Make a Case for Something you Oppose!

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

Okay, you silly basterds

 

This is the idea:

 

Make a case for something that you "oppose", politically, socially, culturally, scientifically, whatever.  I'm not saying how you should do it.  Just do it in your own way.  Enlighten/entertain us with your ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes!  Serious attempts are preferred, but I ain't gonna cry if you make me laugh. 

 

Okay, so here's the format I would suggest:

 

- State what you believe (I support/believe/ascribe to "such and such")

- Then make an argument for the opposite, opposed, or divergent opinion from your own.

 

I'll go first:

 

MY BELIEF: "Climate Change is a political hoax that has nothing to do with actual, real environmental issues."

 

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: "Conspiracy theories always abound, and are always fueled by people who are not qualified to make the judgments that they seem so comfortable making.  The reality is: the vast majority of scientists around the world acknowledge Climate Change as not only a real and present issue, but the most pressing enviromental issue of our times.  Most countries around the world have been coming together to try to reduce CO2 emissions, knowing that in doing so they're not only saving the many great species of our world, but also saving ourselves as well.  Ocean levels will continue to rise if we do nothing.  Temperatures will continue to rise if we do nothing.  By the end of this century, previously established coastlines/countries will be underwater, and temperatures will be so high that agriculture will be drastically affected and curbed.  We will have serious trouble feeding our ever-growing populace.  All these stresses will result in increased local and regional disputes between various factions and countries, resulting in an overall state of chaos in the world that will victimize the vast majority of billions too poor to shelter themselves.  In short, we MUST curb fossil fuel energy usage as much as possible and transition to as green economy as soon as possible, in order to stem the inevitable advent of a world that has lost its climate equilibrium and thus descends into dystopia."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

My belief: gatorman's an idiot.

 

Devil's advocate: it should be impossible for any single person to be as stupid as he and survive.  So he may very well be two, three, or even as many as five idiots.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

41 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

My belief: gatorman's an idiot.

 

Devil's advocate: it should be impossible for any single person to be as stupid as he and survive.  So he may very well be two, three, or even as many as five idiots.

 

I will take that, thank you for responding!  I feared no one would at all!

 

As a side note, I'm curious about your numerical theory of idiots, as in, how do you differentiate between sequential idiots?

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but surely, even if you don't have an established framework of idiocy, it might behoove someone of your nature to brainstorm about such an universal framework of idiocy?

 

Just spitballin' here.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

My belief: gatorman's an idiot.

 

Devil's advocate: it should be impossible for any single person to be as stupid as he and survive.  So he may very well be two, three, or even as many as five idiots.

 

I considered going this route, but all I could come up with as a Devil's Advocate rebuttal was that he's not merely just an idiot, but a colossal !@#$ing moron.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Unconsious bias training:

 

Holy Good God...

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/16/starbucks-promises-staff-training-after-racial-profiling-incident/520201002

 

First thing that came to mind were the "Lane Byrant Murders"... Maybe they had too much "unconscious bias" training and needed to be sent to "conscious bias" training... A little background:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-lane-bryant-anniversary-st-0202-20180201-story.html

 

I am probably blowing the doors off the conservatives here that know me as a "liberal"...

Start messing with people's natural mechanisms, ie: "their gut" instincts... And trouble will arise.

I am not making a connection between these two incidents other than people make judgement calls on what they feel is right.  Obviously, the Starbucks manager was way out there and called it wrong... The manager (now ex-manager) at Starbucks is a female... But training to start altering their "gut" feeling is IMO not the right road to go down.

I use the Lane Bryant incident because it has been hypothesized (survivior), with the women innvolved, to have not followed their gut with regard to that situation. Women taught to assume to see "the good" in everybody and not trust their gut instincts (like suppressing racial profiling) can lead to dire consequences. Now we want to train everybody like that?  Forget about what's observational in one's life?  I can understand the understand the need to weed the racism out of people.

I am not paranoid... But I pose these questions mainly to my fellow liberals. As liberals, do you really see any good coming from this?

It's not a perfect world... People's biases are determined by oberservational behaviors around them and the thugs of all race and color are watching.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is harder than it sounds.

 

 

[Azalin]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

This is harder than it sounds.

 

 

 

That's what she said.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

That's what she said.

 

You're damned right she did.

 

[Azalin]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

You're damned right she did.

 

 

  You had to know that was coming.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

  You had to know that was coming.

 

haha it had slipped my mind.

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

This is harder than it sounds.

 

 

 

It was hard for me because I don't have beliefs.  I have empirical observations.  The only contrary argument to empirical observation is "I'm delusional."

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

  You had to know that was coming.

 

That's what she said.

[Azalin]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

That's what she said.

 

 

I would have been sorely disappointed had nobody said that.

[3rdnlng]

This whole conversation is like a bunch of men squirting. Sit down, pee and get back to work.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This whole conversation is like a bunch of men squirting. Sit down, pee and get back to work.

 

That's...not what she said.

[Paulus]

Nate Peterman is going to be an NFL star QB. There. I am not going to use facts and science to back it up. 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

These sorts of intellectual exercise are always fun.  I'll play later. 

[IDBillzFan]

My belief: Unions have overstayed their welcome in the US, and it is time for them to all be disbanded. In lieu of being fully disbanded, it should be illegal for any company or government entity to make new hires have union dues pulled from their paycheck  as a condition of employment.

 

Devil's Advocate: Many people are too lazy and stupid to think for themselves, and by paying union dues, they get to do the least amount of work on the backs of the hardest working Americans, and don't ever have to think about anything because the union bosses lay out their thoughts for them like Giselle lays out Tom's* evening attire. Plus, if you eliminate unions, how will the DNC find another way to launder money to be filtered back to the DNC?

 

'Merica.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum

Quote

 

Abstract

We investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup's morality. Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups.

 

 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum

 

I dunno, "Conservatism" is basically whatever Trump says it is now. Polls show that if Trump likes something, Conservative Republicans either like it, or will after Hannity and Fox propagate the idea. 

 

 

[The_Dude]

I think we should increase Islamic immigration to this country so that our children can learn what constant terrorism is like, and once our country is ruined we can all think about how awful we were for so long with all of our white privilege. Between that and the ashes of our loved ones I’m quite sure we’ll all be better for the added diversity. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by The_Dude