• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    52
Compare that with this:

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

Church Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WOW! Back as far as 1975 that was acknowledged. Now it seems we are getting there, and what is even more disturbing is that people don't seem to be the least bit concerned. One of these days, it will get so bad that people will have to go hide in the jungles like animals to escape very cruel, technically sophisticated tyrants.
 
WOW! Back as far as 1975 that was acknowledged. Now it seems we are getting there, and what is even more disturbing is that people don't seem to be the least bit concerned. One of these days, it will get so bad that people will have to go hide in the jungles like animals to escape very cruel, technically sophisticated tyrants.

Yes, I agree, that's the problem. Just look at the numbers of people that are indifferent to this. Hey, if you're not misbehaving, you have nothing to fear from the surveillance state. I don't get people, really, I truly don't.
 
Yes, I agree, that's the problem. Just look at the numbers of people that are indifferent to this. Hey, if you're not misbehaving, you have nothing to fear from the surveillance state. I don't get people, really, I truly don't.

Part of it is that people are scared. It used to be a guy could reasonably expect to have his same job until he retired. Things are just not like that anymore. People must constantly work under the threat of being unemployed, because, among other things, many jobs have been outsourced overseas. As such, they are to scared to speak out or question things. I can't remember exactly what fast food chain it was, but a few years ago it sent out a notice to employees threatening that if the voted for a specific candidate, they would likely lose their jobs. That's the type of thing people must contend with now.
 
Last edited:
Part of it is that people are scared. It used to be a guy could reasonably expect to has his same job until he retired. Things are just not like that anymore. People must constantly work under the threat of being unemployed, because, among other things, many jobs have been outsourced overseas. As such, they are to scared to speak out or question things. I can't remember exactly what fast food chain it was, but a few years ago it sent out a notice to employees threatening that if the voted for a specific candidate, they would likely lose their jobs. That's the type of thing people must contend with now.

Are you kidding me. A fast food chain put that in writing!!!!
 
Part of it is that people are scared. It used to be a guy could reasonably expect to has his same job until he retired. Things are just not like that anymore. People must constantly work under the threat of being unemployed, because, among other things, many jobs have been outsourced overseas. As such, they are to scared to speak out or question things. I can't remember exactly what fast food chain it was, but a few years ago it sent out a notice to employees threatening that if the voted for a specific candidate, they would likely lose their jobs. That's the type of thing people must contend with now.

I don't recall it being a fast food chain, but I remember hearing about that incident.
 
Again, this is glaring



Damn! I hope that guy never makes it to the Supreme Court. Imagine Scalia, Thomas, and Sunstein. WOW!!!!

he cannot get by a GOP senate. he's seen as a far left whacko by the Federalist society
 
Part of it is that people are scared. It used to be a guy could reasonably expect to has his same job until he retired. Things are just not like that anymore. People must constantly work under the threat of being unemployed, because, among other things, many jobs have been outsourced overseas. As such, they are to scared to speak out or question things. I can't remember exactly what fast food chain it was, but a few years ago it sent out a notice to employees threatening that if the voted for a specific candidate, they would likely lose their jobs. That's the type of thing people must contend with now.

Good point. Speaking up, making one innocent comment, complimenting the wrong woman is only the beginning. Questioning the boss and all bets are off. While many moan about unions, they serve at least as some sort of support. But I digress again, my apologies.
What worries me is that the government is one of the instigators with their mingling into every part of our lives, telling us what to do or not to do, what to eat or drink, and the latest might be how long we are to shower in a hotel.
 
Are you kidding me. A fast food chain put that in writing!!!!

I don't recall it being a fast food chain, but I remember hearing about that incident.

Well, there were a couple of incidents, and I probably merged them in my memory, but here is one

David Siegel is the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, a huge national timeshare company and one of the largest resort developers in the world. In 2007 he was a billionaire, although he may be only a hundred-millionaire now. He and his wife Jackie were the subjects of the recent documentary "The Queen of Versailles," about their ongoing quest to build the largest house in America, a 90,000 square foot monument to excess. And yesterday, David Siegel sent an email to all of his thousands of employees, in which he—in a veiled way—insinuated that they would be fired of Barack Obama is reelected.
....

He didn't directly say it, but he hinted at it.

The CEO Who Built Himself America's Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama's Elected

Now this happened to some employees at a McDonalds

A handful of McDonald's employees in northeastern Ohio received handbills in their most recent paychecks suggesting they vote for three Republican candidates.

"If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels," the insert said. "If others are elected we will not."

The fast food chain's corporate headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill., distanced itself from the action by Canton franchisee Paul Siegfried, saying it was not reflective of the company's position.
...

Ohio McDonald's Gives Voting Advice in Paychecks - CBS News

Here's an article about it

Employers increasingly telling employees workers how to vote
 
I don't recall it being a fast food chain, but I remember hearing about that incident.

Was it Papa John's threatening job losses if Obama won another election?
 
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein



In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following



Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!

Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?
The government should ban 90% of itself and then STFU forever.
 
Well, there were a couple of incidents, and I probably merged them in my memory, but here is one



He didn't directly say it, but he hinted at it.

The CEO Who Built Himself America's Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama's Elected

Now this happened to some employees at a McDonalds



Ohio McDonald's Gives Voting Advice in Paychecks - CBS News

Here's an article about it

Employers increasingly telling employees workers how to vote

I recall the Siegel incident, not the other. Good find.
 
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein



In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following



Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!

Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

Most conspiracy theories arise from the government keeping information classified. Keeping something secret be it JFK or 9-11 automatically leads some people to belief there are evil intentions behind it.

Actually I think some conspiracy theorist are good. Especially when the government knows what is best for the people more than the people. I think some of the conspiracies are asinine. But to a certain extent they are also healthy. As long as the government keeps things hidden from the people, keeps thing secret and classified, we need some good conspiracy theories if nothing else but to keep the government on its toes.
 
The fact is that what you posted was simply not true. You said that
The author described censorship as
  1. a self defeating strategy and
  2. a strategy which is not acceptable in an open society
  3. a strategy which an open society renders relatively moot
but in doing so he was not actually trying to point out that censorship was a bad idea?

The author then goes on to recommend some other methods as likely to be more effective.

These things when all taken together indicate that the author intends to implement censorship of CT dissemination should end up in high office?

That is simply not the case. What he does is list a number of the actions that the government might take, including banning conspiracy theorizing, and discusses what he thinks the results might be. With regards to banning conspiracy theorizing, although he does say it MIGHT be self defeating, he clearly says the he can imagine a scenario where it becomes thinkable.
...imagining hypothetical situations...

:shrug:


what does crippled epistemology mean anyway?
: )
 
Attack conspiracy theories with truth and reason, not force.

We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.​
 
Your posts are dishonest. When people point out that he never suggests banning CT's, you refute that even though it is true.

Your posts are bull****. He clearly says he could imagine a scenario where it is thinkable.
 
...imagining hypothetical situations...

I said that he said it could be self defeating. What is troublesome is that nonetheless, he concludes that under certain circumstances it could become thinkable.
 
And I could imagine a scenario where it rains tomorrow

Doesn't mean I want it to rain.

Can you imagine a scenario where the government would cut your tongue out in public to silence you?
 
You know your question is a fail when all the votes are no.
 
Back
Top Bottom