Political science experiment: Can politics be discussed without resorting to personal attacks?

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The only rule is that you can't use personal attacks. If you break the rule, you are disqualified from participating. I decide who breaks the rule.

State your case about why you feel the way you do. Cite credible sources of evidence, and please provide links to back it up


First topic: Capital punishment. Do you support/oppose it? Why?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I oppose capital punishment. Too much chance of error in terms of killing the innocent. Too much chance of racial and other bias in sentencing.

If they're guilty, killing them lets them off easy.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The only rule is that you can't use personal attacks. If you break the rule, you are disqualified from participating. I decide who breaks the rule.

State your case about why you feel the way you do. Cite credible sources of evidence, and please provide links to back it up


First topic: Capital punishment. Do you support/oppose it? Why?
Click to expand...
I oppose capital punishment because if it's the law of the land that murder is illegal, then the state should likewise not have that right if the state is "of the people, by the people..." Moreover, rotting in prison is far, far worse a punishment for really bad crimes than killing the perpetrator.

Anyone interested in how cops and prosecutors operate, watch the Samantha Bee segment on Jeff Secessions's War on Drugs Redux. It reiterates Ty's point that the criminal justice system is weak when it comes to determining guilt or innocence.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I believe that if people cannot discriminate fake news and reject it they should not vote.

Discuss
Click to expand...
http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/1621/yes-there-right-vote-constitution

It would be do-able only with a Constitutional amendment. States, in the not-so-distant past, used an "educational test" -- among other nefarious means -- to deny blacks and Latinos the right to vote.

What would be a better solution to people who lack critical thinking skills would be to strengthen the U.S. system of education at all levels -- k-12 public, private, and charter, in addition to higher ed.
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/1621/yes-there-right-vote-constitution

It would be do-able only with a Constitutional amendment. States, in the not-so-distant past, used an "educational test" -- among other nefarious means -- to deny blacks and Latinos the right to vote.

What would be a better solution to people who lack critical thinking skills would be to strengthen the U.S. system of education at all levels -- k-12 public, private, and charter, in addition to higher ed.
Click to expand...
They should make free public colleges. 2 years associates course for free.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I believe that if people cannot discriminate fake news and reject it they should not vote.

Discuss
Click to expand...
The traditional bulwark against what's now known as fake news was old fashioned journalism. Reporters got lots of bad this, but they'd verify their facts and sources before publication. Sloppy reporters got canned.

In the age of the internet, we employ more marketing people than journalists and relatively few are left to fact check stories before they make their way around the grapevine of the interwebs.

Even then they get caught fairly quickly, which means that everyone is now on their own to fact check.

Not everyone is up to the task.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
They should make free public colleges. 2 years associates course for free.
Click to expand...
Universities, public and otherwise, are benefiting from easy access to student loans offered to students with the caveat that they must be paid back; the debts aren't dischargeable through bankruptcy.

So they've gone on building sprees, building adminstrative offices, sports stadiums, huge student unions and the like, all of which drive up costs but not quality of education.

Putting universities on a public funding diet would rein in this runaway spending and cost growth. It would also free the students to do something besides be debt slaves for the horrible crime of trying to better themselves.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The traditional bulwark against what's now known as fake news was old fashioned journalism. Reporters got lots of bad this, but they'd verify their facts and sources before publication. Sloppy reporters got canned.

In the age of the internet, we employ more marketing people than journalists and relatively few are left to fact check stories before they make their way around the grapevine of the interwebs.

Even then they get caught fairly quickly, which means that everyone is now on their own to fact check.

Not everyone is up to the task.
Click to expand...
Voting test:

The egg of a red dragon found buried deep in Mt Fuji is about to hatch:

True

False
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The only people not allowed to vote are those a court finds to be mentally deficient.

Poll tests are and should remain unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Actually i believe the only people forbidden to vote are felons and those with dishonorable discharge from the military.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
Actually i believe the only people forbidden to vote are felons and those with dishonorable discharge from the military.
Click to expand...
Aha! Fake news rears its ugly head! Dishonorable discharge does not disqualify anyone from voting.

Only a few States forbid felons from voting after their sentence is complete. Even this varies from state to state.

But these fictions tend to reinforce the donor class; they mean that fewer lower class citizens vote, votes that tend to oppose the goals of the wealthy donor class.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think people who think the earth is 7000 years old should lose the right to vote.

Also dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Being wrong or having wacky ideas does not disqualify people from voting.

Much as I might agree with you.

We need to find a way to combat/discredit the right wing disinformation machine.
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Aha! Fake news rears its ugly head! Dishonorable discharge does not disqualify anyone from voting.

Only a few States forbid felons from voting after their sentence are complete.

But these fictions tend to reinforce the donor class; they mean that fewer lower class citizens vote, votes that tend to oppose the goals of the wealthy donor class.
Click to expand...
Might be state by state. I know in texas felons get many of theyre rights back including gun ownership. Every state is different. In texas if youve been convicted of theft or a crime of dishonesty you cant serve on a jury.
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Aha! Fake news rears its ugly head! Dishonorable discharge does not disqualify anyone from voting.

Only a few States forbid felons from voting after their sentence is complete. Even this varies from state to state.

But these fictions tend to reinforce the donor class; they mean that fewer lower class citizens vote, votes that tend to oppose the goals of the wealthy donor class.
Click to expand...
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top