Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
A list of things that people argue about without having any idea what they're talking about
Published on January 2, 2004 By Draginol In Philosophy

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Internet is also one of its strengths - it is the great equalizer. People from all walks of life can get together and debate about anything. It is frustrating because often times you find yourself debating on some issue you're an "expert" on with some high school kid who has no idea what they're talking about.

I will be debating a legal point or making a business argument only to find myself trading posts back and forth with some kid who is just plain clueless. They say teenagers act like they know it all. But the Internet has given them a venue to spout off their know-it-allisms to the world.  Many a time I'll be on some forum having just finished a 2 page response putting forth my argument only to realize that the people I'm arguing with aren't even adults. Doh!

Whether the topic be intellectual property law, capitalism, business ethics, politics, you name it, the net is full of people who will write passionately in response despite complete ignorance on the topic.  I've seen that a lot here on JoeUser, especially in the comments area.  People from the left and right will spout off, without even being aware of it, the "talking points" of the other side. Mindless parroting of straw man arguments and other idiocy is all too common on the net.

So let me rant out 15 points about nothing in particular that I've found are true but are often argued about by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

1) Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is the best system we have. Human beings act in their self interest and any system that wants to succeed on a large scale has to have a way of motivating people to do work that they may not want to do but benefits them and has the side effect of benefiting society.

2) All nations act in their own self interest but not to equal degrees.

3) The United States is the most benevolent leading world power in history. Pointing out its misdeeds and mistakes doesn't change that. Those who disagree need to look through history at other major powers and their actions.

4) Intellectual property law basically boils down to this: People who create things have the right to determine those things are used and distributed. Period.

5) Advertising will not pay for bandwidth intensive websites.

6) If you think George W. Bush or Bill Clinton are/were the worst Presidents in American history you should stop debating history and learn history instead.

7) If you think Democrats are all atheists or that Republicans are all devoutly Christian then you should spend more time looking into these things rather than spouting off on things you don't know about.

8) The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

9) Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Despite the wishes of some people, there is no referee who determines which jobs or careers are more worthy than others when it comes to deciding how much they get paid.

10) It is the state governments of the United States who perform nearly all the work that most people associate with what their tax dollars do (roads, schools, police, services, etc.). If you're arguing that the federal government should raise taxes so that it can do more "stuff" for the people you need to look at what the federal government actually does.

11) More people died and suffered long term from fire bombing Tokyo in 1945 than died/suffered from the atomic bomb in Hiroshima.

12) If you have two people paying taxes and one of them pays 90% of the taxes and the other 10% of the taxes and you give both of them a 25% cut to their taxes, the first man will receive 90% of the overall benefit and the latter will receive 10%.  Any fair tax cut will always provide the greatest benefit to the ones who pay the most.

13) Nearly every major world leader has some involvement with a major power. Arguing that "evil man X" once received help or support from the United States is idiotic because odds are same evil man X also received support from other major powers in some way as well. Moreover, it ignores the fact that times change. The #2 beneficiary of all time in today's dollars from American military aid was Joseph Stalin (UK was #1). The United States sent hundreds of billions of dollars (in today's dollars) to Stalin in World War II. Many of those weapons, and especially trucks, were later used to do hold down Eastern Europe. That doesn't make the US complicit.

14) Nearly all weapon systems and other military material used by Saddam Hussein came from France and Russia -- not the United States.

15) In any argument or fight, it is rare that both sides are "equally" wrong. In fact, most of the time, one side is definitively wrong and the other side is right. Those who attempt to use moral equivalence arguments to describe both parties are more interested in looking noble than acting noble.

update: renamed title to 15 common topics instead of "facts" since that was what I was getting at.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 03, 2004
The falling of the towers on 911, unfortunately, brought riches to some and devastation to the population.
Having to rebuild it, brought riches to some., and devastation (financially) to the population.
If something happens to the new one, it will, again, bring riches to the rebuilders, and devastation to the population.

Did anyone notice how the stock market started to go "crazy" 10 days before 911?
Certain people changed their stocks completely and this continued even one hour before the planes hit the towers.
Those people got rich.

I'm sorry for going a bit off topic, but I get so angry at the situation of 911- the real situation, and looking at this new tower design and pictures, I can't help but feel crushed by the fact that people got rich with this, while others were killed, or had loved ones dead.
on Jan 03, 2004
Is it just me or does angel seek out posts that usually appear on the top ten..and just propagate in the comments section?
on Jan 03, 2004
I'm all on this one, it seems. Heh.

Brad, with the large amount of misinformation, opinions stated as facts (By people who are supposed to know what they're saying), and along those lines..
Those of us who have used blogs/forums/chatrooms/yada yada, it's easy to get into a mindset that Obviously someone else doesn't know what they're talking about! Where are their sources? (We should start a topic of Reputable Sources and the potentional of fallicy)
And so even for 'adults' it's possible to turn into a 13 year old thumbing her/his nose screaming, I can't hear you..lalalalala!!!!!
on Jan 03, 2004
Just a thought....

I noticed some comments here bordering on flames. Regardless of whether I agree or not, it's important to remember that "draginol.joeuser.com" is Brad's **personal** blog. This means that he's welcome to express his **personal** opinion, and he should be able to do so without being raked over the coals. The fact that he has a comments section means that he's opened it up for others to express their personal opinions in response to his--but there are ways to do that without flaming. If you're pissed, go take a walk and post later. Show a little love.

In other words....

Lighten up, please folks?
on Jan 03, 2004
Tory, yep yep yep! He is welcome to post his ultra-fanadango-uber personal opinion. And yeah, there are ways to do it without 'flaming'..Such an odd word, flaming..
However, what IF they desire to flame? I didn't sign a contract or verbally agree to be nice and civilized. It's nice to be nice, but sometimes it's more fun to be mean.
If a person gets too ruff, they have ways of taking care of it, though..Ugh, you notice the comments are more comments about the comments than the main topic?
I think we're off track..Or atleast I am. Sorry!

on Jan 03, 2004
Regarding #11:

Yes, about 30,000 more people died immediately from the attack on Tokyo than from the atom bomb on Hiroshima. But the real story takes place beyond that where there was lingering and horrific deaths well beyond that. Radiation is nasty, but the US used a type of jellied petroleum for maximum damage in Tokyo and created super fire storms with them. But the after effects were massive contamination of the water and soil in Tokyo which Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not experience as much. Obviously "as much" is relative. Both were incredibly horrible. But it's not often covered just how horrific those fire bombings on Tokyo were.

One can never know the exact number of long term deaths but both had considerable long term health issues due to contamination in various ways along with lingering deaths. But what can't be disputed is that more people died in Tokyo than Hiroshima due to the actual bombing.

Regarding #3 and #13, often the argument is made that the US "arms" these nuts to the teeth. In reality, that is just not true. France, China, and Russia were Iraq's princple suppliers. And while the US did provide Stinger missiles to the Afghani's who were fighting the Soviet's, those weapons are quite specific.

When it comes to arming the world's screwballs, talk to France.

Regarding complicity in Eastern Europe -- most countries knew what happened in Eastern Europe. The US is no more complicit than say Canada in what happened in Eastern Europe.

Was it a good idea to help the Soviet Union defeat Nazi Germany? I don't feel that is really open to debate.

Which brings me back to the original issue: Often times I'll be debating some point and think to myself "How could anyone possibly be this naive or clueless?" Then I'll click on their profile (where it provides their age -- so we're not talking about JoeUser) and I'll smack myself thinking "Criminey, I've been wasting my time debating some colllege kid."
on Jan 03, 2004
Regarding flaming:

Bloggers on JoeUser can always remove a flame post. I'm used to being flamed.

I agree that citing sources is important when debating contentious issues. Which is something I really should write a blog about because I tend not to use sources when the information is commonly available. I.e. not commonly available in the sense that it's on some website but commonly available as in anyone who has researched the topic or even read a single book on the subject would know.

The Tokyo death toll vs. Hiroshima death toll is not obscure by any means (as one example). Pretty much every World War II book will actually make a point of mentioning the death toll difference. But heck, even for those people who don't like to read books, the History Channel regularly will make that point.

Or take the article here in question. Which topic is really controversal to anyone who's done even a mild amount of reading into these topics? Some are mathametical facts (tax cuts). Some are historical facts (Declaration of independence). Some require only a basic knowledge of history (US the most benevolent world power -- who would you prefer? Rome? The Mongols? Napolean's France? Victoria's England?). So when someone just make sa one line statement condemning the whole article I can only envision someone putting their hands over their ears, closing their eyes and going "La la la, I can't hear you!"
on Jan 03, 2004
Hey, I think I said that! But don't quote me, I don't have my sources. Mwahahaha!
on Jan 04, 2004
You can gain more from a calm debate than from a heated arguement.
on Jan 04, 2004
Frodo: Facts? Proof? Withut them your statements are mere speculation.
on Jan 05, 2004
1) Capitalism isn't perfect. But it is the best system we have. Human beings act in their self interest and any system that wants to succeed on a large scale has to have a way of motivating people to do work that they may not want to do but benefits them and has the side effect of benefiting society.

I have to disagree with this assesment as its the only one that niggles - it patently isn't the best system we have. The people of sub-saharran africa or the johnson fold council estate near me in england have been passed over by capitalism. They live in relative poverty to the rest of soceity, are wittnessing a period where inequalities in income and wealth are growing without precedent. The system may work for a minority in the West, but everyone else is losing out.

Witness the SARS debacle - China, a capitalist country with the the vestiges of State Capitalism, was rocked as was the world by this epidemic. Recent evidence shows that under-regulated Animal markets were the source of the disease; The freedoms and opportunity of a the free market system was the source of the disease.

Or what about the scandals of Enron and Paralmat? These are hardly the signs of a healthy system. Capitalism emerged when resources weren't scarce, we hadn't even taken over Africa then. It was fair enough then but now when there are over 6 billion people on this planet and with Coal, Oil Gas, Water and everything else running out things need to change.

There are also alternatives - what about turning every buisness into a cooperative?
The freedom and plurality of consumerism would remain, the workers in these companies so often overlooked would have a say, the remit of Profit, Profit, Profit would be changed in Reinvestment and Wages. Everyones happy.

What about involving Trade Unions in Industrial Policy formation?
Companies form one side of the economic tango, and the workers the other.

You might say I live in a happy little world, but then so do those who think that Capitalism is a acceptable Socio-Economic system.
on Jan 05, 2004
*reads angel's post* See?..
on Jan 05, 2004
My name is Angel and I like to waste people's time by writing a bunch of off topic clap trap in other people's posts. Unfortunately for me, I have chosen to do this on the site admin's blog who has the power to edit my pointless comments.
on Jan 06, 2004
Angel I beleive you have spent a bit too much time on Conspiracy Planet

*Step by step we are now being programmed now to see measles as a disease and to believe that there is only one way of dealing with it; treating it with vaccinations. Mother's, using their intuition, may well be able to recall back through their feeling system what is the truth and what is the best for their child. Perhaps our grandparents were wiser by knowing the magic powers of nature better than all the so called "health experts" in the world behind their most advanced computers. *

While I know I am being trolled here... I cant resist... Our forefathers were damn near wiped out several times by this particualr ailment. I would say that it then qualifies as a diesease indeed. Not a terribly convincign arguments for you here.... try again dear heart, but shorter, blog folks like it in small chunks, not manifestos...


on Jan 06, 2004
Brad, you are an interesting individual. I am a bit disappointed you would start an article under the premises of restoring fact-based truth and carry on with some points that are absolutely ground less or extremely manipulated. Kind of a O'reilly of the Blogging...

You mentioned in one of your post in response to a blogger to be specific, I will be. Here are the points I would love to read you elaborate with factual and reliable data. Or just admit that these are just your opinions on some topics:
#1
#11
#14

Thanks in advance for your clarifications, and keep blogging, good content overall. But you need to sell it for what it is worth... opinions.
SA
3 Pages1 2 3