Make a Case for Something you Oppose!

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

Okay, you silly basterds

 

This is the idea:

 

Make a case for something that you "oppose", politically, socially, culturally, scientifically, whatever.  I'm not saying how you should do it.  Just do it in your own way.  Enlighten/entertain us with your ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes!  Serious attempts are preferred, but I ain't gonna cry if you make me laugh. 

 

Okay, so here's the format I would suggest:

 

- State what you believe (I support/believe/ascribe to "such and such")

- Then make an argument for the opposite, opposed, or divergent opinion from your own.

 

I'll go first:

 

MY BELIEF: "Climate Change is a political hoax that has nothing to do with actual, real environmental issues."

 

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: "Conspiracy theories always abound, and are always fueled by people who are not qualified to make the judgments that they seem so comfortable making.  The reality is: the vast majority of scientists around the world acknowledge Climate Change as not only a real and present issue, but the most pressing enviromental issue of our times.  Most countries around the world have been coming together to try to reduce CO2 emissions, knowing that in doing so they're not only saving the many great species of our world, but also saving ourselves as well.  Ocean levels will continue to rise if we do nothing.  Temperatures will continue to rise if we do nothing.  By the end of this century, previously established coastlines/countries will be underwater, and temperatures will be so high that agriculture will be drastically affected and curbed.  We will have serious trouble feeding our ever-growing populace.  All these stresses will result in increased local and regional disputes between various factions and countries, resulting in an overall state of chaos in the world that will victimize the vast majority of billions too poor to shelter themselves.  In short, we MUST curb fossil fuel energy usage as much as possible and transition to as green economy as soon as possible, in order to stem the inevitable advent of a world that has lost its climate equilibrium and thus descends into dystopia."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

My belief: gatorman's an idiot.

 

Devil's advocate: it should be impossible for any single person to be as stupid as he and survive.  So he may very well be two, three, or even as many as five idiots.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

41 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

My belief: gatorman's an idiot.

 

Devil's advocate: it should be impossible for any single person to be as stupid as he and survive.  So he may very well be two, three, or even as many as five idiots.

 

I will take that, thank you for responding!  I feared no one would at all!

 

As a side note, I'm curious about your numerical theory of idiots, as in, how do you differentiate between sequential idiots?

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but surely, even if you don't have an established framework of idiocy, it might behoove someone of your nature to brainstorm about such an universal framework of idiocy?

 

Just spitballin' here.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

My belief: gatorman's an idiot.

 

Devil's advocate: it should be impossible for any single person to be as stupid as he and survive.  So he may very well be two, three, or even as many as five idiots.

 

I considered going this route, but all I could come up with as a Devil's Advocate rebuttal was that he's not merely just an idiot, but a colossal !@#$ing moron.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Unconsious bias training:

 

Holy Good God...

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/16/starbucks-promises-staff-training-after-racial-profiling-incident/520201002

 

First thing that came to mind were the "Lane Byrant Murders"... Maybe they had too much "unconscious bias" training and needed to be sent to "conscious bias" training... A little background:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-lane-bryant-anniversary-st-0202-20180201-story.html

 

I am probably blowing the doors off the conservatives here that know me as a "liberal"...

Start messing with people's natural mechanisms, ie: "their gut" instincts... And trouble will arise.

I am not making a connection between these two incidents other than people make judgement calls on what they feel is right.  Obviously, the Starbucks manager was way out there and called it wrong... The manager (now ex-manager) at Starbucks is a female... But training to start altering their "gut" feeling is IMO not the right road to go down.

I use the Lane Bryant incident because it has been hypothesized (survivior), with the women innvolved, to have not followed their gut with regard to that situation. Women taught to assume to see "the good" in everybody and not trust their gut instincts (like suppressing racial profiling) can lead to dire consequences. Now we want to train everybody like that?  Forget about what's observational in one's life?  I can understand the understand the need to weed the racism out of people.

I am not paranoid... But I pose these questions mainly to my fellow liberals. As liberals, do you really see any good coming from this?

It's not a perfect world... People's biases are determined by oberservational behaviors around them and the thugs of all race and color are watching.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is harder than it sounds.

 

 

[Azalin]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

This is harder than it sounds.

 

 

 

That's what she said.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

That's what she said.

 

You're damned right she did.

 

[Azalin]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

You're damned right she did.

 

 

  You had to know that was coming.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

  You had to know that was coming.

 

haha it had slipped my mind.

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

This is harder than it sounds.

 

 

 

It was hard for me because I don't have beliefs.  I have empirical observations.  The only contrary argument to empirical observation is "I'm delusional."

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

  You had to know that was coming.

 

That's what she said.

[Azalin]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

That's what she said.

 

 

I would have been sorely disappointed had nobody said that.

[3rdnlng]

This whole conversation is like a bunch of men squirting. Sit down, pee and get back to work.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This whole conversation is like a bunch of men squirting. Sit down, pee and get back to work.

 

That's...not what she said.

[Paulus]

Nate Peterman is going to be an NFL star QB. There. I am not going to use facts and science to back it up. 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

These sorts of intellectual exercise are always fun.  I'll play later. 

[IDBillzFan]

My belief: Unions have overstayed their welcome in the US, and it is time for them to all be disbanded. In lieu of being fully disbanded, it should be illegal for any company or government entity to make new hires have union dues pulled from their paycheck  as a condition of employment.

 

Devil's Advocate: Many people are too lazy and stupid to think for themselves, and by paying union dues, they get to do the least amount of work on the backs of the hardest working Americans, and don't ever have to think about anything because the union bosses lay out their thoughts for them like Giselle lays out Tom's* evening attire. Plus, if you eliminate unions, how will the DNC find another way to launder money to be filtered back to the DNC?

 

'Merica.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum

Quote

 

Abstract

We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup's morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups.

 

 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum

 

I dunno, "Conservatism" is basically whatever Trump says it is now. Polls show that if Trump likes something, Conservative Republicans either like it, or will after Hannity and Fox propagate the idea. 

 

 

[The_Dude]

I think we should increase Islamic immigration to this country so that our children can learn what constant terrorism is like, and once our country is ruined we can all think about how awful we were for so long with all of our white privilege. Between that and the ashes of our loved ones I’m quite sure we’ll all be better for the added diversity. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by The_Dude

[/dev/null]

My Belief: I'm not saying it was Aliens

 

Devils Advocate: But it was Aliens

[Cinga]

Devil's Advocate:

The American People want a true Democracy. Almost a century ago we made headway towards Democracy by electing the Senate by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures. It's now time to disband the Electoral College as a means to elect the President, and use only the popular vote.

Once this is accomplished, we can finally have a true majority rule in this nation, and I think by majority vote, agree that the Constitution is an outdated historical document that is past it's time and we can begin to pass common sense legislation the majority of us agree must happen to welcome the US into the Global Community that will help to eliminate borders and keep Americans safe.

 

Edit:.... have to add, that was depressing to write, but we are dangerously close to it happening

Edited April 19, 2018 by Cinga

[snafu]

My belief: humans are generally kind and caring souls.

 

Devil's advocate:  nancy pelosi.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

My belief: Mediasphere Politics is a circus, meant to distract us from what the bastards are really doing.  Fox, CNN, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, all of these outlets are owned and operated by a small amount of corporations, who themselves are owned by a small amount of banks, whose shareholders have bloodlines that are old AF and untouchable.

 

Devil's Advocate: Never mind.

On 4/18/2018 at 9:23 PM, snafu said:

My belief: humans are generally kind and caring souls.

 

Devil's advocate:  nancy pelosi.

 

C'mon, you got more than that!  What is it about Nancy Pelosi that you HATE so much?  Use some adjectives!

On 4/18/2018 at 9:06 PM, Cinga said:

Devil's Advocate:

The American People want a true Democracy. Almost a century ago we made headway towards Democracy by electing the Senate by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures. It's now time to disband the Electoral College as a means to elect the President, and use only the popular vote.

Once this is accomplished, we can finally have a true majority rule in this nation, and I think by majority vote, agree that the Constitution is an outdated historical document that is past it's time and we can begin to pass common sense legislation the majority of us agree must happen to welcome the US into the Global Community that will help to eliminate borders and keep Americans safe.

 

Edit:.... have to add, that was depressing to write, but we are dangerously close to it happening

 

Sorry for the mistake with the last quote.  Anyway, you do understand that a straight vote will mean that all presidents will be elected by the cities, right?  This is the reason for the Electoral College: so that city folk can't just elect every president at their whim.  That's the point.  There's almost 400 million people in this country, a lot of them in the cities, but most of them NOT.  What you want to do is disenfranchise them, essentially.

 

We are either a nation of 50 STATES, or we're not.

 

 

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

Sorry for the mistake with the last quote.  Anyway, you do understand that a straight vote will mean that all presidents will be elected by the cities, right?  This is the reason for the Electoral College: so that city folk can't just elect every president at their whim.  That's the point.  There's almost 400 million people in this country, a lot of them in the cities, but most of them NOT.  What you want to do is disenfranchise them, essentially.

 

We are either a nation of 50 STATES, or we're not.

 

 

Yes, I am totally aware of that, which is why I posted it as something I am totally against :-)

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

12 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Yes, I am totally aware of that, which is why I posted it as something I am totally against :-)

 

Yes... I see that now.  My Bad and my apologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by {::'KayCeeS::}

[row_33]

The electoral college and the apportionment of Congressional Reps and Senators are all on on the same wavelength of defeating the tyranny of the majority 

 

the goal was to overcome the self-interest of the obviously powerful preventing the peaceful implementation of just arguments by the minority and less powerful view

 

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

On 4/18/2018 at 9:06 PM, Cinga said:

Devil's Advocate:

The American People want a true Democracy. Almost a century ago we made headway towards Democracy by electing the Senate by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures. It's now time to disband the Electoral College as a means to elect the President, and use only the popular vote.

Once this is accomplished, we can finally have a true majority rule in this nation, and I think by majority vote, agree that the Constitution is an outdated historical document that is past it's time and we can begin to pass common sense legislation the majority of us agree must happen to welcome the US into the Global Community that will help to eliminate borders and keep Americans safe.

 

Edit:.... have to add, that was depressing to write, but we are dangerously close to it happening

There's some things I'd add to that.  First off, each state already has two Senators representing them regardless of population to that so their problems aren't completely being ignored at the Federal level.  Also, as an American it does suck for people who live in NY, TX, or CA that there vote means less than a person's in Iowa.  If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Utah your vote probably isn't going to count so why even bother voting.  Small states and swing states get more power. 

 

I've always struggled with this debate.  Just thinking we wouldn't of had George Bush Jr. if it wasn't for the electoral college makes me sick to my stomach.  However, we were founded as a Republic and not a Democracy.  Presidential candidates would only show and cater to the states with the biggest populations.  Fly over country would feel largely ignored.  It wouldn't be the end of the world if we got rid of the electoral college as each state still gets two Senators, but I'd prefer the electoral college even though it's favored Republicans lately.  It's what makes us unique compared to just about every Democratic country.

[/dev/null]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

There's some things I'd add to that.  First off, each state already has two Senators representing them regardless of population to that so their problems aren't completely being ignored at the Federal level.  Also, as an American it does suck for people who live in NY, TX, or CA that there vote means less than a person's in Iowa.  If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Utah your vote probably isn't going to count so why even bother voting.  Small states and swing states get more power. 

 

I've always struggled with this debate.  Just thinking we wouldn't of had George Bush Jr. if it wasn't for the electoral college makes me sick to my stomach.  However, we were founded as a Republic and not a Democracy.  Presidential candidates would only show and cater to the states with the biggest populations.  Fly over country would feel largely ignored.  It wouldn't be the end of the world if we got rid of the electoral college as each state still gets two Senators, but I'd prefer the electoral college even though it's favored Republicans lately.  It's what makes us unique compared to just about every Democratic country.

 

Well said, but with one pet peeve: wouldn't have had

 

Sorry to go grammar Nazi, but would of is one of those that always gets me

[4merper4mer]

My belief: Our porous border is letting in people that drain money from our system without contributing as much as they get in return.

 

Counter: Building a wall from Maine to Washington and well into both Oceans would cost almost as much as the drain Canadians have become economically.  In addition, it seems we may be staring down the barrel of a mini ice age and maybe they can help because they have basically always been in one.

 

Reality: The Celine Dion wall posters alone would force me to move to a tropical island to get away and I love America so forget this whole thing.

[Cinga]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

There's some things I'd add to that.  First off, each state already has two Senators representing them regardless of population to that so their problems aren't completely being ignored at the Federal level.  Also, as an American it does suck for people who live in NY, TX, or CA that there vote means less than a person's in Iowa.  If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Utah your vote probably isn't going to count so why even bother voting.  Small states and swing states get more power. 

 

I've always struggled with this debate.  Just thinking we wouldn't of had George Bush Jr. if it wasn't for the electoral college makes me sick to my stomach.  However, we were founded as a Republic and not a Democracy.  Presidential candidates would only show and cater to the states with the biggest populations.  Fly over country would feel largely ignored.  It wouldn't be the end of the world if we got rid of the electoral college as each state still gets two Senators, but I'd prefer the electoral college even though it's favored Republicans lately.  It's what makes us unique compared to just about every Democratic country.

But here is the rub Doc.. The original intent of the Senate was not to represent the People, that is the jurisdiction of the House. The Senate was supposed to be a representative of the states, and until the 17th Amendment was ratified, were elected by the State Legislatures. This was a good thing in some ways like there was really no campaigning to speak of so no fund raising. A drawback was that sometimes a legislature would delay selecting one until the next legislature was seated.

Original intent was for the People and the States to have representation. Beginning about 1914 is when the shift in lobbying began which has largely created the mess we have now which has politicians more beholden to lobbyists than to their district or state.

 

Needless to say, I'm an abolish the 16th Amendment guy, and take the 17th with you.

[row_33]

Boo boo hoo, Hillary lost so we should immediately overturn the Constitution

 

lmao

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

There's some things I'd add to that.  First off, each state already has two Senators representing them regardless of population to that so their problems aren't completely being ignored at the Federal level.  Also, as an American it does suck for people who live in NY, TX, or CA that there vote means less than a person's in Iowa.  If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Utah your vote probably isn't going to count so why even bother voting.  Small states and swing states get more power. 

 

I've always struggled with this debate.  Just thinking we wouldn't of had George Bush Jr. if it wasn't for the electoral college makes me sick to my stomach.  However, we were founded as a Republic and not a Democracy.  Presidential candidates would only show and cater to the states with the biggest populations.  Fly over country would feel largely ignored.  It wouldn't be the end of the world if we got rid of the electoral college as each state still gets two Senators, but I'd prefer the electoral college even though it's favored Republicans lately.  It's what makes us unique compared to just about every Democratic country.

 

Without equal representation in the Senate, there is no reason for smaller or less densely populated states to remain in the country.  The United States is massive and is not homogenous politically or culturally, and those smaller populations should not have the laws they live under dictated to them by California.

 

As far as the 17th goes, I feel it has grossly downgraded the national conversation:  The House of Representatives was designed to be a populist body, responsive to the whims of the people.  This is why terms last only two years, law is required to originate there, and it attracts ideologues.

 

The Senate was supposed to be a steady hand to act as a check on the populism of the House.  Direct selection by the state legislatures as a representative of the interests of the states combined with 6 year terms was supposed to court statesmen to the position.  The idea being that the selection process would avoid the populism of the House, and would provide a stability in the law, counteracting the wild pendulum swings in the House of the People.

 

With the move to directly elect Senators, states rights have been trampled over because the states have no voice, and the Senate has become full of entrenched ideologues because rather than being appointed to represent the interests of the states, they are elected directly by the base of the party they represent.  This is why we have come to a point in the Senate where the "nuclear option" is in play.

Edited April 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[row_33]

i am grateful the Founders foresaw enough to prevent the Reconstruction South, Hollywood LA and Wall Street NYC from dominating the national vote when they go 100% for the Democrats.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

15 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Without equal representation in the Senate, there is no reason for smaller or less densely populated states to remain in the country.  The United States is massive and is not homogenous politically or culturally, and those smaller populations should not have the laws they live under dictated to them by California.

 

As far as the 17th goes, I feel it has grossly downgraded the national conversation:  The House of Representatives was designed to be a populist body, responsive to the whims of the people.  This is why terms last only two years, law is required to originate there, and it attracts ideologues.

 

The Senate was supposed to be a steady hand to act as a check on the populism of the House.  Direct selection by the state legislatures as a representative of the interests of the states combined with 6 year terms was supposed to court statesmen to the position.  The idea being that the selection process would avoid the populism of the House, and would provide a stability in the law, counteracting the wild pendulum swings in the House of the People.

 

With the move to directly elect Senators, states rights have been trampled over because the states have no voice, and the Senate has become full of entrenched ideologues because rather than being appointed to represent the interests of the states, they are elected directly by the base of the party they represent.  This is why we have come to a point in the Senate where the "nuclear option" is in play.

It's an interesting argument, but I'd be more in favor of term limits along with reducing the number of years in a Senator's term.  I just see the potential for more corruption and bribery at the state level. You'd have more money flowing into the states from lobbyists/special interests and a person running for a state legislative seat would be voted more on who they support as Senator as opposed to their own individual platform/qualifications. 

 

I would also argue that if it wasn't for the 17th, outsiders (people who weren't connected politically) wouldn't have a chance to primary a more establishment candidate.  It's unlikely that Ted Cruz (who beat out a Lt. Governor in Texas in the primary) or Rand Paul (who beat out Kentucky's Scretary of State in the primary) would be in the Senate if it wasn't for the 17th Amendment.  

 

Another more pragmatic problem is that I doubt a majority of citizens would support repealing the 17th Amendment as it would take their voting power away from them in their minds.  Once you give something away it's more difficult to take back.

[KD in CA]

On 4/23/2018 at 5:50 AM, row_33 said:

Boo boo hoo, Hillary lost so we should immediately overturn the Constitution

 

lmao

 

 

 

To be fair, the same idiots also boo-hooed  when ALGORE lost.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

To be fair, the same idiots also boo-hooed  when ALGORE lost.

 

The Sore Loserman ticket 

 

When it went to recount I was 100% convinced the GOP couldn't overcome the evil sneaky tactics of the Dems, but I was pleasantly surprised

 

the only time Dems bother to learn about their Constitution is protecting the rights of a Charlie Manson or being told for the 10,000th time the Electoral College is what matters...

 

 

[KD in CA]

16 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

The Sore Loserman ticket 

 

When it went to recount I was 100% convinced the GOP couldn't overcome the evil sneaky tactics of the Dems, but I was pleasantly surprised

 

the only time Dems bother to learn about their Constitution is protecting the rights of a Charlie Manson or being told for the 10,000th time the Electoral College is what matters...

 

 

 

I think the only time in my life I've been more shocked by an outcome of a contested event was the Giants beating the 18-0 Pats*

 

I still can't believe the Dems couldn't figure out how to steal that one.  Thank goodness for Jim Baker!

[row_33]

19 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

I think the only time in my life I've been more shocked by an outcome of a contested event was the Giants beating the 18-0 Pats*

 

I still can't believe the Dems couldn't figure out how to steal that one.  Thank goodness for Jim Baker!

 

 

It helps to win the initial count

 

and cherry picking just a few of the poorest counties to make a case is lousy strategy

 

they should have recounted the entire state of Florida

 

and they can't organize a two car funeral so this was never going to stand, they fiddled and diddled away weeks before getting serious... bless their pointy heads...

 

 

[whatdrought]

Belief: Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. 

 

Devils Advocate: By making guns easily accessible we are enabling those who would become mass shooters to have an unprecedented ease of access that allows them to obtain, brandish, and use guns when they so desire. There is no way to be sure that there will be a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. 

 

 

Reality: Of the examples of the recent shootings most of the shooters should not have had access to the guns. What we're seeing more often than not is the Government breaking down and not doing their job in the first place (see parkland) and an anti-gun bias being shoved down the americans throats by liberal media that believes taking guns will solve things.