Your Controversial Opinion

Barr125

The reason most of us are here is we have the "controversial" stance that we don't believe a god exists.

But I've been wondering about some other opinions we have, particularly one's that you (and others if you've expressed it) have seen as controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I'll get the ball rolling with one that I've talked about a few times and nearly always gotten a negative response to:
the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

The reason I'm for it is the fact that our current population is 3 times the size of what a sustainable population for the Earth and is still growing exponentially We are consuming our resources faster than they can be replenished at a rate of 50%. What that means is that in 12 months, we consume resources that took 18 months to produce.

Anyone who has seen and understands "predator-prey population" graphs knows that, whether we do something or not, this problem of overpopulation will sort itself out naturally and that will be a dire situation if it's ever reached. For further reading see Population Balance

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder (apathetic language I know but this needs to be an apathetic situation) or a voluntary sterilization program for people 18 and over and with no children already. And people would not be punished for accidentally having children (I envisage an incentives program to attract people to the idea)

The point is not to decrease the population dramatically in a short space of time but to lower the birth rate under the death rate (which, thanks to modern medical science, might be quite hard).

I also understand that the ideas I've posted over would heavily infringe on the rights of people's choices, but at some point in the very near future, people will lose the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" and others through the natural progression of natural population control.

There is no way around it. Either we do it in a calm, reasonable, well-legislated manner that leaves people with their dignity as much as possible or we let nature do it for us. if you have any questions about anything I haven't clarified above, please ask bleow.


SO what's your unpopular opinion? What do you think should or shouldn't be that makes people turn their heads and say "You think THAT?"

(I would ask that if you're replying to anyone else's opinion, do it civilly. This is a thread for civil discussion of less than popular ideas. Thank you.)

magicbastarder

i think a lot of what you're trying to achieve would be more easily done and more politically palatable by simply giving women better education and dominion over their own bodies in many developing parts of the world, where the population is growing fastest.

i suspect the drain on earth's resources is more to do with increasing demand per capita rather than population expansion; china being a case in point. the environmental damage has accelerated with increased affluence more than population growth, i think.

shruikan2553

I can believe it's not butter.

recedite

Barr125 wrote: »

controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I let my toenail clippings fly free, away into the unknown at high speed.

Frank Lee Midere

Barr125 wrote: »

The reason most of us are here is we have the "controversial" stance that we don't believe a god exists.

But I've been wondering about some other opinions we have, particularly one's that you (and others if you've expressed it) have seen as controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I'll get the ball rolling with one that I've talked about a few times and nearly always gotten a negative response to:
the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

The reason I'm for it is the fact that our current population is 3 times the size of what a sustainable population for the Earth and is still growing exponentially We are consuming our resources faster than they can be replenished at a rate of 50%. What that means is that in 12 months, we consume resources that took 18 months to produce.

Anyone who has seen and understands "predator-prey population" graphs knows that, whether we do something or not, this problem of overpopulation will sort itself out naturally and that will be a dire situation if it's ever reached. For further reading see Population Balance

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder (apathetic language I know but this needs to be an apathetic situation) or a voluntary sterilization program for people 18 and over and with no children already. And people would not be punished for accidentally having children (I envisage an incentives program to attract people to the idea)

The point is not to decrease the population dramatically in a short space of time but to lower the birth rate under the death rate (which, thanks to modern medical science, might be quite hard).

I also understand that the ideas I've posted over would heavily infringe on the rights of people's choices, but at some point in the very near future, people will lose the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" and others through the natural progression of natural population control.

There is no way around it. Either we do it in a calm, reasonable, well-legislated manner that leaves people with their dignity as much as possible or we let nature do it for us. if you have any questions about anything I haven't clarified above, please ask bleow.


SO what's your unpopular opinion? What do you think should or shouldn't be that makes people turn their heads and say "You think THAT?"

(I would ask that if you're replying to anyone else's opinion, do it civilly. This is a thread for civil discussion of less than popular ideas. Thank you.)

Since the birth rate is below replacement in most of the West, nearly all of the non-Islamic Northern hemisphere, and western colonies like South America, Australia etc - you would need this program to run in Pakistan and Sub Suharan Africa.

Can't see that working.

Rips

It'll never work.

The people who want children will never go for it.

The people who don't want children, won't have descendants to see the benefits :pac:

Frank Lee Midere

Also the earth running out if resources is largely just plucked out of thin air.

My name is URL

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder

Of all the ways population controls could be ushered in and used.. a lottery has got to be the most absurd option imaginable.

Nick Park

Barr125 wrote: »

The reason most of us are here is we have the "controversial" stance that we don't believe a god exists.

But I've been wondering about some other opinions we have, particularly one's that you (and others if you've expressed it) have seen as controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I'll get the ball rolling with one that I've talked about a few times and nearly always gotten a negative response to:
the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

The reason I'm for it is the fact that our current population is 3 times the size of what a sustainable population for the Earth and is still growing exponentially We are consuming our resources faster than they can be replenished at a rate of 50%. What that means is that in 12 months, we consume resources that took 18 months to produce.

Anyone who has seen and understands "predator-prey population" graphs knows that, whether we do something or not, this problem of overpopulation will sort itself out naturally and that will be a dire situation if it's ever reached. For further reading see Population Balance

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder (apathetic language I know but this needs to be an apathetic situation) or a voluntary sterilization program for people 18 and over and with no children already. And people would not be punished for accidentally having children (I envisage an incentives program to attract people to the idea)

The point is not to decrease the population dramatically in a short space of time but to lower the birth rate under the death rate (which, thanks to modern medical science, might be quite hard).

I also understand that the ideas I've posted over would heavily infringe on the rights of people's choices, but at some point in the very near future, people will lose the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" and others through the natural progression of natural population control.

There is no way around it. Either we do it in a calm, reasonable, well-legislated manner that leaves people with their dignity as much as possible or we let nature do it for us. if you have any questions about anything I haven't clarified above, please ask bleow.


SO what's your unpopular opinion? What do you think should or shouldn't be that makes people turn their heads and say "You think THAT?"

(I would ask that if you're replying to anyone else's opinion, do it civilly. This is a thread for civil discussion of less than popular ideas. Thank you.)

You mean like a one-child policy or something?

Is it really that controversial for atheists to advocate such a thing. I'm sure I've heard of this happening before somewhere.

endacl

Just for clarity, OP. 'Other beliefs'? That 'we' have?

Whatchoo talkin' bout'?!?

I don't accept, based on lack of evidence, that there is a god. It's got nothing to do with 'belief'. I'm fairly sure that'd accurately describe many on this forum. That's as far as it goes, though. We don't all have to like the same stuff, listen to the same music, or hold the same 'controversial' opinions.

Except where John Waters and biscuits are concerned, of course. There seems to be broad consensus on those. Except for the weirdos who think Jaffa Cakes are biscuits. Some of them even like pineapple on their pizza! Controversial enough for ya?

endacl

My name is URL wrote: »

Of all the ways population controls could be ushered in and used.. a lottery has got to be the most absurd option imaginable.

A 'straight to video' idea...

front to_the_back 88

My controversial opinion...

is that most self defined 'agnostic atheists' would believe in a god if there was proof of its existence, and are therefore - if not gnostic atheists - definitely both gnostic and atheist. Agnosticism being the belief that it can never be known whether there exists a god or not...

Calibos

Re population:

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

Of all the ways population controls could be ushered in and used.. a lottery has got to be the most absurd option imaginable.

Open your mind man. It could be you.

Cabaal

I have seriously radical idea's, so radical the government fears implementing them and the church hates them

- Equal treatment of employee's regardless of sexual preference in our schools and hospitals
- Removal of religious iconography and imagery from state funded or run buildings, lands etc (this includes county councils)....bye bye Papal Cross!
- All schools funded by the state should have no religious "ethos"
- Women who have for example been raped and have become pregnant or have a fetus with a fatal abnormality should receive all the support they need, if they choose to have an abortion then they should receive all the support and services they need to do this. Doctors who refuse to provide such support based on religious ethos should be removed from positions.
- I want to see my fellow human beings get the right to be married (if they want to), without a bunch of religious people arguing that people I know should be treated differently to me and my wife.
- I want the government to take meaningful action against religious orders who refuse to co-operate with sex abuse cases, if the organizations refuse to provide records then they should be shut down in Ireland and no longer allowed operate. If they refuse to compensate victims then assets should be taken by the state and sold.
- I want religious organizations in Ireland to pay their equal share of tax, its all fine and well for them to lecture Apple, Google etc on tax because they use loopholes. But religious organizations receive legal special treatment. This is wrong.

Finally, if religious organizations need funding then perhaps they should take a leaf out of the Vatican supported German model and require that followers of their faith pay a "church tax" so they can use church services.

magicbastarder

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Also the earth running out if resources is largely just plucked out of thin air.

we're running out of air too?

Mr. CooL ICE

Global warming is, for the most part, not man-made. And no, I'm not a republican!

magicbastarder

global warming is caused by the sun.

robindch

Nick Park wrote: »

You mean like a one-child policy or something? Is it really that controversial for atheists to advocate such a thing.

I'm inclined to think the opposite - most, probably all, of Europe is reproducing below the replacement rate. Notwithstanding the efforts of quite a few Westminster politicians, quite a few governments have tried to up it:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/33485/5-creative-ways-countries-tried-their-birth-rates
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/05/children_for_sale.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2013/04/can_a_country_boost_its_low_birth_rate_examples_from_around_the_world.html

etc, etc, etc.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

I'm inclined to think the opposite - most, probably all, of Europe is reproducing below the replacement rate. Notwithstanding the efforts of quite a few Westminster politicians, quite a few governments have tried to up it:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/33485/5-creative-ways-countries-tried-their-birth-rates
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/05/children_for_sale.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2013/04/can_a_country_boost_its_low_birth_rate_examples_from_around_the_world.html

etc, etc, etc.

It would be interesting whether increased immigration is balancing this out. Population decline certainly doesn't seem to be an issue here in Ireland, quite the opposite if anything. Personally, I blame the Catholics

robindch

smacl wrote: »

It would be interesting whether increased immigration is balancing this out.

Amongst other things, probably yes.

Last time I looked the babies-per-woman ratio here in Ireland was around 2.1 which is just about enough to keep the population static. That means the rest has to be coming from either immigration or a decline in the death rate and AFAIR there was a noticeable dropoff in this two - something like an increase in lifespan of two years with every passing ten years, if memory serves.

smacl

Hmmm, world population crisis. Controversial opinion. Think I'll have to defer to Jello and crew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ORKLaozFzo

Brian Shanahan

Nick Park wrote: »

You mean like a one-child policy or something?

Is it really that controversial for atheists to advocate such a thing. I'm sure I've heard of this happening before somewhere.

China has a state religion, a mixture of confuscianism and leader worship where Mao is god.

Brian Shanahan

front to_the_back 88 wrote: »

is that most self defined 'agnostic atheists' would believe in a god if there was proof of its existence.

That is most definitely a false belief, for one simple reason. Belief disappears when the thing believed in is proven to exist. Therefore if god were proven to exist, nobody would believe in his existence (apart from those that believed in a different god which still had no evidence of existence), they would no more believe in god than in the chairs they sat on.

Belief only exists in two specific instances, 1) where there is insufficient evidence to make a reasoned decision (e.g. belief in a generic non-specific god, which has different problems like how do you prove something with no attributes), 2) where there is enough evidence for such a decision but the decision disagrees with your conlusion and you still hold to it.

Frank Lee Midere

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

China has a state religion, a mixture of confuscianism and leader worship where Mao is god.

No, it doesn't. Nobody calls Mao a God.

recedite

China doesn't mind most religions, so long as ultimate control does not lie within a foreign state. Although they do seem to have a grudge against the Falun Gong.
Chinese Catholicism is almost identical to Roman Catholicism, except that the ability to appoint suitable Bishops, (or to muzzle or sack them) them lies with the Chinese state, and not with Rome.
In many respects, it is a similar reasoning to Henry VIII's establishment of the Church of England. Vatican still hopes to regain control some day, so does not declare Chinese Catholicism to be "schismatic".

Nodin

Barr125 wrote: »

The reason most (............). Thank you.)

Utopia is a damn good show allright.

front to_the back 88

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That is most definitely a false belief, for one simple reason. Belief disappears when the thing believed in is proven to exist. Therefore if god were proven to exist, nobody would believe in his existence (apart from those that believed in a different god which still had no evidence of existence), they would no more believe in god than in the chairs they sat on

Belief only exists in two specific instances, 1) where there is insufficient evidence to make a reasoned decision (e.g. belief in a generic non-specific god, which has different problems like how do you prove something with no attributes), 2) where there is enough evidence for such a decision but the decision disagrees with your conlusion and you still hold to it.

Ok, how about agnostic atheists who believe it may be possible to know at some point in the future whether a god exists, or who say they would accept the existence of god if there were proof, are not agnostic.

jjpep

My controversial opinion is that you should need a license to vote. You would need to pass a test every ten years to renew the license. Test would include history, political theory, economics and include some kind of test for empathy.

magicbastarder

so educated people would have an advantage when it came to vote. lovely.

magicbastarder

seriously, that's a ****ing odious idea.
you get political representation based on how well you do on a test.
and that's not even beginning to examine who gets to decide what the correct results are in the test.

jjpep

magicbastarder wrote: »

seriously, that's a ****ing odious idea.
you get political representation based on how well you do on a test.
and that's not even beginning to examine who gets to decide what the correct results are in the test.

Well I did say it was controversial....

But further explanation/defence:

Is it better for everyone to have people who are educated and interested enough to do a test be the ones who get to vote?

Yes. Why?

Improved standard of politician's and political debate. If you know as a politician (and as a media commenter etc) that the people your trying to convince to vote for you have at least a known base level of knowledge about the subjects your talking about its harder to give BS answers and get away with it.

You improve the standard of politician, you improve the standard of the country.

The test is the hardest part in reality to sort out. Setting it so it was impartial and not biased or leaning to any political ideology would be tough. Also ensuring that it was corrected in a fair way all the time would take a lot of work too.

Turtwig

Yep,

But if the test was fair and impartial it would actually be better for society. The Irish times published an article a few months back with a survey showing nobody had any idea how government spending or taxes were appropriated. The electorate are making demands based on misconceptions.

As things stand perception is what dictates policies.

A moderator could be a terrible idea, loads of things could be, but there exists a spectrum where moderation and other stuff can work. Likewise, there most probably is a spectrum where a test would work.

I think it wouldn't even have to be mandatory. Just an awareness exercise. By a commission like the referendum commission.

magicbastarder

there are plenty of problems with politics in this country which need to be sorted out, and lots of the solutions (such as mandatory voting, which i also disagree with) would be less discriminatory.
if you choose to engage with the political process, it should not be based on your ability to perform on a test whose questions and answers are open to political interference. even minor tinkering with the pass rate has the ability to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate.

the whole point of electing a democratic government is that you cast the net as wide as possible in terms of who gets to vote. that is; if you are of sound and sane mind, you have a basic right to a say in the policies which affect you.
any attempt to limit that basic concept gives me the willies.
as a matter of interest, has it been tried anywhere else?

jjpep

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are plenty of problems with politics in this country which need to be sorted out, and lots of the solutions (such as mandatory voting, which i also disagree with) would be less discriminatory.
if you choose to engage with the political process, it should not be based on your ability to perform on a test whose questions and answers are open to political interference. even minor tinkering with the pass rate has the ability to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate.

the whole point of electing a democratic government is that you cast the net as wide as possible in terms of who gets to vote. that is; if you are of sound and sane mind, you have a basic right to a say in the policies which affect you.
any attempt to limit that basic concept gives me the willies.
as a matter of interest, has it been tried anywhere else?

Is it the test or the concept of a test you disagree with? Or both?

The test, and the correcting procedure would be the biggest barrier IMHO. For me the concept is good, if you don't have the interest in the subject to educate yourself then why should you get an ophion on it? Especially if that ophion has an effect on everyone around you.

I don't know if it's been done before, would be interested to find out.

Turtwig

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are plenty of problems with politics in this country which need to be sorted out, and lots of the solutions (such as mandatory voting, which i also disagree with) would be less discriminatory.
if you choose to engage with the political process, it should not be based on your ability to perform on a test whose questions and answers are open to political interference. even minor tinkering with the pass rate has the ability to disenfranchise large swathes of the electorate.

the whole point of electing a democratic government is that you cast the net as wide as possible in terms of who gets to vote. that is; if you are of sound and sane mind, you have a basic right to a say in the policies which affect you.
any attempt to limit that basic concept gives me the willies.
as a matter of interest, has it been tried anywhere else?

Don't know, probably if it was as an abusive measure.

I guess, the best way of describing my position is that I'm ethically uneasy about it but if there was a fair and impartial way to implement it I'd be in support of it. Society is a complex beast. The beast way to develop that beast is by understanding it.

Maybe just a guide to creationist style rhetoric, recognising a strawman, conversation blindness, statistical literacy, actual hard facts of expenditures. General awareness of that sort of stuff

Czarcasm

jjpep wrote: »

Is it the test or the concept of a test you disagree with? Or both?

The test, and the correcting procedure would be the biggest barrier IMHO. For me the concept is good, if you don't have the interest in the subject to educate yourself then why should you get an ophion on it? Especially if that ophion has an effect on everyone around you.

I don't know if it's been done before, would be interested to find out.

It's been done before, in South Africa, only then they called it Apartheid. Your system would basically lead to an elite class of voter who would only vote for their own interests, and would ignore issues that had no bearing on their lives, which would lead to people who did not have the means to educate themselves, without democratic representation.

I know you mentioned that we would also have to test for empathy, but there isn't much empathy to be found in making decisions that will affect the lives of 7.5million people, having a neck like a jockeys bollocks is a standard requirement for a politician.

Brian Shanahan

front to_the back 88 wrote: »

Ok, how about agnostic atheists who believe it may be possible to know at some point in the future whether a god exists, or who say they would accept the existence of god if there were proof, are not agnostic.

You don't understand the word or concept agnostic.

Just because someone believes that at one stage they or others may have the information available to make a knowledge decision doesn't make them any less agnostic.

For example I am currently agnostic re extraterrestrial life (though I'd lean towards yay more than nay), but I am perfectly happy to assume that one day we could very well know the answer (more likely if it is positive than if it is negative, for obvious reasons). My agnosticism is simply based on the fact that at the moment we don't have the necessary knowledge to know for sure. Just because my great(*20) grandson may have that knowledge does not change my agnosticism one bit, nor could it possibly do so. Even if I were someday in possession of enough knowledge it cannot change my current agnosticism, because future events cannot have an influence on current ideas.

Brian Shanahan

jjpep wrote: »

My controversial opinion is that you should need a license to vote. You would need to pass a test every ten years to renew the license. Test would include history, political theory, economics and include some kind of test for empathy.

If we're going to restrict the vote that way we may as well just find someone big and trigger happy and declare them autocrat of all Ireland. Restrict the vote to a certain class of people and next thing you know that restriction will get so tight that you'll be denied any rights.

jjpep

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's been done before, in South Africa, only then they called it Apartheid. Your system would basically lead to an elite class of voter who would only vote for their own interests, and would ignore issues that had no bearing on their lives, which would lead to people who did not have the means to educate themselves, without democratic representatian.

Not the same thing. There the only qualifier was the colour of your skin. You could have been thick as two planks with zero interest in politics and gotten a vote.

In what I'm talking about you would need to have an interest and demonstrate it by learning about it.

jjpep

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If we're going to restrict the vote that way we may as well just find someone big and trigger happy and declare them autocrat of all Ireland. Restrict the vote to a certain class of people and next thing you know that restriction will get so tight that you'll be denied any rights.

Doesn't have to have anything to do with class or a person's finances. Make the test free. Make all the study materials free and easily available.

Czarcasm

jjpep wrote: »

Not the same thing. There the only qualifier was the colour of your skin. You could have been thick as two planks with zero interest in politics and gotten a vote.

In what I'm talking about you would need to have an interest and demonstrate it by learning about it.

Can you give me an example of how your system would benefit for example homeless people?

jjpep

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you give me an example of how your system would benefit for example homeless people?

Short version:

You raise the standard of voters which raises the standard of politician. You raise the standard politician you get a better run country. Better run country is better at tackling homelessness.

Turtwig

Czarcasm wrote: »

Can you give me an example of how your system would benefit for example homeless people?

Considering the huge lack of understanding people generally have to the poor and lower tier classes. It would be nice to hope they'd have better awareness and empathy towards the plight of others. Likewise, that lower classes would be more aware of the struggles faced by upper class folk.

The solution to any problem can only be found when people discussing it actually understand the problem.

AndonHandon

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's been done before, in South Africa, only then they called it Apartheid. Your system would basically lead to an elite class of voter who would only vote for their own interests, and would ignore issues that had no bearing on their lives, which would lead to people who did not have the means to educate themselves, without democratic representation.

I know you mentioned that we would also have to test for empathy, but there isn't much empathy to be found in making decisions that will affect the lives of 7.5million people, having a neck like a jockeys bollocks is a standard requirement for a politician.

Interesting that you use South Africa as an example to refute that poster's point. A country that has been ruined by Nelson Mandela, that is xenophobic and extremely racist. The system at the moment in SA is worse than Apartheid.

Czarcasm

jjpep wrote: »

Short version:

You raise the standard of voters which raises the standard of politician. You raise the standard politician you get a better run country. Better run country is better at tackling homelessness.

You're completely ignoring the fact that your first priority in implementing your idea would be to get people to support your idea, so therefore the onus would be on you to educate people. The onus is not on them to educate themselves about an issue that YOU care about.

So we'll say you have now educated people about your idea, and they choose to vote against your idea, so in order to vote against your idea, they have to be able to demonstrate that they understand your idea. So they pass the test.

Now they decide to vote against your idea... what then?


That's not even to mention the fact that a better run country by your standard might not be a better run country by my standard. We could disagree on economic policy where I might say that because homeless people are no threat to my political position, I don't have to worry about them ever being qualified to vote. In fact it's better for my position if I make sure they nor the people that advocate for them never qualify to vote, and I can do this by structuring the system in such a way that would exclude minority opinion. You can be as educated as you like then, but unless your supporters are as educated as you are, you're unlikely to unseat me from my position, and I'll continue to not care about homeless people as long as I give my supporters what they want. I'm doing a great job of running the country then, and you, well, you're not doing so great because you're still waiting for people to educate themselves on the way you believe the country should be run.

Short version: Your system depends on people being interested enough to educate themselves, and that kind of self-discipline isn't very common among the general populace, so even less people would vote than those who do already, leaving a system that would be open to even more corruption than is already practiced.

front to_the back 88

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You don't understand the word or concept agnostic.

'tis all semantics...

Dictionary.com wrote:

agnostic[ ag-nos-tik ]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable

I guess I always fixated on the 'unknowable'...

Other definitions are available.

Nodin

AndonHandon wrote: »

Interesting that you use South Africa as an example to refute that poster's point. A country that has been ruined by Nelson Mandela, that is xenophobic and extremely racist. The system at the moment in SA is worse than Apartheid.

Comedy gold.

Nodin

jjpep wrote: »

............................

Improved standard of politician's and political debate. If you know as a politician (and as a media commenter etc) that the people your trying to convince to vote for you have at least a known base level of knowledge about the subjects your talking about its harder to give BS answers and get away with it.

You improve the standard of politician, you improve the standard of the country.

The test is the hardest part in reality to sort out. Setting it so it was impartial and not biased or leaning to any political ideology would be tough. Also ensuring that it was corrected in a fair way all the time would take a lot of work too.

Naïve in the extreme. They merely change the marketing strategy to suit the new demographic.

PopePalpatine

AndonHandon wrote: »

Interesting that you use South Africa as an example to refute that poster's point. A country that has been ruined by Nelson Mandela, that is xenophobic and extremely racist. The system at the moment in SA is worse than Apartheid.

[citation needed]

sponsoredwalk

Barr125 wrote: »

the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

Sounds like a very romantic view of China's one child policy - are you planning to live your life in accord with your own beliefs, or just leaving that part to other people?

What's the punishment for not complying? Is there is absolutely no other way, no solutions at all, than committing an atrocity far worse than anybody has ever done in the entire history of humanity?

My unpopular opinion is that there's something more to Schrodinger's first paper than people give it credit for

Loser...