inane, especially considering, for the most part, if someone isn't ready for sex, then they won't have sex, even if they are legally able to. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they will. This is boarding on the slippery slope fallacy of "if you lower the age of consent, teenagers will start having sex more!" which is naturally bullshit. Link. As you can see, 18 is actually quite rare. It's mostly 14-16. Hell, even 12-13 is more common than 18. Psychologically speaking, humans aren't fully developed until around age 40. What's your point? That's what comprehensive sex education, easy access to protection, and, if all else fails, legalized abortions are for. If we're going with opinions, then I'd say that no one under the age of 30 is fully ready to make a proper decision about sex. Does that mean that I think the age of consent should be raised to 30? No. I'm not a self-centered moralist who believes that it is my duty to force my own beliefs on others. I am objective enough to realize that most everyone else does not want the age of consent raised to 30. Actually, there is a biological reason why incest isn't widely practiced, but that's really not important to the discussion at hand. Making a law against something because you, personally, don't like it is, without hyperbole, the worst reason to make a law. There is only a 2-3% increase to the chance of inherited genetic disorders for having a child with a first cousin. Also, as I said earlier, "That's what comprehensive sex education, easy access to protection, and, if all else fails, legalized abortions are for." If you want to wax nostalgic about the past, go read a history book. Don't get your "traditions" in the way of progress and cultural growth. *cough*slipperyslope*cough* Because without risk, there can be no advancement. If you just sit at home all day, you probably won't die, but if you actually go out and do something, you can improve your lot in life, or even improve the lives of those around you. The same is true for culture. If we just wallow in our "traditions," we'll get nowhere in life. And how, do you propose, we do that? Because I assure you that having a drinking age is not the case at all. Do you know how easy it is for teenagers to get their hands on alcohol? Easy. Very easy. It's harder to get a pet dog than it is for a teenager to get alcohol. What's worse is the fact that since it's illegal, teenagers hide it from their parents and other authority. That's what causes the problems! Yes, teenagers have no basis for moderation or control when it comes to alcohol, which is precisely why if you have them drinking alone and in secret, they will drink too much. If you legalize it and bring it out into the light, then the parents or others can help make sure that the teenagers are responsible with their drinking and don't inadvertently kill themselves. It's like having a bunch of guys going out and getting drunk at the bar every night and deciding that the best way to get them to stop is by removing their designated driver. It's just sheer idiocy is what it is. And yet they are, very easily. However, like I said, legalizing it allows the parents to help regulate their intake and prevent teens from getting drunk for the sake of getting drunk. This is the problem with today's society: everyone acts like an ostrich and doesn't actually think about the problems. They believe that if they just declare something illegal then plug their ears and ignore everything, then it'll all turn out alright. Like I said earlier in the thread: prohibition doesn't work. Period. It never has, and it never will. Do you know what will work? Legalization and regulation. If you look around the world where various countries have legalized and regulate various drugs, you'll see that they are not swimming with drug abuse problems. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Not only is drug use, itself, significantly lower, but cases of drug abuse are significantly lower, and cases of drug overdose are essentially non-existent. Then, if you look over here to America where we simply apply this generalized "ban" stamp to anything we don't like, things only spiral downward. Ever since the War on Drugs began, drug use and abuse have skyrocketed. Prohibition doesn't work. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Jul 23 2011, 06:02 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
You know, if you're just going to keep skipping completely over my argument like this to throw your strawmen around, I'm not even going to bother anymore. No pain, no gain. Overprotection and keeping children from ever experiencing risk will do nothing but prevent them from ever developing how to handle risk. Yes, because touching a hot stove is going to permanently scar you for life. Look, I'm not saying that parents should throw their children onto the street and let nature run it's course, which you seem to be pretending it is; I'm just saying that children need to learn how to deal with pain in order to grow up into a healthy, mature, fully-developed adult and that preventing them from experience that pain will cause them to become underdeveloped manchildren who are incapable of properly dealing with the real world. I don't see what that has to do with this argument. There's nothing to "succeed." Why thank you for agreeing with exactly what I've been saying this entire time. Ah, and here's the final nail in the coffin. Yes, you are completely wrong about what my argument is. And letting them actually experience pain while growing up is the preventative measure. If a child learns first-hand that risks actually have real consequences, then they'll know to try their best to avoid such risks in the future. It's called learning from your mistakes. Naturally, there need to be mistakes so that you can learn from them. If you eliminate the mistakes, eliminate the risks, then the child learns nothing aside from a vague warning of "don't be a dumbass." |
| |
![]() |
|
| Woolymammoth | Jul 23 2011, 09:52 PM Post #26 |
|
SC Founder
![]()
|
Locked for review |
|
"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." Proud Member of the Immortal Blood Timeline | |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Oct 5 2011, 07:33 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
Anyone up to give this thing another try? I thought it was pretty interesting while it lasted, and I for one didn't get my feelings hurt when I got schooled. Forewarning, don't come in thinking you know diddly about anything. Socrates was right, it would seem.
|
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| Vanir | Oct 5 2011, 08:32 PM Post #28 |
|
Novice
|
Sure, I love making an ass out of myself on the internet. |
| <insert witty comment here> | |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Oct 16 2011, 03:46 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
Well, if anyone would like to continue, I'm up for any topic at all, really. If no one has any suggestions, we can always start with something mundane, like politics. I'm not really aligned one way or the other, though you could call me liberal in most aspects. My proposed topic, however, is the proposed removal of tax cuts for high income Americans. Many people feel strongly about this, and I'd like to hear your opinion. ![]() Personally, I believe that the more money someone has, the more they should contribute to our government. We don't need to be taking from people that barely have enough to get by; we should use the expendable income of those that don't really need it to help those that do. I understand they earned that money, and simply taking it is rather unfair- I don't propose socialism is the solution- but taxing them less doesn't make any sense. Taxes should be an equal percentage for everyone based on income. By the way, feel free to start your own topics. I don't really care what we debate, as long as it remains intelligent and scholarly. |
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| Swift-Blade | Oct 16 2011, 06:27 PM Post #30 |
|
Beginner
|
I thought about it, and honestly, I realized no matter what we do, we are 14 trillion dollars in debt. Taxes or spending cuts won't fix that problem. It is simp-ly to much money for any one approach to fix. We are going to have to use a variety of approaches to fix the debt, and even then, its gonna tak probably around 10 or 20 years to fix. We really dropped the ball with our debt. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Oct 16 2011, 07:20 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
I agree, we really screwed ourselves on this one. Not too sure I'm completely confident we'll ever get out of debt, really. I guess it's time to move to Europe! ![]() But yeah, it's going to take some serious presidenting to do anything about our economy. And with the rest of the government getting in the way, on both sides, nothing is getting done. I'd rather have a dictator that gets things done than a bloated mass of a government that is "fair". Seems like Rome had a pretty good idea... |
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| Duke Smugleaf | Oct 17 2011, 07:14 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Celestial Princess
|
There are really only two things that can be done: Cut spending and increase revenue. Unfortunately, while the two parties used to defend these ideas (Republicans voting to cut spending and Democrats voting to increase revenue), now both parties want to increase spending and cut revenue, which, naturally, has thrown us into deep shit, and it's to the point where just one of the two won't work. We must do both if we want to climb our way back out. The first thing we can do is slash our Defense budget. It is far, far too bloated. America spends more money on Defense than the rest of the world combined, and I'm not even talking per capita. In 2010, the US Defense budget was $689 billion. That is ridiculous. It really needs to be slashed down to size. Part of the reason the world hates us is because they see us as a bully. They're all armed with slingshots and pea shooters while we're walking around with machine guns and rocket launchers. Maybe, if we weren't armed to the teeth, they wouldn't all hate us so much. Next: Universal healthcare. If you thought the Defense budget was huge, the amount we spend on Medicare and Medicaid is even worse. At $793 billion, it is the single greatest drain on our money, and guess what? Our healthcare sucks. Sure, it's better than third world countries, but almost every other first world country is far better than us, and they also spend much less. Universal healthcare helps more people for less money. What's not to love? If we just copied one of the European countries, like France, for example, we'd be much better off. Then, to increase our revenue, simply redistribute the taxes. Right now, the middle class is getting fucked up the ass. They're the ones with the heaviest burden. They're the one with all the taxes, and that's not right. They're the biggest spenders. They always need to buy something more. The rich don't buy things. They already have everything they need or want. The middle class, however, is always spending money every day, and that's what keeps the economy going. The rich could due to lose some of that cash that's just laying around collecting dust. So, lay off the taxes on the middle class and heavily tax the upper class. Even if you take half of every paycheck, they'll still have far more money than most people will ever see in their lives. If you've got a guy making $600,000 a year, knocking that down by half still leaves them with $300,000 a year, which is still more than anyone could ever use. There are other things that would help, like stopping the Drug Wars, but these are the big ones. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Darkom | Oct 17 2011, 05:17 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Philosophizer
![]()
|
Agreed one hundred percent, my friend. I have never seen the need for prolonged wars in the Middle East; there had to have been a better way to stop Al Qaeda than a full military invasion. Between that and our ridiculous healthcare we are spending more than anyone has the right to. I think part of the problem is we're just too proud and stubborn to change anything. Best country on Earth my butt, our economy is worse than most of Europe and Asia. Most guns maybe, but best? Not anymore. Once Americans get that through their thick skulls we might actually be able to take steps to change things. I really hate living in a heavily republican, conservative area.
|
| Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. ~Mark Twain | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Community Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









Thanks guys; interesting argument though.



2:36 PM Jul 11