A REAL politics club!

[whitedragon-my]

I'm sure most of you already know this, but Wade posted in the General board about creating user clubs on NG. Not just the post in your sig kind we have now but REAL clubs. Wouldn't it be cool if we could get a politics club up and running?

To read the topic just copy and paste this link (sorry, my HTML really sucks so I can't post a link)

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=44403

[MarijuanaClock]

Considering New Grounds users are all over the political spectrum I doubt a political group would work. It simple wouldn't "mesh."

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

NG "reason" society.
Only those who use reasonable arguments are allowed. Basically, the people who use emotion driven arguments are rejected, and those of us who try to use logic, reason, and philosophy are accepted... what do you all think?

[Bizud]

Rock on, but remember that to a certain extent, morality is reason. The argument that "killing is wrong, just because it is" for example, is ultimately a valid argument, simply because it violates the ultimate moral tenet, that being that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't remove this same right from anyone else.

[Ted-Easton]

Sort of a group of people who can debate on something without using the words "n00b, fag, etc". Can actually intelligently communicate without insulting someone.
Sounds like a great idea. Any plans for what to do?

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

At 1/16/03 06:25 AM, Bizud wrote: Rock on, but remember that to a certain extent, morality is reason. The argument that "killing is wrong, just because it is" for example, is ultimately a valid argument, simply because it violates the ultimate moral tenet, that being that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't remove this same right from anyone else.

Well, what makes that the ultimate moral tenet? This brings things into philosophy, something that most people are unprepared to deal with.

[Ted-Easton]

Then our basic Moral Tenent for this Politics Club will be what has been said in the politics forum many times before. "I have the right to do whatever I want as long as it does not infringe on another's right to do so."

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

hmm... I don't know about that, If I eat my cake, that infringes upon your right to eat my cake... so I can't ever eat my cake.

We can figure it out later, maybe our basic principles should be:
1. Reason is the only source of knowledge
2. People have free will
3. There is an ideal ethical/political/etc and we are comitted to figuring out what it is.

This way we can still have differences in opinion, but it will be because we have different ideas about what the ideal ethical system is. Then through argument, we can further refine our ideas, weeding out the stupid ones and preserving the strong ones.

I included the free will and reason axioms because if they are not true, then there really isn't any reason for us to discuss things, because discussion is worthless and we cant effect anything anyways.

Does this sound reasonable everyone???

[Ted-Easton]

Sounds perfect. I completely agree. (You'll never hear me say that again).
I loved the bit about the cake, but I think that should still be a general tenant. people could nit-pick and point out situations where it couldn't apply, but overall, it seems valid.
We'll be pragmatic, too.
But the three tenents sound great.

[Ted-Easton]

If anyone has ever read Robert Jordan- we sound a bit like the Tinkers. Always looking for the song.

[ButteredChaps]

im up for it, im a political science major and philosophy minor and so im totally for this, how do we start it?

[TwinClock]

Great Idea, Sign me up. I love the idea of finding the ideal state of everything, cuz like, it's so totally 1337. And it seems like a great chance to learn how to further improve my ability to express the thoughts and feelings of the voice inside my head, and of course to analyze intelligent ideas and pull out the bone of truth lodged in their throats. So uh, yeah, like I said, where do I sign up?

[House-Of-Leaves]

I'm interested, but I lean toward agreeing with MarijuanaClock. It may work at first, but there's such a spectrum of political beliefs that it may just turn into a huge flame war.

How do you resolve the differences between the political parties?

How do you resolve theological issues? For politics is closely followed by religion. You can't usually have one without the other.

How do you assert yourself as RIGHT?

See, the problem will be those who will try to do just that. We all know one of those. The guy who refuses to admit that people can have opinions different than his. The one that calls democrats morons, or republicans idiots. The one that refuses to accept that sometimes you have to simply agree to disagree.

I'm afraid I've seen several of those on Newgrounds. You're bound to have PLENTY in a political club.

Hopefully you can find a way to get around all these things. But we as human beings are never totally emotionless. We're always driven at least a little bit by our emotions. It's what gives us the passion to stick by our beliefs.

[TwinClock]

Well, I'd like to think that people who would be drawn to join this particular political club wouldn't have to resort to blatant flaming, and even if they don't want to admit they are wrong would have the decency not to continue to post mindless blabber. My vision of this club is a group of people constantly arguing and debating over their views, and incorporating this expectation I see it as a sort of tournament, where ideas our debated, fought, and won, and continue on to new arguments and new ideas, to eventually find the ultimate answer to the universe and everything in it....42

[House-Of-Leaves]

Not everyone's read the Guide. ;)

Actually, it's a good idea in theory. And I hope it works for whoever tries it. But knowing the mentality I see on this BBS? There's SO many people out there, and SO many of them simply want to sow discord. It'll require a lot of moderation, I'm afraid. Someone keeping a keen eye on things so they don't get out of hand.

There's been too many 'BUSH SUX' forum threads for me to be comfortable in assuming that it'll all go smoothly. Also, too many anti-partisan threads. I -really- hope it works...but I'm trying to be a realist here. *grin*

[TwinClock]

Heh, well, I haven't read the guide either, but I've heard about it.
And Bush DOES suck, but he's just one guy, and obviously has very little to offer the ultimate ideal in himself. I just hope that we can all(club) broaden our perspectives enough to realize this grand goal we(I) have.

[Slizor]

We can figure it out later, maybe our basic principles should be:
1. Reason is the only source of knowledge
2. People have free will
3. There is an ideal ethical/political/etc and we are comitted to figuring out what it is.

4. Facts do not always have to be sourced, but on request a source would need to be found, if the issue is hotly debated
5. No yelling
6. Slizor is always right

[Ted-Easton]

I'm thinking a club based along lines such as-
Groups within the club can be anything from one person as an individual, or a few people who are of a like mind.
They can have a leader, or just band together in arguments, etc.
Then one person who is the head of the Politics crew. A person who has been around since now, and not a permanent thing. We won't set terms or anything, but we won't call it a life position.
That person is THE head of the politics club. When the time comes that something must be done for the good of the group, they tell the group and the group obeys.

The Amyrlian seat....

[Qjedi]

At 1/17/03 03:10 PM, Slizor wrote:

We can figure it out later, maybe our basic principles should be:
1. Reason is the only source of knowledge
2. People have free will
3. There is an ideal ethical/political/etc and we are comitted to figuring out what it is.

4. Facts do not always have to be sourced, but on request a source would need to be found, if the issue is hotly debated
5. No yelling
6. Slizor is always right

I am half interested in this, BTW (thank you, HoL) but there are problems.

1: Reason is NOT the only source of knowledge. I personally FEEL it may be the best source of knowledge, but politics and philosophy are, at root, an expression of how we feel.
2: People do have free will, but most are not free to act upon it due to restraints placed upon them legally (by the govt), ethically (by their own will), and morally (by their families and upbringing). I hope we can be very careful to work around this one.
3: Nice assumption, I look forward to seeing where it takes us. *grins* just imagine the taxi driver saying this: "Get in, sit down, shut up, hold on, and try to enjoy the ride. If you begin to experience nausea or panic at any point, do what I do and close your eyes when we make the turns."
4: A very good idea, but skip the hotly debated part and just leave it at "Fact's must be sourced if requested." Because as everybody knows, 72% of facts are made up on the spot.
5: Thank you, I agree completely.
6: Thank you, I agree completely.
7: Any typographical errors or misstatements will be allowed to be restated as many times as needed until the author is satisfied with the way the arguement has been stated.

I just like that last one. BTW, My name is Qjedi, and I am very interested in joining into the discussions on this forum. *grins* I look forward to having a discussion without being flamed by every juvenile that has a keyboard.

[House-Of-Leaves]

You're very welcome, Qjedi. :) I figured this would be something you'd be interested in.

I agree with all those stated guidelines, except perhaps the Slizor is always right part. ;) If this happens, I certainly hope we can use the honor system and stick to them.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

1. Oh no! A neo-Kantian, Ahgghhh kill me now.
2. Of course, I'm not saying that people are omnipotent, but we do basically have the ability to do what we want to do.
7. Sounds good.

I'm willing to concede your argument against #1 as being plausable IF you can explain, in easy to understand english, "the second conflict of the transcendental ideas" which is found in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, ignore me.

I just don't see how argument based on feeling can be productive.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/16/03 07:41 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: 3. There is an ideal ethical/political/etc and we are comitted to figuring out what it is.

I agree with most of what has been said except this. For example I have been arguing with Slizor for a long time and neither of us will ever come to an agreement on an ideal system. However it is always good to hear other ideas for even if you don't accept them one must acknowledge that other views exist and that if you are planning your ideal government then you must take into account these varying views.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

just because we haven't figured out what the ideal is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this is not true, then there are many systems that are just as good as any other, and this makes discussion and comparison a waste of time.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/22/03 12:33 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: just because we haven't figured out what the ideal is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this is not true, then there are many systems that are just as good as any other, and this makes discussion and comparison a waste of time.

Each person is unique to believe otherwise is foolishness. You will never be able to satisfy everyone it is not possible. One man's dream is another man's nightmare. Take communism for example if you are uneducated and making minimum wage it would be of great benefit to you, but if you are a rich intellectual the idea is horrifying to you.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Maybe that's because neither of those systems is perfect. If there is no good system there is no point to discussing them, as all will be just as bad as the next.

[Ted-Easton]

Every person is unique in some aspects, but every person is similar in some aspects. To believe otherwise is foolsihness.
Somewhere there is an ideal system that will work. If there isn't, then we might as well have anarchy, because it's as good as the rest.

But let's sto debating this and try to get some momentum on this club.

[FreedomSlave]

Sounds like an excellent Idea, Most people I meet dont like my political rants(erm discussions :)) so a political club would be excellent.

I'm up for doing any website coding that would be needed.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/23/03 07:38 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: But let's sto debating this and try to get some momentum on this club.

Agreed

[Speechless]

I think a club is a good idea.

[Qjedi]

At 1/21/03 02:59 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: 1. Oh no! A neo-Kantian, Ahgghhh kill me now.
2. Of course, I'm not saying that people are omnipotent, but we do basically have the ability to do what we want to do.
7. Sounds good.

I'm willing to concede your argument against #1 as being plausable IF you can explain, in easy to understand english, "the second conflict of the transcendental ideas" which is found in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, ignore me.

I just don't see how argument based on feeling can be productive.

I have no clue about neo-Kantism (? is it even a word? *g*) but an arguement can be based ONLY on feelings, because if you don't FEEL that you are right and that the other person is either wrong or misinterpreting what you are saying, then you wouldn't bother to argue about it, neh?
Anyhow, I am all for this thought and will even be kind enough to not keep going on the topic, BUT I am going to go learn a little bit about Kant and his theories now, so that I can do my overly-informative best to see how I can help you attain that next stage off intellectual ascension.
Later.