Whats the point of discussing any politics?

Current Events

Page of 6
Current Events » Whats the point of discussing any politics?
Scardude posted...
"In review, ProCon takes an issue such as gay marriage and breaks it down based on pros and cons, looking at both points of view. Each issue is well-researched and presents information in a factual and low-biased way."

I don't agree with what they may cover on the website as a whole but they aren't trying to skew your perception one way or the other. In the way you described them. Leave that to rest.
I couldent have put that better myself.

On the topic of Gay Marriage, if all they were doing was just showing the "con" arguments to it but didnt show any "pro's" that be a different story then. But as they are showing BOTH sides, i wouldent call it a site promoting hate. Its not publicising only the "con" stances to it and saying or implying "this is what you should believe about it". Its just allowing both sides to have a mouth piece, so i would say its a parley platform. Like i previously said, its called Procon.org, not Leftwing.org
Post #152 was unavailable or deleted.
Bullet_Wing posted...
Most people's point, which you are ignoring, is the "left" side comes from PhDs and medical journals and the "right" come from self identified Christian experts writing essays

So not at all fair comparisons
Actually, that is not universally true about that site

When i read the debate on "should prostitution be decriminalised?", most people arguing in the "con" section were not pastors or ministers, they were secular people. One of them was a policeman. I deliberately made a point of remembering that one.
Post #154 was unavailable or deleted.
Katanablade posted...
i wouldent call it a site promoting hate ... Its just allowing both sides to have a mouth piece
Providing a platform for hate

I would again refer you back to the holocaust example and why that is not appropriate to present "both sides" as if they are equal, and the same can be said about this side presenting hateful bigotry as a debate with a valid side. There is no merit to it. They might as well have a pro/con debate about owning slaves in the US civil war era. But again this is about what is socially acceptable and culturally relevant, and that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

Teachers should absolutely not be using this resource to present classroom debates, as it's harmful to vulnerable and marginalized minorities to have our basic human rights and humanity put up for debate. It's egregiously outdated and out of step with fostering critical thinking.
[click here] pronouns incoming
SHE HAS PRONOUNS!>(She/Her)<CHECK OUT my PRONOUNS
Bullet_Wing posted...
The point is you have science and educated people who have been studying the subject on one side and bias, opinion, and religion on the other for the most part

Having a few isolated examples doesn't account for the majority being that way
Well the very first time i read Procon.org is because i wanted to hear both sides to the argument on "should prostitution be decriminalised?", i wanted to reconsider my position on it, and because not everyone in the con section were pastors or ministers (most were secular people) from that first time experiance i came to the conclusion of "this site is secular".

I think you guys are cherry picking too much. Of course its going to be pastors and ministers mainly speaking in the con section of subjects like homosexuality or gay marriage, cause in the 21st century what secular arguments are there against homosexuality?, none. But there are with subjects like "con" for decriminalisation of prostitution or abortion.
CSCA33 posted...
Providing a platform for hate

I would again refer you back to the holocaust example and why that is not appropriate to present "both sides" as if they are equal, and the same can be said about this side presenting hateful bigotry as a debate with a valid side. There is no merit to it. They might as well have a pro/con debate about owning slaves in the US civil war era. But again this is about what is socially acceptable and culturally relevant, and that is a problem which needs to be addressed.

Im not having a strawman debate with you, nor am i being a spokesperson for that site. They are probably going to be objective with some stances, like with the holocaust, and not allow discussion on it as if it were debateable, same goes with slave ownership. If you've got a problem with them allowing debate on abortion, then take it up with them, not me.
It's not a strawman, it's an example of how there are topics that should not be put up for debate as if there is equal merit to both sides.
[click here] pronouns incoming
SHE HAS PRONOUNS!>(She/Her)<CHECK OUT my PRONOUNS
Post #159 was unavailable or deleted.
lol I went to that "Leading expert in christian LGBT studies" psyD's twitter and he's retweeting memes about how peer review is unfair and identifies as an evangelical christian. Love to see him given the same weight as the APA in an unbiased "both sides" comparison site
AND THIS. IS TO POST. EVEN FURTHER BEYOND!!!!!!!
I am the hope of the universe. I am the answer for all living things that cry out to post!
So did a mod edit in the politics tag to my topic? Lol.
There can be only one.
Katanablade posted...
The site is offering itself as a parley, that's why it allows BOTH sides to speak on subjects. Its called Procon.org, not Leftwing.org
Hate speech does not deserve a place at the table of anything.
Let's make biscuits!
Asherlee10 posted...
Okay? I disagree. I find that website to be harmful and perpetuating misinformation and hate-speech. So what is your point?
My point is that the use of the site is up to the person. Right now, you are using it as defamation piece where you can use it better for your own argument. To point out that there are no legitimate statements or science for markers for the side that is weak. This would better enhance your argument while taking into account the other side.

In reality, facts don't always convince people but at least you can shoot down while acknowledging their points.
Above all things, never be afraid. The enemy who forces you to retreat is himself afraid of you at that very moment.
Scardude posted...
My point is that the use of the site is up to the person. Right now, you are using it as defamation piece where you can use it better for your own argument. To point out that there are no legitimate statements or science for markers for the side that is weak. This would better enhance your argument while taking into account the other side.

In reality, facts don't always convince people but at least you can shoot down while acknowledging their points.

What are you even talking about, dude?
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
Greenmist is here fresh off another purg, presumably.

Now the topic's a party.
https://i.ibb.co/2vRbyC0/Rosa-6.png
"Friends don't let friends watch The Big Bang Theory" - mogar002
Scardude posted...
My point is that the use of the site is up to the person. Right now, you are using it as defamation piece where you can use it better for your own argument. To point out that there are no legitimate statements or science for markers for the side that is weak. This would better enhance your argument while taking into account the other side.

In reality, facts don't always convince people but at least you can shoot down while acknowledging their points.
Thats not how the site itself presents that information, though. You could say the same thing about forums that host discussions from white supremacists or tweets from trump. The source is not reputable or trustworthy in those discussions, and it is harmful content.

And they do have mention of scientific consensus on certain debate issues. Its outdated and problematic in the least, and a bad example to hold up as it was in this thread originally. Students should not be debating the humanity of vulnerable and marginalized minority groups under the guise of critical thinking.
[click here] pronouns incoming
SHE HAS PRONOUNS!>(She/Her)<CHECK OUT my PRONOUNS
I checked out this pro-con org website and saw an old section where pro and con views on teaching creationism in school science classes were collected.

IMO that's a clear case of putting lying bad faith garbage (i.e., creationism in science classes) on the same footing as sensible thinking (i.e., science in science classes).

This is a perfect example of an issue that is simply not up for debate, since the creationist side is all lies and bullshit.

Many other right wing issues fall into this category.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." -- 1984
I don't know. I'd say any person who voices opposition to LGBTQ+ rights on religious ground need to agree to a test to prove they practice what they preach, constantly before their voice can be given platform.

Refusal means rejection and any signs of the slightest vice (Again movie/show/book with even the slightest bit of profanity).

I don't know. Is there any case where it's morally acceptable to limit what others do/gain based on religion while granting yourself many exceptions?
Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
Someone in this thread made a reply saying "That site is full of misinformation (meaning it contains things i dont personally agree with) , imagine that being used in schools".

Ermmm when is politics and ethics ever a subject in school?. I was never taught those things in school, i was only taught things like English, Maths, Art, PE, Geography, History, Science.....you know.....the usual suspects
Antiyonder posted...
I don't know. I'd say any person who voices opposition to LGBTQ+ rights on religious ground need to agree to a test to prove they practice what they preach, constantly before their voice can be given platform.

Refusal means rejection and any signs of the slightest vice (Again movie/show/book with even the slightest bit of profanity).

I don't know. Is there any case where it's morally acceptable to limit what others do/gain based on religion while granting yourself many exceptions?
Person A forcing person B to live by the standards of person A's religion is bullshit, whether or not person A is a hypocrite.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." -- 1984
EPR-radar posted...
Person A forcing person B to live by the standards of person A's religion is bullshit, whether or not person A is a hypocrite.
The things that are published on Procon.org are not "forcing a way of living" on anybody. You can read those paragraphs and sentences on there that leave a sour taste in your mouth, and then just ignore it and move on.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/bfc169f6.jpg

Just so everyone's privy to the person who's about to waste a lot of people's time.
https://i.ibb.co/2vRbyC0/Rosa-6.png
"Friends don't let friends watch The Big Bang Theory" - mogar002
EPR-radar posted...
Person A forcing person B to live by the standards of person A's religion is bullshit, whether or not person A is a hypocrite.

Agreed, but this to me seems like a good, fair way to deny such religious individuals their voice.

And yes as they claim to have a no nonsense take on following the rules, that means even the slightest regular taboos they commit can be used against them.
Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
Katanablade posted...
The things that are published on Procon.org are not "forcing a way of living" on anybody. You can read those paragraphs and sentences on there that leave a sour taste in your mouth, and then just ignore it and move on.
The issue with procon.org, as already mentioned several times, is that some of the issues it gives pro and con on are simply not up for debate among civilized people.

Two examples (of many) are teaching creationism in school science classes, and gay marriage.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." -- 1984
Katanablade posted...
The things that are published on Procon.org are not "forcing a way of living" on anybody. You can read those paragraphs and sentences on there that leave a sour taste in your mouth, and then just ignore it and move on.

It's just that if a reason given isn't genuine it proves that the gripe they have with LGBTQ+ citizens and relationships aren't based on moral concerns, thus validity needs to be questioned.

Heck, it's doubly worse cause it's hypocritical and also violates Christian rules in regards to lying/false testimony.
Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
EPR-radar posted...
The issue with procon.org, as already mentioned several times, is that some of the issues it gives pro and con on are simply not up for debate among civilized people.

Two examples (of many) are teaching creationism in school science classes, and gay marriage.
To add to this, many schools host political debates in social studies or history class and use resources like this one to foster debate, assigning students essays to write on the subject. As of 2009, schools in all 50 states were regularly using material from that specific site to have classroom debates and as teaching material. The site itself also presents itself as material for teachers to use.

Some of the content may be fine, but some of it should absolutely not be used as debate material for students. This is an ongoing problem that we hear about from members of marginalized communities when they have to sit in class and listen to their peers debate things about their own humanity or basic human rights.
[click here] pronouns incoming
SHE HAS PRONOUNS!>(She/Her)<CHECK OUT my PRONOUNS
EPR-radar posted...
The issue with procon.org, as already mentioned several times, is that some of the issues it gives pro and con on are simply not up for debate among civilized people.

Two examples (of many) are teaching creationism in school science classes, and gay marriage.

And it goes beyond religion too.

Like I said before out and in thread, people claim gay relationships aren't natural, as if being unnatural is automatically bad.

Except you point out that other creatures display such and suddenly being natural isn't good.

Or just how those opposing on those grounds don't reject modern living wholesale. So if one doesn't aim for an Amish lifestyle, then clearly unnatural isn't in and of itself bad.

Heck every other reason beyond religion and what's natural also have such double standards which I feel makes the case that none of the opposition has a genuine concern even in the misguided way.
Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
Katanablade posted...
Ermmm when is politics and ethics ever a subject in school?. I was never taught those things in school,

Well, now all of this makes sense. You weren't taught critical thinking skills which are absolutely taught in school. I'm sorry you didn't get a great education.

Instead of doubling-down on nonsense, take this as an opportunity to learn.

There are many times I've had discussions on CE and formerly 261 that have straight up changed my opinions on things. You need to be open-minded.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
Asherlee10 posted...
Well, now all of this makes sense. You weren't taught critical thinking skills which are absolutely taught in school. I'm sorry you didn't get a great education.

america.txt. You're lucky if your school doesn't spend like 2 years teaching you historical myth propaganda and like 2 years of the civil war.

AND THIS. IS TO POST. EVEN FURTHER BEYOND!!!!!!!
I am the hope of the universe. I am the answer for all living things that cry out to post!
EPR-radar posted...
I checked out this pro-con org website and saw an old section where pro and con views on teaching creationism in school science classes were collected.

IMO that's a clear case of putting lying bad faith garbage (i.e., creationism in science classes) on the same footing as sensible thinking (i.e., science in science classes).

This is a perfect example of an issue that is simply not up for debate, since the creationist side is all lies and bullshit.

Many other right wing issues fall into this category.

So like back in the day when CNN would do shit like have climate change deniers "debate" scientists and try to present both sides as valuable.
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
Heineken14 posted...
So like back in the day when CNN would do shit like have climate change deniers "debate" scientists and try to present both sides as valuable.

Good example. We shouldn't tolerate entertaining bullshit like that. It has no merit for value.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
BunkerBoy posted...
This is katanablade aka greenmist

The responses he's getting are feeding into his victim complex
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9397737e.jpg
yuck
Dumpy Trumpy: Inmate No. P01135809
Oh dear
Advice from a dryer: Open the door to amazement. Don't shrink from your true calling. Accept life's wrinkles. Avoid overload. Reach into mystery!
katanablade will you send me a link to your youtube channel, i'll watch that video with the rainbow hair, or at least try to watch it as long as I can. I remember watching part of your video about the politics board 261 when someone linked it here
[click here] pronouns incoming
SHE HAS PRONOUNS!>(She/Her)<CHECK OUT my PRONOUNS
Asherlee10 posted...
There is no middle ground to abortion. And that website is 100% hate-speech.

Why would you think otherwise?
I for one am shocked that a poster in their mid 50s who buys wigs to make transphobic videos instead of seeking gainful employment, posted a website with hate speech
Advice from a dryer: Open the door to amazement. Don't shrink from your true calling. Accept life's wrinkles. Avoid overload. Reach into mystery!
Will_VIII posted...
I for one am shocked that a poster in their mid 50s who buys wigs to make transphobic videos instead of seeking gainful employment, posted a website with hate speech

lol when you put it like that it makes me feel silly for even engaging that clown seriously
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
Asherlee10 posted...
There is no middle ground to abortion. And that website is 100% hate-speech.

Why would you think otherwise?

Cause people think apathy is not just a lesser evil to bigotry but a thing to be proud of despite expecting to be catered to themselves.

See, by brushing off bigotry as an opinion, yet it does sadly make sense in that they see such concerns as bad sure. But only bad in the sense it is annoying and not a serious issue.
Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
Katanablade posted...
Yep, saying there's no echo chamber in CE is like saying there's no french people in France.

The motto of that place should be "Go with the grain or go away"
So what was the name of your main account?
Currently playing: GTA trilogy, Super Mario Wonder
Donald Trump: Inmate No. P01135809
Antiyonder posted...
Cause people think apathy is not just a lesser evil to bigotry but a thing to be proud of despite expecting to be catered to themselves.

True.

mybbqrules posted...
So what was the name of your main account?

Others are saying he's greenmist.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
Asherlee10 posted...
True.

And maybe that would be a tad bit respectable.

Problem is:
1. Spider-Man's origin story is all about how turning the other cheek can come back on one who is selfish. Covid or the Cronavirus would have been a much more minimal issue if people from all walks showed empathy.

But nope. They turn the other cheek and when such comes back to bite them, they complain about it instead of taking their lumps.

2. And yeah apathy or being Center would mean just staying out of debates or chewing out the Right just as much as they do the left.

But no, the Left is their big concern.

Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
BunkerBoy posted...
That katanablade person is antivax, looking at their post history
My guess is that's greenmist on an alt.
Currently playing: GTA trilogy, Super Mario Wonder
Donald Trump: Inmate No. P01135809
Asherlee10 posted...
Others are saying he's greenmist.
Yeah what I figured. It makes the most sense.

- obvious low karma alt

- "BAAAAAAAWWWWWW ECHO CHAMBURZ!"

- greenmist having a melty on the chudreddits about this topic.

Glad he took time out of his busy day of promoting bigoted and transphobic viewpoints to come here to get laughed at.

*points and laughs at greenmist*
Currently playing: GTA trilogy, Super Mario Wonder
Donald Trump: Inmate No. P01135809
mybbqrules posted...
greenmist having a melty on the chudreddits about this topic.
Rent free
Advice from a dryer: Open the door to amazement. Don't shrink from your true calling. Accept life's wrinkles. Avoid overload. Reach into mystery!
Will_VIIII posted...
Rent free
Well of course. He lives at home with his mom.

Oh wait, you meant the TOPIC. Yeah, that too.
Currently playing: GTA trilogy, Super Mario Wonder
Donald Trump: Inmate No. P01135809
CSCA33 posted...
katanablade will you send me a link to your youtube channel, i'll watch that video with the rainbow hair, or at least try to watch it as long as I can. I remember watching part of your video about the politics board 261 when someone linked it here
https://m.youtube.com/@galvatron3214
BunkerBoy posted...
https://m.youtube.com/@galvatron3214
Oh. Late 50s huh.
Advice from a dryer: Open the door to amazement. Don't shrink from your true calling. Accept life's wrinkles. Avoid overload. Reach into mystery!
LordMarshal posted...
I completely agree. Clearly they are wrong. You are right. You are literally a force of good fighting against evil people.
You can keep your sarcasm. There is no middle ground on LGBTQ rights
hockeybabe89
Deutschenlied posted...
You can keep your sarcasm. There is no middle ground on LGBTQ rights

And it's funny. For all the talks about looking at the enlightening middle ground, there is this recurring matter of Freedom of Speech being absolute.

1. In the first place rights for people of different gender, race and/or sexual is different than voting for which pizza to order or what movie to put on.

Second, general formality and rule is not interrupting people when they talk, especially:
- Parents or other elders.

- Meeting or class when a speaker or teacher is talking.

- The library.

But if there is an emergency prompting disruption no one is going to begrudge you for interrupting.

So yeah why is it that Freedom of Speech isn't afforded such situations.

2. And if thought policing is dangerous, shouldn't identity policing also be regarded as dangerous.

Besides how being black isn't harmful, I wasn't aware of a person having control over their birth.

Also a trend. Now I am definitely willing to consider that a person can be falsely accused of bigotry when they aren't, but the Right seem to take that line of thought to insist that bigotry of old is ancient history or that it diminished enough that we don't need to deal with it.

Basically the side professing that emotions have no place when dealing in logic.
Amalgam Universe resident Born in 82.
BunkerBoy posted...


The responses he's getting are feeding into his victim complex
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9397737e.jpg
Ha ha, whoever this person is, that's a pretty funny video there i think, i just watched it. Also the latest video they uploaded about someone having problems with watching Jeopardy because of their father is funny aswell
Katanablade posted...
Ha ha, whoever this person is, that's a pretty funny video there i think, i just watched it. Also the latest video they uploaded about someone having problems with watching Jeopardy because of their father is funny aswell

This is just fucking sad. Lol
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
Current Events » Whats the point of discussing any politics?
Page of 6