Do You Agree With This Statement (GAME)

3,658
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Here's an idea I've thought of. A lighthearted way to share our opinions and discuss various political ideas and current events. This game is adapted from the "Would You Rather" thread in the Cars in General sub-forum. Here's how it works:

A given member will post a statement that is in some way related to politics or current events. Next, other members will decide whether they agree or disagree with that statement. Statements can be vague or very specific. They can simply say "I agree" or "I disagree" or they can go into detail about why the agree/disagree with it, though the latter is definitely preferred. Healthy discourse and debate is encouraged. After a few members respond to that statement, another member will post a statement of their own, and so on.

Rules:
All statements much be opinions, not a statement of facts. They must be in some way related to topics discussed in this forum. Do not troll.

Here are some examples of statements which could be made:
"God isn't real".
"COVID-19 is overhyped and not as serious as the media says it is".
"Third party candidates could never succeed in America".
"Human activity is the primary cause of climate change".
"Trump is one of America's better presidents".
"Wealth inequality is a serious and growing problem across the world".

I'll start it off. Here will be the first statement which members can decide whether they agree or disagree with:

"America's private healthcare system is unsustainable and wasteful, thus we should move to a single-payer system".

Let's get the ball rolling!
 
Last edited:
Nope, the way our government runs our health care system is inefficient as it is and making the government in charge of everyone’s health care whether they want it or not (which is what single payer would do) would only make that problem worse. If anything there should be more privatization and deregulation of health care because there’d be more incentive to make it cheaper and more efficient. I wouldn’t be opposed to a public option where there is a choice though.

Political extremism of all sorts (including communism, fascism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-capitalism, pretty much anything far-left or far-right, authoritarian or not) are equally dangerous.
 
Political extremism of all sorts (including communism, fascism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-capitalism, pretty much anything far-left or far-right, authoritarian or not) are equally dangerous.
Yep, I agree with that statement. For three reasons.
1. These types extremists generally rely on conspiracy theories and straight-up mistruths as their ideology, rather than provable fact. A fascist probably believes that "the Jews" are plotting against the white race by sending in black and brown immigrants to majority-white countries. An anarcho-capitalist probably believes that the market should have absolutely zero regulations. A communist probably believes that anything privately owned is detrimental to a society. All three of these beliefs do not seem rational to me.
2. Many who hold these beliefs are a part of extremist groups cults that promote political violence against non-believers. Hence, these ideologies and their supporters are mostly banned from mainstream social media.
3. None of these ideas have worked anywhere across the world, and there's a good reason why no legitimate politician holds these beliefs (well, if Marjorie Taylor Greene and Laura Loomer win their congressional races, then maybe). There aren't any functioning anarcho-communist or anarcho-capitalist nations in the world, and so on. And as proven by history, the closer a nation moves towards fascism, the quicker it will fall.

I guess it's been worth mentioning that I've been called "far-left" for my belief in an expansion of the modern welfare state (universal healthcare, free public college and daycare, green new deal, etc), raising taxes on billionaires and multinational corporations, decriminalization of all drugs, tighter regulations on corporations, an expansion of workers/union rights and bargaining power, etc. I don't see my ideas as "radical" or "extreme" simply because all of these have worked and are working in at least one country in the world. Many of these, in dozens of other countries.

And now for the next statement: "Abortion, except when the mother or fetus's life is in danger, should not be legal".

Side note: other members still have the opportunity to respond to not only this statement, but the statement in the OP and FerrariF1GT's statement.
 
And now for the next statement: "Abortion, except when the mother or fetus's life is in danger, should not be legal".
Disagree, but it should be rarer than it is now.

"America's private healthcare system is unsustainable and wasteful, thus we should move to a single-payer system".
Agree that it is unsustainable and wasteful (and ethically suspect), but disagree that it should necessarily change to a single-payer system. So I guess I disagree with the statement overall.
 
Last edited:
"We should start another thread which rehashes questions for which there is a dedicated thread, so we can have those arguments all over again".

Disagree, but it should be rarer than it is now.
How would you propose making it rarer than it is now?
 
How would you propose making it rarer than it is now?
Maybe have an advocate for the unborn be involved in the process without being too heavy handed. For instance they could provide advice on how the mother and child could be supported should she decide to progress with the pregnancy.

Maybe financial incentives or something else that promotes the family unit which may then have a trickle down effect on abortion rates.

* These are apart from the obvious like more access to contraception
 
Last edited:
Maybe have an advocate for the unborn be involved in the process without being too heavy handed. For instance they could provide advice on how the mother and child could be supported should she decide to progress with the pregnancy.

Maybe financial incentives or something else that promotes the family unit which may then have a trickle down effect on abortion rates.

* These are apart from the obvious like more access to contraception
The obvious appears to have worked pretty well in the past.

 
"America's private healthcare system is unsustainable and wasteful, thus we should move to a single-payer system".

Agree that it's unsustainable and wasteful, however, I do not agree with a single-payer system. As it stands now Medicaid and Medicare make everyone's care more expensive since health systems just follow those guidelines for everyone. This means more overhead for the hospital, which gets passed on to the patient. How we fix it, I'm not really sure though. Allowing for more competition would certainly help.

Political extremism of all sorts (including communism, fascism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-capitalism, pretty much anything far-left or far-right, authoritarian or not) are equally dangerous.

Agreed. I know some on GTP think I'm an extreme libertarian, but I'm not even close. To be extremely libertarian mean that you're an anarchist and while I'm anti-government being in my personal life, I still see a need for the government on some level.

"Abortion, except when the mother or fetus's life is in danger, should not be legal".

Disagree. The only people that should discuss an abortion are the doctor and the patient. It's a medical procedure and the government should have no bearing on if it's right or wrong. And when it comes to the father being apart of the decision making process, I'm not sure how to really handle that. I guess I would hope the mother would include the father depending on the circumstances.

===

New statement: "Private social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor people, including public figures, on their platform."
 
New statement: "Private social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor people, including public figures, on their platform."
I 100% agree with this statement, 200% if possible. You don't go to someone's house and start telling them how to run things. They have territorial advantage. I think other people on the site have the right to voice their disagreements though, until you kick them off as well.
 
Last edited:
New statement: "Private social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor people, including public figures, on their platform."
Agree. As much as one may disagree with the reasons why, private entities ultimately the right to censor whoever they want. Though, it's important to be wary of the fact they can and may actually will censor people who are not just bigoted/conspiracy theorists, but also those who, in good faith criticize the status quo and other power structures.

New statement:

"This presidential election will be a mirage election, meaning that on November 3rd, it will show Trump as the clear winner because most of the in-person votes are for Trump, but once all of the mail-in ballots are counted (which could take over a week to count), Biden will be shown as the winner, and this would cause turmoil on both sides".
 
Last edited:
New statement: "Private social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor people, including public figures, on their platform."
I don't even see that as censorship. If they have control over what they want to show on their website (which I would struggle to argue against) that's not the same as silencing anybody in the broader sense.
 
Here's one that's especially relevant today:

"Columbus day should be abolished and be officially replaced with Indigenous Peoples' Day"
 
I could be turning over two pages at once here, but this:
A given member will post a statement that is in some way related to politics or current events. Next, other members will decide whether they agree or disagree with that statement. Statements can be vague or very specific. They can simply say "I agree" or "I disagree" or they can go into detail about why the agree/disagree with it, though the latter is definitely preferred. Healthy discourse and debate is encouraged. After a few members respond to that statement, another member will post a statement of their own, and so on.
Says there's a discussion between statements.

And this:

New statement:

"This presidential election will be a mirage election, meaning that on November 3rd, it will show Trump as the clear winner because most of the in-person votes are for Trump, but once all of the mail-in ballots are counted (which could take over a week to count), Biden will be shown as the winner, and this would cause turmoil on both sides".
Here's one that's especially relevant today:

"Columbus day should be abolished and be officially replaced with Indigenous Peoples' Day"
Is two successive statements with literally no discussion of the first one between them.

Honestly, it's a pretty spurious thread in the first place if you're literally banning facts from being part of the discussion, but if you're not even following the rules you set out...
 
deleted... I re-read the first post again.
 
Last edited:
I could be turning over two pages at once here, but this:

Says there's a discussion between statements.

And this:



Is two successive statements with literally no discussion of the first one between them.

Honestly, it's a pretty spurious thread in the first place if you're literally banning facts from being part of the discussion, but if you're not even following the rules you set out...
I guess it's just a shame not as many members participated in this as I had hoped. These sort of threads tend to do well in the C & G forum so I figured I might as well try it here. And I do see how I broke my own rule, though; I should have waited for more users to respond.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's just a shame not as many members participated in this as I had hoped.
I took one look at this:
All statements much be opinions, not a statement of facts.
And noped clean out. I can't imagine I was alone.

Opinions are great when it comes to foods, colours, and games you like. Opinions on topics in current events, such as your examples, should be fact-led - and it's astoundingly dangerous to conflate the two, or give equal weight to someone's opinion on what their preference for a favourite colour is and what their opinion is of COVID-19.

If your example topics had been things like:
"If God was a colour, he'd be indigo"
"Sprouts are literally Satan's gonads"
"Seriously, Mazdas are just better than any other car"

Sure. They're all opinions that don't need facts. They're also all correct.
 
Last edited:
The obvious appears to have worked pretty well in the past.


I don't think I was advocating Republican over Democrat in the US?

In fact, the measures I was proposing fall more in line with Hungary:

Between 2010 and 2015 the number of reported abortions per year dropped by 22.9 per cent, which was attributed to the introduction of pro-family measures by the Hungarian Government. Adoption is promoted by the state where women do not want to keep their baby. There are also educational classes and aid to families.

So why can't we have the policies found to reduce abortion by US Presidents and the Hungarian government rolled into one?

Also, just to help out the OP I'll post another opinion:

"All protests, regardless of what they are protesting, should be allowed in a society"
 
Last edited:
I don't think I was advocating Republican over Democrat in the US?
Nobody said you were.

In fact, the measures I was proposing fall more in line with Hungary:

Between 2010 and 2015 the number of reported abortions per year dropped by 22.9 per cent, which was attributed to the introduction of pro-family measures by the Hungarian Government. Adoption is promoted by the state where women do not want to keep their baby. There are also educational classes and aid to families.

So why can't we have the policies found to reduce abortion by US Presidents and the Hungarian government rolled into one?
I was illustrating the kind of measures which demonstrably worked better. Prevention worked better than prohibition and coerced pregnancy. No-one sane wants a repeat of the Magdalene laundries as there was nothing pro-family about forcing girls to have babies they didn't want to.

In my opinion any moves to illegalise or stigmatise abortion would lead to more unwanted babies being born and more people dying from backstreet abortions as people aren't going to stop having sex.

https://humanistfederation.eu/wp-content/uploads/Abortion-Status-Report.pdf

Abortion Status Report - Hungary.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nobody said you were.

I was illustrating the kind of measures which demonstrably worked better. Prevention worked better than prohibition and coerced pregnancy. No-one sane wants a repeat of the Magdalene laundries as there was nothing pro-family about forcing girls to have babies they didn't want to.

In my opinion any moves to illegalise or stigmatise abortion would lead to more unwanted babies being born and more people dying from backstreet abortions as people aren't going to stop having sex.

https://humanistfederation.eu/wp-content/uploads/Abortion-Status-Report.pdf

View attachment 964741
But Hungary doesn't "illegalise" abortion. It attaches a stigma to it, sure, but is there proof that this is leading to more unwanted babies and people dying from backstreet abortions?
 
But Hungary doesn't "illegalise" abortion. It attaches a stigma to it, sure, but is there proof that this is leading to more unwanted babies and people dying from backstreet abortions?
Is there proof that it's working? Stigmatising abortion necessarily has a knock on effect. It's not a magic bullet and I can't see any evidence that Orban's is a regime anyone else should try to emulate.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/feminine-health-stigma-and-coercion-hungarian-study/
 
Last edited:
"Columbus day should be abolished and be officially replaced with Indigenous Peoples' Day"

Agreed, it makes more sense. If we're going to celebrate the discovering of America by someone other than nomads walking across a land bridge, then we should really celebrate Leif Erikson Day...hinga dinga durgen.


Agreed.

"All protests, regardless of what they are protesting, should be allowed in a society"

Agreed, at least from an American perspective. We're granted the right to assemble by our Bill of Rights and stripping that away goes against a founding principal of the country.
 
To be honest I wasn't sure whether @GranTurNismo's statement
All statements much be opinions, not a statement of facts
meant that facts were actually frowned upon or "banned" but until he clarifies what he meant I've got no choice but to go along with @Famine's post rather than hope against hope that it meant "All statements must contain some form of opinion and not just be a bare statement of facts".
 
Last edited:
As long as those protests aren't violating any rights, including property rights, then they should be allowed to do so. I feel like protesting outside an abortion clinic would violate property rights since they'd technically be trespassing on private property.
I live in the area and have walked past the protests on numerous occasions - they don't violate the property as they were always on the pavement outside the clinic.

*This is only my experience on dealing with them - they may have interacted with individuals on the property of the abortion providers.
 
Last edited:
Hard to see this as an exception to your rule when the protests are still allowed at a suitable distance from those abortion clinics so that public safety and wellbeing isn't infringed by protesters waving signs like this in the faces of people attending the clinic:


A buffer zone isn't a ban and @Joey D's assertion of the right to assemble isn't violated by not letting these folks protest whenever and wherever they want. It's not as if the council is hosing them down.
 
Last edited:
Hard to see this as an exception to your rule when the protests are still allowed at a suitable distance from those abortion clinics so that public safety and wellbeing isn't infringed by protesters waving signs like this in the faces of people attending the clinic:



A buffer zone isn't a ban and @Joey D's assertion of the right of to assemble isn't violated by not letting these folks protest whenever and wherever they want. It's not as if the council is hosing them down.
They were protesting on the street outside the clinic. The law made it impossible to do this.
 
Back