Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - toothyp1cks

Pages: [1]
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 07:30:40 AM »
Democracy 2.0

As we all know by now Democracy is only an effective form of Government when you weed out the retards. Otherwise you end up with America.
Trolling aside, I think that Democracy could be improved in several ways but foremost among these is the voting process. Voting Ė for those of us who live under a rock Ė is when a society gets together and puts its opinion in a box. These opinions are counted and the one that turns up the most wins. In a True Democracy you get to vote for your leader and he then makes decisions. There are multiple parties and etc. Etc.

The problem is that you get people who are idiots. Thatís not YOU of course, god forbid, but its everyone else who doesnít agree with you. Regardless, they shouldnít be in charge of the country because they can barely keep charge of their car/marriage/children/whatever. Democracy makes these idiots equal to non-idiots.

BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS. We can fix them. All we need to do is educate them. But how do you encourage Billy Bob Smith to read up on politics instead of watching Faux News (see what I did there). Itís simple really: he takes a test before he votes on the policies of the major parties. He passes and his vote counts, he fails and his vote does not. Simple. The test would be anywhere between 1 Ė 2 hours long and while not being EXHAUSTIVE it would cover the important bits on political policies about current affairs, stances on defence etc.

How would the test be decided upon?
The same way they decide on University tests etc. The goal of the test is to ensure the subjects have a comprehensive knowledge on the policies of the major parties. Questions to be chosen accordingly.

After the election the test and its answers would be made freely available, along with you being able to access AT LEAST your own test paper (online, probably). If the test is ruled TOO KOMMUNIST by a specially appointed court then the process is redone.

Political bias by the test markers?
Crosscheck the tests. A lot.

Itís too much effort to study for a test!
Nothing in this world worth having comes easy. If you want competent leaders picked by a qualified voting base then you had better be prepared to accept that PERHAPS it might take some god damn work on your behalf. Stop being a lazy faggot and get interested in your countryís politics. You should ALREADY be studying the pros and cons of each major party. The government shouldnít HAVE to force you to with threats.

Itíd cost too much!
But seriously, it might cost a pretty penny (I donít actually know but letís assume it does for safetyís sake) but itíd be worth it. Spend less on whatever useless black hole DARPA (moar liek DERPA amirite?) is sinking funds into.

Nobody would bother voting because itís too much effort.
Make it mandatory. If itís still just too much effort then hand in a blank sheet of paper. Easy.

In conclusion:
Everybody can vote. They just have to actually know a ratís ass about current politics for their vote to count. Thereís no bullshit IQ testing or anything, if you pass the test your vote counts. If you donít, better luck next time.

Now then, whereís the glaring flaw Iím missing.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / How To Fix Dole/Doll Bludgers
« on: May 29, 2010, 01:14:59 AM »
Here in Australia we have handouts to the unemployed like most countries. And like most countries there are people who just live on these handouts.
I can fix that.

Unless you are properly disabled and can't work because of it this happens.
1. You become unemployed.
2. Handouts for 6 months.
3. Congratulations, welcome to the army.

It's simple really. You get 6 months to find a job and then you get conscripted. You can leave at any time IF you have a job lined up. To solve people waiting 6 months, conscription, get job, leave job a day later, repeat indefinately etc. you have 3 chances. After that you are immediately re-conscripted. It would be the real army. The conscripted would enter as normal soldiers.
For those who usually couldn't enter because of criminal records etc. they are put in the penal battalions.
For those too fat/weak etc. they get put into a special fitness program until they are ready for entry.
For those who have conditions preventing them from combat roles they are given paper-pushing jobs.
You would be paid an average wage for your rank.
There would be no limitations on ranks achievable etc.
In effect: work or fight. No middle-ground (except old people).

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Are Kids Ever Right?
« on: May 13, 2010, 04:57:04 AM »
Found this on the series of tubes:

Chernov: lol
Chernov: i remeber one time
Chernov: talking in the car
Chernov: i told my mum that mr. stuetzel told alex to stop chewing gum
Chernov: and that alex told him he wasn't
Chernov: and mr stuetzl didn't believe him
Chernov: and got all pissed
Chernov: and told him to move into the corner
Chernov: and then it turned out alex wasn't chewing gum
Chernov: and mr stuetzl was like
Sexy skipper 69: lol
Chernov: and alex said but i haven't done anything wrong
Chernov: and mr stuetzl said
Chernov: and my mum was like
Sexy skipper 69: LOL
Chernov: mr stuetzl is right alex should have done as he was told
Chernov: and i was like hmmmmm....
Sexy skipper 69: LOL
Chernov: weren't people forced to do what HITLER told them?
Chernov: and my mum was like: this is differenyt
Chernov: and i said: how?
Chernov: and she said: its in a classroom
Sexy skipper 69: lol
Chernov: and i said: oh, so because we're kids we have no rights and you can walk all over us no matter who is actually in the right?
Chernov: and she realised i was right BUT instead of saying so she yelled at me for something retarded like playing with my seatbelt (even though i was holding a box of shitty plants she bought)
Chernov: *with both hands
Chernov: and i said
Sexy skipper 69: LOL
Chernov: you're just pissed cus you know im right but don't want to back down cus you think i'll lose respect for you
Chernov: protip...
Chernov: i don't have any respect for you to lose
Sexy skipper 69: holy moly
Chernov: and she was like
Sexy skipper 69: lol
Chernov: 0.o
Chernov: and i said
Chernov: and guess what...
Chernov: its stupid thingslike not backing down because you're too proud that are the reason
Chernov: and she was like: you're wrong...
Chernov: and i said: am i really?
Chernov: and then she was silent
Chernov: and there was VICTORY
Sexy skipper 69: TOLD
Sexy skipper 69: ll
Sexy skipper 69: man that was indded was a great victory
Chernov: STATUS

Who was actually in the right here?
Is it the kid or the parent?
And is it the teacher or the student?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / First they came for the Internet
« on: April 19, 2010, 03:16:40 AM »
And I didn't speak up, because I don't want my children seeing that.

Then they came for the television news
And I didn't speak up, because I don't watch television news.

Then they came for the newspapers
And I didn't speak up, because nobody told me.

Then they came for my rights
And by that time, there was no way left for me to speak up.

I'm against censorship of everything other than the big 2, Child Porn and How To Make A Bomb.

Iím gonna say this really short.

People have been looking at abortion the wrong way, whether something is alive or not etc. etc.

What matters is immediate, predictable suffering i.e. the amount of suffering that the MOTHER and the CHILD will experience.

My comparison chart (all examples assume averages)

If mother CHOOSES to abort child: Suffering = obligatory levels
If mother CHOOSES to have child: Suffering = obligatory levels

If mother IS FORCED to abort child AGAINST HER WILL: Suffering = unnecessary levels
If mother IS FORCED to have child AGAINST HER WILL: Suffering = unnecessary levels
If mother IS FORCED to abort child but wanted to anyway: Suffering = obligatory levels
If mother IS FORCED to have child but wanted to anyway: Suffering = obligatory levels


CHOICE = No instances of unnecessary suffering 0/2
FORCED = Two instances of unnecessary suffering 2/4

Therefore, choice > force.

Edit: Changed "Net" to "immediate, predictable". Changed wording from MOTHER & CHILD to MOTHER and CHLD will experience.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Illegal Immigrants
« on: January 10, 2010, 11:12:19 PM »
In Australia we have a big problem with Ďboat peopleí, or illegal immigrants. Currently we lock them up and try to get them in to the country legally or we just let them in to the country. It really annoys me.
Hereís what I think.

Donít let them off the boat. Send a battleship out (or something), resupply them and repair their boat (or give them a new, seaworthy one) and turn them around. If they come back, turn them around with no supplies. If they come back again, sink them.
Very soon, people will realise they have no chance of getting in illegally.

If somebody is already in Australia and is discovered to be illegal and wonít tell us where they come from so we canít deport them back their then we should use them as forced labour/conscripts until they do.

Problem solved.


Flat Earth General / The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: December 03, 2009, 11:48:32 PM »
Okay, here we go. First time poster; long time lurker.
So far all I have seen in FE arguments about, well anything is "CONSPIRACEH!!" (A summary, obviously).
You don't really have a lot of proof the conspiracy exists. So here I go, to try and figure out weather the conspiracy actually exists.

1. The rules:

In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.

2. The evidence:
The only evidence I will accept is actual evidence. Like I said before, 'well, it could exist' is not evidence of its existence, therfore, not evidence so do not waste my time and yours trying to prove it could exist. I want actual proof it does. Saying 'NASA silences the proof, therefore we have no evidence' is not an argument either. If you have no evidence, guess what, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! Therefore, you fail the burden of proof.

3. The arguments:
?You spelt this wrong, therefore I am right.? = Fail.
?You are an idiot, therefore I am right.? = Fail.
?You are homosexual, therefore I am right.? = Fail.
?<Inset copious evidence here>, therefore I am right.? = Win.

4. The shape of the Earth:
I am sorry, but I cannot allow the shape of the Earth to be an argument. If we assume the world is flat, conspiracy = real. If we assume it round, conspiracy = fake. Since if we allow this the thread will become FET vs. RET like all the others we will assume neither. The shape of the Earth is NOT an argument for ANYONE! THIS IS FUCKING IMPORTANT SO READ IT AGAIN AND MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT! Use only things such as eyewitness accounts and items proved to be fake as evidence. For an item to be successfully proved as fake it must actually be accepted as fake by EVERYONE.

5. Finally:
I am probably asking a bit much but please, everyone, be impartial and fair. Do not be insulting or rude because if you are everyone stops being impartial, it turns into a shit-flinging competition and nothing gets done.

So, in summary:
1.   Do not use the shape of the earth as an argument
2.   Do not be insulting
3.   FE members must prove the conspiracy does exist, not just that it could.
4.   RE members must disprove the evidence.
5.   When one side is completely trashed and fails to continue to debate, the other side is the winner.

3, 2, 1, GO!
P.S. I require sources with evidence.

Pages: [1]