What would you ban?

[The Austin]

4Chan. Stupid people. The Jersey Shore.

Anyone who puts the word "religion" on this thread.

religion.

lol.

sorry but i would, and for good reason. It has no place in our rational age other than to provide nutcases excuses to kill or simply interfere in the lives of others...

I might allow it on a personal basis, so perhaps not a full ban but i'd tear down all the churches and build homless shelters and refuges and recycle all the bibles koran's ect to make new science textbooks for underfunded schools.

I find it mildly amusing that you're saying you would do all of this stuff to make the world better..... And then you would ban religion, and destroy all of the religious texts.

And If you really think that religion is just an excuse for killing people, than you missed the entire point of the concept.

Nope, religion WAS meant to make the world better, trouble is people misuse it, therfore it should be banned. Christianity, The actual teachings of christ were supposed to make people more tolerant and compassionate and less judgemental... two thousand and ten years late (give or take) christians are persecuting people based on their sexuality condemming the use of birth control and condoms in regions where HIV and poverty is rampant, shooting abortion doctors dead and calling it pro life (and also supporting the death penalty!) as well as harrasing grieving relatives at funerals. Muslims who are supposed to believe in the teachings of christ and the prophet mohammed (another pacifist) Turn on their christian brothers and sisters, kill women for being educated, fly planes into buildings, coerce the mentally handicapped into wiring themselves with explosives and detonating in crowded areas...

if any other cultural phenomenon caused this much horror and carnage any right-thinking society would outlaw it immediately... religion is damaging and primitive and people cannot handle it very well at all.

You could ban it's misuse then?

 

[The Austin]

4Chan. Stupid people. The Jersey Shore.

Anyone who puts the word "religion" on this thread.

religion.

lol.

sorry but i would, and for good reason. It has no place in our rational age other than to provide nutcases excuses to kill or simply interfere in the lives of others...

I might allow it on a personal basis, so perhaps not a full ban but i'd tear down all the churches and build homless shelters and refuges and recycle all the bibles koran's ect to make new science textbooks for underfunded schools.

I find it mildly amusing that you're saying you would do all of this stuff to make the world better..... And then you would ban religion, and destroy all of the religious texts.

And If you really think that religion is just an excuse for killing people, than you missed the entire point of the concept.

Nope, religion WAS meant to make the world better, trouble is people misuse it, therfore it should be banned. Christianity, The actual teachings of christ were supposed to make people more tolerant and compassionate and less judgemental... two thousand and ten years late (give or take) christians are persecuting people based on their sexuality condemming the use of birth control and condoms in regions where HIV and poverty is rampant, shooting abortion doctors dead and calling it pro life (and also supporting the death penalty!) as well as harrasing grieving relatives at funerals. Muslims who are supposed to believe in the teachings of christ and the prophet mohammed (another pacifist) Turn on their christian brothers and sisters, kill women for being educated, fly planes into buildings, coerce the mentally handicapped into wiring themselves with explosives and detonating in crowded areas...

if any other cultural phenomenon caused this much horror and carnage any right-thinking society would outlaw it immediately... religion is damaging and primitive and people cannot handle it very well at all.

You could ban it's misuse then?

trouble is the bible has all these extranious chapters that contradict almost everything jesus ever said, and the hardcore nutcases tend to just use those whenever their personal prejudices kick in.

I've always thought of the bible as Jesus's way of saying "Do whatever the fuck you want, just don't be an asshole."

Problem is, a small percentage of people like to be assholes.
But I don't think they should ruin it for the others.

 

[Gavmando]

I'd ban all forms of food additives.
That's what's wrong with the youth now-days. It's all the artificial crap put into food that alters people's minds. Next time you're in the supermarket have a look at what's actually in the "food" you're about to buy...

you have done little to no research from unbiased sources have you? you understand that 1. organic foods have been proven to be just as bad for you as processed foods(because they contain a lot of bug crap and other things) and because organic food cannot be grown on the same volume as other foods about half the population would starve to death so yeah do some actual research. also I can find them I will like the organic food studies since I actually read the in a publication not on the internet.

Are you telling me that things like MSG and HVP are good for me? What about all the different flavour enhancers that are added to food to make them taste better, who's only job is to get you addicted to the taste so you'll keep buying the brand? What about all the sulphates added to meat? Their job is to make old meat look like it's still good.

But i'm sure you'll be able to find studies that tell me this stuff is harmless, because most of the people in the food industry who commissions these studies, work for the people who produce the chemicals.

As for organic foods and GM crops, (Which I wasnt actually talking about. You brought it up,) While it's true that a lot of GM modified crops are not harmful and a few are actually beneficial, they are not natural.
Through human intervention we have seen things like wheat being bred to produce more gluten, which in turn has led to the increase of people with gluten intolerances. And that's just on a selective breading scale. Once we start messing with something's genetic structure, we change it from what it originally was. So while something may be more resistant to a bug or environmental conditions, what effect will this have on the greater environment?
To say that modifying something like wheat, (for example,) will only affect the wheat is incredibly narrow minded. There are many flow on effects associated with messing with the natural balance of something. And unfortunately when it comes to the human race, everyone will ignore it until it starts to cost them money.

And speaking of money; There are already talks of patenting various strains of seeds so that you can only grow them if you pay the patent holder money. So big business has created something and is charging you to use it, whilst eliminating your choice to use something else.

P.S. I lol'd hard when you inferred that bug crap makes organically grown food as bad as GM grown food. We've been eating "bug crap" for thousands of years! It's not that bad! If it was going to kill us, we'd all be dead a long time ago.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

But it's not even that. I'm nowhere near failing in my studies. The problem is that even though our entire group of geography students is small enough to ensure that everyone gets a spot on the Master's studies, they attached an arbitrary admission grade you have to pass in order to get in, regardless of whether you're actually still very much on track for passing your Bachelor's. Now, if your only subject is geography, then I can understand this; you can still get decent employment with just the Bachelor's degree... but for us future teachers, employability is directly linked to having a Master's degree.

This is not me trying to get into a program I don't deserve to be on. This is me rightfully complaining about blatant elitism.

Okay, so instead of having an arbitrary standard they just let everyone from your bachelor's program go straight through Master's. So then their graduate school is nothing but a finishing school for the undergrad program. Do you suppose that would make your school's graduates competitive with other schools who didn't drop their standards? The whole point of graduate school is it's where a small portion of graduates who are good enough go to become even more, well, elite. There is supposed to be a difference in quality between a person with a bachelor's and a person with an advanced degree.

These days if you think ANYTHING guarantees your future employment you're in for a rude awakening anyway.

 

[Sonicron]

But it's not even that. I'm nowhere near failing in my studies. The problem is that even though our entire group of geography students is small enough to ensure that everyone gets a spot on the Master's studies, they attached an arbitrary admission grade you have to pass in order to get in, regardless of whether you're actually still very much on track for passing your Bachelor's. Now, if your only subject is geography, then I can understand this; you can still get decent employment with just the Bachelor's degree... but for us future teachers, employability is directly linked to having a Master's degree.

This is not me trying to get into a program I don't deserve to be on. This is me rightfully complaining about blatant elitism.

Okay, so instead of having an arbitrary standard they just let everyone from your bachelor's program go straight through Master's. So then their graduate school is nothing but a finishing school for the undergrad program. Do you suppose that would make your school's graduates competitive with other schools who didn't drop their standards? The whole point of graduate school is it's where a small portion of graduates who are good enough go to become even more, well, elite. There is supposed to be a difference in quality between a person with a bachelor's and a person with an advanced degree.

These days if you think ANYTHING guarantees your future employment you're in for a rude awakening anyway.

I'm not sold on that.
Only five years ago anyone studying to be a teacher here studied under the old system which, while it did have its flaws, at least guaranteed you that you got to finish your studies; you still had to pass all your exams, naturally, but you did get admission to the entire program.
Now you have another roadblock built in after six semesters, and if you can't move past it you still (possibly) have a degree, but one that will get you nowhere in my chosen future profession. This is just not right. I completely understand that the Master has to be harder to obtain than the Bachelor, but flat-out being denied admission because of a few unlucky grades somewhere down the line for someone whose future depends on it? Bullshit.

And by the way, most of the study programs on our university (and indeed all others in this country) have recognized this crap for what it is and put a stop to this - my English studies being one of them (which, as it looks right now, I'll be passing with flying colours). But Geography kept it in place and even made it tougher than before, so if I screw up on any of the exams this semester I can just jam a fork in my eye because I essentially wasted 3 years of my life I can't afford to waste in today's competitive world.

Try and justify it all you want. This shit screams unreasonableness.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

But it's not even that. I'm nowhere near failing in my studies. The problem is that even though our entire group of geography students is small enough to ensure that everyone gets a spot on the Master's studies, they attached an arbitrary admission grade you have to pass in order to get in, regardless of whether you're actually still very much on track for passing your Bachelor's. Now, if your only subject is geography, then I can understand this; you can still get decent employment with just the Bachelor's degree... but for us future teachers, employability is directly linked to having a Master's degree.

This is not me trying to get into a program I don't deserve to be on. This is me rightfully complaining about blatant elitism.

Okay, so instead of having an arbitrary standard they just let everyone from your bachelor's program go straight through Master's. So then their graduate school is nothing but a finishing school for the undergrad program. Do you suppose that would make your school's graduates competitive with other schools who didn't drop their standards? The whole point of graduate school is it's where a small portion of graduates who are good enough go to become even more, well, elite. There is supposed to be a difference in quality between a person with a bachelor's and a person with an advanced degree.

These days if you think ANYTHING guarantees your future employment you're in for a rude awakening anyway.

I'm not sold on that.
Only five years ago anyone studying to be a teacher here studied under the old system which, while it did have its flaws, at least guaranteed you that you got to finish your studies; you still had to pass all your exams, naturally, but you did get admission to the entire program.
Now you have another roadblock built in after six semesters, and if you can't move past it you still (possibly) have a degree, but one that will get you nowhere in my chosen future profession. This is just not right. I completely understand that the Master has to be harder to obtain than the Bachelor, but flat-out being denied admission because of a few unlucky grades somewhere down the line for someone whose future depends on it? Bullshit.

And by the way, most of the study programs on our university (and indeed all others in this country) have recognized this crap for what it is and put a stop to this - my English studies being one of them (which, as it looks right now, I'll be passing with flying colours). But Geography kept it in place and even made it tougher than before, so if I screw up on any of the exams this semester I can just jam a fork in my eye because I essentially wasted 3 years of my life I can't afford to waste in today's competitive world.

Try and justify it all you want. This shit screams unreasonableness.

Oh. I didn't realize your school assigned grades based on luck. I thought it was like most schools where you earned them by completing assignments and studying for exams. Now that I know that I stand corrected. The rest of what I'm about to say only applies to people who go to schools where grades are awarded for performance then:

You're not a future teacher. After you become a teacher you retroactively become a former future teacher. Right now you're just a person going to school. People going to school don't have a guaranteed future. For instance I myself have two degrees. I graduated with high honors with a biology degree and failed to get into medical school. I guess I should have stuck a fork in my eye since I had no future, right? What I did instead was go back to another university and get a psychology degree with highest honors. Then I failed to get into graduate school. So I need to jump in front of a bullet train right? Na, I just went out and got a job.

I feel your pain, player. I have two useless bachelor's degrees. But I own them. I'm not entirely sure what my misstep was but I didn't do something I should have done to succeed in life. You are coming off as someone with a crippling sense of entitlement. The game must obviously be rigged just because you didn't win. Why do you think you're owed a spot in graduate school when you don't meet the requirements? Just because there's room? Just because you need it? Just because it's really disappointing if you don't?

Let's say you don't get into graduate school and you don't become a geography teacher. That's bad, but you'll have a choice when that happens, same I as I did. You can decide life is over because the future that existed only in your mind isn't going to happen. Just sit in your house and rot. Or you can do something else but rail against your unjust fate and spend your life mourning the geography teacher you shouldacouldawoulda been. Or you can just let it go and accept that you're still a young person in your early 20s with maybe six decades ahead of you and realize that you're going to do something even if you can't imagine what right now.

I took option #2 for years and let my grief for poor stillborn Doctor Banworthy ruin my life. I have had some great jobs over the years doing things like fishing all over the Southeastern US doing biology studies (using the bachelor's degree I never even wanted). I was given a big truck and sent off fishing 40 hours a week for pay. That should be a dream job but my sense of entitlement told me I was supposed to be a doctor, not a biologist. I wasted what should have been a great year on self pity. I'm not projecting or saying you're just like me. I'm just offering you a cautionary tale.

 

[CrazyMedic]

I'd ban all forms of food additives.
That's what's wrong with the youth now-days. It's all the artificial crap put into food that alters people's minds. Next time you're in the supermarket have a look at what's actually in the "food" you're about to buy...

you have done little to no research from unbiased sources have you? you understand that 1. organic foods have been proven to be just as bad for you as processed foods(because they contain a lot of bug crap and other things) and because organic food cannot be grown on the same volume as other foods about half the population would starve to death so yeah do some actual research. also I can find them I will like the organic food studies since I actually read the in a publication not on the internet.

Are you telling me that things like MSG and HVP are good for me? What about all the different flavour enhancers that are added to food to make them taste better, who's only job is to get you addicted to the taste so you'll keep buying the brand? What about all the sulphates added to meat? Their job is to make old meat look like it's still good.

But i'm sure you'll be able to find studies that tell me this stuff is harmless, because most of the people in the food industry who commissions these studies, work for the people who produce the chemicals.

As for organic foods and GM crops, (Which I wasnt actually talking about. You brought it up,) While it's true that a lot of GM modified crops are not harmful and a few are actually beneficial, they are not natural.
Through human intervention we have seen things like wheat being bred to produce more gluten, which in turn has led to the increase of people with gluten intolerances. And that's just on a selective breading scale. Once we start messing with something's genetic structure, we change it from what it originally was. So while something may be more resistant to a bug or environmental conditions, what effect will this have on the greater environment?
To say that modifying something like wheat, (for example,) will only affect the wheat is incredibly narrow minded. There are many flow on effects associated with messing with the natural balance of something. And unfortunately when it comes to the human race, everyone will ignore it until it starts to cost them money.

And speaking of money; There are already talks of patenting various strains of seeds so that you can only grow them if you pay the patent holder money. So big business has created something and is charging you to use it, whilst eliminating your choice to use something else.

P.S. I lol'd hard when you inferred that bug crap makes organically grown food as bad as GM grown food. We've been eating "bug crap" for thousands of years! It's not that bad! If it was going to kill us, we'd all be dead a long time ago.

I never said that non organic foods are better for you I said that they were both bad for you, and I also never brought up GM foods the fact that organic pesticides(if they use them at all)
do not work as well as chemical pesticides as such more plants leading lower yield, but a lot of your points are valid I am just saying that it isn't some massive tragedy that we don't only eat fresh foods. Also we have been eating bug crap for thousands of years up until about the 1900s(I think) and most people do not have the same immunity to the toxins and such in bug crap(among other things in organic foods) if you were raised on nothing but organic foods then organic foods are fine for you but most people don't start organic foods until they get into their hippy phase and want to send the man a message about not screwing with mother nature.

 

[Sonicron]

-Mega Snip-

Point taken.
Not easily, mind you, but point taken nonetheless.

I know, I tend to come off as a pompous, entitled asshat on this matter... I suppose that's me being enormously scared of being a disappointment to my family and to myself.

I'll stop debating at this point. Thank you for the cautionary tale, I shall keep it in mind.