Can We Resolve Social Issues Using Internet Forums?

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Putin
Trump
and, me, have this One World Order thing all worked out.

We got the Illuminati to help us, too.

You, and the rest of you, Debate Politics asshats, will be executed upon a full trial that will have this thread to present as evidence of your complete stupidity and uselessness to humanity.

You will die!!!

YOU WILL DIE!!! MOTHER ****ERS!!! YOU WILL DIE!!!!

!!!ALLAH AKHABAR!!! :sword:

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

So you'd drop out of it?

You're not too bright.

Sure, I'll "drop out."

 

[Masterhawk]

We should hold referendums as to what to do with these statues.

 

[BahamaBob]

Each contesting political/corporate organization sponsoring a delegate or representative is responsible for the tally of votes.

Election security is of the up most importance - what do you suggest???

We have a system that has worked for 250 years and allowed this country to become the richest most powerful country in the history of the world. When you have a proven winner, you stick with it.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

We have a system that has worked for 250 years and allowed this country to become the richest most powerful country in the history of the world. When you have a proven winner, you stick with it.

There are several problems. The black people have begun grieving of "systemic biases," and you are not going to be able to break them of that claim without a constitutional convention that includes black people at the fabled table to guard against the systemic biases that the founders could not avoid...

And then, eventually, the judiciary will recognize my theory of subdividing the three parts is a valid theory, and needs to be adopted.

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

 

[BahamaBob]

There are several problems. The black people have begun grieving of "systemic biases," and you are not going to be able to break them of that claim without a constitutional convention that includes black people at the fabled table to guard against the systemic biases that the founders could not avoid...

And then, eventually, the judiciary will recognize my theory of subdividing the three parts is a valid theory, and needs to be adopted.
Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

Only a fool would think you could legislate away biases.

 

[concernedpuma]

Consider the issue concerning the Civil War memorials. It appears that, even after several years of discussion, there is no resolution concerning the renovation of the Civil War memorials. If any forum member has any information to the contrary, please introduce it.

Since being introduced to Internet forums twenty years ago, I have always believed that Internet forums would be the step towards democracy. I believe the Civil War memorials topic is simple enough to be able to formulate solution candidates that can be compared, contrasted and resolved for validation and submitted for enactment in sanctioned legislatures. If such a goal is achieved then we are fulfilling the ultimate goal of our participation here in an Internet forum - making a difference for the betterment of society.

I have a possible solution, specific to the Civil War memorials, that I would like to campaign, and I may introduce it in the appropriate discussion area. This thread-poll is to be focused on the ability of Internet forums to form a national discussion that leads to producing valid legislation that can be introduced to sanctioned legislatures.

I voted yes, simply because the opinion's expressed here in our forum have made me think, and in some cases changed my view. I am not a simp, but I respect well presented views, and coincidentally, have altered my views with the aid and sharing of folks here. I have also felt the warmth of confirmation of my strongly held values.
Not only can we solve things with respectable dialogue, if we are willing to consider. we can learn from each other
Regards,
CP

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

We should hold referendums as to what to do with these statues.

I can go on and on describing the steps. I am wondering why you allow your remark to make it appear that you didn't realize that it is complicated, as to, generating and then validating the referendum choices for the referendum ballot??? Do you have you any ideas as to how we determine what the choices are???

How do you think legislators would do it for you?

 

[joko104]

Putin
Trump
and, me, have this One World Order thing all worked out.

We got the Illuminati to help us, too.

You, and the rest of you, Debate Politics asshats, will be executed upon a full trial that will have this thread to present as evidence of your complete stupidity and uselessness to humanity.

You will die!!!

YOU WILL DIE!!! MOTHER ****ERS!!! YOU WILL DIE!!!!

!!!ALLAH AKHABAR!!! :sword:

You are no good at humor.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

You are no good at humor.

Which leads me to believe that you are teetering on delusions with the other posters suggesting that I am determined to rule the world. Where as, the truth is, I want to help the owners of Internet forums approach the goal that they all contemplated when they were organizing their forum - deliberate the issues to a valid resolve for the betterment of society. Which is what most reasonable users anticipate, until realizing that it does not happen, because of the inadequacies of the rules and discussion categories.

It would be absurd to believe that the present state of forums (inert) meets the expectations of the founders' ambitions

 

[Masterhawk]

I can go on and on describing the steps. I am wondering why you allow your remark to make it appear that you didn't realize that it is complicated, as to, generating and then validating the referendum choices for the referendum ballot??? Do you have you any ideas as to how we determine what the choices are???

How do you think legislators would do it for you?

I was thinking of a vote as to whether to remove the statues from their respective positions. A "yes" vote means that the statue will be torn down and the city government will decide things from there. A "no" vote means that the statue will stay up. If a city has more than one statue, then it should be one measure per statue.

 

[concernedpuma]

Putin
Trump
and, me, have this One World Order thing all worked out.

We got the Illuminati to help us, too.

You, and the rest of you, Debate Politics asshats, will be executed upon a full trial that will have this thread to present as evidence of your complete stupidity and uselessness to humanity.

You will die!!!

YOU WILL DIE!!! MOTHER ****ERS!!! YOU WILL DIE!!!!

!!!ALLAH AKHABAR!!! :sword:

What a goofy post. I've not seen you here before under that handle. So...you're just pretending to be nuts, right?
Regards,
CP

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

I'm game. How about you? Or would you prefer to continue confirming personal biases by way of argumentum ad nauseam? You can always create another thread.
OM

The primary problem is gathering the people to participate, and then generating the rules that will graduate issues and arguments.

The founding of Debate Politics was based on the mission to do so, but they lost interest, probably because they had limited ideas for rules once they got sufficient membership - its some difficult stuff.

We originally thought that three groups (Liberals, Independents, and Conservatives) would each have their own forum with the caveat that each could view and comment on each others threads unrestricted and still allow for agreement within their own ideology. For example - a Conservative could only post in a Conservative forum, but *reply* to a Liberal thread. We volleyed back and forth on ideas. He is an Independent and I am a very strict Conservative.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

I suggest that instead of fighting the consensus definition and trying to define atheism as a political ideology, you debate over whether its reasonable to not believe in God, whether its reasonable to believe he doesn't exist, whether an anti-religious political ideology is reasonable, or whether most people who don't believe in God hold an anti-religious political ideology.

That is some serious gobble-de-guk. Maybe that seems worth while to you, but you are not going to get anywhere without rules. just saying, "Let's have a real debate," is not going to organize a "real debate."

Instead of debating the meaning of words all the time, lets have a real debate of ideas and ensure that at least we understand the ideas other people are referring to when they are using words.

Yeah, "let's have a real debate of ideas and ensure that at least we understand the ideas other people are referring to when they are using words." That means we have to agree to the terms that are going to be discussed, and I can guarantee you that any well organized debate, "real debate," is going to have rules concerning the definitions of words used in the debate.

Get real.

 

[distraff]

That is some serious gobble-de-guk. Maybe that seems worth while to you, but you are not going to get anywhere without rules. just saying, "Let's have a real debate," is not going to organize a "real debate."


Yeah, "let's have a real debate of ideas and ensure that at least we understand the ideas other people are referring to when they are using words." That means we have to agree to the terms that are going to be discussed, and I can guarantee you that any well organized debate, "real debate," is going to have rules concerning the definitions of words used in the debate.

Get real.

We don't have to agree on our terms. As long as I understand what you mean when you use your personal terms and you understand what I and everyone else mean by our terms, then we can communicate. I lack belief in God and I don't hold any belief that God doesn't exist or any anti-religious political ideology. We can debate these ideas and just leave out the atheism label completely for convenience. I don't really care which of these ideals you choose to label atheist, all I care about is that we can debate the ideas behind these labels even if we disagree on labels.

 

[concernedpuma]

We don't have to agree on our terms. As long as I understand what you mean when you use your personal terms and you understand what I and everyone else mean by our terms, then we can communicate. I lack belief in God and I don't hold any belief that God doesn't exist or any anti-religious political ideology. We can debate these ideas and just leave out the atheism label completely for convenience. I don't really care which of these ideals you choose to label atheist, all I care about is that we can debate the ideas behind these labels even if we disagree on labels.

Seems reasonable to me.
Regards,
CP

 

[Mr Person]

Thread: Can We Resolve Social Issues Using Internet Forums?


Of course we can. I solved the deficit problem about a hundred times over. Shame the little piggies don't listen.

 

[d0gbreath]

Are 31,000 people really going effect 380m? Not statistically.