• 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%

  • No

    Votes: 52 100.0%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
Henrin said:
You know your question is a fail when all the votes are no.
Click to expand...

You no your posts are fail when you don't have a damn thing to contribute to the discussion but bull****.
 
sangha said:
If the govt was led by an authoritarian.
Click to expand...

I argue that it is. :cool: When the president comes out and suggests mandatory voting I think it's a pretty good bet you have an authoritarian douchebag as president.
 
MildSteel said:
You no your posts are fail when you don't have a damn thing to contribute to the discussion but bull****.
Click to expand...

A poll with 100% no votes contributes nothing and describes perfectly the definition of fail.
 
sangha said:
So you are advocating cutting people's tongues out!!

Gezz, that's even worse than Sunstein
Click to expand...

That is stupid.

The point is that when Mr Sunstein says that such a thing can become thinkable, he is implying that the government should under those circumstances become authoritarian.
 
Henrin said:
A poll with 100% no votes contributes nothing and describes perfectly the definition of fail.
Click to expand...

Posts again and again of crap amount to nothing but crap.
 
MildSteel said:
That is stupid.

The point is that when Mr Sunstein says that such a thing can become thinkable, he is implying that the government should under those circumstances become authoritarian.
Click to expand...

And when you say that the govt cutting people's tongues become thinkable, you're implying that the govt do so.

MildSteel said:
Posts again and again of crap amount to nothing but crap.
Click to expand...

then stop doing it
 
sangha said:
And when you say that the govt cutting people's tongues become thinkable, you're implying that the govt do so.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most stupid things that I have heard put forward in this forum. Not only that but it was very childish.

The point was to demonstrate that what Mr Sunstein puts forward as thinkable is the government becoming authoritarian.
 
MildSteel said:
That is one of the most stupid things that I have heard put forward in this forum. Not only that but it was very childish.

The point was to demonstrate that what Mr Sunstein puts forward as thinkable is the government becoming authoritarian.
Click to expand...

You are lying. You argued that sunstein would consider banning CTs
 
sangha said:
You are lying. You argued that sunstein would consider banning CTs
Click to expand...

He CLEARLY says that he can envision a scenario where the conspiracy becomes so bad that BANNING becomes thinkable. Can you even read?
 
MildSteel said:
He CLEARLY says that he can envision a scenario where the conspiracy becomes so bad that BANNING becomes thinkable. Can you even read?
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that he said that.

Your dishonest claim that he would support such a ban is being disputed.
 
sangha said:
No one is disputing that he said that.

Your dishonest claim that he would support such a ban is being disputed.
Click to expand...

He said that under certain circumstances it would become thinkable. That means that under certain circumstances he thinks that it would be something that the government could reasonably consider.

Cutting someone's tongue out on the other hand, is not something that is thinkable. Get it?
 
MildSteel said:
He said that under certain circumstances it would become thinkable. That means that under certain circumstances he thinks that it would be something that the government could reasonably consider.
Click to expand...

No,it doesn't mean that.
 
sangha said:
No,it doesn't mean that.
Click to expand...

Yes it does mean that. Hell, you can think that the government could do any damn thing, including use nukes on its citizens to stop a conspiracy theory. There is no need for Mr Sunstein to mention such a thing because it is not something that could be reasonably considered.
 
MildSteel said:
Yes it does mean that. Hell, you can think that the government could do any damn thing, including use nukes on its citizens to stop a conspiracy theory. There is no need for Mr Sunstein to mention such a thing because it is not something that could be reasonably considered.
Click to expand...

You are lying

He never said it could be reasonably considered.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that you are troubled by all this.
Not quite the same as it being troubling.
imho
ymmv
 
MildSteel said:
He CLEARLY says that he can envision a scenario where the conspiracy becomes so bad that BANNING becomes thinkable. Can you even read?
Click to expand...

Cass Sunstein has argued in one of his many books that's titled, Democracy and the problem with free speech, that there is concern that too many people just talking about the same thing can give its perception more importance than its worth. What we're seeing as an early response to an old problem for governments is the possibility of the governed speaking with a singular voice!! :shock:

That is to be avoided at all cost. The means of confounding that voice is always sought. The idea is ancient too. In the history of Israel, the one recorded in the old testament of the bible anyway, tells of the dangers (at the tower of Babel) of a people who can all communicate with one another. Governments, for all they may say to the contrary, are not interested in unity; chaos and division, even if it's only through the polarization of partisanship, is preferred, and squaring factions with one another is a useful method of control.

It's like on the singular occasion that cattle are all thinking the same thing. The ram rods chief job is to ensure that it never happens. But if it does, Get the **** out of the way!
 
sangha said:
You are lying

He never said it could be reasonably considered.
Click to expand...

Thinkable means reasonably considered. It does not merely mean that the human can conceive of it, as you would like to put forward. As I said, the human mind could think of anything including a nuclear attack. There is no need to mention such a thing because it is not thinkable.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I believe that you are troubled by all this.
Not quite the same as it being troubling.
imho
ymmv
Click to expand...

It is troublesome that someone could be one the Supreme Court and uphold such an action by the government.
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...

For some people, conspiracy theories are the only thing that validates their lives. For others it's great entertainment.

Why would anyone want to ban this?
 
MildSteel said:
It is troublesome that someone could be one the Supreme Court and uphold such an action by the government.
Click to expand...

There's been lots of troubling things.

LBJ’s ‘X’ File on Nixon’s ‘Treason’
March 3, 2012

Special Report: In the dusty files of Lyndon Johnson’s presidential library in Austin, Texas, once secret documents and audiotapes tell a dark and tragic story of how Richard Nixon’s team secured the White House in 1968 by sabotaging peace talks that might have ended the Vietnam War four years earlier, Robert Parry reports.

After hearing from Dirksen, Nixon grew concerned that Johnson might just go public with his evidence of the conspiracy. Nixon discussed his worries with Sen. George Smathers, a conservative Democrat from Florida, who, in turn, called Johnson on the morning of Nov. 3, just two days before the election.

There are conspiracy theories, and there are conspiracies.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/03/lbjs-x-file-on-nixons-treason/
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
There's been lots of troubling things.

LBJ’s ‘X’ File on Nixon’s ‘Treason’
March 3, 2012

Special Report: In the dusty files of Lyndon Johnson’s presidential library in Austin, Texas, once secret documents and audiotapes tell a dark and tragic story of how Richard Nixon’s team secured the White House in 1968 by sabotaging peace talks that might have ended the Vietnam War four years earlier, Robert Parry reports.

After hearing from Dirksen, Nixon grew concerned that Johnson might just go public with his evidence of the conspiracy. Nixon discussed his worries with Sen. George Smathers, a conservative Democrat from Florida, who, in turn, called Johnson on the morning of Nov. 3, just two days before the election.

There are conspiracy theories, and there are conspiracies.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/03/lbjs-x-file-on-nixons-treason/
Click to expand...

Hmmm, a republican conspiracy to undermine a Presidents negotiations with a foriegn nation. Why does that sound familiar? :shrug:
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...

We need to hang him..And all others like him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom