Jump to content

About This Club

Our most gracious debating forum where all forms of politics can be debated, scrutinised and voted on. Here you can propose new laws, debate on current ones and scrutinise government policies. Everyone with a brain is welcome. No Korean Casinos welcome.

  1. What's new in this club
  2. I'll extend this thread for another 48 hours. Need more replies and more arguments please. Socialists come on. ARGUE US!
  3. I'm honestly not even trying to defend him because I'm not really for the way he's been handling it. I just don't understand how anyone could think it's anything like a dick measuring contest. North Korea is a joke, China already said they're on their own if they attack the US. The worst that will happen is NK hits Guam, then the US wipes out North Korea. The end. Anyone equating this to World War 3 doesn't know what they're talking about.
  4. HOW YOU DEAL WITH NUCLEAR THREAT
  5. I knew you were going to defend daddy.
  6. I keep seeing pictures like this but I honestly don't understand why. What about the entire situation makes people think it's a dick measuring contest? I don't think ego is involved at all. North Koren leadership is insane and just wants to destroy the US - nothing to do with ego or "dick measuring". Then Trump is literally just responding to threats by North Korea. I'm not even defending anyone here or giving my opinion about what's going on, I'm just saying I don't see any way this could be seen as a dick measuring contest. So if you could explain, please do.
  7. Accurate af (coming replies by trump fanbois)
  8. As far as I'm concerned, Ryan's hit the nail on the head. Cyberbullying isn't an issue, at least not currently. If the future of education goes mostly digital, then we might have issues with kids being assholes to each other on a platform that's mandatory for them to use, but I doubt it'd be a major one as long as identities are easily traceable and it keeps proper logs (so that if bullying does happen, it's immediately clear, unless the bully gains access to another student's ID or something like that.) As it stands today, cyberbullying is just an umbrella term for social media communication that the recipient finds unpleasant, inflammatory, offensive, hurtful, etc. The owners of the platform should be free to dictate what isn't allowed on the platform and are usually (99%) generous enough to provide users with a report and/or block function. I personally believe the solution to our current 'cyberbullying epidemic' is for people to grow thicker skin, but if not that, just filter out the stuff you don't want to see. Ez pz like ur mum.
  9. Lmao at Jimmy wanting to restrict the free market. I thought you were a capitalist.
  10. Ideally, I'd rather pedophiles be fucking child-shaped dolls than actual children. It's hard to make any opinion here without any objective data. My knee-jerk reaction is to say no to (most) things being outright banned. I see little good taking away one of a pedophile's few sexual outlets, especially if they keep a pedophile from preying on real kids. I'm of the opinion that so long as people (including kids age < 18) aren't being harmed, they can have that outlet. This relies on an assumption that pedophiles aren't necessarily predators and that sexual outlets stave off predatory behavior. That being said, I don't want pedophilia normalized as a fetish. I don't know how I would feel about these products becoming popular; without data, it's harder to speculate. What if these child-sized dolls caught on because they were more affordable? I doubt that would happen if they looked like kids, but what if they dolls were made so that they could look like children (picture something like an adult build-a-bear workshop)? That seems more realistic, given the internet, but does that layer of nuance change anything? I find it hard to draw a moral line here, but there could be something I'm overlooking. If one wanted a sex doll and a company sold high quality dolls of varying prices and sizes, it could be that the smaller ones are less expensive because they use less materials. Should they be banned on the sole principal that they look like children, or that they're sex toys and look like children? What if the product was child-sized but the customer had to make them look like children? Would you want their fucked up sexual needs to stop you from being able to buy a blank toy? And if not, why is it wrong for the company to bridge that gap for their customer? All of those questions could be invalidated by the right data, so I'm up in the air as it stands now. The only thing that I can be certain about is that these dolls (or their sexual parts) will be restricted to adults due to their nature. I feel that is the most fair regulation you can put on the products since it already limits access to children and makes it illegal for them to be exposed to it. Anymore regulation could easily become a bureaucratic nightmare and another taxpayer burden.
  11. I agree. I also think people make it into a bigger deal than it really is. Yes, if a war broke out, it would be bad for a lot of people, but no, it would not be 'World War 3'.
  12. > situation NK acts like this every year. I doubt much of anything is going to happen other than a dick measuring contest.
  13. Give your thoughts on what you think is going to happen, and what you think about was has been happening surrounding North Korea.
  14. POST POLITICAL MEMES post them ____ Here are some freshly harvested ones. They're freshly made, right from the stove. (Stolen basically, but current)
  15. 1/10, don't much care for anything to do with British monarchs. Been that way for the past few centuries. I can agree with the tradition bit, but purpose is hard to justify. Religion is an evolving part of culture, meaning that traditions can change. I dislike ideological stagnation and traditions are rife with them and some people use tradition as an excuse to avoid change. Like I said, I don't really care what the monarch wants to do and I need more context to form a better opinion. _____________ I'm gonna exaggerate my views with this one: A generic libertarian perspective, in the scope of US politics, is morally wrong. @Seeker and I talked about differences between libertarian policy in Sweden Vs. US. From what I remember, Sweden has universal basic income but no minimum wage laws. This is antithetical to some US libertarians, who believe any form of taxation is theft. Some would consider zero-minimum-wage laws and no taxation to be beneficial; I see that as a form of libertarian extremism and try to avoid those talks. To elaborate: most US libertarians are anti-regulation anti-tax and pro free market. At their worst, they advocate total-market rule and advocate the destruction of our rights. In this case, I argue that libertarians advocate destroying our rights through the free market. In the US, to work a job is to sign away your rights for money. Your freedom of speech is taken away along with your freedom of self-expression. Libertarians will make the argument that at-will employment offsets this, but the argument seems hypocritical. Our 4th amendment rights are broken daily as companies dig deeper into our lives. A libertarian argues that a government doesn't give you choice. It forces itself upon you and is always looking to take away your rights and money. That sounds exactly like what the market does too. Businesses need these sorts of restrictions; that I can agree with. What I don't agree with is how the libertarian viewpoint ignores this and the effects big business has on our rights. There are many big-business lobbies that are working hard to limit our rights, and its their money that's allowing them to do it. In the end, it does come down to the politician's actions yet many libertarians will ignore the market's role. This is where I take issue. Now, I believe that capitalism is the best system we have for individual growth, but it isn't perfect by itself. It's unwise to think a free market has all of the solutions or that a free market implies a free people.
  16. I'm not saying who this person is, what they were holding before this picture happened or anything about it, since this is a topic of cyber bullying, I thought I could share something on that topic as well, a visual if you will. I don't think the subject of this photo ever saw it.
  17. I completely support this, but I must say here as well that the World really isn't getting any better and is as still corrupted as ever, the doomsday clock has two and a half minutes till midnight, but I digress. The world isn't getting better. This is one of the soundest things that I have heard in my life, it makes sense, a lot of sense, I liked all of it, but the last paragraph in particular: I was in freshman year of Highschool before we had computers in school for kids to use, before that I got bullied "the right way" if you want to think of it like that, face to face. as If more people thought like Ryan, people wouldn't want to do crazy things to each other, or to shoot up schools or colleges, or blow places up, all the madness of the human race. Do I support bullying at all? No, but people are going to do all kinds of fucked up things, our reactions to their asshattery should be the main focal point.
  18. So I think that we all probably grew up where the internet was just getting its jets going, when I was in school 8 years ago they would often tell us they can't do anything about online bullying unless it was brought onto school grounds and even then what can you do past banning websites or excluding a pupil it'll still continue. But that was at least what they said when I was 16 and online bullying wasn't a thing. Personally, I think the internet is probably one of the easiest places to get away from it and if it continues in school and you're being bullied in school the schools can then sort it out if they aren't incompetent, but that all depends on if they stop their online campaign. I know high school is different and having recently reconnected with my fathers brother and his family on a more personal level, I've seen some horrible things posted about my 16 year old cousin, I've seen people post other girls rape cases online all because they didn't believe their friend could do it for their friend to be found guilty and watched the hate, which couldn't be escaped because it seeped into her real life, my cousin got harassed non stop and her life threatened, all because she blocked a boy who couldn't take no for an answer, I've watched their mothers make them both apologise online because their behaviour was disgraceful. I think though that's the fine line between aging into an adult, where you don't really care about what you're doing and you'll make mistakes regarding other people but you will regret what you did. When you're a teen dealing with both social and online all in one it can get toxic very quickly and the only thing that you can do is remove and block and hope they give up. All in all, it is just bullying verging on harassment on this level and when you are in school I think that there needs to be a level of online safety the schools are taking with you to protect you, at least in school hours and if it is a police case being exposed that's still being undertaken then they should do more to protect both sides in these cases too. If you're an adult still undertaking these activities, that's a whole heap of why haven't you grown up? Theres a difference between a joke and a barrage of abuse and it is sad to see that you're in your 20s for instance and you still haven't realised you're behaving like a 14 year old and if your behaviour and you are ever found out, you could lose a lot more than your anonymity online. If you're an adult who thinks you're suffering from cyber bullying, its your job to learn that you are in control of the way people act towards you, you can block them, remove them as your friends, you can erase these people and if it continues into ongoing harassment then get the police involved, but a joke you don't like isnt bullying, an argument that didn't go your way isnt bullying, how people act towards you isnt bullying and how people change towards you isnt bullying and that's your job to assess and decide what you can and cannot cope with. As an adult, I definitely feel like theres no excuse to bully or be bullied online, I feel there is only harassment, but as a teen in school, I do think its harder to avoid and fix.
  19. Well yeah I agree and they should see that they have a responsibility. However the market always regulates itself. If they start going mad on censoring, you'll see that they'll lose customers. If they have a left leaning bias, well, we have a conservative government meaning that the majority of people are conservative. There are quite a lot of press intended for a Conservative audience like The Daily Telegraph and many other ones. If they start censoring more right wing beliefs and what's considered freedom of speech, the press will get point it out. They'll probably lose customers and people's demand for a free speech platform will grow and someone will come and fill that market demand with another site. What is probably going to happen however is that Facebook will give in and go back at being a free platform because they are business that depends on its constumers. Although wanting the government to regulate big companies is something that someone who favours big government will say, someone who's anti-buisness. If most of their twitter's customers want a bully free site then it's their right to do so and a good business decision. All they are doing is listening to their costumers. I'll either accept the rules or use a different website. The free market will regulate itself if they go off their rails. Trust me unless we avoid controlling the web, it'll provide a free platform, somewhere. If youtube goes mad with censoring then another site will pop up to fill that demand. Also I disagree with the whole notion of they are an essential service. Any other website can do what they do. I could survive without Facebook for a week. I've done for years in the past. I just like to debate people and comment on stuff but I can do that elsewhere anyway. I could text my mates, I don't need messenger for that.
  20. I agree for the most part that yes, private companies can do as they like. If they don't want you to say things on their platform, then they can remove you from that platform. That's their right. However, when you have a company such as Facebook, it is a company that is so big, and the product is no longer just any other website. Facebook is something that pretty much everyone you meet in the UK or US has. I don't think any of my family don't have it, even the ones that can barely work their phones or a computer. Facebook is a part of normal day-to-day life, and because of that, it has so much influence over what people see and over what people think. An example would be: If during the election this year Facebook decided the Tories were disgusting and they were only going to promote positive Labour stories, and they were going to block all posts that showed the Tory's in a positive light, Facebook would actually manipulate people into seeing political parties a certain way, and in turn, they would manipulate how the election went down. Yes, they're a private company, but they're too big to be allowed to wield that amount of influence however they see fit. YouTube is maybe not as big of a deal, although there's certainly a similar sort of argument to be made since there are really no viable alternatives to Facebook at the moment (not because they don't exist, but because the userbases aren't big enough). But Facebook is certainly a company that needs to be kept in check. The company itself and how it operates should still be free to do absolutely anything it wants, but the actual service is at a point where it just isn't right to let them have all that power to manipulate the way that people see the world. Facebook is so big that even when you go into restaurants and most other public places, they all have Facebook logos on the walls. Even movie trailers tell you to check out Facebook at the end, and it's constant on the TV and on the radio. Facebook is an ingrained service now. It is no longer just a regular old website. The only other website I feel this strongly about is Google. If Google decides to censor certain search results, they can influence far too much. They have too much influence over the world. I'm talking solely about Google Search Engine here, not YouTube or any other Google owned websites. Other than Google or Facebook, the argument is very strong to say websites can do as they please. But That will not stop me from bombarding them with hate or critique over making decisions that I deem to be horrendous. But yeah, all I'm getting at is that both Google and Facebook are both far too prominent in everyday life to be considered any old company/website. The way things are right now, they are almost an essential service.
  21. We've all heard the term, but what does it actually mean, and what should the repercussions be for it (if any)? It's no secret that I'm of the mindset that cyberbullying isn't really a thing. Bullying is a thing, but I don't believe cyberbullying is. Now there's a few points and examples I'd like to give on this. So first, let's talk about what actual bullying is. When I think of bullying, I think of a kid in school being verbally picked on every day, perhaps even physically assaulted. I think of an odd kid being left out of everything because no one wants to talk to them. I think of a kid sitting at the front of a classroom and hearing people gossip about them and saying nasty things from the back of the classroom. Everything I think of is a situation in which the victim has no way to reasonably escape. They can't just stop going to school, and they can't be expected to never go outside again. That's what makes bullying so awful. The fact that there's no way to escape it. If it were as simple as just making it stop and never experience it from those people again, then it wouldn't be bullying. Instead, those single altercations would be just that: altercations. Those people would be harassing you, not bullying you. Now, imagine you're on Twitter, then randomly someone starts tweeting you a bunch of insults and being nasty to you. Are you seriously going to compare that to what we just described where a kid is being treated like shit every day and can't escape it? If you're on Twitter, all you have to do is hit the block button, then you'll never hear from them again. Oh, but what if they make another account, you ask? Well then you block that account, or you set your account to private. There is always a way of escaping these altercations online. The only time you cannot escape these situations online, is when the people who are being nasty to you online, are people from your offline life. If someone random person on Twitter says "I'm going to beat you up tomorrow", you can just block them and move on. You don't have to think anything of it. You don't know them. But if it's someone from your school who sends that same message to you, suddenly you're going to start worrying about going to school tomorrow. This would be a form of bullying. The thing is, the only reason that it is bullying, is because it is directly influencing your offline life, meaning that you cannot escape it. That's what makes it bullying. There is nothing 'cyber' about it. Sure, the initial message was made online, but it was made online about a future offline altercation. I think it is insulting to call this sort of thing 'cyberbullying'. I think it demeans victims of actual bullying when you use this term. As far as punishments and the law goes, I think it's a very hard area to police. There's a very fine line between policing actual harassment online and policing free speech. I'm strongly of the opinion that so long as you do not use your words to threaten or encourage others to physically harm another person, then you should be able to say whatever you want with absolutely no legal repercussions. It doesn't matter if you are saying black people are scum, and it doesn't matter if you're calling someone and ugly whale. So long as you are not threatening or inciting violence against another person, you should be able to say anything. So sure, a bunch of people might be being horrible to you online. Maybe they're insulting you every day for years on end. In the end, I think you need to grow thicker skin. If you're too weak for that then block them. If you can't block them, stop using the same websites as them. If you can't do that, close your computer.
  22. There has been a debate over non-offending pedophiles being allowed to own a sex doll that represents a young child. Is it wrong to the point that it should be illegal? Would allowing pedophiles using that doll enable their desires and eventually lead them into sexually assaulting children? If they become illegal isn't that really going against liberty, they are not hurting anyone are they? Should the dolls be allowed but regulated toughly? __________________ I would personally discourage any pedophile from using a child sex doll because it is messed up beyond comprehension however I can't say that I stand for Liberty and say child sex dolls should be criminalised when it fact they don't go against the non-aggression principle of libertarianism. It is a weird issue but I believe the production and distribution of them should be regulated to ensure they are not promoted and not sold to children themselves. I am willing to be persuaded. If you think they shouldn't be regulated at all try to persuade me, if you think they should be illegal try to persuade me also.
  23. This is a debate on which political ideology is more beneficial for the economy, capitalism or socialism. Cast your votes before posting and then proceed to debate. In two weeks time this topic will lock, when that happens, we'll have another round where we vote again and see how this debate thread was successful or unsuccessful for each side of the argument. ________________ Here are two people from the Oxford Union debating such issue. Hopefully this helps you get a footing within this debate. Jeremy Corbin Against Capitalism: Daniel Hannan Against Socialism: _____________________________ I shall be posting my statement for the benefits of capitalism later on this day however I need some time to prepare my statement so it is as comprehensive as I can possibly make it. I wanted to start this debate thread first and see how people pre-vote on this issue first and I thought this thread needed to be made as soon as possible since it is the epitome of debates within our modern society.
  24. Same premise as the music expansion thread, except with political opinions. You rate the one above you on a scale from 1-10 (based on how much you agree) and explain why. You then post a political opinion of your own. I'll start: The world would be a better place if Israel or Oman expanded and took over the entire Middle East.
  25.  
×