"Making America Great"

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Oooh boy this section, this kind of thread is a first to me and I'm unsure how to word it. Trump's slogan basically, but also something bigger than Trump.

This is basically for a discussion on what you all think ACTUALLY would "Make America Great". And what a "great" country even is.

 

 

Old video, has been around a lot, but I think it explains a lot of the problems I think America has. Not a perfect example, but it's something.

[Dad]

Japan is the greatest country. Fight me.

[mido9]

 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

So instead of answering the question in the OP you chose to post a video of someone, not you, who believes a video that I said was just a "not perfect" example of "some of the problems" I think America has, is wrong and gives his reasoning. And then claimed I was...baiting people.

Perhaps you could try again with your actual opinions?

Granted it was a fairly interesting point of view.

 

Edit: I didn't give a ton of my specific ideas in the OP, but I just meant to have enough to start the discussion. Sorry if I didn't give enough for people to answer the question.

[vla1ne]

So instead of answering the question in the OP you chose to post a video of someone, not you, who believes a video that I said was just a "not perfect" example of "some of the problems" I think America has, is wrong and gives his reasoning. And then claimed I was...baiting people.

 

let's be fair here, mido's flaw here is that he didn't post his own opinions, but his posted rebuttal was more or less spot on. the "god given rights" comes from multiple gods, and it is no less foolish today than it was back then. many of the founders didn't believe in angels. Also, for the ones that did, it wasn't their religious beliefs that drove them. It was their secular and humanist moral philosophy.  sure, the principles were right, but the cause for the principles were the congregation of human beings from many different backgrounds, putting their own input in, and working to provide compromise without limiting freedom. it's the reason separation of church and state was so important, it's the reason freedom of speech was so important, it's the reason guns owned by the people became acceptable, it's why military force  is restricted from commandeering the homes of citizens, it's why searches of the peoples possessions is unconstitutional ect. 

i personally think the bait image was hilarious, but humor is humor, you're free to disagree.

 

[spoiler=as for my own ideas, on this, lets do this by the amendments first, and then address the problems:]

1: freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition of government. all of them are rights that are inalienable. freedom is what we specialize in, and speech is no worse. this is a right that cannot be touched, no matter who takes offense. the results of removing it can be seen across the first world countries, sending people to camps over differences in opinions, banning speech because it triggers fully grown children, arresting people for having unpopular, or offensive opinions, fear of debating instead of silencing, ect. freedom of speech is a trait 

 

2: right to bear arms, citizens own guns, it is a fundamental right, and a symbol of the people's freedom, yeah, it comes with mass shootings and more gun violence, but it is a right nonetheless, and removing it is equivalent to saying we are too afraid of guns to trust even the most upright of citizens with them. there has been a rise in actions across the first world countries that looks a lot like the makings of communism, islam is becoming an issue as well, and the government doesn't respond half as fast as a practiced bystander with a pistol.

 

3: prevention of unreasonable, or extended military quartering, not as noticeable of an amendment, because there has been no need to enact it, but it remains an important one nonetheless. it reminds us that there are limits to what we should and should not accept from the government in terms of conduct.

 

4: restriction of search and seize, it's the right to random searches without reasonable and lawful cause. it's a standing reason that america can call itself free. it is a foundation of the right to privacy, and free, law abiding citizen will have nothing to hide, but that does not grant the government the right to search said citizens. it comes with the understanding that under threat, you may be better of allowing a search, but it affords you the right to fight said searches if you believe the grounds uncalled for.

 

5:right to fair treatment and double conviction: if you are convicted of a crime, you cannot be convicted of the same crime twice, it rarely kicks in, but it prevents people from being tried over something they've already done time for. and it allows the accused from having to speak on their behalf, meaning those who have nothing to fear, and even those who do, are not forced to speak. 

 

6:due process/speedy trial: even  alleged criminals possess rights, and this right, when combined with the above right, prevents the innocent from rotting in jail. another claim to greatness is the fair and swift (as reasonably possible) treatment of criminals on trial. it prevents the innocent from sitting in jail longer than necessary, and ensues that the guilty are judged as soon as possible.

 

7: trial by peers allows for the accused to be judged not by a judge, but by the everyday people, who are more often than not, more fair by virtue of multiple opinions.

 

8: restriction upon fines and limits. the law cannot rob you blind, and that is a good thing. this law prevents tickets and similar government charges from being so high as to be impossible to pay (sometimes it still is,) it is another law that would only be truly felt if it vanishes.

 

9: this is a right that protects any and all rights not explicit within the constitution itself, such as the right to education, marriage, driving, and such. many nations posses something similar.

 

10: the government has only as much power as the people allow it. it restricts the government by allowing the states to usurp all but constitutional laws within their providence.

 

 

 

[spoiler=..ok, i'm bored of that, you all know the amendments, if you don't, you now have a head start, let's get down to the flaws.]

 

1) we're doing too much with the gun restrictions, as heartless as it sounds, shootings come with the territory, banning them is not helping america's rep as a contender for the greatest, we have had many mass shootings in the past few years, and many, if not all of them were in places that have yet to realizes how large of a target they make of themselves. in addition, our loopholes need to be closed, fix that, and we will rise on the list of countries with minimal gun violence. we're already pretty low on the overall violence scale, if we can just close the holes and implement better laws, we could get even lower. 

 

2) political correctness. people are too afraid of offense, and others are to scared to speak their mind, and it's turning this country into a bunch of pussies. learn to take offense, and either shoot it back or make something constructive of it. i'm tired of seeing trivial actions being magnified in the news. a kid with a bread gun is not going to cause the next columbine unless you treat him like his going to commit the next columbine. a teen with a confederate flag doesn't automatically qualify as a KKK member, and offensive people aren't the equivalent of hitler. stop being offended so easily and we might be able to actually get more things done.

 

3) intelligence, crowder is correct when he says that we are at a disadvantage to countries that condition children from the start, but that doesn't mean we can't compete, we need education reform badly, because right now it's detrimental to all children as a whole. in this case, it may be necessary to segregate male and female children as it is proven that they learn differently and have different actions even when uninfluenced by outside forces. it's time we fixed that problem, and it's time we actually realized that there is a problem in the first place.

 

4) military, yeah, we've got the strongest military in the world, anybody who doubts that can fight us all out, and see how long they last. but that doesn't mean it is fine the way it is, our military does a lot of good, but we do almost as much damage in comparison. military advancements are necessary, but we are wasting a lot of money for the biggest guns. we already top all other nations by such a wide margin, we've got to stop fearing spending cuts, and we've got to reduce the amount of money we pour into the military, not by too much, but there are other places that need the money. speaking of which

 

5) welfare and similar s***. we waste ungodly amounts on this inefficient system, and i see so much abuse of these types of programs that i cannot conceive why they are still being continued, i propose implementing UBI, universal basic income, calculate the average costs of living, factor inflation, and deal it out evenly. will anybody be happy with it? no, but it's not about happiness here, it's about making the system more efficient. if you can pay your bills and buy enough to survive, that's all you need. it alleviates the costs of living across the boa, and does not remove the need for a job. i've already made a massive post on this earlier, i'll link to it if anybody cares enough, but onto the next subject.

 

6) crime & incarceration, we've got a lower ratio of crime than many other countries (ours is more lethal, but hey, less fights, more bullets)  i's time we lowered it further, stop arresting people for trivial s***, and start actually fixing the underlying issues which brings a massive subject into view

 

7) drugs, we've got a drug problem, and a large part of that problem is that not all of it is as much of a problem as we'd like to believe. we're waging a war on drugs with all the wrong weapons. instead of incarceration, give help and rehabilitation. incarceration increases the criminal rate, rehabilitation brings them back to the work force, neither is a guarantee, but the latter is at least more humane of a solution. in addition, weed is not a drug any more than cigarettes unless modified, legalize the s*** and stop wasting money arresting otherwise law abiding potheads. this war is being fought all wrong, and it's costing us more than the criminals. there's more to it than that, but before anything can be fixed, the biggest obstacle has to be fixed, and that is:

 

8) congress, until congress can get it's act together, there is no hope for reform in any area. i have no solutions here, i can only point out the problem. because until the people elected choose to move for compromise, we cannot get a solution. my only suggestion is to stop voting for the people who refuse to compromise, and start voting for the people who are willing to meet in the middle. the more rational people in office, the more rational the bills will become. stop letting the pendulum swing harder, instead center the s***, so we can get s*** done.

 

 

 

there's way more i can say, but i'm late for a card review and i have to catch a bus.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

let's be fair here, mido's flaw here is that he didn't post his own opinions, but his posted rebuttal was more or less spot on. the "god given rights" comes from multiple gods, and it is no less foolish today than it was back then. many of the founders didn't believe in angels. Also, for the ones that did, it wasn't their religious beliefs that drove them. It was their secular and humanist moral philosophy.  sure, the principles were right, but the cause for the principles were the congregation of human beings from many different backgrounds, putting their own input in, and working to provide compromise without limiting freedom. it's the reason separation of church and state was so important, it's the reason freedom of speech was so important, it's the reason guns owned by the people became acceptable, it's why military force  is restricted from commandeering the homes of citizens, it's why searches of the peoples possessions is unconstitutional ect. 

i personally think the bait image was hilarious, but humor is humor, you're free to disagree.

 

[spoiler=as for my own ideas, on this, lets do this by the amendments first, and then address the problems:]

1: freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition of government. all of them are rights that are inalienable. freedom is what we specialize in, and speech is no worse. this is a right that cannot be touched, no matter who takes offense. the results of removing it can be seen across the first world countries, sending people to camps over differences in opinions, banning speech because it triggers fully grown children, arresting people for having unpopular, or offensive opinions, fear of debating instead of silencing, ect. freedom of speech is a trait 

 

2: right to bear arms, citizens own guns, it is a fundamental right, and a symbol of the people's freedom, yeah, it comes with mass shootings and more gun violence, but it is a right nonetheless, and removing it is equivalent to saying we are too afraid of guns to trust even the most upright of citizens with them. there has been a rise in actions across the first world countries that looks a lot like the makings of communism, islam is becoming an issue as well, and the government doesn't respond half as fast as a practiced bystander with a pistol.

 

3: prevention of unreasonable, or extended military quartering, not as noticeable of an amendment, because there has been no need to enact it, but it remains an important one nonetheless. it reminds us that there are limits to what we should and should not accept from the government in terms of conduct.

 

4: restriction of search and seize, it's the right to random searches without reasonable and lawful cause. it's a standing reason that america can call itself free. it is a foundation of the right to privacy, and free, law abiding citizen will have nothing to hide, but that does not grant the government the right to search said citizens. it comes with the understanding that under threat, you may be better of allowing a search, but it affords you the right to fight said searches if you believe the grounds uncalled for.

 

5:right to fair treatment and double conviction: if you are convicted of a crime, you cannot be convicted of the same crime twice, it rarely kicks in, but it prevents people from being tried over something they've already done time for. and it allows the accused from having to speak on their behalf, meaning those who have nothing to fear, and even those who do, are not forced to speak. 

 

6:due process/speedy trial: even  alleged criminals possess rights, and this right, when combined with the above right, prevents the innocent from rotting in jail. another claim to greatness is the fair and swift (as reasonably possible) treatment of criminals on trial. it prevents the innocent from sitting in jail longer than necessary, and ensues that the guilty are judged as soon as possible.

 

7: trial by peers allows for the accused to be judged not by a judge, but by the everyday people, who are more often than not, more fair by virtue of multiple opinions.

 

8: restriction upon fines and limits. the law cannot rob you blind, and that is a good thing. this law prevents tickets and similar government charges from being so high as to be impossible to pay (sometimes it still is,) it is another law that would only be truly felt if it vanishes.

 

9: this is a right that protects any and all rights not explicit within the constitution itself, such as the right to education, marriage, driving, and such. many nations posses something similar.

 

10: the government has only as much power as the people allow it. it restricts the government by allowing the states to usurp all but constitutional laws within their providence.

 

 

 

[spoiler=..ok, i'm bored of that, you all know the amendments, if you don't, you now have a head start, let's get down to the flaws.]

 

1) we're doing too much with the gun restrictions, as heartless as it sounds, shootings come with the territory, banning them is not helping america's rep as a contender for the greatest, we have had many mass shootings in the past few years, and many, if not all of them were in places that have yet to realizes how large of a target they make of themselves. in addition, our loopholes need to be closed, fix that, and we will rise on the list of countries with minimal gun violence. we're already pretty low on the overall violence scale, if we can just close the holes and implement better laws, we could get even lower. 

 

2) political correctness. people are too afraid of offense, and others are to scared to speak their mind, and it's turning this country into a bunch of pussies. learn to take offense, and either shoot it back or make something constructive of it. i'm tired of seeing trivial actions being magnified in the news. a kid with a bread gun is not going to cause the next columbine unless you treat him like his going to commit the next columbine. a teen with a confederate flag doesn't automatically qualify as a KKK member, and offensive people aren't the equivalent of hitler. stop being offended so easily and we might be able to actually get more things done.

 

3) intelligence, crowder is correct when he says that we are at a disadvantage to countries that condition children from the start, but that doesn't mean we can't compete, we need education reform badly, because right now it's detrimental to all children as a whole. in this case, it may be necessary to segregate male and female children as it is proven that they learn differently and have different actions even when uninfluenced by outside forces. it's time we fixed that problem, and it's time we actually realized that there is a problem in the first place.

 

4) military, yeah, we've got the strongest military in the world, anybody who doubts that can fight us all out, and see how long they last. but that doesn't mean it is fine the way it is, our military does a lot of good, but we do almost as much damage in comparison. military advancements are necessary, but we are wasting a lot of money for the biggest guns. we already top all other nations by such a wide margin, we've got to stop fearing spending cuts, and we've got to reduce the amount of money we pour into the military, not by too much, but there are other places that need the money. speaking of which

 

5) welfare and similar s***. we waste ungodly amounts on this inefficient system, and i see so much abuse of these types of programs that i cannot conceive why they are still being continued, i propose implementing UBI, universal basic income, calculate the average costs of living, factor inflation, and deal it out evenly. will anybody be happy with it? no, but it's not about happiness here, it's about making the system more efficient. if you can pay your bills and buy enough to survive, that's all you need. it alleviates the costs of living across the boa, and does not remove the need for a job. i've already made a massive post on this earlier, i'll link to it if anybody cares enough, but onto the next subject.

 

6) crime & incarceration, we've got a lower ratio of crime than many other countries (ours is more lethal, but hey, less fights, more bullets)  i's time we lowered it further, stop arresting people for trivial s***, and start actually fixing the underlying issues which brings a massive subject into view

 

7) drugs, we've got a drug problem, and a large part of that problem is that not all of it is as much of a problem as we'd like to believe. we're waging a war on drugs with all the wrong weapons. instead of incarceration, give help and rehabilitation. incarceration increases the criminal rate, rehabilitation brings them back to the work force, neither is a guarantee, but the latter is at least more humane of a solution. in addition, weed is not a drug any more than cigarettes unless modified, legalize the s*** and stop wasting money arresting otherwise law abiding potheads. this war is being fought all wrong, and it's costing us more than the criminals. there's more to it than that, but before anything can be fixed, the biggest obstacle has to be fixed, and that is:

 

8) congress, until congress can get it's act together, there is no hope for reform in any area. i have no solutions here, i can only point out the problem. because until the people elected choose to move for compromise, we cannot get a solution. my only suggestion is to stop voting for the people who refuse to compromise, and start voting for the people who are willing to meet in the middle. the more rational people in office, the more rational the bills will become. stop letting the pendulum swing harder, instead center the s***, so we can get s*** done.

 

 

 

there's way more i can say, but i'm late for a card review and i have to catch a bus.

 

Thing is that was just the guy's tone and not even the point of what he was saying, which is a horrible, horrible, way to "rebuke" the point.

Humor should at least make sense.

 

I think one thing I can say about a lot of your points there is, for me, I see those things as rights that can be adapted to what's needed. Not necessarily things that have to stay completely ironclad in order for there to be freedom.

 

[spoiler=Did not expect to say so much]1.) I'm not sure you understand how other countries feel about gun laws if you think banning them is hurting our reputation. :P (this one's mostly a joke tbh)

 

2.) I have a lot to say here, more than the others, but mostly because I want to get all my thoughts said as best I can.

I'd say there's at least as much complaining and whining done by the "other side" of the argument. People who get up in arms at, and yes this happened, an indie game having "they/them" be a gender option. I saw hordes of people complaining about an OPTION because more/less "ugh tumblr game, gtfo". Which is a ridiculous over reaction to a simple option.

Honestly it's getting to the point that the "other side" is just as easily upset and "triggered" into starting arguments.

And I say....If someone's afraid to speak their mind because other people don't like it. That's on them. Who cares if there's a group that's vocally against certain things. If you say something, and can back up what you say with reasons, then there's nothing they can do but complain. Suck it up and take the complaints and criticism or don't say anything at all.

The true problem as I see it with the second amendment is that it's being used as an excuse for saying things, instead of people having an actual reason to say things. Plus if someone has a right to say something offensive, then the other side has a right to say they're wrong for it.

And the other thing about it is...if laws get passed which helps the side of "they're wrong for saying this" then that means that's what the country is choosing. Which is the point of our freedoms, to allow us to choose, as a majority, what path to take. You may say it's because of the vocal minority, but in the end the majority will win out.

 

3.) I will agree on the education thing. But not the male/female split. Simply because a part of the point of school is learning to interact with people, in my opinion. So splitting them up takes away from that, and takes away from being able to learn about other people.

 

4.) Yes, military. It's not bad to spend a good amount on military even if just so that we can do everything that needs to be done when it needs to be done. But we've gone overboard for the sake of advancing when what we have is already pretty advanced. (At least military wise)

 

5.) My mom's got foodstamps. It's just enough to make it through the month, usually. She has to get her bills paid by her boyfriend (and me when I can) and she can't work, because of being a sickly 50 year old woman, but that, and some medical stuff, is all she gets. Wellfare crap frustrates the hell out of me. I don't understand our system, and it's really damn frustrating. Another thing about that imo is that it's so damn difficult in some areas to get a job. I've been applying for months, to many places, and nothing. That's a disturbing idea. Seeing as in those months of trying to find a job, bills and such pile up. Were I living on my own I'd be screwed. (As would my mom because that'd cut into her foodstamps as is). What a world we live in.

 

6.) Like the war on drugs stuff, the most ineffective war I can think of off the top of my head. Which reminds me of a big US problem I have, I'll say that at the end.

 

7.) lol oh here it is XD

 

8.) Probably the biggest one imo. Which leads into my thought of...

 

A huge issue holding the US back is ourselves. Everyone, in some way, are determined to stick to the same methods even if it doesn't work. Because that's what feels safe, and familiar. Honestly this goes for all people, the two of us included, for some things. And it's not doing the country any favors when it's in so many areas. (social issues, spending issues, government functions issues, law issues, etc). If we stop thinking about things as "This is how it's done" and instead "This is how it should be" we'd get so much more done.

 

[vla1ne]

it gets the job done though. if that was his point, then his only flaw was not saying ["as for my views on this: *link*"] the tone isn't really a factor, and again, the topic itself, considering your average stance, does feel a lot like bait, so it's understandable that he'd see it as such, honestly the bait joke was hilariously offensive imo.

 

they don't need to stay completely ironclad, rasonable restrictions are acceptable for many of them, and they do have reasonable restrictions, with the exception of gun laws, which have enough loopholes as it is now that it's really indefensble to claim it's  anything but flawed as is, but that horse has been beaten so hard it needs another cigarrete,so lets find another one yes?

 

[spoiler=as for the ones in parenthesis]

1) i assume we can agree to leave that horse lying there. i've been through gods know how many gun discussions this week online and offline. i'm willing to leave it alone for today.

 

2)the other side might complain, but they are not enacting laws that make their offense punishable by law. and there is the major difference in sides. for example http://yournewswire.com/europe-to-send-conspiracy-theorists-to-reeducation-camps/this is not in america, but america has it's share of idiotic laws being pushed as well http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27860/ it's people who want hand holding throughout life, whether or not the people want it is irrelevant in this case, it is literally the subjugation of peoples' right to free speech, in fact, anything that somebody else might deem even remotely offensive, would become fair game, and that is why the first amendment exists, to prevent this kind of drivel from making it into the law. hurt feelings do not constitute legal action, it is demonstrably harmful to expression, and is akin to the practices of dictators in the past decade. the people complaining about being easily offended are acting to remove freedom of speech in as many areas as possible, the people in opposition, are not acting to remove anything. one will have demonstrably adverse effects upon the freedom of innocent people, the other will simply leave people feeling insulted over small issues. political correctness is limiting to the exchange of culture, ideas, and opinions, and limits popular and unpopular opinions alike. you see this debate forum? debate is where politically correct comes to die. it's differences in ideas being compared, regardless of whom it may offend. rationality trumps feelings, and the first amendment allows that to be possible in america with minimal government involvement. people have fought and died for the right to say something another person might not like, and i will be damned before i agree to allowing people to remove that right over some people getting their feelings hurt. i am against being offensive for the sake of being offensive, but i will defend the right to do so any time i raise my voice. i may not like what a racist, or a sexist, a conspiracy theorist, or a religious zealot has to say, i might object to every word from their mouth, but i will defend their right to say it every day all day, because that is what freedom of speech entails. people have forgotten that fact, and they seek comfort over reality. i do not. and you should not either.

 

3) school is more about learning than about interaction, there are classes that can be integrated, but if it comes at the expense of having to tone down one side in favor of the other (such as boy's high activity being curbed and punished instead of constructively redirected), then there is no reason to put both in the same room. boys and girls have been demonstrated to learn differently, and if they cannot be taught properly in the same room, then the solution is to separate them, at least for the duration of the basic schooling (so maybe up to middle school to get a foundation, and slowly blend into high school). boys and girls can interact through other means inside and outside of school, keeping them together when it is detrimental to one or both genders, is not the way to go about it if you wish to maximize the effectiveness of each lesson (and in doing so, compete with the likes of china using the most humane methods possible). unless you've got another proposal? i'm not against keeping both together if there's a way do do it that doesn't lead to the problems i listed above.

 

4) we agree here, to what extent is debatable, but take what i can get and all that.

 

5) that is the purpose of UBI, it removes the need for such programs (at least under normal circumstances), because it would be a set amount distributed across the nation, it would not only remove the clutter of food stamps/housing/ welfare/ WIC/ ect, but it would reduce the overall amount spent by way of having an even rate, less red tape, fewer costs to manage, and removal of even many homeless support programs, it would also allow business owners to not have to raise minimum wage too far, creating an incentive for businesses to remain america based, while not requiring taxes to be lowered, therefore possibly satisfying both democrats, and republicans. it's not perfect, finding the balance would be hard, what to do with criminals and drug addicts using said money for other goals, would need to be factored, differences in state incomes and taxes would have to be controlled for, and a manner of other issues, but once in place, it would be far simpler to adjust, and far more beneficial overall to the country.

 

6) that comment was sort of a detail-less cop-out on my part, really, i should have listed the underlying issues in that post, but i had no time then and left it as a hollow shell of what it could have been had i went into detail. i'm going to leave it that way because it would take me at least an hour to properly type up all that would need to be fixed to reduce the crime rate in america. i have the time, but i'm not patient enough today to do so.

 

7) i detailed that enough, that i don't think i need to go much further. there's much i could add, but it really wouldn't add much.

 

8) it's the biggest one because it's the gate to fixing almost all the others.

 

how it should be is subjective, that's the reason we have so many standstills in congress. people have different opinions on how things should be, and in some cases, how things should be is related to the principles of the country. for example, crowder put it as plainly as it can be: freedom comes with ramifications, if we truly want freedom, then we have to be ready to accept the consequences. the same freedom to do as we wish comes with the responsibilities to accept the consequences. you are free to become fat or train for the Olympics, you are free to innovate, and you are free to be lazy, you are free to own guns, and you are free to make your property gun free, you are free to be a homo, you are free to be homophobic, you are free to take a story and believe it, you are free to put on your tinfoil hats, you are free to be religious, and you are free to be an atheist. you are free to choose your life. the consequences come with the territory, but this is how you do freedom, and that really is what this country was built upon. people come from oppressed regimes all across the world have come to america (how america was obtained and formed is another debate entirely), because america really was built from the ground up, to maximize freedom, while placing reasonable limits upon the people. there's a lot of flaws, nobody can dispute that, but those are due not to the constitution, they are due to the people who cannot accept reasonable limits, and those overzealous enough to try placing unreasonable limits upon such freedom.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Wouldn't that mean I should just call every anti-SJW and such post by several certain people on YCM bait? :P

 

Anyway there's a lot there and I kinda ran out of steam but I feel like I should respond a bit to some of them at least.

 

This first one came off more hostile than I intended, I think. idk how to word it better though.

2.) Honestly...I've seen that same argument again and again and I don't think it really is effective against what I said. It doesn't have much to do with it. And it's downplaying what the "other side" does by saying "No wait seriously we don't do as much" which isn't necessarily true. Own up to it and don't make excuses. I know how shitty my "side" (if I can even call it that) can be. And again, if the laws change, it's what the people want all together. That's how our government is supposed to run. Say whatever you want and don't complain that other people don't like it. Most of what you said doesn't really apply to my point as far as I can tell.

 

3.) "school is more about learning than about interaction" I just plain disagree with this, I think it's equal. But anyway the only way I can see this working is setting aside in-school time for sorta club activity stuff where students can mingle. But it'd cut into actual class time because I don't think you're allowed to force kids to stay a certain amount of time after school, or something.

 

5.) That does seem to be better than what we've got yes. I just want a change. I'm so tired of our job and welfare system after being through it so much.

 

How it should be is subjective to a point. But there's always ways to make it best fit for everyone involved. If we keep sticking to the same things and not push for changes, or at least testing changes, no-one is going to be happy in the end. At least that's how I see it.

[vla1ne]

your average stance, and that of others on this site, is often anti trump if i recall correctly, and you mentioned the most well known trump supporter on the first post, in addition, you named the thread "making america great". that comes off as bait in such context no?

 

2) i literally listed acts that easily offended people were attempting to enact to limit freedom of speech, way i see it, i backed my claim spectacularly. nobody in the freedom of speech side is trying to stop others from talking, we might debate them to a point, but something like trying to pass laws against "microagressions"? where do you see laws limiting free speech, and making objectionable speech punishable through legal or other means? by that very context, we are not "doing as much" because we are not trying to pass anything new. we still condemn hate crimes and such, but we take all forms of speech. the argument you're making is if the law changes, then the people want it, but the question is is it good for the people? does it protect their freedoms? hate to go racism, but the jim crow laws were for the majority of people too, but it limited the freedoms of others, by your context, i could reasonably say that the jim crow laws would be justified today if the majority of people wanted them back. is that a good thing? no. because it is limiting to the freedoms granted by the constitution. your side is demonstrably aiming to exclude, by claiming offense, my side is demonstrably aiming to include by protecting open speech. you will continue to hear it because it is a valid argument.

 

3) if students cannot learn in class, then interaction is meaningless. there was a thread on this a while back, boys and girls have different ways of learning for the most part, and if you want to compete with the likes of china, you have to teach according to the strengths, you can keep them both in the same class, but unless you can teach according to the strengths of both, you are doing both a disservice in the long run.

 

4) well we agree there.

 

there are many things that i suggested changing, and i even granted that some of my suggestions might be better off implemented other ways, but many of the things that people today claim need change would only end up worse overall if changed in the manner that is asked.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Eh, that's debaitable.

 

2.) Freedom is about being able to make your own decisions on what you believe is for the good of the people. And if enough believe this is for the good of the people, then that's that. Thing is. The only thing you have to worry about is if it's the majority, which it's not. You're shooting at shadows here. A group that is vocal will not win out if the majority disagree.

imo a group can't grow if they continue to point fingers and say "Yeah but they're worse".

 

3.) Well it all comes down to that I think the social and life skills (dealing with people) aspects of schools is just as important as learning. If there's a way to do both then I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

That's how you feel and I understand that. I'm not so sure it'll result in the negatives you worry about. If we don't try something different we can't expect different results.

[vla1ne]

that pun.. wow.

 

2)freedom is not about deciding what is best for the people, freedom is about letting the people decide what is best for themselves. recently, many have decided that they don't want to hear things that upset them , some even reacting violently, throwing tantrums and the like, pushing tor rules that ban anything they consider to be offensive speech.   (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/   http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/28/umass-students-triggered-at-event-featuring-politically-incorrect-comics-pundits.html  http://www.infowars.com/dozens-of-college-students-triggered-after-trump-2016-written-in-chalk/    ) students and even some adults are becoming too coddled, unable to handle offense, and many are even unable to handle opposing opinions, asking for safe spaces and the like to avoid debate. many people are using race and other excuses to excuse their irresponsible behavior, and many more of them are endorsing and committing violence against those of opposing opinions. i am again, pointing to actual actions, i am not just saying "that side is worse" i am giving actual evidence to my claim. 

 

when people demand laws condemning hate speech and harassment, and then conveniently define harassment and hate speech as anything that disagrees with their world view, it is perfectly fair to point at them and list off the reasons their views are worse than your own. one is literal attempts at removals of freedom, the other is calling out those attempts.

 

3)that's as close as i think we'll get there, and i'm fine with that, it's close enough to the center that i can agree to leave it at that.

 

as far as speech goes, the censorship route has made it's own path in history, the absolute freedom of speech route is relatively new to human history in comparison. and while it has its flaws, it has allowed for more progress than the controlled speech route.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

"freedom is about letting the people decide what is best for themselves" That's basically the same as "being able to make your own decisions on what you believe is for the good of the people" with only slight differences, as far as my ideas are concerned.

And again. If that's what the people want, if the MAJORITY want it, that's what's gonna happen. But it's not. So it's not exactly that your rights are being attacked when really, if it does get passed, being against it would be being against what the majority feel their rights are. And again, it's not the majority anyway.

 

I don't particularly care if you point out the flaws with the other side. That's literally what I said part of the problem with. People not owning up to their own stuff and instead saying why the other side is worse. I already said there's some really shitty people and actions on the side people associate me with.

 

Though it's funny cause personally I don't give a sheet if you say something offensive to me. Doesn't mean everyone has to be that way. Anyway....not much else to say for now, I think...at least from me.

[vla1ne]

it wouldn't be the first time the majority has to be brought down to reason. the majority is not always right, and whether it is majority or minority is not the argument in this case. it is which side is trying to limit a major freedom that the entire country is based upon. unlike something like slavery, there are no people killed or maimed by simple words, words do not allow you to own people, and even with freedom of speech, you are responsible for your own actions. it is up to the individual to decide their words, because this country was based upon maximizing as many individual freedoms as possible (no, things like killing and rape do not count, they both demonstrably remove freedoms of other people, regardless of who the other person is, speech even if offensive, does no such thing) 

 

were the people to be simply promoting awareness towards the needs of people who can't take such difficulties, it's be one thing, and that would be akin to what i'm doing on the opposite side, promoting awareness and opposing legislation that would erode the very first, and most vital right of the people. but that is not what some people are doing, not all, but enough that it needs to be called out.

 

there are flaws on the pro speech side, but literally all of them are word based. insults fragile egos, and indignation are the flaws in it, but those are a hell of a lot better than governmental (or some other form of authoritarian) punishment. what exactly is there to own up to? words and opinions do not restrict freedom of speech when used. laws do, and one side is using laws, while the other is using words, the difference is clear. keeping freedom of speech allows america to remain free, and maximizing freedom wherever possible and rational is one of the things that makes america great.

 

that's what i mean, no, not everybody has to be concrete skinned, and no, not everybody can take it, but enacting laws and rules like the ones put forth, and promoting such regressive areas as safe spaces, where college students are literally handed crayons and coloring books so they can get over differing opinions (not to mention incidents like the one where the Harvard student  was screaming about making a home in a college) is not healthy at all, be it to the minority, or the majority.