Raider5678
-
Posts
2682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Raider5678
-
-
Can any object approach another at greater than light speed?
For instance the two protons racing towards each other in the Large Hadron ColIider. is the gap between them closing faster than c?
Alan
The speed of something is how far it traveled in a certain amount of time, not how fast a gap closes I think.
1 -
Legalization aside, decriminalization and emphasis on rehabilitation is clearly a better path.
Agreed.
0 -
Can you make the distinction between what you support or not personally, and what rights you support in general for the welfare of the people? Because historically, just as many abortions happen whether they're legal or not. It just depends on how safe you want these women to be.
Um, probably much like what happened in Portugal. Or what happened in Colorado, Washington, and several other states and marijuana.
Well then, it shouldn't matter if we make them illegal then eh?
http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931
If thats whats going to happen, we better make sure it NEVER becomes legal, or if it does, it does extremely slowly.
http://katv.com/news/local/new-report-examines-marijuana-legalizations-impact-on-colorado
It seems to be having an opposite effect. There's higher than ever marijuana use in kids, teens, and adults, as well as an 8% increase in traffic fatalities.
http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%20NSDUH%20Results-%20Jan%202016%20Release.pdf
This is a study by the NSDUH.
https://www.rt.com/usa/316148-marijuana-related-deaths-injuries-study/
And another study. Now please note, most of these are literally just the first results that came up, I'm not cherry picking.
And another one, this one done by the police. I haven't gotten a chance to read it all, so I'm not sure what the outcome they think has resulted.
AND then theres this......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-way/colorado-and-marijuana-le_b_6397664.html
Now these guys both supported it, and they seem to be saying the government, studies, math, science, are all wrong. Any ideas?
Also, the point of this legalization was mainly "to bring money to our economy" which apparently it did. In taxes, but it has cost them a whole ton more for law enforcement costs.
0 -
This same argument is used against abortions. Killing embryos is bad, punish those who participate. But in neither case is punishment a deterrent of any significance. Abortions and drug use still happen if you make them illegal, and this also feeds organized crime, and increases risks to safety greatly.
Education is one of the things that can make a big difference. And perhaps if your new government is so perfect, people won't have as many reasons to take drugs or abort unwanted children. This is one reason you should NOT focus on punishment at this point. People are supposed to like this new government, right?
The positive benefits of legal abortions are evident. And Portugal has made possession of small amounts of most drugs legal, with generally positive results. This is the kind of forward thinking a "perfect government" should have. If it's going to happen anyway, educate people about the effects, and start the teaching as young as possible. You'll minimize the problem instead of making more problems via prohibition.
Good idea. Though I'm also against abortions......
Either way, I'm not big on the idea of simply making a small amount of drugs legal so people wont do it, but if it works, then I guess I can't argue. My only problem is what would happen in america if drugs were suddenly all legal?
0 -
There are East Asian countries where the punishment for selling drugs is death and yet they still have a drug trade.
Severity of the punishment does not have a trivial correlation with how frequently people do something. We should also keep in mind that the United States is currently a close second to North Korea in terms of the percentage of our population that we have imprisoned due in large party to mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug users, which is creating a whole host of secondary problems both with our prison industry and the way law enforcement resources are expended.
You also have to decide what drugs you are talking about. Heroin you've said. Ok, how about marijuana? Alcohol? I've known people whose lives were derailed by both, and yet I doubt their lives would have been improved by being arrested for use of each.
Who gets to decide which drugs are ok for people to use and which ones a person will be punished for using? And if you're doing it to help people's lives from being ruined, how does harsher punishment than what we have now accomplish that? We have seatbelt laws to protect people, but you get a ticket for not buckling up, you don't get slapped with felony seatbeltlessness.
If this is meant to be setting goals, why is the goal to punish people for using drugs instead of decreasing the health and social damage that drugs do to people in society? There may be better ways of doing that than punishment, and I'm not sure that creating a government for the express goal of punishing a segment of the population as its reason for existing is getting off to a particularly auspicious start.
You may be right, but if you look back at the outcomes we decided on, we want public safety. Drugs, are in fact, not safe, no matter how much people say they aren't. If punishment is bad, then what would you suggest?
0 -
What about drugs would be punished more harshly? Producing, selling, taking? And especially in the last case, why harsher punishment?
Also, why is punishment a goal in and of itself? I would view punishment as a means to an end: That is, reducing the instances of behaviors that we don't want to see prevalent in society. But there may be other means that work better than punishment for some things.
It's like building a house and saying that one of the things you want for your house is to use at least 1,000 nails in its construction. That's kind of an odd goal to have as a foundational goal.
Drugs, in my opinion, are really not helping anyone. I'm not talking medical drugs, I'm talking Heroine, Cocaine, etc. People die from them, people have been ruined by them, innocent people also die because of them. They create a snowball effect, and it doesn't make a good one either. That's my opinion, and I've seen drugs not only destroy many people's lives, but end them many times.
Also, I'm thinking harsher punishments usually steer people away from doing things. If the penalty for stealing was getting your hand cut off, do you think many people would still do it, or even take it lightly?
And using at least 1,000 nails in the construction of a house doesn't really relate to this. If anything, we're trying to limit the use of them.
0 -
Apart from the obvious, that if we really want a perfect government we wouldn't start from here, it does look difficult to get sufficient agreement on what such a government should be. Dodging the politicians with direct representation sounds good - ought to be popular until it leads to populist votes for policies the public won't vote the funds for or directly contradicts the other thing they just voted for, or leads to unfair persecution of unpopular minorities or for wars without regard for the complications and costs or wars that the declared enemy democratically voted not to have.
Mmmm. Where would you start? I also considered the populist problem, and I believe that we could find ways to prevent that kind of stuff. Like not giving the public the decision to start a nuclear war or not. I mean, that's just a minor opinion but....... Also, maybe it WOULD be a bad idea, but we'll discuss that when we get to it eh?
Also, instead of simply saying it could never work, try and do stuff to figure out how it might work, and while doing that figure out the problems.
I would like to add:
Limited Regulations
Harsher Punishments to Rape of a minor.
Harsher Punishments to Drunk Driving
Harsher Punishments to Drugs.
to the list. Any objections? We can decided on the punishments when we get there, and what regulations we would need and stuff like that.
0 -
Not to jump ahead, but you have to keep in mind that you need a definition for what qualifies at murder. And because definitions can often be somewhat blurry and subject to unforeseen circumstances, having a completely immutable and unchangeable under any circumstances set of rules is rarely a good idea when establishing a government.
(I had to get that in on behalf of an old friend of mine. I was involved with an online political sim for quite a few years and wrote several documents outlining government structures that were used to organize players and had a friend I'd bounce ideas off of whose big thing was amendment processes).
I did take that into account. I figured only basic law that we today think should never be broken should be added, and the definitions could change. I rarely do things without a back door, as I'm a person whose ideas rarely work, but I also don't really like pointing out the backdoors. THough in this case, Maybe we could come up with a perfect definition, I'm still not sure.
0 -
If we are to start with desired outcomes first I think no war, poverty, or discrimination are the main goals. Lets not kill people, lets ensure everyone has basic needs, and we accomplish this without discriminating against any specific group(s).
How do we accomplish that desired goal? @ Raider5678, from where are we starting from scratch or from present day present world?
Well, I would agree with not starting a war with someone for no reason, but I think should it be a matter of destruction or survival of us or an ally, we intervene to prevent the worst. Eliminating poverty is going to be hard. Giving people jobs would work better then welfare, but we'll cover that later. No poverty has been added to the list.
I'm not sure who is being harmed by the nudity in that hypothetical.
Why would you need to make another law barring acts which are probably already going to be illegal under your government ie murder, torture, etc? That seems redundant. And so long as the followers of the religion do not perform rituals which would be considered illegal why couldn't they be allowed the freedom to practice?
I thought about that. The problem is that if a religion's main purpose is to do stuff like that, I would say not. Take Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, they would be fine. I think if a religion is dangerous, it shouldn't be hard to tell. The problem with that religion is that even though satanic rituals are not allowed in the united states, the satanic religion is. And when people become so endorsed in the simple teaching "If you don't do as stated in the holy book, you will spend all of eternity in hell." That motivates people to do those things. Obviously only with insane people, but it's still motivating you to do them.
What if someone decides worshipping a god or gods is disturbing? Where does the line of "disturbing" get drawn? How is "disturbing" defined? Is it just "things I don't like?" Because that is going to vary wildly from person to person and be subject to rather extreme abuse if the court decides to just ban all religions that the people on it decide they don't personally like.
Now where would you draw the line of disturbing? I would say the court can say its "disturbing" if it involves things most people would find horrifying, deadly, inappropriate.... Yeah, let's kick this one out. Bad idea.
Given that other laws would probably cover most anything wrong a religion could do, why is there any need to treat religion any differently than stamp-collecting, or business/lodge meetups, or bowling leagues?
See my other post.
Below are the desired outcomes so far.
Since nobody wants to start, I will......
No discrimination.
Religious freedom.
Public safety.
Guns allowed, though regulated.
Add some more guys.
Direct democracy, little politicians needed.
Well funded space program.
Universal health care
For UHC, we could easily combine the best parts of what they do in UK, Canada, Taiwan, France, Australia, and Sweden.
To the thread: Instant Run-Off voting becomes required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Truth in advertising laws.
No more gerrymandering.
Tight limits on time spent fund raising.
Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.
Make voting compulsory.
Make election days national paid holidays.
I've shared several ideas in other threads elsewhere. These are just a few off the top of my mind this morning.
If we are to start with desired outcomes first I think no war, poverty, or discrimination are the main goals. Lets not kill people, lets ensure everyone has basic needs, and we accomplish this without discriminating against any specific group(s).
How do we accomplish that desired goal? @ Raider5678, from where are we starting from scratch or from present day present world?
Heres a list of the desired outcomes so far. Let's just come up with them first, and once we have a large list, we will go over each one and decide it ifs a good one or not, and specific details.
Here's the list:
No discrimination.
Religious Freedom.
Public Safety.
Guns allowed.
Direct Democracy.
Funded Space Program. (I would love this)
Universal Health Care.
Truth in advertising laws.
No more gerrymandering.
Tight limits on time spent fundraising.
Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.
Make voting compulsory.
Make election days national paid holidays.
No war.
No poverty.
That IS the list so far. Add some more. Remember, we are ONLY coming up with them first, then we will go over them 2 or 3 at a time, discussing specifics. Also, if you object to a current outcome, we will discuss it later, and you can state your objections. After we do this, I'm not sure what we do then. Maybe come up with some laws. Also, while thinking about some laws, I think we should have a document that CAN NOT be changed, edited, or over ruled. Like, murder is illegal, etc. Simple stuff. Just to get that out of the way.
0 -
For UHC, we could easily combine the best parts of what they do in UK, Canada, Taiwan, France, Australia, and Sweden.
To the thread: Instant Run-Off voting becomes required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Truth in advertising laws.
No more gerrymandering.
Tight limits on time spent fund raising.
Required percentage of every dollar spent used to find ways to make system being legislated/implemented more efficient.
Make voting compulsory.
Make election days national paid holidays.
I've shared several ideas in other threads elsewhere. These are just a few off the top of my mind this morning.
I would agree win truth in advertising laws, not really sure what you mean by no gerrymandering. I know the definition, but I don't understand it very well. By tight limits on time spent fundraising, do you mean for already elected officials, or ones running for election? I would say a percentage of the budget rather than the dollar, but it's about the same thing. I would agree for compulsory voting, and election days national paid holidays.
Also, what would you consider the best parts of their health cares?
Did it ever stop being involved?
What constitutes discrimination? How will you enforce it? What kinds of punishments or rehabilitation will be available?
What does it mean to have religious freedom?
What will you do to keep the public safe?
How will you regulate guns?
Discrimination would be classified as "A different treatment of any sentient person, creature, or thing based solely on the differences between the discriminator and the discriminated, whether it be gender, color, size, or religion." I'm sure i'm missing some stuff, so feel free to modify until we all agree that it covers everything fairly.
Religious freedom would be "the freedom to practice religious practices anytime, anywhere, for any reason, as long as that religious practice doesn't break any laws, or is ruled disturbing by the court." I.E. RUnning in circles naked to pray to gods. That would be ruled disturbing. Satanic rituals are in my opinion disturbing. You? Also, if a religion constitutes human sacrifices, murder, torture, etc, I would say we make it illegal. We would have to refine that part, but you guys get the idea right?
Public safety would include police, hospitals, firefighters, etc.
For gun control, read the last few pages.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/
0 -
Direct democracy, little politicians needed.
Well funded space program.
Universal health care
How would you get a "Direct democracy" to work?
Also, what are your standards for universal heathcare?
0 -
Since nobody wants to start, I will......
No discrimination.
Religious freedom.
Public safety.
Guns allowed, though regulated.
Add some more guys.
0 -
I read the point differently, namely that ones right to self defense is often mistakenly conflated with and falsely asserted as equivalent to ones right to firearm ownership.
They are related, but their limited in their relationship. The founding fathers couldn't have meant you could use your gun to shoot the intruder. Back then it took 20 seconds to load the gun if you were really quick! They meant you could have it for milita use. If someone were to invade america today, while we wouldn't be able to completely stop invaders if their military, we could put some SERIOUS hassle in doing so. Hunters have rifles that could shoot from long distances, so they would have to make sure if they ever traveled it would have to be in armoured vehicles, or out in the wide open where hunters couldn't hide. WHich is just about nowhere. They would have to SLOWLY invade america using guerrilla tactics, which would be next to impossible due to our sheer size, and the fact we have a powerful military that could easily fight most armies. Obviously there are exceptions. If say for example, China, Russia, England, France, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc all invaded, we wouldn't stand much of a chance. And it wouldn't take anywhere near that many either. But that's just a point. They could also nuke us, with the risk of getting blown up themselves, which they would also risk the same thing if they invaded. In other words, it DOES offer protection, but its limited to a wide scale invasion pretty much. Or a rebellion, which wouldn't do anything.
0 -
Planetary Cracker Miner
I would build a planetary collapsing mechanism that would have the ability to encapsulate full planets and then by using a combination between LASERS!! and advanced drilling technologies I would then destroy the planet and then use awesomely efficient resource collection mechanisms to collect all the debris from the planet wide drilling process.
This is how is works..
1) Find Planet
2) Expand Planetary Cracker Miner ( P.C.M )
3) Enclose P.C.M around entire planet
4) Start drilling process
- During Drilling process start Resource Collection System
- Turn on Resource Collection Bay
5) Continue drilling, destroying planet until there are no resources left.
You would practically have to make one of those, collect a planet, just to get the resources to make it. Not really, it's just gonna take a TON of stuff to make it. Also, welcome to scienceforums
0 -
Hello guys, I wanted to try something.
Now this is going to seem a little odd, but I think it would be fun. I would like to try and create a "perfect" government. Now obviously it won't be PERFECT to everyone, but it would do the best to make everyone happy, while also presenting the best possible life for the people ruled under it. I.E. protection, education, good living conditions, etc. Now someone once told me that the best way for deciding on whats good is too come up with that desired outcome, and then create the path to that desired outcome. So to get started, I would like it if we came up with our thoughts of a perfect government, then create "laws" and stuff like that to get that desired outcome.
After we get the outcome, we will work on all the details to this "government" until we have a government we wouldn't mind living in if it was real. Once again, obviously it won't be your "perfect" government, but it should be good enough to like.
Now as a basic rule, if this topic ever does get started, your not going to get exactly what you want. Thats why we will decided on a compromise.DO NOT BE UNMOVABLE. An example would be gun control. While 1 person may be all guns blazing with few gun control laws, someone else may want NO guns whatsoever. We would try and come with a compromise, rather then simply stating what we want and nothing else. (as a note, public safety should be one of the outcomes we want. Meaning either no guns at all, or heavy safety laws IMO.)
So, anyone who wants to start, just start coming up with an idea on how you want the life people living in it would have, and we will start from there.
A draft of the government will be contained below:
0 -
You kind of already do via your taxes.
I'm about 5 years away from paying taxes
0 -
Well you have displayed one problem with worshipping the Christian god: it is another tool for us to manifest our primal 'us' versus 'them' mentality. While there are teachings in the monotheistic faiths that preach tolerance, the emphasis seems to be on segregation. While i do not doubt this violent aspect of our nature would manifest without religions, many religions feed rather than quench the tendency. I am not saying you are violent; but already you have displayed a religiously based 'us' versus 'them' mentality which could be exploited by charismatic religious leaders in the right circumstances - this is how religious extremists are groomed.
Also, staying on topic, many religions make it a requirement that salvation is attained through faith. While many religious people seem able to perform the mental gymnastics required to give faith primacy in one aspect of life and evidence in another, there are some (creationists) who will deliberately muddy the waters making it harder for the general population to understand what counts as evidence in science.
Both my arguments are intended to convey that while religion can be beneficial at the level of the individual, it seems detrimental on a population level in the modern world.
http://www.persecution.comThis is your idea of acceptance?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/
Now, where's this persecution of Christians then?
Let's see some evidence.
Maybe there's a biased against Muslims, which is wrong, but people in political positions have repeatedly blamed christians for things, while saying we want to kill Muslims, murder others yadayadayada. Also, in the Koran it says to kill all infedels, and infidels are people who do not believe in allah. They're out to get you. Not really. While it does say to kill infidels, some of the Muslims don't listen to that, and are called shitites. They are the peaceful ones, and the mean ones do what their holy book tells them. Also, why is it discrimination against people usually only goes one way? Us vs them mentality, where they only show one side, while making Tue other side seem demonic.
So something CANNOT be true just because something else might be true? Hmmmm.Huh, I always thought fire gave off light too. I guess it conflicts with science. Oh well.
What are you talking about? It does not say anything about fire. The creation story in Genesis says God made light on the first day, but didn't make the light source (the sun) until the fourth day. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make that seem right.
There also evidence of a "super tsunami" that might be the great flood.
The book specifically says God sent RAIN upon the Earth and flooded it. While I agree that its likely that a lot of these ancient flood myths (because there are more than just the Christian/Jewish one) probably were the result of primitive people who lived in the Mesopotamian and were subject to tsunamis and floods. However, the Geological column does not support the notion of a global flood ever taking place. No other cultures outside of the one in this very small part of the globe seem to recognize this flood ever happened.
And classes of things don't really count. For a LONG time people classified anything that flew and wasn't an insect a bird, so if after a while we separated everything, would the bible have to magically change too? It worked until we separate mammals and reptiles.
Why not? If the Bible was inspired my an omniscient deity, why is it filled with vague, unclear descriptions of things and partial-truths? Why is it that humans can write much better, well-developed, and informative books? Wouldn't a book that was the perfect word of an all-powerful, all-knowing God be much more clear about what it means? Especially when said God is threatening to torture you for an eternity for not believing it. You are basically proving my point with your answers here because you are taking what the book says and using facts and science to try and make some meaning out of it. Its a sort of post-hoc rationalization.http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
Yeah, you see the Hebrew language wasn't the most advanced. To them, hand ment from your finger tips to your elbow, which what, your going to claim the bible is wrong because the Hebrew language doesn't translate well?
I think this definitely takes some credibility away from it, yes. If you're a God who wants the people you created to have your message, why deliver it to an illiterate group of ancient barbarians in iron-age middle east? Why not give it to modern humans who can understand it better? If this God exists, then he is the most capricious, and ineffective communicator I can imagine.
At the end of the day it boils down to this. In order to be in science and still be religious, there must be some profound cognitive dissonance going on. When you find something in the bible that is just patently untrue, you have to find an "interpretation" for it that turns it into a metaphor or an allegory. But often when it says something that does match reality, people don't say its a metaphor, they take it to mean what it actually says. So if you're just going to reinterpret the things you know don't match reality just to try to justify keeping your religion, then the religion becomes practically useless because it is not really giving you anything of substance.
Also, what is so unclear by saying a bat is a bird? What's so confusing that your mind can't absord it? In the bible, once again, a bird is anytin that can fly but isn't an insect.
0 -
Crowd funding NASA.... People like crowd funding because it makes them feel good."I donated to cure cancer!" Tends to make people feel better then saying "I donated to advance science!"
That's my opinion. I would crowdfund NASA though if it were an option
0 -
Would you be an advocate or an obstacle if people tried to change laws to make this example set by you and your family a legally required minimum practice for all citizens?
No. Well maybe they could use 1 safe if they aren't very rich, but at least 1 safe, and they can only have a gun that fits inside their safe. No rifles if you only have a pistol safe.
1 -
So you would just accept that life just is. There's nothing special about it, nothing seperating us from the rock ouisde our doors. Also, the bible says we have the ability to reason, which puts us above animals. I believe in God. The christian God. If you don't, that's fine, and if I do, what does of matter? I still get great grades, and I am not a irrational murderous lunatic as people would have you believe. Christians are discriminated against, Muslims are accepted, and life goes on. They blamed a christian movie for a terrorist attack. There's always things we can find wrong with something. And since there are inconsistences in the bible, maybe you think its wrong, but I don't. So I ask a question to you. Why did christians let them selves be tortured, crucified, murdered, slaughtered, boiled alive, just because of something that couldn't be true because of science.@Raider5678, when I posted earlier that I get confuse when I read the things you wrote, I meant confuse in the sense of being flabbergasted, like shaking my head in total disbelief. It is a tedious exercise for the more enlightened and those who are more scientifically inclined among us to point out the many fallacies in just those few lines that you posted yesterday, which is why it is easier to just refer you to other, existing sources and hope for the best. Do you know when and how our universe started, how stars were formed, more or less how long it took for the light from the stars to become visible here on earth, do you know when and how our solar system came into existence, do you accept evolution and if so, do the implications thereof sink in (like Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, no original or inherited sin, in fact seeing that we are animals we can "sin" only as much as the next animal...zilch, therefore no need for Jesus to have died for humanity's sins, etc.pp? DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC MERITS OF WHAT I HAVE JUST POSED TO YOU?
What is it about christians that people hate so much that they would kill, mutilate, and torture them?
0 -
To mention something, I'll dig another trap and jump in to see what happens.
I AM a kid. I was taught what guns are, how to safely use them, and to NEVER touch one without their permission. Now we keep it inside a large gun safe, downstairs, that you can't get to quietly. None of the guns are loaded, the ammunition is all separate and at a different spot in another safe, and nobody knows the passwords to either of the safes. Now is this proper gun control in your opinion?
0 -
Try here. May be worth necromancing: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62573-a-modern-constitutional-convention-global-or-local/page-1
I looked at it, didn't get a chance to read ALL of it. I think we have a pretty diverse set of people here already don't you think? Either way, necromancing this thread doesn't really seem like a ideal option to me, I kind of want to start a thread solely for the purpose of designing a government, what do you think?
P.S. While I don't really agree with all your political opinions, you are quite reasonable IMO. So is phi.
We may not be able to get it perfect, but we can do everything we can to think of what may come. Consider cloning. It might be controversial in the future, so we could decided what to do now, though it may be a little odd.... And balancing is something I think possible. There's always going g to be stubborn people unwilling to change, but we should probably accept their input, and if they refuse to do anything but state one thing, we just ignore him for that part.That's an exceptionally difficult task as it depends heavily on both the circumstances of the country in question and the goals of person designing the government.
Geography, economy, neighboring countries, natural resources, technology, size, population, and culture all play into the shape a government needs to take in order to effectively shape society, and what a perfect society even looks like is going depend on who you ask.
Given a stated goal and a set circumstances, you can potentially design a government to maximize the chances of that goal succeeding, but even that can be incredibly difficult with circumstances liable to develop over time in unforeseeable ways. With those constraints, it's effectively an impossible task.
This isn't even addressing an issue of governmental philosophy or structure but rather a single, fairly narrow policy position, and even that doesn't have a truly correct answer because it depends on what you want. Is gun ownership something you want to preserve? How much are you willing to curtail it in the name of restricting gun violence? How much additional gun violence are you willing to accept in order to maintain some level of popular ownership? Are you willing to implement regulations on gun manufacturing?
There are trade offs to everything and how much you are willing to accept of one thing over another, or whether you even consider some outcome of a policy to be a positive or negative depends heavily on what you want and believe.
The policies that we have are rarely the result of someone working out a perfect policy position, because few people can agree on what one would even look like, and more often the result of competing interests trying to balance each other out with many people rarely getting precisely what they would like.
Either way, that's why we would debate on an agreeable position. Besides who's to say we won't debate on government structure and stuff like that?
0 -
Perfect according to whom?
Well, I figured we would all debate on disagreeable issues until we came to an agreeable position on this issue. I.E. gun control, we debate and end up with guns allowed, but require extensive background checks, proper storage placements, tiggerlocks, etc. Which don't discuss this, its just an example.
0 -
Once again, this serves as a useful reminder not to get our panties in a twist or wrapped around the axle over a boogeymanified term and instead focus on the details and best most efficient path to achieve the desired outcome.
We should make a topic and design the perfect government.
0
Making a perfect Government
in Politics
Posted
Mmmm.. Proof?
You know, you seem to love starting controversies, and joining them too. What would you have us do? Make drugs legal, decriminalize them 100%? We already discussed that. Now are you're telling us, saying drugs are bad and making them illegal, results in more deaths than just letting them go? Your including driving accidents, murders, overdoses, gang wars, innocent people, etc?