04-02-2004, 04:07
I think it might be a good idea to rethink how issues are presented, as well as how they affect nations. Oftentimes, obvious solutions to issues aren't presented. Take this one for example:
The Issue
Several major city streets were clogged with bicycles this morning, as the environmental group 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' staged a protest. Several hundred riders ambled through downtown streets, blissfully ignoring the torrent of abuse hurled at them by thousands of motorists running late for work.
The Debate
"People are sick of dirty, smelly automobiles," said protest organizer Konrad Christmas. "They're choking the city, the environment--our lives! Cars must be banned!"
[Accept]
"The only thing people are sick of is long-haired idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says committed motorist Chastity Love. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them."
[Accept]
The Automotive Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, has called for government support. "It's clear that we need to boost the level of automobile support in this country. This protest this morning is a clear indication of... um... anyway, we need more government funds."
[Accept]
An option to build bike lanes on all major roads seems rather obvious, but is not touched upon.
Also, some of the decisions don't seem to actually affect the government correctly. I'm not talking about weird unforseen consequences, either. I've heard of and experienced a few issues in which people made a desions representative of the right side of the political spectrum, and their nation went more left on the spectrum. One of the people in my region, a right-leaning person, was stuck with a socialist state. I think this is an indicator that, if anything, the opening questionaire needs to be refined.
I'm not sure this can be solved, though. At some point, the effects of a decision have to be subjective, and it's really easy to let political leanings affect how you view the effects of a decision.
The Issue
Several major city streets were clogged with bicycles this morning, as the environmental group 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' staged a protest. Several hundred riders ambled through downtown streets, blissfully ignoring the torrent of abuse hurled at them by thousands of motorists running late for work.
The Debate
"People are sick of dirty, smelly automobiles," said protest organizer Konrad Christmas. "They're choking the city, the environment--our lives! Cars must be banned!"
[Accept]
"The only thing people are sick of is long-haired idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says committed motorist Chastity Love. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them."
[Accept]
The Automotive Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, has called for government support. "It's clear that we need to boost the level of automobile support in this country. This protest this morning is a clear indication of... um... anyway, we need more government funds."
[Accept]
An option to build bike lanes on all major roads seems rather obvious, but is not touched upon.
Also, some of the decisions don't seem to actually affect the government correctly. I'm not talking about weird unforseen consequences, either. I've heard of and experienced a few issues in which people made a desions representative of the right side of the political spectrum, and their nation went more left on the spectrum. One of the people in my region, a right-leaning person, was stuck with a socialist state. I think this is an indicator that, if anything, the opening questionaire needs to be refined.
I'm not sure this can be solved, though. At some point, the effects of a decision have to be subjective, and it's really easy to let political leanings affect how you view the effects of a decision.