Official Everybody Edits Forums

Different55

Forum Admin

Joined: 2015-02-07

Posts: 16,575

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Free? You are not free!

Every government keeps its citizens ignorant, no one is truly free. The laws may prevent someone being murdered, but it takes away many freedoms. People can't even protest without being maced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc

I've protested a couple times and i have yet to be maced

It's strange how you disagree with me when the evidence is right in front of you. For example, it's hard to vote for someone to be in power who isn't sponsored by corporations.

1. What the heck does that have to do with protesting?
2. I just gave my own evidence. In my experience, protesters do not get maced. I don't know about that video you have there, it doesn't tell the whole story. There's a reason they got maced. In my first hand experience with protesting in America, people are ok with protesters unless they are crazy nubs with signs that say that God hates gays at the funeral of a soldier. Then you get punched in the face for being a moron (not really).

Last edited by Different55 (Jan 4 2013 2:02:48 pm)

---

"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto

Deetz

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Free? You are not free!

Every government keeps its citizens ignorant, no one is truly free. The laws may prevent someone being murdered, but it takes away many freedoms. People can't even protest without being maced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc

Okay. Whoa. Let me just say, if anyone was truly "free", they could, in theory, do whatever the heck they wanted to. They could go on mass killing sprees and nobody could stop them with the law, only with their own privelages. This would probably end up being the end of the world, with no laws to limit the general evilness of the human race. When countries say their people are "free", they mean freedom of religion, freedom to vote (in some cases), and freedom of speech (countries like America are not following this right now :/ ), not nessecarially freedom of doing whatever they want. The law is still in effect, and the law (almost) always wins. /endrant

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

In most countries, people can choose how they can live their life to a limited degree. But no one is really free, I'm not going to type of free where you can go around killing people. People in most countries are suppressed whenever it goes against those who are rich, such as when the Occupy protests where at their height, they were mocked by the media and students were maced.

It's hard for anyone to gain a voice on important matters because you have have to be rich most of the time, or have a large organization on your side which has actual power.

It's basically the whole 99% thing.

Deetz

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I agree with you that people are not completely free.

This does not mean that being completely free is a good thing.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Rules are needed, rules that would only benefit a society and not those with money.

Shift

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

So basically I see people arguing whether we're free. Well obviously we're not entirely free; if we were, then I could magically transform into a giant purple elephant with wings and breath fire at everyone I see without fear of repercussions. However, we're obviously considerably free; if we weren't, then I couldn't post this.

Rules are needed, rules that would only benefit a society and not those with money.

That statement implies that not a single rule benefits anyone but the rich. I seriously hope you don't believe that.

Jeffburtonfan

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Of course rules are needed; that's what a society is built on. If not, people would be doing a lot worse than we see daily, now.

This brings me to a debate I want to discuss; gun control. (Mainly for America)

With the recent shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, there's been a lot of talk about gun control; talk from banning guns to those who want gun laws to be less strict.

I personally agree with the Second Amendment, and would not like seeing strict gun laws passed.

Any thoughts?

Deetz

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

At least strong background checks while buying guns would want to be enforced. I mean, if these guys went to buy a gun, and they had a record, would this have ever happened? And I know that the Connecticut guy stole his mom's guns, but that's not my point. But that just goes to show how dumb the government is.

Tako

Member

From: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 6,663

Website

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Rules are needed, rules that would only benefit a society and not those with money.

That statement implies that not a single rule benefits anyone but the rich. I seriously hope you don't believe that.

I think you're missing an important detail: this is hypothetical. He isn't saying anyone benefits from anything, he's saying what should be.

And he is correct, rules that benefit society instead of the rich are needed.

Also: your phrasing is super confusing. Do you not really not need all those negations?

---

With the recent shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, there's been a lot of talk about gun control; talk from banning guns to those who want gun laws to be less strict.

I personally agree with the Second Amendment, and would not like seeing strict gun laws passed.

Any thoughts?

"So, A has caused some problems recently. Therefore I think nothing should be done about A." Huh.

I think that military-grade assault weapons are overkill (literally) and is in no way what our forefathers had in mind when they said "arms". They were thinking about 16th century rifles and muskets - you know, those guns with horrible aim and took 30 seconds to a minute to reload. This is an entirely different situation that they had not anticipated, and therefore we shouldn't base our legislation off of it.

I can't think of a single reason why you would need a machine gun or an assault rifle for hunting and/or self-defense. I think Obama is right in banning such weapons.

Since we can't really eliminate all weapons, we should invest in controlling weapons. There's always a loophole, always a workaround, but with enough research and thought I'm sure there's a way to effectively control weapons.

---

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

krubby

Member

Joined: 2015-06-23

Posts: 1,190

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Can we discuss Depressive Realism? Here's a Dinosaur Comic explaining it without confusing jargon:

I disagree, because even if undepressed people sometimes delude themselves into thinking things are better than they are, it can just as easily go the other way around, with depressed people thinking things are worse than they are.

Last edited by krubby (Jan 7 2013 5:49:45 pm)

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

But it says depressed people are more accurate, both groups can go in the completely wrong direction. Depression from my point of view can have a lot to do with realizing how bad your situation is, or it could be from something different.

Tako

Member

From: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 6,663

Website

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I disagree, because even if undepressed people sometimes delude themselves into thinking things are better than they are

Denial/ignorance is only a phase of depression. Most people will eventually accept X for what it is. The exception being irrational depression.

I don't know how accurate this test is, but if they want to be take seriously by the scientific community, "some" girls and "some" boys aren't enough. You need at least hundreds of the exact same test before you can make a real conclusion.

---

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

SilverStar

EE Homegirl

Joined: 2015-07-01

Posts: 541

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I remember reading somewhere that the reason some people's depression goes away without medication/counseling and such, is because they spend more time alone, thinking. This thinking will then lead some out of depression. Sorry no source. If someone asks for it I'll search for one.

Anyway, this thinking could lead to a more carefully observed world. Just my thoughts.

---

Shift

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I think you're missing an important detail: this is hypothetical. He isn't saying anyone benefits from anything, he's saying what should be.

And he is correct, rules that benefit society instead of the rich are needed.

Also: your phrasing is super confusing. Do you not really not need all those negations?

I was fully aware of the situation, but that doesn't change the fact that his statement implies only the rich benefit from the laws in the real world. Of course, I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it that way; I was only pointing it out.

I don't understand how you could have a problem with a grand total of three negations, each of which were on unrelated subjects. Perhaps the hypothetical examples confused you, but I don't not hope to the opposite of a contradiction facetiously.

I disagree, because even if undepressed people sometimes delude themselves into thinking things are better than they are, it can just as easily go the other way around, with depressed people thinking things are worse than they are.

I'm going to go with Tako on this; the conclusion needs to be replicated more before we can take the talking dinosaurs seriously. The experiment with a button hardly seems representative, and so I don't think they really proved anything.

Last edited by Shift (Jan 9 2013 3:39:03 pm)

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I wasn't talking about all laws, just the ones which keep people poor.

hisss

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I wasn't talking about all laws, just the ones which keep people poor.

Name them, I wanna know what these are. Also on topic for people in depression, I have no idea as there is evidence of it going both ways.

A new topic I would like to discuss is violence caused by videogames. People say this is real, yet there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

There are a lot of laws which support the corrupt, for example cannabis is often illegal because it isn't taxed. Another example can be that the law supported the removal of the occupy protests.

And I can talk about what isn't illegal, the things which should be illegal but aren't. Like the fact that a bank can take away all your possessions to meet debts people can't afford. Or maybe how lots of rich people and corporations can completely avoid paying tax, and it's all perfectly legal.

It doesn't even have to be anything really law related, the media is often corrupt.

Last edited by treejoe4 (Jan 10 2013 10:21:07 am)

Tako

Member

From: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 6,663

Website

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I was fully aware of the situation, but that doesn't change the fact that his statement implies only the rich benefit from the laws in the real world. Of course, I'm fairly certain he didn't mean it that way; I was only pointing it out.

Ah, alright.

In that case: "rules" to "each and every rule" is quite the implication. I think you're the only person who read it that way.

I don't understand how you could have a problem with a grand total of three negations, each of which were on unrelated subjects. Perhaps the hypothetical examples confused you,

Just saying, you could have simplified it. I spent a solid ten minutes trying to figure out what you meant, because the italicized sentence can mean complete opposites depending on how you look at it.

but I don't not hope to the opposite of a contradiction facetiously.

Okay what.

And I can talk about what isn't illegal, the things which should be illegal but aren't. Like the fact that a bank can take away all your possessions to meet debts people can't afford. Or maybe how lots of rich people and corporations can completely avoid paying tax, and it's all perfectly legal.

1) Consider this scenario: I have 0 money and 0 possessions. I take out a loan for 200k, and completely spend it all on a car, house, food, etc. Back to 0 money. How am I supposed to return the money I borrowed? I don't. The bank puts me in jail, and repossesses everything I own. Why? Because they need that 200k. They're not just going to throw me in jail and run their company with the satisfaction of revenge; they're going to replenish their vault with the things of equivalent value.

Without repossession, there is no guaranteed way to repay the bank. Repossession is completely necessary; if it were to be illegal, banks would quickly go out of business because they would have no guaranteed way of retaining what they give away.

2) I'm fairly certain they're working on this. I'm no official, though, so I could be wrong. That should be fixed.

---

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I'm not talking about those stupid people who take out loans to go on a shopping spree, I'm talking about the ones who are incredibly poor and have no option but to take out loans.

krubby

Member

Joined: 2015-06-23

Posts: 1,190

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

I'm not talking about those stupid people who take out loans to go on a shopping spree, I'm talking about the ones who are incredibly poor and have no option but to take out loans.

Well, usually people don't solely rely on the bank for last resort income, due to the welfare program and other systems set up by Roosevelt's New Deal.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

No people don't always use it as a last resort income, but banks are still evil. Some people are in debt their whole lives because they can't catch a break, they are forced to pay debts that never go away because of interest. And while these people struggle to live, the ones who own the banks get huge bonuses.

Even when banks fail, the people have to pay for it.

Tako

Member

From: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 6,663

Website

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

No people don't always use it as a last resort income, but banks are still evil. Some people are in debt their whole lives because they can't catch a break, they are forced to pay debts that never go away because of interest. And while these people struggle to live, the ones who own the banks get huge bonuses.

Even when banks fail, the people have to pay for it.

Sure, the bank is evil. That doesn't mean we should ban repossession.

---

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Some people don't deserve   repossession.

Shift

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Some people don't deserve   repossession.

Would you care to offer an example of somebody who doesn't deserve to lose money that isn't theirs?

treejoe4

Guest

Re: General Philosophy Ranting and Debating

Someone who can't afford to feed their own children? There are many examples, why are you defending banks?
Banks are greedy and make money others misfortune, someone people have no choice but to take out loans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

This video explains why everyone is screwed.

Last edited by treejoe4 (Jan 13 2013 4:50:38 pm)