Forums / Discussion / General

I suggest you debate the system that is the British government.

If you have no idea what that's like, then I've got nothing more.

What specifically about the British government? There's so much to talk about…
Two of the most prominent things that come to mind are the Monarchy and the CCTV camera program.

Honestly?

Well, what I think of is David Cameron, the mayor, the cabinet, the MPs and how much money they own/gain and how many excuses the display whenever they have a point where they have to pay tax or let alone any money at all.

I don't like talking politics very often (I'm simply not interested,) but a friend of mine said that people who end up with lots of power, wealth, and money consistently make frugal decisions to obtain and retain power, wealth, and money. So even though they have much more than other people who don't hold power, they continue to make those decisions, because they have that mindset.

I assume this is the case for the people in any government.

So, you are a supporter of Conflict Theory then?
I, personally, and a Functionalist.

i do not want british government. if we are to talk about government, lets stick to america. otherwise, no

A bit. I think Marx had his points, but I hate to say I'm Marxist even in sociological schools of thought, because he had a specific goal in mind, and it wasn't to describe human behavior.

I actually consider myself a symbolic interactionist. I was trained to understand Affect Control Theory, which pulls a lot from that. Most of my thoughts on the previous page pulled from that perspective, even with it being focused on group processes and understandings and not individual ones.
 
And if you're lost, we're talking philosophical views from sociology. This should help out a bit if you're interested. It describes my perspective well along with Conflict and Functionalist theories.

@Flu77ershy1337

That's not quite up to you solely. But what do you have against the British government? Or maybe more specifically, why do you think the US government is superior?

@Verbose

I don't find America superior. It's quite superficial of me, but I don't care about british government. Unless it's something huge, it doesn't effect/interest me. American government on the other hand I actually have good understanding of American government thus giving me passionate opinions that i can back up, I feel that priceable of having backed opinions is the essence of gentlemanly debate.

Just throwing this in, I think philosophy and psychology should be considered in this thread. Politics are fine though.

Well then, why not philosophy? I'm good with that!

If a tree falls in a forest and nothing is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Now that question is predictably conflicting. My question is, should it still be considered a sound even if there is no being to transcript the movement by hearing?

Yes, because sound isn't defined by what you interpret in your ear. It is defined as a frequency that travels through gas, solid and liquid particles in the form of vibrations or disturbances.

The sound still exists as a transmitted frequency regardless of what receives it, which is why we are allowed to say that stars and planets make sound even though the sound produced on a planetary scale have no matter to travel through in space and thus cannot be heard by anything except satellites

Well, that depends on what is considered "Sound".
The action of air molecules hitting the eardrum at certain intervals and speeds brings electrical signals rushing towards the brain with the result of our percieving a sense known as hearing. However, are the electrical signals the definition of sound, or is it the air molecules moving in a specific pattern?
I tend to pick the latter. Thus, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, there is still sound because, in falling, the tree displaces air, pushing it outwards and creating ripples in the molecules. These ripples classify as sound, in my book. If a scientist invented a completely unique type of fruit that absolutely no one had tasted yet, we would still acknowledge that it probably had some taste, because we understand the effects certain physical things have on the human body. Even without hearing a certain action, if we know that it does physically produce sound in certain instances, then it must produce sound in those instances no matter what.

Well, yes. It logically makes the same sound, regardless if anyone hears it. I think that sound is not defined by its perception: just as you cannot say that an object is not there if it is not seen or touched, the lack of hearing a sound does not annul its existence.
However, nobody cares, as there is no sensory information that can lead to us formulating an opinion.
If a tree falls in a forest, and nothing is around to here it, why is this important again?

In my opinion, it's a stupid question, as by what I'd call sound is vibrations causing sound.

By this, the tree hitting the ground will make a vibration, and therefore has to logically create sound waves.

But if you consider a sound to not be a sound until it's heard, then you will think otherwise.

Still, it's a hypothetical.

I'd think it still makes a sound.

My reasoning is based on sound WAVES, and waves are a physical happening throughout space and matter.

To me, it's like saying "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it still do anything?"

As stated, sound waves are physical happenings, and are vibrations in the air. Well, if no one was around to hear it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

When I think of any kind of wave, I generally think of other waves as well.

Lightwaves, for instance, are also physical, but on a much smaller scale, where lightwaves excite electrons in the air. That's a physical occurrence. Or, to expand upon this further, when lightwaves hit an object, we notice that the object tends to get warmer, whereas if we took the source of light away, it would get cooler. It's because the lightwaves are warming up molecules within the object, making the molecules vibrate and vibrate faster the more heat and/or light is applied.

Or waves of water. That is also a physical occurrence.

Just because we don't hear it or witness it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I’d think it still makes a sound.

My reasoning is based on sound WAVES, and waves are a physical happening throughout space and matter.

To me, it’s like saying “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it still do anything?”

This is exactly what I meant.

I'm just backing up the general thought with reasons of my own. I'm in support of the idea that it makes a sound.

Yeeeeess, I was just saying that that was what I meant to type, really.

How about this?

Terraforming and settling on Mars in the future

Are you for it or against it?

Do you think it's feasible to accomplish within the next 10 years?

Your thoughts, please.

It's possible, yet difficult.

Although that was obvious anyway…

Well apparently were close to the moon that is if we vote for this guy

but seriously I think that terraforming mars within 100 years would fix global warming which could help.

BTW HES NEWT GINGRICH A REPUBLICAN CANDITATE FOR ALL OF YOU FOREIGNERS

Get out of my thread.

I think that terraforming Mars is a necessary step in Humankind's development. The odds against us finding a planet with the precise conditions for Earth life is astronomical. We will eventually need to Terraform, and Mars is a logical first step.
On the other hand, it might be more worthwile for the immediate future to construct mobile habitats capable of sustaining life and producing additional spacecraft. These would lower the cost of further development in space immensely, and provide a "failsafe" in case of the collapse on Earth civilization.

I'm in love with this stupendous thread.

People are having intelligent, meaningless conversations.

JUST LIKE IN MY DREAMS.

I would like to see the thoughts on a question that seems to rapidly evolve through the course of time. What is Art?

Good question. I believe it is completely up to the interpreter, although there are some ground rules. It is a image. It is pleasant to look at. (This last one is questionable) it has meaning

I like to consider art as anything and everything. Music, sculpture, film, painting, you name it. But sometimes art doesn't have to be in the form of an artistic medium. Sometimes, art is found naturally without creation due to human interaction. The side of a mountain, the sunset, a bird in the air.

Depending on how you look at it, everything is art.

Yes but I also believe art in the same way that ratatouille said about chiefs, not every one can make art but art can come from any where like how people are realizing video games are art. I believe in Picasso idea that Art is a lie that makes us realize truth.

But there is the bastardization of art like the phrase "shop till you drop" was a protest to materialism, next thing you know you see it on store fronts making people buy more things.
So in the ended of the day its not what is meant to mean but what is interpreted by the viewer like a mirror to own soul (forgive the cheesy simile).

taking the last two post into consideration, I think I've changed my mind. Art can be any form of artistic medium as skitch listed. As moadakka said though, it does run into conflicts, such as his example. Is there any true loop-hole free definition that isn't to constricting to art's many variations.

Well, I guess the real way to express what "Art" is is by realizing that it can be a more opinionated thing than we'll ever discuss in this thread.

What one person may define as "art," another may define as anything but art.

Hence, the impasse.

But that's my own general observation.

Yes, what do you think of art made by clinically insane do you think there mental state of mind is are grounds for a richer more primal piece of work? Can someone who is not in there right mind express relevant truths or can we only get the felling of horror through our indifference.

Well, in the end I couldn't find it and it seems you've moved on. Sorry.

This is one of those entirely subjective questions that you could argue about forever but never find an answer towards.

It's like saying "Which religion is right", "What is good music" or "What defines beauty".

Unlike the definition of Sound in our previous topic, the definition of Art is something that is entirely dependent on how it is received by the individual.

I agree that Art can mean different things to people but I dont think its as lofty a word as you can compare the 16th chapel to some generic fanart that you find on the internet.

what a strange conclusion. opinions seemed to have proved something is opinionated.

Art is something that we enjoy as a nice picture or object.

I have a better answer but I forgot….

Art is a means of representing one's feelings according to one's culture.
By this logic, mass produced art for the purposes of turning a profit is not by my standards art.

True, true.
Even the book collections of art are generally meant for the intellectual stimulation of people's minds, not for profit itself.
Of course, what of the mass-produced books that are considered art nevertheless? I have read many a mass-produced book that has tugged at my heartstrings and invigorated my mind. I would consider those art regardless of their original money-making purpose.
Of course, it all spirals back to the subjective nature of art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But Art doesn't have to really be beautiful it can really ugly and still trigger a emotional response.
I have seen some unseemly art that in some odd way.
(Picasso's : Guernica)