Humchuckninny

To: Orleans - I didn't mean that as an insult. I repsect your intelligence, as you legitimately argue (even though this last one was on the harsh side, it's cool because I can see how I provoked it. Sorry bro, I didn't mean to, it was all in good fun). However, "Komrade," you offer no line of reasoning. It's one thing to say "yeah that's a shitty idea" and another thing to say "yeah that's a shitty idea BECAUSE..." it wasn't being against it that showed a lack of brains - Orleans is against it and I think he's pretty smart. It was the idea that myself and others have already addressed the ideas you've brought up - so address THEM and introduce NEW arguments into the thread! :-P

I like it. It's like the Sims, but a lot better. Like, a lot. Except you probably wouldn't have those nifty bar deals that would tell you when your "character" had to pee and sleep. Uh oh...

so Orleans, are you implying that the only three types of people are the insane, the weak and the National Socialists. No, that's not meant as a question. You are implying that. Nice try. I like your line of reasoning. When you grow some balls and some brains, come back with some real arguments, and maybe I'll consider replying to them.

Yeah, you probably just attracted guys with crazy fetishes... gross!!

Why? Why is this wrong? I think it's even more sick to say, "ok, well sure you killed someone, but instead of really punishing you we'll give you 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, cable T.V. and free access to a gym." That's what I call sick in the head. To argue eisanbt, here's what I'd say - 1. The revenue brought in by A.) selling tickets to the "games" and B.) taking in other countries prisoners for a "small" fee would easily cover those costs. Additionally we could probably lower taxes after things got started, because it would be cheaper this way than the current system (which is about $25,000 a year per prisoner). 2. If you want to argue desensitazation you're going to have to take that up with Hollywood. Because quite frankly there is nothing in these "games" that wouldn't already be on Television or in Movies/Video Games. And I would say the American Public is already in the desensitized state - the military is constantly reporting that they are having greater and greater success (psychologically) with new recruits, thanks to all of the blood and gore they've already witnessed. Many argue FOR desensitazation, because someone with it is able to act much more efficiently under psychological pressure and stress than someone who is "sheltered." The two things you should get out of this paragraph are 1.) Desensitazation is beneficial, psychologically, and 2.) it's arguable that it would be no different than the status quo (i.e., movies are so realistic now that it's just like seeing it happen in real life). Plus, remember there would probably be an age limit of 18 or 21 to attend these viewings. And they would be voluntary - for those of you against it, either don't go to jail or simply don't buy a ticket. There's your deterrent right there, so in fact you're arguably arguing FOR this program. 3.) No, my innocent-man-convicted is not based on personal opinion. It's based on Locke's Political Philosophies and Bentham's theory of Utilitarianism - basically, sacrifices must be made for the greater good. Morally and Politically, the sacrificing of 49 people to save the other 51 is just. Especially in democracy. Of course we try to avoid it where we can, but in such instances it is impossible. What you're arguing is no justice system at all, because there will ALWAYS be flaws within the justice system, causing innocent men to be punished. Someone else brought up both cruel/unusual punishment and the idea that we would revert back to a barbaric state. I give full props to Ruse for answering that, and agree with what he says. Furthermore, civilized is an opinion. If you define civilized as treating those who break moral and societal laws with respect and decency, I think you're mad. Once they break the the laws of morality, deceny and society, they are no longer subject to its benefits.

ugh, and dammit Orleans, I keep watching your girl video hopin to catch some tits, but no. Fuck.

And I was the one who referred him... hangs head in shame

So, how does one "stumble" upon these videos?

It's true. I once stoked a bloke and have yet to come back. Then again that bloke was black... mmm... blackalicious.

Show... stopper?

Therein lies your problem. "Possibly wrongfully accused." Once we convict a criminal that mentality must be destroyed. Without due faith in the judicial system there will always be "second-guessing" which will lead the justice system to fall apart. I would say that it is worth sacrificing one innocent man to put in jail 99 actual criminals. Yes, even if that man is me. To keep society in running and working order sacrifices must be made. It's a basic form of utilitarianism. And if you don't see the point to it, read some more of my earlier posts. You'll see economic, entertainment and international benefits that have yet to be refuted (and not just on here. My college professors, as much as they want to fail me, cannot find legitimate reasons to refute this either.)

You guys are all crazy. Human life will never end, nor will the Earth. It will just revert back to the system restore point. Or go through irreversable cycles of self-destruction, which will spiral through a never-ending vortex.

Dare I point out that you also participated in the, what was it, "incessant bickering?" Snafu -I agree, your point did have validity to it. It was the simple insults and the derrogatory tone that bothered me, and I accept your apology. I also offer my apologies for the overreaction. The difference is this - the original post wanted to discuss the morality of enforcing patriotism i.e., brainwashing. The topic steered away in two ways - one, the "under God" portion. We began talking about that a bit. And two, the morals behind forced patriotism were no longer the main focus - it was how patriotism is best invoked into one's mind. The methods and location, specifically. Not whether or not it should happen, but how it should happen. I know, the difference seems subtle, but it is there and changes the course of debate entirely. What you said wasn't different from the TOPIC, no. The topic being forced patriotism. And that was my entire point - that what you said didn't follow the general line of debate throughout the entire forum. It's just one of my huge pet peeves - when people don't actually read where the discussion has progressed to and contribute to the current discussion. It was nothing personal at all, I swear Oh, and I know that topics rarely stay "on topic." It just makes me mad when the topics change, people don't read the changes and post what they think. It's always been something that makes me mad. The definition of brainwashing is (according to Heritage dictionary) n : forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs. Which is precisely what happens in reciting the pledge. It's forced indoctrination (reciting in the unavoidable public school) of new attitudes (patriotism). It is not necissarily that you don't have a mind of your own - brainwashing doesn't mean you wash your brain at all. And it doesn't work on everyone by any means. I have my own patriotism stemming from much different roots than reciting the pledge. People are often able to identify brainwashing even while it's happening to them, and it doesn't mean it's effective. I hope that makes sense.

Not necissarily that pascifism and suicide are synonyms, but more that if you are a pascifist you would welcome death before defending yourself. If you're able to prevent your own death, and you do not, then I would consider that suicide. I'm not sure how many true pascifists would survive to greater conflicts. It seems like most of them would be dead before they got past most of the smaller ones.

No, the fact is you either did not read any posts except for my last one (the one right before you showed your extreme pretentiousness, if you even read that one), or you didn't understand any of the posts. If you had, you would have realized that we had strayed from the "forced patriotism for kids" idea into an entirely new area of discussion - effectiveness for invoking patriotism into children and the persistant debate of keeping "under God" in the pledge. Now, if you had refrained from insulting all of the rest of us on this thread and produced a "new turn" to bring the thread back TO the original topic instead of trying to pretend that you had read what was going on and steer your blatantly wrong opinions in the wrong direction, then perhaps you would have gained some respect and people might respond to whatever it was you had to say, not matter how ignorant it may have been.