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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 06, 2004
Hello from Scotland. Brilliant comments. These are the kind of truths that people know to be self-evidently true at an almost instinctive level, to such an extent that it is often difficult to verbalise them.
on Jan 06, 2004
Spleen - I already elaborated on #11 in a comment. #14 has links by Larry in this thread to a few sources. And #1 is obviously opinion but I certainly haven't seen someone propose a better system yet.
on Jan 06, 2004
My favorite arguments are the ones that contain lots of spelling mistakes!
on Jan 06, 2004
The one thing I would love to see someone do is:

Show on the Internet the video of Bush's reactions when he was told 1 WTC tower was hit and then a few minutes later after the second was hit as he addressed that group of kids at school in FL. (Many have seen this) He showed almost zero (0) reaction and continued addressing the kids for some 20 - 25 minutes after being told.

AND THEN SHOW A "WHAT IF" INTERNET VIDEO THAT SHOWS:

The same setting but this time the person comes in and tells Bush two planes attempted to hit the WTC Towers but were shot down before they did. And now Bush spins away from the podium and yells "What" and he immediately leaves the classroom, being upset and startled as he immediately leaves with his aids.

~//~

Visual reality speaks tons... I would LOVE to see someone put the above up on the Web, and do it soon! The hit counter on that page would start smoking, if not burst into flames.

I was a tenant at WTC1 in 1979-81

The primary concern any of the tenants had 20 years ago was a hijacked plane being flown into the towers.

Here is the "Key" to unlock the door: The extensive flight logs for 20 years from the 3 military bases in the area, and Port Authority responding to air threats is exemplary.

Thousands of sorties run in response to threats, practice runs, false alarms, done weekly or daily over 20 years. Back in the late seventies the NY Post ran an article about the Port Authority bragging how their manned 24/7 response helicopter would be in the air within 4 minutes of an alert call going out per possible air threats to the WTC towers.

There is one occasion that I am aware of, or in most probabilities that any one else is aware of in this exemplary record of response to air threats covering a period of over twenty years that the intercepts did not launch and were told to stand down, after going on high alert within a minute or two of the threat, not from just one threat but then by two, then three. That date was 9/11/01

This in itself is the most condemning fact of them all when that 20-year record is brought to light. The motive then becomes crystal clear in review of that exemplary response record to threats from the air against the WTC towers.

No, off course or negligent aircraft came close. They were always intercepted and told to change their course or they would be blown out of the sky. It was a no fly zone and this happened to many pilots that intentionally or unintentionally flew to close to the WTC towers over those 20 years.

"Don't turn you back and look the other way. Shoot a wolf in the chicken coop today!"

http://www.rense.com/general46/911.html
on Jan 07, 2004
"Hi, my name is angel..I'm a conspiraholic" Hehe.
on Jan 08, 2004
You want more info on axis of evil? Go ahead.

Washington's New World Order Weapons Can Trigger Climate Change
Michel Chossudovsky 26nov00
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press, 2000.

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Climate-Change-Weapons.htm
on Jan 08, 2004
Wow. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document? You think I would have learned that in college...
on Jan 09, 2004
Brad, I find it actually quite offensive that you might find "debating with a college kid" a waste of time! Who are you to generalise to all college kids that they have nothing of value to say? I am not a college kid myself (I'm 23), but that really struck a chord... What does it matter if the person has something to say?
on Jan 10, 2004
hi brad, i think this list represents a fairly accurate (if dispassionate) world view, which is in its' very nature confronting. i think it would help it it was read with the understanding that facts are just facts. even awful ones. i think there can be a tendency to "shoot the messenger" when we read such things. thanks for putting yourself out there on those issues - i found it thought provoking which is the whole point (for me).
on Jan 15, 2004
Superpsych, there are obviously exceptions to any generalization.

But college students tend to be the worse at debating because they seem to believe they are inherently more intelligent than others and hence not bound by any sort of need to do any fact checking or research on a given topic. In fact, often times you can't even get college aged debaters to even be specific about the assertions they make. Instead, you end up with a bunch of hyper-generalized assertions (if you think generalizing college students as bad debaters is bad, then you have an idea of how it feels to deal with college aged debaters on prett much any topic).
3 Pages1 2 3