Does anyone else have any politically radical ideas?

Page 3 of 10 [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next


How many of you have politically radical ideas?
One or two politically radical ideas 19%  19%  [ 10 ]
Two or more politically radical ideas 77%  77%  [ 41 ]
I don't have any radical ideas at all 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 53

you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

16 Jun 2010, 7:53 am

gemstone123 wrote:
Doesn't result in a child? If incest is made legal unless you sterilize the people involved then some are bound to result in children being born.

Not if you require them to get an abortion.

.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


gemstone123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196
Location: UK

16 Jun 2010, 8:29 am

you_are_what_you_is wrote:
gemstone123 wrote:
Doesn't result in a child? If incest is made legal unless you sterilize the people involved then some are bound to result in children being born.

Not if you require them to get an abortion.

.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Although would it be required by law?


_________________
Am usually bored so PMs are welcome!

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ...


Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,288
Location: Texas, unfortunately

16 Jun 2010, 8:40 am

gemstone123 wrote:
Doesn't result in a child? If incest is made legal unless you sterilize the people involved then some are bound to result in children being born.


If a child is conceived as a result of inbreeding, then there's really nothing we can do about it. We can't force the mother to have an abortion because that would violate her free will, nor can we kill the child once it's born because that would be inhumane. But if we're going to criminalize incest for no other reason than that it might result in a child with genetic defects, then the next logical step would be to criminalize two people both with some sort of mental disorder from reproducing.



Last edited by Descartes on 16 Jun 2010, 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,574
Location: the island of defective toy santas

16 Jun 2010, 8:49 am

eugenics, anybody? "enquiring minds want to know."



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

17 Jun 2010, 6:20 am

I am English and I am so sick of party politics. Our political parties spend most of their air time slagging each other off and not really addressing issues that matter.

I think we should radically change our political system and dump party politics. Instead we should highlight policies and debate those. Allow the public to vote on policy rather than party. Then whoever is in government should be responsible for putting those policies into action.

Not sure exactly how it would work though. I like the idea of a committee rather than a government.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,574
Location: the island of defective toy santas

17 Jun 2010, 8:15 am

Robdemanc wrote:
I am English and I am so sick of party politics. Our political parties spend most of their air time slagging each other off and not really addressing issues that matter.
I think we should radically change our political system and dump party politics. Instead we should highlight policies and debate those. Allow the public to vote on policy rather than party. Then whoever is in government should be responsible for putting those policies into action.


when you vote for a party, you are voting for their policy platform as well. if you feel that parties are bad, you'd like recent developments in washington state and california, which both have enacted "top two" primaries in which a "pig-in-a-poke" system of any-party voting for candidates who do not clearly reveal their party affiliation is now in play. i think it stinks, as 1]it violates my constitutionally mandated freedom to associate with whomever the hell i wish to associate with, 2] it allows people from other parties to influence my party's candidates, and 3] it allows for certain districts to have just one party's candidates to vote for, regardless of the presense of the opposite party's voters/preferred candidates- in effect, taking away my vote! this particular [#3] outcome is reminiscent of the USSR way of doing things, i.e., one may vote for any candidate of only THE ONE PARTY- patently UNJUST and UNFAIR!
political parties exist for a reason. like-minded people have the right to associate and form voting blocks, which is what parties are. think of 'em like the preset buttons on a car radio, you select the station you dislike the least. i'd resent being told i must listen to only the rap [repub] station, and you'd be equally torqued if you were told you had to listen to nothing but the oldies [i.e., whatever party you hate the most] station- you might be forced into something like this unless england steers clear of any foolishness like top two.



gemstone123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196
Location: UK

18 Jun 2010, 9:44 am

Descartes wrote:
gemstone123 wrote:
Doesn't result in a child? If incest is made legal unless you sterilize the people involved then some are bound to result in children being born.


If a child is conceived as a result of inbreeding, then there's really nothing we can do about it. We can't force the mother to have an abortion because that would violate her free will, nor can we kill the child once it's born because that would be inhumane. But if we're going to criminalize incest for no other reason than that it might result in a child with genetic defects, then the next logical step would be to criminalize two people both with some sort of mental disorder from reproducing.


You said there was no justification for making incest a crime unless it results in a child.


_________________
Am usually bored so PMs are welcome!

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ...


you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

18 Jun 2010, 9:47 am

gemstone123 wrote:
you_are_what_you_is wrote:
Not if you require them to get an abortion.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Although would it be required by law?

How else are you supposed to require it?

I wouldn't make it required by law. But that would be one way of preventing children through incest.

.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


gemstone123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196
Location: UK

18 Jun 2010, 11:25 am

you_are_what_you_is wrote:
gemstone123 wrote:
you_are_what_you_is wrote:
Not if you require them to get an abortion.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Although would it be required by law?

How else are you supposed to require it?

I wouldn't make it required by law. But that would be one way of preventing children through incest.

.


I was thinking whether or not you could actually force people to have abortions by law without going against their rights. I suppose it could be unofficially required.


_________________
Am usually bored so PMs are welcome!

Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ...


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2010, 1:20 pm

Throwing out the government and replacing it with turtles.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

18 Jun 2010, 1:46 pm

ruveyn wrote:
gemstone123 wrote:
Descartes wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Descartes wrote:
incest should all be legalized.


Could I get a reasoning on this one?


Not that I condone incest in any way, but it is a victimless crime (as long as it involves consenting adults). I just feel there's no good justification to make it a crime, as long as it doesn't result in a child. In addition, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against homosexual conduct, one of their reasonings was that simple public disapproval of a certain behavior is not basis enough to criminalize it, and I feel the same applies to incest.


Doesn't result in a child? If incest is made legal unless you sterilize the people involved then some are bound to result in children being born.


Inbreeding a line is the quickest way to get rid of the defectives and the lethal recessives. As long as one is willing to cull the defectives the result is a good breed in good time. The Egyptians mated royal brothers and sisters to keep the line pure.

ruveyn


Sounds like a method to success: Keep breeding and killing all the defective ones.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Giftorcurse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,887
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina

18 Jun 2010, 2:29 pm

Image
Elect Godzilla for President!


_________________
Yes, I'm still alive.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2010, 2:34 pm

Giftorcurse wrote:
Image
Elect Godzilla for President!


That would have worked well during WWII in the Pacific Theater. Heck, the European Theater wouldn't do too badly either.



you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

18 Jun 2010, 3:56 pm

gemstone123 wrote:
you_are_what_you_is wrote:
I wouldn't make it required by law. But that would be one way of preventing children through incest.

.


I was thinking whether or not you could actually force people to have abortions by law without going against their rights. I suppose it could be unofficially required.

That depends on what rights you decide to grant them.

.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 Jun 2010, 4:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
One of my Radical Ideas is that to hold a high office, the office holder must wear a radio controlled explosive device around his neck. If 60 percent of the people he represents or has jurisdiction over send in a negative judgment the device explodes blowing the guy's head off. If he removes the device that is a resignation of the office.

Think of it as recall on steroids.

ruveyn


Now you are officially freaking me out. Although you are 30 years older than me, you sound like my highschool boyfriend. I mean literally, word for word. One day he came to school and started telling everybody this idea he had. That idea (the explosive collar) made me really uncomfortable and we argued about it for the better part of a school day. I asked him where he''d read it or who he'd heard it from. He said he thought it up on his own.

I have never heard or read anybody else express the exact same idea since I was 17 and with him. Now I'm 43. And this is the second time I've ever heard it. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the idea. It's just such a peculiarly unique idea that it weirds me out that two people 30 years apart would both think it up- but that it hasn't entered the zietgeist at all so you and him must just tick the same way.

So tell me...is this your unique idea or did you read about it somewhere many years ago? I'm just wondering if there's some source you both got it from (although my highschool boyfriend said it popped into his head) or if you and he just have such similar trains of thought that you both had this unique idea that just never occured to enough other people for it to show up in fiction or political commentary.

For the record, awesomelyglorious's argument against it was one of the one's I made to my boyfriend: that some people would cause the ring to explode for the sheer fun of it, rather than for any political reason. (I also argued against political reasons- it simply makes political assassination the norm). Although, since I was a highly overwrought and emotional 17 year old girl, I probably brought more angst and handwringing to that particular argument than awesomelyglorious.



Last edited by Janissy on 18 Jun 2010, 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Jun 2010, 4:20 pm

The movie Running Man had explosive collars for criminals to wear... might actually be fitting for politicians to wear also....