NationStates Jolt Archive

After having been at the General forum for some time, as well as a human being and a citizen of the planet Earth for 23 years, I have seen a fair amount of positions I don't agree with being advocated. People have their reasons why they believe what they believe - murderers deserve to die, abortion is murder, homosexuality should be a capital offense, recreational drugs should be legalized, etc. People can argue these positions all they want; whether or not they can change anyone's minds is another story.

However, there are a few seemingly unpopular positions I have yet to see advocated, and with all the odd positions I have seen, I am almost surprised. So I will list some unpopular positions that I have yet to see advocated here that people can either shoot down as completely insane, argue for them for the sake of proving that they can be defended, argue for them to shut me up, or tell me they agree with them; hell, I don't care...just get some discourse here.

OK, so now the positions. I have three to start here. Feel free to add some of your own arguments you want to see advocated, even if you don't agree with them. For the record, I don't agree with any of these positions, but I am calling out anyone who does or anyone who could conceive of agreeing with them.

OK, here goes.

FIRST POSITION: Charity is immoral.

THE IDEA: Some people give to private charities. Some people argue for government-based charity or poverty relief. Some would argue that being forced to give to such programs is wrong. Would anyone argue that the very idea of charity is wrong? Can you tell me why it could be wrong?

SECOND POSITION: The executives responsible for the Enron and similar scandals were 100% justified in their actions.

THE IDEA: Why should the government regulate business? Even if it's underhanded, untrustworthy, and put a lot of people on the street, the executives got theirs, and that's what business is all about. The only responsibility business executives have is to themselves and to their shareholders. Or is that right at all?

THIRD POSITION: Criticism of one's government should be punished by law, regardless of the degree of offense.

THE IDEA: We're obligated to support our leaders, be they elected or be they in power because their army is bigger than the other guy's. Either way, they are on top, and who are we to try to take them down? It's a distraction to the nation, and it takes away from the leader's credibility. Or does the leader deserve to have their credibility called into question?

Even if you can't support these positions, can you imagine someone doing so? What would you say to them? And are there any other indefensible positions you are curious about in terms of who their supporters are?

charity is easy.

giving to people makes them weak. they rely on income that they don't work for and fall into the trap.

oh, and for those religious types, doesn't the church need the money more than the poor sob who wont work?

Consider this, for the church folks: Churches spend an awful lot of their money on charity. So if less money goes to one charity, it instead goes to a faith-based charity. So what else is the money going to go to? The pastor's new boat?

I can advocate any of those positions, but I don't see any reason why I would choose to do so.

I could advocate it as well...I was interested both in how many people would see how to argue for these positions as well as people who actually believe such ideas. I also wanted to hear some ideas people couldn't imgine being advocated.

FIRST POSITION: Charity is immoral.

The whole concept... no. But I could (and have) argue against development aid from the basis it does the opposite of the intended effect.

SECOND POSITION: The executives responsible for the Enron and similar scandals were 100% justified in their actions.
Could defend it, but don't want to.

THIRD POSITION: Criticism of one's government should be punished by law, regardless of the degree of offense.

Oooooh... yes. Yes, I think I actually could defend this.

SECOND POSITION: The executives responsible for the Enron and similar scandals were 100% justified in their actions.

I'll take a stab: It's only wrong if you get caught. Since most every other corporation probably tries this, the economic system would crash if every corporation were not equally greedy.

I always thought the best debates came at uni when we were told to argue a position we completely disagreed with. Meant that emotion went out of the window and only logic played a part.

I don't think charity is immoral, as it helps people get their lives back, but I could see how someone would feel the opposite way.

Enron? They're scumbags. I don't see how anyone with any sense of something that's more important than themselves could defend Enron.

In times of war, it may be immoral to question the government. But even then, it has to be an imminent invasion.

In times of war, it may be immoral to question the government. But even then, it has to be an imminent invasion.

Especially in times of war, free speech should prevail.

Especially in times of war, free speech should prevail.
I'm talking about the Soviets in front of Washington DC.

Which will never happen, but it was a rhetorical statement.

I could defend all these positions, especially the third one. As a lawyer I have defended many positions I don't personally agree with, but rather than launch a defense to any of them, I'd like to add a fourth:

FOURTH POSITION: People who, through whatever means, engage in sexual relationships with children under the age of 14, should not be punished

THE IDEA: The age of 14 is admitted to be an "arbitrary" age limit, but the idea that people who think it is OK to have sex with children that lack the emotional maturity to deal with the consequences of such an intimate relationship suffer from a "disease of the mind" that negates the idea (or mens rea for Cat-Tribes' benefit) they should be punished for doing so opens the door to abuse, or does it? Where is the line drawn, or do we draw one at all? Should it be OK for a 30 year old man to have sex witha 8 year old girl if the girl "consents?"

[begin bushbot]



OK, here goes.

FIRST POSITION: Charity is immoral.

THE IDEA: Some people give to private charities. Some people argue for government-based charity or poverty relief. Some would argue that being forced to give to such programs is wrong. Would anyone argue that the very idea of charity is wrong? Can you tell me why it could be wrong?

Charity is immoral because it teaches people that others will take care of them when they should get off their lazy asses and get jobs. Hey, after all, the economy just added more than 200,000 of them!

SECOND POSITION: The executives responsible for the Enron and similar scandals were 100% justified in their actions.

THE IDEA: Why should the government regulate business? Even if it's underhanded, untrustworthy, and put a lot of people on the street, the executives got theirs, and that's what business is all about. The only responsibility business executives have is to themselves and to their shareholders. Or is that right at all?

Enron executives were 100% justified in their actions. When they engaged in derivative trading in California energy markets, they were doing nothing that isn't done every day in normal futures markets, and reacting to real market conditions. They were merely making investment decisions. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you win and then lose. This is all normal business activity. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

THIRD POSITION: Criticism of one's government should be punished by law, regardless of the degree of offense.

THE IDEA: We're obligated to support our leaders, be they elected or be they in power because their army is bigger than the other guy's. Either way, they are on top, and who are we to try to take them down? It's a distraction to the nation, and it takes away from the leader's credibility. Or does the leader deserve to have their credibility called into question?

Criticism of the government gives aid and comfort to the enemy in the war on terra. Enough said.

[/end bushbot]

Even if you can't support these positions, can you imagine someone doing so? What would you say to them? And are there any other indefensible positions you are curious about in terms of who their supporters are?

I don't support these postions, but I live in a town where it seems everyone outside of the college I go to thinks like this. So you better believe I can imagine someone supporting these positions. They are slaves to the will of their Master, and cannot be reasoned with. :(

charity is easy.

giving to people makes them weak. they rely on income that they don't work for and fall into the trap.

oh, and for those religious types, doesn't the church need the money more than the poor sob who wont work?

Well my mom did welfare for a year or two.

Mom, my sister and I are established and own our homes.

So how are we weak?

Should it be OK for a 30 year old man to have sex witha 8 year old girl if the girl "consents?"

Frighteningly enough, I have heard this position quite seriously argued, with no devil's-advocacy involved.

Frighteningly enough, I have heard this position quite seriously argued, with no devil's-advocacy involved.

Not surprised. Guess what they want to do.

Fact remains a child doesn't have the breath of experience to make such decessions.

It's preditory and there is nothing they can argue for it.

charity is easy.

giving to people makes them weak. they rely on income that they don't work for and fall into the trap.
Nietzsche has an...interesting perspective of that.

Nietzsche has an...interesting perspective of that.

Well for the Nietzche imparied; why not eluminate?

Well for the Nietzche imparied; why not eluminate?

Sure.

Charity is pure selfishness. One only gives charity because it makes them feel good about themselves and superior to those who require it. It keeps those who receive it in a feeling of inferiority, because they are so dependent on the charity of others, that they are incapable of improving their lot in life. He extended the critique to the Catholic church and argued that its policy of charity to the poor was only geared at reinforcing their social power through illustrating their superiority over the poor and making them feel dependent.

I may not agree on all points (IMO, charity can be necessary, but it can also be a very powerful authority tool), but it's interesting. Maybe someone else who has read him in more depth than I can elaborate further, but that's my understanding.

FIRST POSITION: Charity is immoral.

Charity is wrong. Immoral is too strong, but charity, in itself, is wrong. Ensuring the well-being of citizen is the duty of the society. We, as individuals, shouldn't have to give to charity.

Charity is wrong because it means the nicer people, the ones more generous and compassionate will pay for the ones with trouble, while the selfish and egoist will keep their money. It's a system which rewards the less moral personals, and therefore encourages immorality. The same apply for all the gifts we are asked to give on medical research, which is another form of charity.

That said, because the system is as bad as it is, and because the other option which is to let people starve to death is much more immoral, I do give to charity. Hundreds of euros per year. But I always feel bad in doing it. I shouldn't have to.

FIRST POSITION: Charity is immoral.

THE IDEA: Some people give to private charities. Some people argue for government-based charity or poverty relief. Some would argue that being forced to give to such programs is wrong. Would anyone argue that the very idea of charity is wrong? Can you tell me why it could be wrong?

This is easy to defend. Simple survival of the fittest.

Now that I snipped others out. The same arguement is true of the Enron People and why the Reps are against minimum wage and for massive imports of cheap labor.

What is interesting is why the "Christian" party is against evolution but for survival of the fittest in every other way.

FIRST POSITION: Charity is immoral.

THE IDEA: Some people give to private charities. Some people argue for government-based charity or poverty relief. Some would argue that being forced to give to such programs is wrong. Would anyone argue that the very idea of charity is wrong? Can you tell me why it could be wrong?
I personally do believe that forced charity (governments giving away tax money) is wrong.

I could also advocate the position that charity is wrong, as it could be said to remove responsibility from the individual and also props up "unviable" people.

However, this is an extremely heartless position to take and I would never actually argue that.

SECOND POSITION: The executives responsible for the Enron and similar scandals were 100% justified in their actions.

THE IDEA: Why should the government regulate business? Even if it's underhanded, untrustworthy, and put a lot of people on the street, the executives got theirs, and that's what business is all about. The only responsibility business executives have is to themselves and to their shareholders. Or is that right at all?
I don't think the government should regulate business to any greater extent than it regulates individuals (theft, embezzlement, murder, Etc. would all still be illegal for businesses), largely because that reduces business prosperity and general prosperity as a whole, but there is a difference between not wanting to ban someone's actions and saying they were justified. Not only did their actions ruin peoples' livelihoods, but they would also have made far more in the long run if the company had been kept going.

THIRD POSITION: Criticism of one's government should be punished by law, regardless of the degree of offense.

THE IDEA: We're obligated to support our leaders, be they elected or be they in power because their army is bigger than the other guy's. Either way, they are on top, and who are we to try to take them down? It's a distraction to the nation, and it takes away from the leader's credibility. Or does the leader deserve to have their credibility called into question?
I can understand this position, and in some circumstances a strong, dictatorial leadership may do better than an elected one, but I think this kind of view is the anethema of civilised society, and should always be opposed at any cost.