DHAI--Is America like Michael Jackson?

thegreatkazoo · Aug 23, 2009

While it may seem like an odd question, that's the subject for the debate:

Is America's fate similar to that of Michael Jackson's?

I got the inspiration to do this thread after watching Real Time with Bill Maher around a month ago in which he makes the case that America & Michael Jackson are the same in the following ways (I will highlight a few of the traits in the clip; for the rest see the New Rules segment for July 17, 2009. [Note: starts around 2:30]).

Fragile
Overindulgent: 1/3 of children being obese
On Drugs: The US spending $291 billion on prescription drugs last year.
Childish: 64% believing in Noah's Ark
In Debt: Self-explanatory.
Over the Hill: This is still up for debate...

Happy debating.

(PS RDK, I always end my threads in th DH and/or PG with a happy debating and a smiley face. So, deal with it

mother %ucker

).

pacmansays · Aug 27, 2009

So America's going to have a fateful come back in the UK and start touching kids??

illinialex24 · Aug 27, 2009

pacmansays said:
So America's going to have a fateful come back in the UK and start touching kids??

And die on an overdose right before they try to make a name for themselves and become legendary as a result.

Nah lol.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 27, 2009

You guys are too much!

GoldShadow · Aug 28, 2009

In what way is America fragile?

thegreatkazoo · Aug 28, 2009

Look @ the clip...

Deleted member · Aug 28, 2009

GoldShadow said:
In what way is America fragile?

The American dream is a failed experiment. Your banks are a mess, your economy is unstable, religious demagoguery runs rampant; health care reform is at its tipping point - your politics divide your country in half, illegal immigrants are being deported (only further ruining your economy)

Need I go on?

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

Look, Kazoo, I love the Bill Mahr Show, but I really wouldn't pay attention to Bill himself, he's funny and brings on intelligent guest, but he's an extremist, and makes money from making jokes.

Overindulgent: 1/3 of children being obese

I disagree. We are not fat because we are over indulgent, people are fat because they are poor, and can not afford to eat properly, and the cheap options we offer are very fattening such as the dollar menu. It all comes down to the basis of American economic theory, buy and sell in bulk to save money and increase profits. This is the true cause of our obesity.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
Look, Kazoo, I love the Bill Mahr Show, but I really wouldn't pay attention to Bill himself, he's funny and brings on intelligent guest, but he's an extremist, and makes money from making jokes.

I am respectfully disagreeing with you on this one. Yes, he is a comedian, but that doesn't mean that he is extreme in any sort of way. And how is being a libertarian (which he himself says best describes his political views) extreme?

CRASHiC said:
I disagree. We are not fat because we are over indulgent, people are fat because they are poor, and can not afford to eat properly, and the cheap options we offer are very fattening such as the dollar menu. It all comes down to the basis of American economic theory, buy and sell in bulk to save money and increase profits. This is the true cause of our obesity.

I do agree that poor people will be @ a higher risk of being obese. But money isn't the only reason that kids get obese. What about the decline of phys ed, the increasing amount of time that kids spend online, and the like? To chalk that up all on a dollar menu is a little unfair, what say you?

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

I am respectfully disagreeing with you on this one. Yes, he is a comedian, but that doesn't mean that he is extreme in any sort of way. And how is being a libertarian (which he himself says best describes his political views) extreme?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZpREDn4NFA

He often fuses anti-religion with politics, which is just as bad as fusing religion with politics.

I do agree that poor people will be @ a higher risk of being obese. But money isn't the only reason that kids get obese. What about the decline of phys ed, the increasing amount of time that kids spend online, and the like? To chalk that up all on a dollar menu is a little unfair, what say you?

Yet, the international community has to face the same problems, yet their children do not share the same fate. Why? Because their economic and food standards are based on completely different things is what I have come to the conclusion.

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

Just because the guy hates religion (and I think he more or less hates the way it is used more than anything else, for example if you follow the doctrine of the flying spaghetti monster he wont bash you) doesnt mean he is an extremist. Also how exactly does he fuse anti-religion with politics. Sure his show is often political, and he often bashes religion, but I dont really see him calling for political solutions to what he views as problems with religion.

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

manhunter098 said:
Just because the guy hates religion (and I think he more or less hates the way it is used more than anything else, for example if you follow the doctrine of the flying spaghetti monster he wont bash you) doesnt mean he is an extremist. Also how exactly does he fuse anti-religion with politics. Sure his show is often political, and he often bashes religion, but I dont really see him calling for political solutions to what he views as problems with religion.

You are honestly going to deny that Bill is a clearly biased source that favors heavily towards the left?

Bill blaims nearly any difference in opinion for ethics on religion, when he fails to note that any system of ethics is flawed to the same level of degree.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZpREDn4NFA

He often fuses anti-religion with politics, which is just as bad as fusing religion with politics.

Wouldn't that be a good thing not to fuse religion and politics together? With the separation of church and state and all that jazz, it is pretty much a law to do so.

~~And yes, when religion starts to interfere with how people should live their lives (gay marriage anyone?), then yes, that needs to be addressed in kind.~~

CRASHiC said:
Yet, the international community has to face the same problems, yet their children do not share the same fate. Why? Because their economic and food standards are based on completely different things is what I have come to the conclusion.

I am pretty certain that the US leads amongst developed countries in GDP, average income, and yet is still ridiculously overweight.

I don't disagree with you that the gap between the poor and the rich isn't increasing, but rather why poor people eat fast food: Eventually, personal choice does come into play with this...

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
You are honestly going to deny that Bill is a clearly biased source that favors heavily towards the left?

Bill blaims nearly any difference in opinion for ethics on religion, when he fails to note that any system of ethics is flawed to the same level of degree.

The man is entitled to his opinions. But religions certainly have caused a great number of problems over the centuries, and yes it was religion that caused things like the Crusades, hating gays (and hopelessly harassing them), that make people go out and murder doctors who perform abortion, and of course there is also Scientology as well (which speaks for itself). He has a lot of cases to back up his view that religion can really induce a lot of hate within people, not to say that hatred will be non-existent without religion, but when religions make people think a certain way, it can induce them to think in a hateful way.

I honestly think you are portraying his hatred of religion as baseless, when it most certainly isnt. And I dont want to turn this into a debate about how good or bad religion us, but religions has caused some pretty messed up stuff to happen, nobody can deny that.

Hes also only left on social issues, economically he is more conservative (he is for smaller government), hence identifying most closely with the Libertarian ideology.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
You are honestly going to deny that Bill is a clearly biased source that favors heavily towards the left?

I am not denying anything...
Bill Maher has said several times that if he had to pick a party to side with, it would be the Democratic party. However, due to their low intestinal fortitude (for lack of a better term), he has become greatly disillusioned by them.

If you watch his show (which I have for the past four years) you will know that he takes stabs @ both the left and the right. Granted, these days he has been taking a few more jabs @ the right, but the ratio would still be around 3:2 (right & left, respectively).

CRASHiC said:
Bill blaims nearly any difference in opinion for ethics on religion, when he fails to note that any system of ethics is flawed to the same level of degree.

Not so much...again, watching his show will show this...

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

thegreatkazoo said:
Wouldn't that be a good thing not to fuse religion and politics together? With the separation of church and state and all that jazz, it is pretty much a law to do so.

He fuses an anti religion notion, and acts in contrast to religion.

thegreatkazoo said:
I am pretty certain that the US leads amongst developed countries in GDP, average income, and yet is still ridiculously overweight.

I don't disagree with you that the gap between the poor and the rich isn't increasing, but rather why poor people eat fast food: Eventually, personal choice does come into play with this...

Its misleading because of the vast difference between rich and poor in the united states. 1% of our population controlls 90% of the wealth.
The don't choose. If you had food stamps, the largest amount of food you could buy with it would be beef jerky, marshmellows, and white bread (which is very unhealthy).

manhunter098 said:
I honestly think you are portraying his hatred of religion as baseless, when it most certainly isnt. And I dont want to turn this into a debate about how good or bad religion us, but religions has caused some pretty messed up stuff to happen, nobody can deny that.

It has no more basis than praising religion. I could provide multiple examples from organized music, harmony, modernizing Europe, the renaissance, and many other examples of things that religion has done right.

Every basis for a moral standard is flawed, atheism is no different.

However, due to their low intestinal fortitude (for lack of a better term), he has become greatly disillusioned by them.

I strongly disagree with him on this, and when we look at the history of political presidents during war time, we see a larger degree of success when a democrat is in control.

Also, I watch Bill Mahr too, as I said before, because he is funny and brings on amazing guest. Fox News attacked Bush too mind you.

Aesir · Aug 28, 2009

He fuses knowledge with politics, simply put him along with a lot of others are sick of having politicians elected to office who don't even believe in evolution. his "Anti-religion" rhetoric came as a response to the increased fusion of religion in our political system.

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

Aesir said:
He fuses knowledge with politics, simply put him along with a lot of others are sick of having politicians elected to office who don't even believe in evolution. his "Anti-religion" rhetoric came as a response to the increased fusion of religion in our political system.

Its too bad those in government are not scientist, but instead are there to serve not the education and advancment of society, but to interpret and edit the constituion as our ideas of human rights change. Those who are in charge of the country make their decisions not based on science, but based on ethics, constitutional theory, and economic theory. When an issue with scientific understanding is needed, then they bring on panels of experts to assist them in their decision making process, while human rights and economic well being still factor heavily in their decisions.

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

I think you just describes what judges are for, not what politicians are for. If we had politicians who respected the constitution we wouldnt need judicial review.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
He fuses an anti religion notion, and acts in contrast to religion.

Methinks that his anti-religion stance more closely reflects what you could see in this video as opposed to the "Religion sucks" # you will see people spout.

For the record, my sentiments more match that of the clip than of Maher's.

CRASHiC said:
Its misleading because of the vast difference between rich and poor in the united states. 1% of our population controlls 90% of the wealth.
The don't choose. If you had food stamps, the largest amount of food you could buy with it would be beef jerky, marshmellows, and white bread (which is very unhealthy).

I'm gonna need some stats on food stamps before I am sold on this one...because in my state (GA), I know that food stamps can go a little further than that...

CRASHiC said:
Every basis for a moral standard is flawed, atheism is no different.

I fully agree with you that moral standards are pretty f%cked up, but to say that atheism has a set moral standard (which, correct me if I'm wrong, you implicitly stated)...really though?

Aesir said:
He fuses knowledge with politics, simply put him along with a lot of others are sick of having politicians elected to office who don't even believe in evolution. his "Anti-religion" rhetoric came as a response to the increased fusion of religion in our political system.

QFT.

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

manhunter098 said:
I think you just describes what judges are for, not what politicians are for. If we had politicians who respected the constitution we wouldn't need judicial review.

Every law is a part of the constitution.
It is the role of a judge to see if a lesser part of the constitution, or a part of a state constitution breaks something higher in the constitution.
Everything the legislative branch passes is a part of the constitution.

Executive branch- to act based on the constitution
Legislative branch- to write and edit the constitution
Judicial branch- to interpret the constitution

Every act, every bill the judicial branch passes is considered a part of the constitution. Government is nothing more than an acting body of a peace of paper, created in the notion of human rights, and protecting those said rights.

fully agree with you that moral standards are pretty f%cked up, but to say that atheism has a set moral standard (which, correct me if I'm wrong, you implicitly stated)...really though?

First off, atheism is considered a movement, so I could argue that they do have a religious code.
Secondly, religion is nothing more at the end of it all than an attempt to instill a certain ethical code within a people. If someone chooses to ignore this ethical code, than there ethics are going to be just as flawed as any crafted by a religious organization.
Jesus preached not about strict obedience to god, but about how every man should conduct himself in the world.

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

Laws are not part of the constitution. I dont think you know what you are talking about. Laws are laws, the constitution is a basis for deciding which laws are allowed and which arent, however constitutionality is still not even questioned until a law is brought before a judge in a case where someone attempts to prove that it is not constitutional (as their defense). And laws can exist for years before that happens.

Atheism is not a movement, where do you get that from? A religious code? No. A typical moral code, perhaps. But everyone has different morals and that is a fact.

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

manhunter098 said:
Laws are not part of the constitution. I dont think you know what you are talking about. Laws are laws, the constitution is a basis for deciding which laws are allowed and which arent, however constitutionality is still not even questioned until a law is brought before a judge in a case where someone attempts to prove that it is not constitutional. And laws can exist for years before that happens.

I believe you are getting a constituion confused with The Constitution.

The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution

Every country has some sort of constitution, other wise it would be anarchy. It just so happens that we call our highest form of our constitution the Constitution.

Atheism is not a movement, where do you get that from? A religious code? No. A typical moral code, perhaps. But everyone has different morals and that is a fact.

The pope and philosophy majors who subscribe to the notion of god love atheist. Do you know why? Because atheism is to move against the notion of god. The idea that god exist is the norm, and is actually biologically predisposed to believe in him. By proclaiming that the world is wrong, that there is no god, in this you have proven the existence of god, because there can not be a movement against an something that does not exist in some form. Being agnostic on the other hand is to not align yourself with any doctrine. Atheist have aligned themselves under the belief that there is no god. This is a movement. This is a belief.

Deleted member · Aug 28, 2009

Atheism is totally a movement. The participants are called the "New Atheists" - the head honchos being super huge douchebags of course.

Aesir · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
Its too bad those in government are not scientist, but instead are there to serve not the education and advancment of society, but to interpret and edit the constituion as our ideas of human rights change.

You don't need to be a scientist to realize evolution is true only a tenth grade science education.

Furthermore they're clearly not doing what you're stating, they're proposing their own agenda and disregarding anything in the constitution that disagrees with their agenda.

Those who are in charge of the country make their decisions not based on science, but based on ethics, constitutional theory, and economic theory.When an issue with scientific understanding is needed, then they bring on panels of experts to assist them in their decision making process, while human rights and economic well being still factor heavily in their decisions.

Again this is a naive out look on it when various members of the legislative and executive branch don't even practice this. They go in there with their own Agenda if the constitution disagrees with them they ignore it.

edit:

Del said:
Atheism is totally a movement. The participants are called the "New Atheists" - the head honchos being super huge douchebags of course.

Unfortunately they're the majority of atheists now. Demonizing religion isn't going to get someone on your side, it's just going to make the rest of the bunch look like arrogant *******s =(

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

Laws are not part of a constitution or The Constitution. Like I said, laws are in their own category. Laws are laws, there are federal laws, state laws, and local ordinances (of varying levels as well, county and city). None of them are a part of any kind of constitution.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
First off, atheism is considered a movement, so I could argue that they do have a religious code.
Secondly, religion is nothing more at the end of it all than an attempt to instill a certain ethical code within a people. If someone chooses to ignore this ethical code, than there ethics are going to be just as flawed as any crafted by a religious organization.
Jesus preached not about strict obedience to god, but about how every man should conduct himself in the world.

But atheism is not a religion! It means that a person is absent of the belief of a deity. Look it up, homes.

As for religion being just for an ethical code, not necessarily. While that is a possibility, it is not in singularity...

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

Aesir said:
You don't need to be a scientist to realize evolution is true only a tenth grade science education.

Furthermore they're clearly not doing what you're stating, they're proposing their own agenda and disregarding anything in the constitution that disagrees with their agenda.

Again this is a naive out look on it when various members of the legislative and executive branch don't even practice this. They go in there with their own Agenda if the constitution disagrees with them they ignore it.

Is it though? To the opposite side, it may seem like they are just pushing through an agenda, but in reality, they are sharing their interpretation of the constitution. There are moments when this does occur, like the gay marriage ban, but this did not even receive enough votes to pass through on the Federal level.
And even then, what does gay marriage have anything to do with science? Human rights are not an scientific endeavor, and will never prove to be so.

manhunter098 said:
Laws are not part of a constitution or The Constitution. Like I said, laws are in their own category. Laws are laws, there are federal laws, state laws, and local ordinances (of varying levels as well, county and city). None of them are a part of any kind of constitution.

No, they are part of the constitution. I learned this in High School Government class. Based on the definition I provided you, this should be clear.
Also, again, you are wrong, as every state is required to have its own constitution.

But atheism is not a religion! It means that a person is absent of the belief of a deity

I never said religion, I stated that it was a movement and a belief.
You can not prove that something does not exist, this is philosophy law, and God is no different. Atheism will always be a belief.

GoldShadow · Aug 28, 2009

CRASHiC said:
I disagree. We are not fat because we are over indulgent, people are fat because they are poor, and can not afford to eat properly, and the cheap options we offer are very fattening such as the dollar menu. It all comes down to the basis of American economic theory, buy and sell in bulk to save money and increase profits. This is the true cause of our obesity.

There is no way that 66% of America is poor.

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

"I learned this in high school government class"

That was government for kids, I will go with with I learned in my American National Government course in college. I am a political science major as well. Though I just started on that major and have only taken two courses, I would trust a college level class called American National Government to tell me if laws become part of the constitution, I assure you that they do not and that your high school class is wrong.

Aesir · Aug 28, 2009

Is it though? To the opposite side, it may seem like they are just pushing through an agenda, but in reality, they are sharing their interpretation of the constitution.

That's why they're always reference religion and god right? Yeah I'm sure the constitution supports the fusion of religion and our government.

There are moments when this does occur, like the gay marriage ban, but this did not even receive enough votes to pass through on the Federal level.

The Defense of Marriage act did, which is far more dangerous to Americans then the gay ban on marriage.

~~Anyone with a common law marriage basically isn't married.~~ can't verify that atm will work on doing that. But DOMA basically bans it.

And even then, what does gay marriage have anything to do with science? Human rights are not an scientific endeavor, and will never prove to be so.

What has the federal government ever done in the past 30 years that has ever been for the sake of human rights? Human rights have very little barring on American policy it's always about markets and spreading "democracy"

Deleted member · Aug 28, 2009

True atheism is the belief there's no god; hipster kind-of-atheism-that's-totally-cool-these-days atheism is not a belief

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

GoldShadow said:
There is no way that 66% of America is poor.

12.6 percent of the total population live below the poverty line, and I was referring to the obesity rate, which ever person who I could visual tell was obese I knew also suffered from economic hardships.
About this though, what you people have to remember is that the weight index chart was not made by doctors, but by insurance companies. I had a teacher who looked average weight for her height an age, but according to the chart, she is obese. It made no sense to me, or any of the students in the class.

That's why they're always reference religion and god right? Yeah I'm sure the constitution supports the fusion of religion and our government.

Basing your ethical and human rights beliefs is not against the constitution. Other wise the statement 'endowed by their creator' would not be included within the declaration of independence.

What has the federal government ever done in the past 30 years that has ever been for the sake of human rights? Human rights have very little barring on American policy it's always about markets and spreading "democracy"

The purpose of government, as laid out by our constitution, is to protect, not the people, but the people's rights. Every law that is passed should be made for protecting a right, or for providing an executive power for actions to be carried out in order to protect our human rights an finance stability within the country, which could be considered a right of the people within its own. This is all government is. This is all government does. Weather or not they are successful is left up to the person viewing them.

Aesir · Aug 28, 2009

Delete this.

Aesir · Aug 28, 2009

Basing your ethical and human rights beliefs is not against the constitution. Other wise the statement 'endowed by their creator' would not be included within the declaration of independence.

The Declaration of Independence has no say in what our laws are. The DoI was a moral document meant to dissolve our legal ties with Great Britain. Our constitution is a completely secular document it makes no references to a creator because our founders knew the importance of keeping religion and politics separate. if there's a secular reason for believing in something then by all means bring it up, however when you're in public service and you're only reasons are for that religion that's a problem.

To recap our constitution should always favor secular laws and never laws passed based on religion.

The purpose of government, as laid out by our constitution, is to protect, not the people, but the people's rights. Every law that is passed should be made for protecting a right, or for providing an executive power for actions to be carried out in order to protect our human rights an finance stability within the country, which could be considered a right of the people within its own. This is all government is. This is all government does. Weather or not they are successful is left up to the person viewing them.

Are you even reading what I'm typing? or just tossing in text book responses? I would really like to know this. You haven't answered what I said you seem to be taking a very strict constitutional outlook on all of this.

edit: sorry for the double post. =\

@del: I think you're over simplifying the belief of an already simple belief lol.

Strong Atheists believe there is no god. While weak atheists don't know if there is a god, but when you talk about specific gods they're position is more affirmative.

Deleted member · Aug 28, 2009

I can agree with that, Aesir. So long as we say that weak atheism is more agnosticism than atheism.

?

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

Its actually the governments job to protect the people too (which can involve infringing upon our rights), otherwise we wouldn't have agencies like the FBI or DEA. The bill of rights is a set of amendments to the constitution that essentially fill the role you state the constitution is for, but the purpose of the government is NOT just to protect the rights of the people. Its to protect the people, to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate foreign commerce, etc, as well as a number of other roles as outlined in the constitution and they do not necessarily have to do with protecting the rights of the people or even protecting the people.

Its actually in the constitution that the government has the duty to provide people with post offices.

Aesir · Aug 28, 2009

DeLoRtEd1 said:
I can agree with that, Aesir. So long as we say that weak atheism is more agnosticism than atheism. ?

I suppose, I would rather argue it's the middle ground between agnosticism and atheism.

manhunter098 · Aug 28, 2009

Well when you are using an ordinal scale of measurement it would be.

CRASHiC · Aug 28, 2009

Are you even reading what I'm typing? or just tossing in text book responses? I would really like to know this. You haven't answered what I said you seem to be taking a very strict constitutional outlook on all of this.

You are mostly referring to politicians who, in your eyes, do not do their job. Weather or not you feel your politicians serve you is not of my concern. I spoke of what the constitution states that the government is made to do, weather or not this role is filled by today's politicians is beyond my concern, and not at all what I was referencing.

manhunter098 said:
Its actually the governments job to protect the people too (which can involve infringing upon our rights), otherwise we wouldn't have agencies like the FBI or DEA. The bill of rights is a set of amendments to the constitution that essentially fill the role you state the constitution is for, but the purpose of the government is NOT just to protect the rights of the people. Its to protect the people, to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate foreign commerce, etc, as well as a number of other roles as outlined in the constitution and they do not necessarily have to do with protecting the rights of the people or even protecting the people.

Its actually in the constitution that the government has the duty to provide people with post offices.

The FBI and the DEA serve to protect people's right as well.
People have a right to live, thus we persecute killers, murderers, and the FDA prosecutes, shut down, and fines those who invade on people's rights to live healthy lives. These agencies are a part of the executive branch, and serve to protect these, among with other rights.
Interstate commerce is to protect people's right of free commerce under the union.
By taxing foreign commerce, we see to protect the rights of those working within our markets, by providing them an equal play ground with competing with larger labor markets.
Nearly every law, act, constitutional provision is meant to either protect a right of the people, or provide for a right that they themselves can not provide, such as construction of roads, postal services, a national army, etc.

DHAI--Is America like Michael Jackson?

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Marsilea quadrifolia

Smash Master

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Marsilea quadrifolia

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Master

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Information

Network