Why is america so thick-headed?

[VirusType2]

what? no, many oil producing countries have already hit their peak level and globally we use more than we discover

I didn't say we didn't hit peak oil. That doesn't make what I said wrong.

- OK, I get it. When he said "when we run out of oil" he meant, 'not producing it fast enough to fulfill demand.' I took it literally.

 

[CptStern]

we're consuming more than we discover meaning we will eventually run out ..sooner rather than later

 

[Ennui]

Other countries use oil too, and using way too much oil is also not a very good justification for disliking the citizens of a nation, now is it? (this was not a reply to stern)

 

[VirusType2]

I decided to find out some more on this topic, and apparently I was wrong. Petroleum is a non-renewable resource. Sorry about that.

Another example of what happens when you blindly believe all the answers you get when you ask your school teacher a question. Man, that was like in elementary school. X /

 

[Element Alpha]

Incredibly thick-headed statements

Are you trying to pose as a Foxamerican (i.e. O'Reilly watcher)? You have said so many things wrong on so many levels that you must be a fraud (or a 6 year old).

"I'm a man who believes there are more nerve endings in the gut. If you disagree, that's because you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."

I'm sorry

You realize he was joking, right?

You also realize that there is an ignore list?

I'm not seeing why he is a dork or how is stupid by being offended by a racist comment.

So he was joking and offended at the same time? What are you trying to say? That naming someone's skin color is fascist? I'm just trying to understand your different 'culture'.

And lastly, I may have to say it more often, but English is not my mothertongue, I most frequently visit these boards a little before going to bed or in morning hours with my 1st cup of coffee, so please excuse me if I make some mistakes or if I somehow don't make grammatical sense . But whatever. I still enjoy reading the comments.

 

[Yuri]

Yeah, forget it, I originally thought Zeus was being overly sarcastic but I guess I was wrong. Sorry.

 

[Element Alpha]

Yeah, forget it, I originally thought Zeus was being overly sarcastic but I guess I was wrong. Sorry.

Victory is mine!!

 

[Jintor]

So, is the question answered, or just a sub-sub-sub-arguement resolved?

 

[sinkoman]

Oil is constantly replenished over time. You can't use it all up.

Yeah, but over millions of years.

We're about to hit the half way point with our oil reserves. In 10 or so years, the price of god damn EVERYTHING will skyrocket.

 

[kirovman]

Oil won't exactly run out, but supply will be greatly outweighed by demand. And prices will skyrocket.

Peak Oil! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Oil prices will shoot up when we start going on the downwards slope of that curve.

 

[Sulkdodds]

And won't that be fun.

OK, I guess you are on the "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I don't care" emo trip. :bonce:

Hey, f*ck you man. REM are not emo.

I also cannot believe nobody seemed to get Z's johnfreemanjohnfreemanjohnfreeman joke.

 

[Jintor]

But they're "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine..." and it's a happy song, too.

 

[Raeven0]

I apologise. I was away and missed this thread.

Yes, the American government has screwed up a lot. The American government continues to screw up a lot. Whether other national governments screw up is completely irrelevant to the point that the American government screws up a lot. And screwing up is not acceptable. Ever.

Global warming? The hell with that. There are two completely divergent hypotheses about why the earth is getting hotter: "OMG HEAVY INDUSTRIZZLE@~#", and "OMG NATCHRAL CYCLOL~@!#". Given that either or both of them could be true, I choose to shove it all and take a moderate stance: conserve when not inconvenient. I turn out lights when I don't need them and drive a little car with high gas mileage not because I'm a liberal globalwarming nazi but because I CAN.

Major business leaders would not react well to being told that they can't cheat by outsourcing, hiring illegals, etc. They also would not react well to being told that they must pay their grunts a reasonable amount. We can thus reach the obvious conclusion that only agents of Satan himself are capable of operating major corporations. Or, more realistically, that trying seriously to help the people on the bottom will have drastic ramifications on the people on the top. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps the economy would totally collapse, inflation would soar out of control permanently, and everyone would just get pissed off all over again; perhaps enough corporations would sit and whine but continue operating, and avert any huge crisis. I am not qualified to prognosticate on this matter.

I had previously decided that all society on Earth would collapse anyway as machines grew advanced enough to take over every job except the highest ones.

Perhaps I could lobby for the annihilation of a random six billion people. I would have approximately a one in seven chance of living, worse odds than classic Russian Roulette (one in six chance of living) but still acceptable for me; but on second thought, the probability of I and he both living would be only one in 49, which is significantly worse--only about 2%.

I don't like our overreliance on oil.

News programs present information that is profitable by bringing in viewers and increasing viewer happiness. Next time you go shopping, ask the guy at the counter if he'd like to hear an exposition on the state of American public schools, or an exposition on the rights guaranteed to him in the Constitution, or an exposition on whether porn should be illegal in any and/or all forms. For some reason, a lot of people don't care.

But speaking of people who don't care, I also say that people who know nothing about politics should be barred from voting. How? After filling out a ballot, require every last supplicant to take a brief test wherein he must name, identify, or describe the positions of every candidate for whom he voted. If he doesn't get reasonably close, we feed his ballot to the hounds.

What's funny is that I plan not to spontaneously transmute to an asshole when I want a position of power. Perhaps I will never enter into the federal government with a plan like that; but that thought is too pessimistic even for me.

I would also add that from the polls I've seen, a startlingly large number of Americans have pretty wacky ideas about gay people. Specifically, that they aren't people at all, but some alternate animal race intended by God above as punching bags and laughing stock for the upstanding straight people in the world.

Just some passing thoughts.

 

[ComradeBadger]

But speaking of people who don't care, I also say that people who know nothing about politics should be barred from voting. How? After filling out a ballot, require every last supplicant to take a brief test wherein he must name, identify, or describe the positions of every candidate for whom he voted. If he doesn't get reasonably close, we feed his ballot to the hounds.

I hate ideas like this. I really do - there is no need to be so elitist and superior.

With regards to outsourcing.. that trend is slowly reversing in the UK at least, since companies are loosing buisness due to customer's frustration with outsourced tech support (not that I'm complaining.. it's more buisness for me the reliable English tech support :E )

 

[VirusType2]

But they're "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine..." and it's a happy song, too.

Exactly. I didn't quote REM, although as I wrote the sentence, I was reminded of the song and it kept playing in my mind. Fact is, REM can't copyright a sentence, and shouldn't detract from the meaning of it.

The sentence was:

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Meaning: no more cheap oil. It had nothing to do with REM. To be honest, I always liked that song since it came out ~17 years ago, for the record, and I like REM.

Not only does he say that he does not care if the Western economy collapses, he said he hopes it does. He is a Canadian, part of the Western economy, part of North America even. That is an obnoxious self-destructive attitude, and if that isn't EMO, I don't know what is. Oh, how that is so brave of him to say that. That's like saying, "I don't care if I die". But then when you are face to face with death, you are scared as shit, and cling to life with every thread of your power.


I shall try to avoid politics altogether, that way, maybe I can avoid hating everyone half as much as everyone "hates America". :hmph: Not that I hate anyone - that is my point. I think maybe none of the people that "hate America" actually hate America. It's like, all the rage, if you forgive the pun.

people who know nothing about politics should be barred from voting. How? After filling out a ballot, require every last supplicant to take a brief test wherein he must name, identify, or describe the positions of every candidate for whom he voted. If he doesn't get reasonably close, we feed his ballot to the hounds.

This has crossed my mind before. I think some people vote for things like they are a brand name. I also worry that my views are drowned-out by people that have completely opposite views, which of course in my opinion, these views are just plain wrong. But majority wins, and thats what a vote is. So if my views are the minority, then so be it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Don't sweat it, I was taking the piss.

Fact is, so was he - rather than 'not caring about the end' he was simply being resigned and sarcastic. For example, you hear that China has just declared war on the US. Your response is "Woohoo! A war! Great! Yay!"

 

[VirusType2]

Don't sweat it, I was taking the piss.

Fact is, so was he - rather than 'not caring about the end' he was simply being resigned and sarcastic. For example, you hear that China has just declared war on the US. Your response is "Woohoo! A war! Great! Yay!"

Oh, I know you were messing with mEH, but I could sense that you felt I took it too serious, so I felt obligated to respond. But, I didn't really take it too seriously, though your comparison did put it in a different perspective and did help me to realize just how sarcastic he was being. In that case, I feel like I am the asshole here, which is quite possible, though I thought I was being pretty civil.

I just think that some of the things he said were detracting from the pristine quality thread named, "Why is america so think-headed?"

:lol: :smoking:

 

[Element Alpha]

I always took REM's song as satire.

The mandatory test next to voting crossed my mind as well. I'd be a multiple choice type of test, so the persons/instutions who would be in charge of determining the validity couldn't somehow 'influence' the results.

Still, it's pretty elistic. But what would be best then?

And finally, dismissing someones' arguments by transcibing their words in leetspeak (can't believe I just used that word) isn't going to prove anything (at least nog about the argument itself). Did you get that?

Nice weekend everyone (it's beautiful outside btw)

 

[Raeven0]

I hate ideas like this. I really do - there is no need to be so elitist and superior.

Dismissing an idea merely because you believe it's elitist is not valid.

My solution ensures that people are not elected at random, that the population at least gives policy a passing glance before stupidly picking whatever party's symbol looks the cutest. I fail to see how this is at all a bad thing.

And finally, dismissing someones' arguments by transcibing their words in leetspeak (can't believe I just used that word) isn't going to prove anything (at least nog about the argument itself). Did you get that?

I summarise arguments like that to make fun of them, occasionally to mock how shoddy and insubstantiated they seem.

 

[Ennui]

remember that we're all friendly and this is a lighthearted debate

 

[Raziaar]

Dismissing an idea merely because you believe it's elitist is not valid.

My solution ensures that people are not elected at random, that the population at least gives policy a passing glance before stupidly picking whatever party's symbol looks the cutest. I fail to see how this is at all a bad thing.

Your solution also might have the effect of making elections left only to a small percentage of the population. What makes you think the people who are voting for who they vote for, don't at least have some opinion on what that person stands for? That's why the people vote for them... because they like them in some way, not because they just thought, "Hmm... i'm going to participate in an election and just randomly pick one."

Just about everybody going into a voting booth I can assure you, is set on who they want to vote for, for whatever reason...

 

[Raeven0]

What makes you think the people who are voting for who they vote for, don't at least have some opinion on what that person stands for?

Straight party tickets.

Your solution also might have the effect of making elections left only to a small percentage of the population.

Then the people running should distribute more pamphlets, shouldn't they

 

[Ennui]

What makes you think the people who are voting for who they vote for, don't at least have some opinion on what that person stands for?

Bush's election.

and also Bush's re-election.

Your solution also might have the effect of making elections left only to a small percentage of the population.

If it's confined to the people who know what they're talking about, isn't that a good thing?

 

[Raziaar]

Bush's election.

and also Bush's re-election.

I don't see how that proves anything? You'd have to prove to me that people were completely oblivious as to what bush's policies entailed. Just because they grew tired of his things later in the election, doesn't mean they didn't go into it thinking he was who best represented them.

 

[Raeven0]

If it's confined to the people who know what they're talking about, isn't that a good thing?

One has to be careful how he makes a statement like that, though. "The people who know what they're talking about" can't really be just a council of seven men who say they're better than everyone else. The process of being recognised as someone who knows what he's talking about has to be clearly defined, open, and fair; in this case, all I want is for people to be minimally aware of whom they're voting for. This is not difficult.

Just more passing thoughts about the kinds of counterarguments that might show up.

 

[Raziaar]

The process of being recognised as someone who knows what he's talking about has to be clearly defined, open, and fair; in this case, all I want is for people to be minimally aware of whom they're voting for. This is not difficult.

How could you prove it is fair, though? You'd have to hire people... hundreds of thousands of people for the millions of voters... to question the people to see if they're knowledgable enough about their party to vote. Not only does it jeapordize the fact of people being able to vote while being anonymous... it could also open itself up to unfairness. Say you have a republican guy questioning a democrat guy... the republican asks the democrat what he knows about his party. How is the democrat supposed to respond? Is he supposed to give all the reasons he thinks the party he'll be voting for represents him better than the other? What's to stop the republican from saying... nope, sorry fellow I don't think you know enough to be a part in our judicial process. Next.

Or what if it's a republican talking to a republican, or democrat to democrat. What's to stop that person from automatically passing them just so their party can get as many votes as possible?

I can see it happening... it's something that 'would' be difficult to do.

 

[operative x]

I like the idea of people having to take a small political test before voting. But, an even better idea would to force people to serve atleast two years in the military before they are allowed to vote (starship troopers) in any political elections. This alone would stop 3/4 of the wars America has been in through.

 

[Raeven0]

What's to stop that person from automatically passing them just so their party can get as many votes as possible?

This is a good argument against personal inquisitions conducted by humans. I didn't go into great detail, but I was thinking more along the lines of a paper test formed and agreed upon by a small multipartisan group of government officials, taken along with the ballot, and graded either by a genuinely neutral party (these tests do have correct answers, so we'd just need someone who will follow orders) or a computer.

But, an even better idea would to force people to serve atleast two years in the military before they are allowed to vote (starship troopers) in any political elections.

I'm not sure how this would stop wars or decrease political stupidity.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I know that in the UK, at least, turnout would probably drop to the point where it would no longer be possible to validly claim that the resulting government had any democratic right to be in power.

 

[ComradeBadger]

This is a good argument against personal inquisitions conducted by humans. I didn't go into great detail, but I was thinking more along the lines of a paper test formed and agreed upon by a small multipartisan group of government officials, taken along with the ballot, and graded either by a genuinely neutral party (these tests do have correct answers, so we'd just need someone who will follow orders) or a computer.

But what gives you the right to legislate thusly? You can't take away a basic right of choice due to a 'test'. And also, if you do such a thing, you're not representing the population properly are you? My main reason for objecting is this:

"We'll make the decision for you poor stupid people - we know whats best"

 

[15357]

I don't like tests.


Personally, I say that they should have 3-year mandatory military/Law enforcement service before you get to vote. And a $10 tax for those who don't.


Oops, added 2 extra 0s.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I disagree.

 

[15357]

I disagree.

Of course you do.

*turns on MindController ZX-9000*

 

[DeusExMachina]

I retract my last statement. Numbers is completely right in everything he has ever said and will say. My only hope in life is that Numbers rules the world one day.

 

[operative x]

I'm not sure how this would stop wars or decrease political stupidity.

Because people would think twice about voting for war if they knew they were going to be in it.

 

[15357]

Because people would think twice about voting for war if they knew they were going to be in it.

I'm going to be in war if it happens, and yet I go pro for war....


hmm.....


EDIT: I guess I'm just weird.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Correctamundo!

 

[gick]

But speaking of people who don't care, I also say that people who know nothing about politics should be barred from voting. How? After filling out a ballot, require every last supplicant to take a brief test wherein he must name, identify, or describe the positions of every candidate for whom he voted. If he doesn't get reasonably close, we feed his ballot to the hounds.

Funnily enough, I had the exact same opinion back when I was a communist. But I changed my mind. Simply put, the proposed system would be undemocratic, as the vast majority of people would be denied their most basic democratic rights. In addition, a system where an intelligent minority rules over the stupid proles is ripe for abuse.

Then again, you could argue that we're in that situation already :O

But really, there must be some way of getting people to take more interest in the democratic process...

 

[Raeven0]

But what gives you the right to legislate thusly? [...] And also, if you do such a thing, you're not representing the population properly are you?

What gives anyone the right to legislate how he pleases? This is what I think is best, and I back it up with reasoning, just like anyone else should. :imu:

I don't find it unrepresentative at all. The people who don't care anyway shouldn't care that their votes are lost, and the people who do care should already know what they're voting for.

"We'll make the decision for you poor stupid people - we know whats best"

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Simply put, the proposed system would be undemocratic, as the vast majority of people would be denied their most basic democratic rights.

You can't take away a basic right of choice due to a 'test'.

But it isn't undemocratic or unfair that minors, noncitizens, people who haven't registered for selective service, and felons serving prison time can't vote period, no matter how politically adept they are. I'm not even denying rights here, because everyone can still vote as long as he knows what he's voting for. If he doesn't know what he's voting for, why is he even voting?

Because people would think twice about voting for war if they knew they were going to be in it.

I would love to think that were true, actually. Perhaps it sometimes is.

 

[ComradeBadger]

What gives anyone the right to legislate how he pleases? This is what I think is best, and I back it up with reasoning, just like anyone else should. :imu:

I don't find it unrepresentative at all. The people who don't care anyway shouldn't care that their votes are lost, and the people who do care should already know what they're voting for.

People who don't care don't vote. Hence low voter turnouts. If you don't care you don't go to the trouble of going out and voting.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing - it creates a sense of moral superiority and causes social divisions.