Quote from: challengerX on June 10, 2016, 02:14:49 PM

Quote from: Ginger on June 10, 2016, 02:13:03 PM

Quote from: challengerX on June 10, 2016, 01:48:09 PM

Quote from: Ginger on June 10, 2016, 01:14:37 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 10, 2016, 12:36:25 PM

Quote from: Ginger on June 10, 2016, 10:43:27 AM

Quote from: PsygnI on June 10, 2016, 09:12:12 AM

I don't understand why people don't abstain from the vote. Go register, and if you don't agree with either of the choices, abstain.

People say abstaining is retarded, but it's far better alternative to voting for your polar opposite. At least if there's a majority of abstentions, it shows the parties that frankly, the public don't like either of them and need to get their act together.

Not voting is lazy, emotionally charged voting/spite-voting is retarded; Abstaining shows you are unhappy with the system, and want a new one.

I do not vote. I am not even registered to vote. I chose to never register because I disagree with the two-party system. I thought that was a pretty good option. My not-voting isn't out of laziness, but as a matter of opposition to the current system. If someone is registered to vote already, then I agree with abstaining.

Wouldn't making your voice heard be more effective if you voted Libertarian in the year they probably have the biggest chance to make an impact? Hearing what Das said about it was pretty powerful.

The problem is that I don't think the system actually works for the people, and I no longer follow American politics enough to make an educated assessment. It really is a non-issue as of this point since I no longer reside in the US, but when I gain citizenship here, I will have to vote.

You see the American system as bad but you think it's better in Belgium?

It has more party options than the American system. But again, I don't follow Belgian politics either, so making an assessment of better or worse would be baseless. Voting is mandatory in Belgium, so when I become a citizen, I will have to participate. When that time nears, I will become more well versed in the political system here. At that point, I will give you my assessment, so...give or take 5 years.

Most Americans seem to have this romanticized view of democracy in Europe, that's why I asked.

There's really only 2 parties that are worth voting for in most every country. Not sure about Belgium because politicos here is a shitshow.

Things are a bit different over here. It is illegal to make donations to political campaigns and stuff in Belgium, which is totes different from the US. I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, so I don't know much more about thesystem than that.

It's actually still possible to donate to political parties. It's just restricted to a certain amount for private natural persons and companies to avoid massive contributions from certain actors looking to "buy" politicians' support if they get elected. I think it's too strict the way it is now, but the country does not really have a culture of people donating to politics (most prefer to just become a member of a party and pay membership fees) so I doubt much would change if this were changed. Still, it's a pretty good safeguard against politics being too influenced by money.

You absolutely do have a hate boner for the US.

I really don't think that I do. The US is, hands down, one of my favorite countries I've ever visited. I've been there several times and spent time in states all over the country. I have nothing against the US or its people and even considered moving there after living in the States for months on end. It is, without doubt, one of the best places to live in the entire world. If it seems like I have a hate boner for the place, it's because this site is just so US-centric. A handful of Britons and Aussies aside, just about everyone here is American. The vast majority of serious threads and discussions concerning a country or its policies are about the US. I would be equally critical of my own country (if not more so) or any other place I actually knew a lot about if it was actually brought up sometimes. I could fill threads with all my concerns and criticism on what the EU or my own government is doing, but no one here really cares. Our governmental reforms, budget cuts, difficulties reaching political agreement, overcrowded prisons, questionable immigration policy, poor police / secret service cooperation... Belgium sure as shit ain't perfect, but no one here would care if I brought any of it up or even know what I was talking about.

I come here to talk to people and discuss things. Not to put time and effort into trying to force a conversation about something no one cares about or to make a thread about all the downsides and current events of my own country only to have it die with 0 replies (or 1 maybe "lol no one cares about non-countries" response if I'm particularly lucky). It's true that I am very critical of the US. But I am the same way about a lot of things closer to me. It's just not as obvious because no one here cares about them, so my criticism of the US just stands out way more.

It's not really the correct usage for the word "practically" and I can see why you took it as me saying "America is the only country that cares about human rights".

Fair enough, I guess we should just chalk this one up as a misunderstanding then. When I hear "practically" used like that, I take it as "virtually", meaning that there's maybe one or two other countries coming close, if it's not used as some buzzword implying that there's actually none.

I'm not going to condescended to by somebody just because they've spent a lot of time studying this, I couldn't care less.

Fair enough, I shouldn't even have mentioned that. I just felt like you deliberately ignored several of my examples and misconstrued things.

I also said America has more freedoms than other countries, that is also a fact.

I have to disagree. The international index of economic freedom does not rank the US in the top 10. The press freedom index doesn't place it in the top 40. The world audit's democratic index, barely clearing the top 15. Human freedom index, not in the top 20. State of the world liberty index, not in the top 15.

The US has relatively low guarantees for due process and a fair trial. Few safeguards for things like wiretapping, questionable searches, self-incrimination and police intimidation. Privacy, both by government and other actors, is not particularly strong. Provisional and indefinite detention measures exist for broad reasons. Military tribunals and secret courts on surveillance have little to no safeguards for fair trials and human rights protection. Universal, accessible and affordable health care is not guaranteed. Laws on access to information are limited. Same-sex marriage, euthanasia, certain drugs, net neutrality, abortion and such are (or were until recently) very limited. The death penalty still exists, which many argue is a violation of the right to life and not to suffer cruel punishments. No recognition of an enforceable freedom a clean environment. No right to data protection, less freedom not to be discriminated against, hardly affordable higher education, less freedom from religion...

You can argue that the US has different freedoms, as it definitely does. Or that it pays more attention to the ones you deem more important. Or even that it does a much better job at balacing freedoms and rights with safety and security than any other country in the world. But to make the absolute claim that the US has more freedoms and cares more about human rights than others? Sorry, but I just don't see that being true. Different countries place different levels of importance on different freedoms. The one will protect the freedom to carry a gun or walk around dressed up as a neo-nazi praising the holocaust more, while the other will guarantee its people's freedom to receive hospital treatment without going bankrupt or legally end their life when they're terminally ill. You can very well say you think the first ones are more important or "better", but that doesn't mean that the other is any less free.

Simply because you view gun ownership as something wrong and unnecessary does not make it so.

I don't though. I think that, by Western European standards, I'm pretty pro gun and recognize the benefits it can bring. I just don't believe it deserves to be a qualified, constitutional and human right.

If you're going to respond to me, respond to all the parts of my post.

I did that because I figured we we're pretty much done, as we both said there was nothing much to still discuss. I just wanted to address your final comment, as I felt it was a completely unnecessary slight at the end of an otherwise good post. After what I thought was a solid and agreeable discussion on something we feel differently about, you respond to me saying the US is doing well and does a good job protecting human rights with "your hard on for painting America as this giant farce and championing the EU which is a fucking joke when it comes to democracy and rights". I thought that was pretty uncalled for after what I believed was a good conversation.

If you don't agree that individuals listed as enemy combatants should have their rights as a citizen stripped, I really don't know what to say. You either don't know what we're up against or you simply choose to be naive and believe we can take on the several threats to our nations by not crossing the line.

What I believe is irrelevant here. It was only mentioned to reinforce the point I already made in this post.

Situation 1: a suspect of terrorism can be retained indefinitely, beaten, tortured, kept in seclusion for months and ultimately tried by a secret court giving him no fair trial whatsoever.

Situation 2: this person is arrested, investigated and tried, but still retains his basic human rights and gets due process.

In which situation is he the most free? In which one does have the most rights? The correct answer is 2, and you know that. Now, is situation 2 the best choice? Would it be better, more efficient and safer for the entirety of society to go with option 1? Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that this person would be less free. We were not talking about the best balance between freedom and security, or the best possible policy choice. We were talking, exclusively, about the extent of freedoms and rights. And that is my entire point. Is it possible that other countries make worse choices, do a poor job at balancing them and do not have freedoms the US does have (and vice versa)? Sure. But that does not mean that they care any less about human rights or have any less freedoms than the US.

If you still want to continue this discussion, you can. But I don't know if I still will any time soon. I have my final exams making up 100% of each class in the next 4 days and need to pass them all to get my job. I'll still be on here, but I can't justify spending time getting into these discussions. I apologize for bringing up my education earlier in frustration, that was unnecessary too. I just felt we threw a perfectly good discussion down the drain for no reason.

"My candidate on the one extreme of the political spectrum isn't going to win so I'm going to vote for the complete opposite just to spite those who didn't do what I did" is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Literally who would do this?

I always thought the gjallarhorn was some kind of pistol. The more you know.

I think you took what I said a little too literally and with your hard on for painting America as this giant farce and championing the EU which is a fucking joke when it comes to democracy and rights.

Nah, I just call people out when they say dumb stuff about things I spent almost 7 years studying and will (hopefully) start a PhD on next year. The US is great. In terms of human rights protection, however, it's just not always on par with other countries. Not saying it's bad in terms of freedom and human rights, because it's really pretty damn good. But when someone claims it's the only country that cares about human rights, I just can't not address such ridiculous claims. You're free to disagree, but don't pin it on me having a hate boner for the US when what I said is supported by many scholars and some academics even thinking that the EU is too progressive / adamant on human rights and pays too much attention to them.

That seems contradictory.

Not really. Sanctions, warnings and records can be removed, undue fines can be recovered, prison time can be ended at any time and losses for all of the above can be compensated. But death? That's pretty definitive. If the judiciary messes up there, well, you're kind of fucked and no exonerating evidence can do anything to help after you've been executed. So if you really want to keep a practice which has been shown to not deter crime or have any real benefits whatsoever, the least you can do is try not to kill too many innocents (which still happens, as over 150 people have been exonerated from death row and it's estimated that almost 5% of all people executed are innocent). And in order to keep that number as low possible, you need safeguards. And those safeguards just cost a lot of time, money and efffort.

I don't get it

Someone accidentally put weebshit on a perfectly fine mousepad.

>does not protect the legal right to privacy

Conveniently ignoring the "nearly as high as other developed countries" part of the sentence. The US legal system has significantly lower safeguards in place, does not explicitly recognize a right to privacy and has an extremely fragmented and inconsistent legal framework in that aspect. And there's a lot more to privacy than governmental surveillance, which the US is again lacking in. Data protection, privacy by design/default, public-private partnerships, cross-border exchanges and such, for example, are at a much lower level in the US than in the EU. You could write a book on how EU legislation, the implementation thereof and the ECtHR oversight (art.8 ECHR) has set a new global standard for the right to privacy and the protection of private life. With the new EU-US Privacy Shield agreement in the works and more and more American scholars supporting similar standards for the US, there's really not much you can argue to suggest that the US somehow does a better job at protecting privacy.

I'm not sure what rights you people consider basic human rights, but America is not "trailing behind" in any of them.

Sorry man, but it kind of is. The US is adamant on the "right" to bear arms and allows more in terms of (hate) speech, but other than that? Its other first wave rights are at best equal and lacking in some ways (receiving information, privacy, fair trial, life, torture / punishment), while second and third wave rights have not received much implementation at all.

Either way, you can argue about the details all you want. Fact is that the US is not even close to being the only country caring about human rights.

Quote from: Ginger on June 08, 2016, 03:29:49 PM

Deci, do you think that the organization that took responsibility for the attacks was just lying? Do you think they were being paid off by the US government? Do you also think the rest of the world was in on it?

As I stated in the OP what I believe doesn't matter. That doesn't mean I'm going to change what I believe however.

That is such a cop-out. What more evidence could you possibly need?

Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the underlying note of the article. Yes, genetics is great, useful and could really help the human race advance further and conquer many of the issues we face. It's something we should seize, embrace and make good use of. But, to deny that it comes with certain ethical questions and could lead to some very real problems is just as bad as denouncing it outright on ethical grounds. It's a discussion that needs to be had. Possible dangers must be identified, the potential impact of these procedures should be assessed and adequate regulations, measures and safeguards should be thought of. This whole "it's immoral and LITERALLY HITLER EUGENICS REEEEE" attitude is pretty ridiculous, but I do believe it's important that this is properly explored and debated, and that potential abuse and negative consequences are addressed and accounted for.

Could I buy a good gaming PC for the same price as a new console?

Explain

"Good" would be stretching it, but you can get an acceptable PC for that kind of money. You won't run recent games on max settings at 60fps in 1080p or 4K, but you'll probably be able to run them on low to mid settings.

• PC Costs: cheaper long-term
• -cheap games + frequent sales
• -upgrading hardware is cheaper than getting an entirely new console for a new generation

Good list, but gotta say that those two aren't necessarily true. The used / second hand console game market, price drops for console games in the months after their release and the increased amount of sales, discounts and free access to games on consoles (Games With Gold / Playstation Plus) make it so that PC gaming is no longer necessarily cheaper for many people. I've gotten a significant number of great and pretty recent games through GwG for "free" (as part of the yearly subscription, of course), bought games like Fallout 3 / New Vegas and Skyrim (IIRC?) for less than $5 on the XBL Marketplace and picked up new retail copies of MCC and Halo 5 for less than $25 each on the Xbox One. Additionally, the upgrading hardware part is only true if you stick to low/mid range components. Individual PC parts (memory, CPU, video cards, storage) can cost hundreds of dollars a piece, while next gen consoles now come in at less than $300 including a controller and game(s).

All depends on what kind of gamer you are, of course, but I don't think it's fair to say PC's are by default cheaper, given their high initial costs, rising prices of high-end components and the increased access to very cheap games on consoles.[/list]

On topic: a number of extremists angry with the US hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings. That's it. No conspiracy, no solid proof to the contrary.

YouTube

Literally one sentence into the video and:

>"referendum in which we're being asked to permanently hand over all our political power to people who've been wrong about everything so that they can rule over us like kings"

>"it doesn't have a constitution that guarantees fundamental liberties and government by consent because its primary purpose is to remove the need for democracy"

Not to implicate any of the people voting Leave who are aware of the actual facts and have sound reasons for their decision, but blatant misinformation, populism and stupidity like this do appear to be one of the most prominent pro-Leave arguments. There are valid complaints against the EU and I can understand why some will vote to Leave, but this amount of utter misinformation and blatant lies makes me realize more and more so that the Leave campaign is banking primarily on the ignorance of most of its voters who fall for shameless populism and propaganda. Not that the Remain campaign is perfect at all, but this is just saddening to see that a potentially very important matter is being fueled like this rather than facts and correct information.

REPEAL THE SECOND is a great one.