Need a political topic

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:20 AM, wahrk said:

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:11 AM, Franklin said:

just because you're into philosophy math and science does not mean that you cannot be into politics. they can all be viewed from a political perspective.

 

math: huge issue up here in canada at the moment is whether or not to do a long-form census. basically do we need to keep statistics of everything about each citizen to see trends and project them into the future. political parties are arguing over this right now.

 

science/philosophy: stem cell research. should we use certain stem cells to advance medicine? is it immoral?

 

philosophy/science: genetic engineering. should humans take an active role in creating who we are by genetically altering ourselves with the distinct intention of some gain. is it immoral?

 

this is fun as shit dude!

 

But it doesn't matter. Unless there is a true correct answer, then it doesn't matter which side wins, as long as one side wins and the decided law is effectively implemented and enforced.

 

Moral issues don't have a correct answer, just different opinions. Debate it, lay out pros and cons, vote, and you're done. If it turns out that in hindsight the winning decision was the best decision for the country, bummer. The losers get to say, "I told you so." and the law gets changed.

 

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:12 AM, dese manz hatin said:

  On 8/29/2010 at 11:41 PM, wahrk said:

So I'm a big philosophical, mathematical, scientific kinda guy, so writing about political issues kinda sucks since, IMO, they all fall into 3 categories:

 

1. We're human and thus it will never be resolved.

2. It's too far gone or is a catch 22 and we can't fix it.

3. It's based on opinion or contains unknown/unpredictable variables and thus doesn't have a right answer.

 

If it's not one of those, then it has a right answer that we've already found or we know how to find and is thus not an issue.

 

I'm fine at debating an issue if I have a designated side, the devil's advocate needs to be played, or ideas simply haven't been considered that need to be. But this is a one-sided paper expressing my opinion on a specific subject.

 

What the fuck should I write about?

Why not write about this? Like maybe try to prove the thesis based on several examples. Or discuss the effect your thesis has or should have on modern politics/political agendas etc.

 

I've been leaning towards doing that, and as this thread goes on, it looks like that's what I'm gonna do.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:28 AM, Bread said:

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:11 AM, Franklin said:

science/philosophy: stem cell research. should we use certain stem cells to advance medicine? is it immoral

Remember that morals are subjective understandings, usually projected by groups in society who only stand for one side of the argument, and don't generally take a look at all the evidence on the table.

Pro-life groups still make me laugh - as Bill Hicks stated, if your pro-life, you'd be out there attempting to prevent wars and any kind of loss of human life. Of course, most people who are 'pro-life' don't go as far as this, which reveals how committed they really are to the cause.

there is a whole lot in this thread that I do not understand. I'm starting to think this is a highschool paper or something:)

It sounds like you don't think capitalism is a sufficient system for governance. Why not argue what you think would be a better system for governance? Should it be socialism? communism? fascism? some new form of government?

so you're saying you want a topic for a political paper that has a definite and universally objective right or wrong position that you can argue. dude, you might as well argue that the christian bible is the TRUE word and then rail against some law that's crossing it.

topic: the Bible proclaims homosexuality is WRONG and so homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or have relations.

should be easy.

  On 8/30/2010 at 4:05 AM, Franklin said:

there is a whole lot in this thread that I do not understand. I'm starting to think this is a highschool paper or something:)

Nah, college.

  On 8/30/2010 at 4:15 AM, chenGOD said:

It sounds like you don't think capitalism is a sufficient system for governance. Why not argue what you think would be a better system for governance? Should it be socialism? communism? fascism? some new form of government?

I need to read more about it, but I've been warming up to socialism. Shit being driven by money just doesn't sit right with me.

  On 8/30/2010 at 4:25 AM, Franklin said:

so you're saying you want a topic for a political paper that has a definite and universally objective right or wrong position that you can argue. dude, you might as well argue that the christian bible is the TRUE word and then rail against some law that's crossing it.

 

topic: the Bible proclaims homosexuality is WRONG and so homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or have relations.

 

should be easy.

I dunno. I guess I just care way more about what's correct than what's right. I don't really care if we abort babies, kill murderers, have socialized medicine, or deport immigrants, as long as we pick something, stick to it, and have it set up effectively.

Socialized medicine sounds great right now, but that's only because the way healthcare is currently set up sucks a dick. It's all based on treating issues that arise instead of promoting overall health.

(And on that note, apologies to the non-US peeps reading this thread, as I've said a lot of US-only crap.)

I still don't get it though, the prof just gave you "government" as a topic for a paper? What class are you taking?

  On 8/30/2010 at 5:00 AM, chenGOD said:

I still don't get it though, the prof just gave you "government" as a topic for a paper? What class are you taking?

It's "an opinionated paper on a political issue" for Government.

I already wrote the short rough draft that's due tomorrow by the way. It's kinda shit though, so I might completely change it when it comes time to do the real deal.

That's a retardedly large range for a topic on a college paper. But whatever, at least you can write about anything, as virtually anything can be politicized. You could write about the use of politicized art for example, ranging from classic soviet agitprop to Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda films to white/black power musicians, and then explain why you think it is important to understand these movements to improve political participation.

How long is the paper?

  On 8/30/2010 at 6:56 AM, chenGOD said:

That's a retardedly large range for a topic on a college paper. But whatever, at least you can write about anything, as virtually anything can be politicized. You could write about the use of politicized art for example, ranging from classic soviet agitprop to Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda films to white/black power musicians, and then explain why you think it is important to understand these movements to improve political participation.

 

How long is the paper?

Seven pages APA style for the final draft.

Just waffle about the use of art/media for propaganda by government, you should be able to fill seven pages after about 2 hours of research.

  On 8/30/2010 at 4:52 AM, wahrk said:

[1] I guess I just care way more about what's correct than what's right. I don't really care if we abort babies, kill murderers, have socialized medicine, or deport immigrants, as long as we pick something, stick to it, and have it set up effectively.

 

[2] Socialized medicine sounds great right now, but that's only because the way healthcare is currently set up sucks a dick. It's all based on treating issues that arise instead of promoting overall health.

Re: (1) -- You cannot possibly believe this in a thorough and consistent way. Suppose I'm standing in front of you with a machine that will turn your genitals into peanut butter. I prove to you that this machine has been tested to be 100% accurate and produces edible results without side-effects. We have all just voted that we'll use this machine to make food to donate to our city's homeless population, and you're first in line. We have all picked this option, stuck to it, and set it up effectively -- the machine is ready to grind your dick and balls into peanut butter. You're fine with that?

The point is, just because everyone agrees on a goal to be reached and an effective procedure to attain the goal, does not mean that the goal is the right goal to adopt in the first place. You would probably care a lot more, too, if you were homeless, or disabled, or in the army, or elderly and poor.

Re: (2) -- I can't think of a single person who would say they want to change our healthcare policies solely because they don't like the current ones, and not at all because they think this change would promote overall health -- for that is the point of healthcare policies! Everyone already agrees we want to promote overall health; the debate is about which way does this most effectively and justly.

  On 8/30/2010 at 1:12 AM, wahrk said:

Uhhhg. So many of the issues I keep considering boil down to that fact that capitalism is bullshit and fucks people.

Woah there now, let's not get hasty here. Capitalism inserts its dick into our ass then fucks us. It's called leverage.

Write about how politics are a waste of time, and your life.

  On 8/30/2010 at 9:06 PM, Spore said:

Write about how politics are a waste of time, and your life.

That's right, why would you take an interest in things that affect your ability to live how you'd like to.

Hey, I was really into politics at one point. I do vote, but I find nothing changes and I would much rather spend my life living than debating and worrying about the worlds ills and injustices.

  On 8/30/2010 at 7:28 PM, encey said:

Re: (1) -- You cannot possibly believe this in a thorough and consistent way. Suppose I'm standing in front of you with a machine that will turn your genitals into peanut butter. I prove to you that this machine has been tested to be 100% accurate and produces edible results without side-effects. We have all just voted that we'll use this machine to make food to donate to our city's homeless population, and you're first in line. We have all picked this option, stuck to it, and set it up effectively -- the machine is ready to grind your dick and balls into peanut butter. You're fine with that?

 

The point is, just because everyone agrees on a goal to be reached and an effective procedure to attain the goal, does not mean that the goal is the right goal to adopt in the first place. You would probably care a lot more, too, if you were homeless, or disabled, or in the army, or elderly and poor.

 

Re: (2) -- I can't think of a single person who would say they want to change our healthcare policies solely because they don't like the current ones, and not at all because they think this change would promote overall health -- for that is the point of healthcare policies! Everyone already agrees we want to promote overall health; the debate is about which way does this most effectively and justly.

1) Your example violates human rights though. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I personally have yet to see a case that would sway me. It's like the rules in a game of chess. Yeah, you can change them up, but not in a way that makes the playing field uneven. The government can't and won't do something that will fuck my world up unfairly. The day it does is the day I stand up and give more of a shit, but I doubt it's going to happen to any extreme degree, because maintaining the balance is the whole purpose of the government. Yeah, they do things here and there that push the boundaries, but we can pick up on that shit and fix it as a country theoretically. And if we can't, well, some other shit needs to go down.

2) Right. I'm just saying that the way we're approaching it currently is through fixing what's wrong instead of making sure it doesn't go wrong in most cases. Maybe that's more of an individual thing though. Maybe people just need to pay more fucking attention to diet and exercise.

  On 8/30/2010 at 11:16 PM, wahrk said:

Maybe people just need to pay more fucking attention to diet and exercise.

Yes!

I've got your paper right here. You're interested in the futility of politics, right?

Why?

I'll tell you why. This topic. Shamelessly copy and paste this topic as an "experiment" whereby you wanted to "prove" how the radically different beliefs from person to person renders the whole process of politics fallible. Cite how people project their personal feelings onto their political views, sometimes regardless of how unrealistic those beliefs are.

Maybe state that people should remove emotion from political process.

Maybe state that people should include more emotion to the political process.

Maybe point out that politics is one of the few things that brings out passion in most people, be it negative or positive and how over time their beliefs mutate into something barely resembling the original inspiration.

Maybe your grand statement can be how inherent human fallibility makes politics a pointless process and has reduced it to mindless shit-flinging at times... That is why we should degenerate to a more anarchistic state.

Hell, I don't know. But you literally could quote everyone in this topic and go off in a million different directions. It's a start at least!

politix sucks and is stupid lol

Look - why not discuss a new approach to arriving at decisions, instead of using politics. I don't know if you understand what I mean when I say "science for social concern" -- surely subjectivity is not good when deciding on what is best for a given community in terms of the materials they use to build roads, how children should be educated, where food can be grown, where renewable energy initiatives can start up etc. This post is directed to the OP.

  On 8/31/2010 at 11:15 PM, Bread said:

Look - why not discuss a new approach to arriving at decisions, instead of using politics. I don't know if you understand what I mean when I say "science for social concern" -- surely subjectivity is not good when deciding on what is best for a given community in terms of the materials they use to build roads, how children should be educated, where food can be grown, where renewable energy initiatives can start up etc. This post is directed to the OP.

Well we do already have representatives who are voted into office because they can represent people's views and understand the implications that your regular citizen won't consider. Would we just do this with particular fields?

But you said without politics. Soooooo totalitarianism?

Or are you talking about not having government at all?

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:16 AM, wahrk said:

  On 8/31/2010 at 11:15 PM, Bread said:

Look - why not discuss a new approach to arriving at decisions, instead of using politics. I don't know if you understand what I mean when I say "science for social concern" -- surely subjectivity is not good when deciding on what is best for a given community in terms of the materials they use to build roads, how children should be educated, where food can be grown, where renewable energy initiatives can start up etc. This post is directed to the OP.

 

Well we do already have representatives who are voted into office because they can represent people's views and understand the implications that your regular citizen won't consider. Would we just do this with particular fields?

 

But you said without politics. Soooooo totalitarianism?

 

Or are you talking about not having government at all?

People's views are not backed by knowledge. You can't vote on something you don't understand - for example you can't give a vote to someone regarding a change in prison policy when that person has zero background in forensic psychology. What I'm getting at is that the modern, so-called "democratic system" (which I feel has never been in existence, the word democracy is a cruel joke when money exists), is outdated and needs to be upgraded. I'm all for a government, but one which is not comprised of politicians voting on legislation. I want to see interdisciplinary teams, made up of technicians, engineers, psychologists/sociologists all contributing towards gaining the best scientific results to arrive at decisions for society. No one is dictating anything -- everything is followed through in a scientific manner - whatever is the most optimized and substantiated claim that benefits society. Science always being applied for the concern of humans -- that's what we need in place.

Just because I want to stay clear of politics, it does not automatically mean I am for totalitarianism -- it's just like saying because I'm not a Christian I'm a Satanist or because I'm not a capitalist, I must be a communist. I'm trying to persuade you to look into writing a paper on dissecting the political system and it's reliability when we have scientific knowledge which can be used for decision making processes. When you get a moment, please research the proposals of The Venus Project regarding a resource based economy:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:51 AM, Bread said:

People's views are not backed by knowledge. You can't vote on something you don't understand - for example you can't give a vote to someone regarding a change in prison policy when that person has zero background in forensic psychology. What I'm getting at is that the modern, so-called "democratic system" (which I feel has never been in existence, the word democracy is a cruel joke when money exists), is outdated and needs to be upgraded. I'm all for a government, but one which is not comprised of politicians voting on legislation. I want to see interdisciplinary teams, made up of technicians, engineers, psychologists/sociologists all contributing towards gaining the best scientific results to arrive at decisions for society. No one is dictating anything -- everything is followed through in a scientific manner - whatever is the most optimized and substantiated claim that benefits society. Science always being applied for the concern of humans -- that's what we need in place.

 

Just because I want to stay clear of politics, it does not automatically mean I am for totalitarianism -- it's just like saying because I'm not a Christian I'm a Satanist or because I'm not a capitalist, I must be a communist. I'm trying to persuade you to look into writing a paper on dissecting the political system and it's reliability when we have scientific knowledge which can be used for decision making processes. When you get a moment, please research the proposals of The Venus Project regarding a resource based economy:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

 

The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

 

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

 

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

That sounds super intriguing. I will read about it.

Oh fuck not this resource-based economy bullshit again.