Oct 10, 2010

Parents who love their children cannot afford to be intimidated by them

  1. Your job, as a parent, isn't to let children learn from their own mistakes, but to protect them while they are young from setting bad habits, and to try to get them to learn from other people's mistakes.

  2. Children might not be aware they are in danger.

  3. Children are stupid adults.

  4. Children are children.

  5. You can destroy your life, if you get trapped in drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy sexual relationships.

  6. People who are intimidated will defer, and you should not defer to children on important things.

  1. You can't control your children. Children are going to eventually make up their own minds and so you should let them learn from their own mistakes.



# of reasons to agree: 5
# of reasons to disagree: -0
# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0
# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0
Total Idea Score: 5


Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Sleepovers are bad

Reasons to agree
  1. Too many youth try alcohol for the first time at a sleepover.
  2. Too many youth try tobacco for the first time at a sleepover.
  3. Too many youth have their first exposure to pornography at a sleepover.
  4. Peer pressure becomes more powerful when our children are away from our influence.
  5. Our defenses are weakened late at night.
# of reasons to agree: 5
# of reasons to disagree: -0
# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0
# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0
Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

(+5) Families should spend time together once a week

  1. Parenting is rewarding if you do a good job.

  2. Children need a good relationship with their parent.

  3. Families that play together stay together.

  4. If you don't make it a goal to do every week, it will not get done.

  5. If you have time to watch TV you have time to spend with your family.



# of reasons to agree: 5
# of reasons to disagree: -0
# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0
# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0
Total Idea Score: 5


Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Sep 20, 2010

The Kindle is better than the Nook



Just tell me your e-mail address, and you can contribute!

Reasons to agree: %
  1. The Kindle cost $10 less than the Nook.
  2. The kindle is 8.7 ounces, the Nook is 11.2 ounces (28% heavier). 
  3. The Kindle has new and improved "Pearl" e-ink screen.
        R2A(+): 1       R2AA(+): 0       R2DA(-): 0       

  1. The Kindle can not read files in the EPUB format.
        R2D(-): 0       R2AD(-): 0       R2DD(+): 0        Total Score: 1

  1. Validating the decision they already made.
Most Probable interest of those who disagree: %
  1. Validating the decision they already made.

    Nov 24, 2009

    America should just be a good republic, and not try to be an empire

    Help me populate the fields below! Just leave a comment, and I'll add it to the debate

    Nov 15, 2009

    Value Validity: Equality




    The numbering system below describes a system that scores groups of people within a range of 1 to 10 by how much they value equality.

    1. These people undervalue equality. People who value equality at a 1, do not value equality very much. These people are willing to accept inhuman, or even unnatural cruelty to others, or specific groups of people. They do not value all life equally. People from their group (family, race, nationality) are acceptable, however they give little or no concern to those from other groups, or actively seek to harm those from other groups. 

    2.  

    3.  

    4.  

    5.  

    6.  

    7.   

    8.  

    9.  

    10. These people over value equality. Someone who overvalues an otherwise positive value like equality would be willing to sacrifice other good values in order to satisfy equality. These people not only are willing to steel from Peter to give to Paul, but are willing to trample all over such concepts as "freedom of choice", the "law of the harvest", justice, or reasonable application of mercy in order to ensure that Peter does not have anything more than Paul. An example of someone who is overly concerned with equality hate the strong, powerful, or beautiful. These people are not just concerned about equality of opportunity, but also equality of outcome. They are willing to sacrifice freedom, and require massive amounts of power in order to guarantee the outcome that they see fit. They don't care if anyone is happy, just that no one is more happy than others. They are so concerned with equality, that they can not accept that truly evil might be sad, or noble people to experience any happiness. They feel bad for Hitler. These people would say that no tradition, no norm, no action is wrong, or worse than other actions. It is wrong to say that someone is bad, and another person is good. We are all equal, and therefore everyone can be whatever they want as long as it is not better than someone else.



    Oct 9, 2009

    Clearing the Fog: A Call for Organized, Meaningful Information Exchange

    Let's face it - we are inundated with information. The problem is, much of it isn't organized in a way that helps us make better decisions or gain deeper understanding. In the current landscape, we have a situation that I like to call "manufacturing confusion".

    Imagine a system where each reason to agree or disagree is tagged, organized, and classified. You could trace the genesis of an argument, finding the first person who made that claim, or discover more eloquent ways it has been expressed.

    Each post would carry a wealth of associated information: better or more succinct ways of expressing the same idea, the inception of the argument, and references to books, songs, and statistics that support or challenge this perspective.

    To cut through the noise and make real progress, we need not just more, but better organized information. We should be brainstorming common interests and opposing viewpoints, and generating alternative solutions.

    I've been toiling away at this concept since 1998, and it's been quite frustrating to see that no one else seems to be advocating for or trying to build the web forum of my dreams. On the surface, it seems simple - a platform that promotes meaningful information exchange, instead of cluttering the web with more noise. I've started some work on this project at Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, but I would love to brainstorm with others about the features of this forum and how to bring it to fruition.

    Thank you for taking the time to read this post. If you're as passionate as I am about making the internet a platform that promotes good information, I would love to talk about it with you. Let's start a conversation today to build a better tomorrow.

    Aug 14, 2009

    Nancy Pelosi is wrong

    As anyone who follows history and politics knows, there has always been a very healthy debate on the issues in our country.

    Yet, now that conservatives are expressing their disapproval of President Obama's proposed health care plan, liberals are suddenly very critical of dissent and debate. Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi accused honest citizens expressing their views on health care of being "un-American." And why? Because they disagree with her on the need for a new government insurance program.

    Our Founding Fathers would be very surprised by Speaker Pelosi's attempt to clamp down on dissent. This nation was founded by patriots who staged the ultimate protest in declaring their independence from a distant and out-of-touch government. The rights to peacefully assemble and petition our elected officials are guaranteed by the Constitution. What Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand is that our differences and disagreements don't make us weaker; they make us stronger.

    This is a critical time for our nation, and a lot of the issues we’re debating now will affect generations to come. All of us have a duty to press on ... a duty to state our case without fear of government reprisal.

    That is why I’m writing to you to take two important steps today.

    First, I encourage you to make your feelings on the health care bill known by calling the White House at (202) 456-1111 and your congressional representatives at (202) 224-3121. Let them know that dissenting is the most "American" thing one can do and that you have very real concerns about the cost and scope of this legislation.

    Second, I hope you will consider making a contribution to my Free and Strong America PAC today. Your generous contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or even the maximum $5,000 will go a long way toward making sure that we push back when big government liberals like Nancy Pelosi try to stifle debate because they don't like it when ordinary Americans disagree with their far-left agenda.

    Thank you again for your support and all that you do to ensure that our country remains free and strong.

    Jul 28, 2009

    Cambridge Police Profiling Still A Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty Assholes

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/07/cambridge-police-profiling-still-a-grim-reality-for-harvard-faculty-assholes.html

    Guest Opinion
    by Professor John Evans Evans-John
    Harvard School of Harvard Faculty Asshole Studies
    Harvard University

    When I first learned of the arrest of my colleague Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates after he stood up to the fascist jackboots of a declasse, ill-educated Cambridge police officer, I was of course angered -- but scarcely shocked. L'Affaire Gates simply aired, in public, the dirty 100-thread-count table linen of an American culture where Harvard faculty assholes still face a daily struggle against profiling, abuse, and insolence.

    It will come as no surprise that Skip's arrest was the talk of the Douchebag Room at the Harvard Faculty Club last Friday. I and a group of colleagues had assembled for our weekly lunch; I opted for their competently-prepared Ahi Tuna Tartare and an amusing glass of '05 Hospices de Beaune Premier Cru Cuvee Cyrot-Chaudron. I had noticed that the Franz Fanon Memorial Booth -- Skip's long-reserved lunch spot -- was uncharacteristically empty, and asked our waiter Sergio for an explanation.

    "Professor Skeep, he no is come today," said Sergio. "I tink he is in the jail."

    Our table exchanged knowing glances, for we knew immediately that Skip was only the latest victim of a system that singles out the Harvard faculty asshole for stigmatization and unequal justice. It is a system that all of us knew too well, and provided an opportunity for an open conversation about our shared experiences as Harvard faculty assholes in America while waiting for Sergio to bring the dessert cart.

    One after one came the cascade of stark stories: the rolled eyes of our department secretaries. The Spanish language mockery of our office janitors. The foul gestures of drunken strap-hanging Red Sox lumpenproles aboard the MBTA. The frequent police stops on the highway to Cape Ann and Martha's Vineyard for "Volvoing While Asshole." And then there are the insulting media stereotypes, where we are routinely caricatured as pompous, effete, self-important, irrelevant elitists. All, I might add, by a motley collection of lowbrow inferiors, few of whom have ever published in a peer-reviewed journal. Let alone edit one.

    Sometimes it even comes at the hand of self-styled "peers" from D-list state ampersand institutions. One colleague recounted the tale of his restroom confrontation with a Texas A&M professor at a national academic conference last year. After relieving themselves at adjacent urinals, my colleague noticed the oaf leaving hastily for the plenary session and decided to gently point out his hygienic forgetfulness. "A Harvard man washes his hands after urinating," he said. "And an Aggie don't piss all over his hands, asshole," came the reply.

    A female colleague from the English department recalled a recent incident along the Charles River jogging path during her regular morning run. A confused passer-by rudely interrupted her progress and requested directions, as if my colleague were some sort of lowly campus guide or untenured adjunct. "Where does this street go to?" she demanded. Naturally, my colleague took the opportunity to correct her, noting that "at Harvard we do not end our sentences in prepositions."

    "Okay, Where does this street go to, asshole?" barked the interloper. Needless to say, my colleague's daily morning runs have since been replaced with tear-filled visits to the Faculty Asshole Self Esteem Counseling Center.

    For untold hundreds of Harvard faculty assholes such indignities are, sadly, still part and parcel of being "The Other." As Associate Director of the School of Harvard Faculty Asshole Studies, I have worked to institute policies to insure that Harvard maintains a nurturing environment for all assholes in our community, be they faculty, students, or alumni. Some progress has been made, such as Harvard's mandatory sensitivity and deference training program for all incoming freshassholes. But such internal programs do little to address the impertinence and discrimination we still face outside campus. Some have suggested that we involve the Cambridge Police Department in an educational outreach program, but in my experience the CPD is among the worst offenders.

    Case in point: last winter I was slated to deliver the keynote address for an intradepartmental asshole colloquium at Lowell House. Running late, I temporarily parked along Plympton. As I emerged from my Audi, I discovered that I had captured the unwelcome attention of a CPD officer. "Hey Buddy, is that your car?" he barked.

    "Why? Because I'm a Harvard faculty asshole in America?" I cleverly retorted.

    "No asshole, because this is a snow route and you can't double park here," he sneered, concocting a flimsy excuse for his continued harassment. "You have to move it now."

    "That's Professor Asshole to you, you fascist townie," I explained, tossing him the Audi's remote-start key. "Need a valet? Call your mother at the brothel."

    It doesn't take an experienced asshole rights activist to tell you what happened next: my Audi was on its way to impound while I rode to the Cambridge Police Station in the unheated vinyl rear seat of Bull Conner's squad car. To add insult to injury, the desk officer refused my request for a dignified background bookshelf for my booking photos.

    Thankfully the Constitution still allows even Harvard Assholes a bare modicum of human rights, so I used my allotted phone call to alert the Dean and the Faculty Grievance Committee to my plight. In those 35 excruciating minutes I wasted away waiting in that stark cell, I wrote the opening chapter of "Letters From a Cambridge Jail," my forthcoming scholarly magnum opus on the grim legacy of Asshole oppression in America.

    Eventually my arrest record was expunged and I agreed to meet the loathsome arresting officer at President Faust's office for a conciliatory off-record "beer chat." As the University Counsel had predicted, the lure of free limitless alcohol proved irresistible to the simpleminded Irishman, and he was soon happily signing confessions of guilt and abject apologies. Still, even after he was fired, I was left to pick up the pieces of my shattered psyche.

    As I recounted the details of that unpleasant encounter to my colleagues, a few wondered aloud if we were not better served by changing the system gradually. Then our eyes turned to the stately historic portraits of the Harvard faculty assholes who came before us, hanging in silent judgment on the Douchebag Room walls; Schlessinger, Galbraith, Leary, Cornel West, Alan Dershowitz, Theodore Kaczynski. Would these great assholes have accepted complicit silence in the face of crude police insolence? How will we be remembered by future generations of Harvard faculty assholes who will battle future generations of Cambridge police and parking enforcement officials? Where is Sergio with the damned dessert cart?

    Some suggest that the election of President Obama proves that America's prejudice against Harvard assholes is a quaint relic of the past. But for those of us who live with it every day, the evidence shows the opposite. And it isn't just Harvard assholes suffering the cold, rude hand of uppity townie privilege. Other, if less endowed, asshole faculties suffer similar oppression; in the southern Lacrosse fields of Duke, in the west coast arugula farms of Stanford, at Northwestern, where ever Northwestern is.

    No, we must not be silent. That is why I have used a portion of my class action windfall against the Cambridge Police department to produce a shocking new documentary film, "Asshole Like Me," detailing the courageous plight of the tenured Sphincter-American community. It premiers this Friday at the Science Center. Get your tickets now -- with free beer on tap, demand will be high!

    Jul 10, 2009

    It takes a village?

    Reasons to disagree
    1. People who say, "It takes a village" really want power. They don't think you should be allowed to run your life the way you want to, and so they want to get groups together, and then they want to lead that group's decisions. They people to make decisions as cities, towns, and governments, not individuals and families, because if we let individuals and families make decisions, they don't get to be involved, but they can get their hands into government.

    May 25, 2009

    Books as reasons to agree or disagree with beliefs

    What we become depends on what we read after all of the professors have finished with us. The greatest university of all is a collection of books."

    • Thomas Carlyle

    Ideas

     

    We should allow users suggest books as reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. Now start thinking ahead what an algorithm could do, if someone says that a book agrees with their beliefs. Data is readily available from Amazon or E-bay or the New York Times best selling list of how well a book has sold.

     

    So there would be three fields. One place where you submit the item that agrees or disagrees with the original idea. The second field would let you classify the object. Is it a book, awebsite, or simply a logical argument. The third field would be a place where the user explains why he thinks the book supports the conclusion that he/she has come to. Of course, people would be allowed to vote weather or not the book actually does support the side that the original user said that it would.

     

    This is where the algorithm could get very sophisticated. Would you want to give more credibility to those who said they had actually read the book? Would you want to give even more credibility to those who had bought the book, as more proof that they actually read the book. Or how about people that used the website mediachest and could prove that they have the book, by the fact that they have let others use the book. What about people who wrote an essay on the book on the website. If Google was doing this, they could provide a place for users to write essays on books, similar to how Amazon lets users write essays. Perhaps they could not let people copy and paste essays into the form. It would only allow people to type their essays directly, to prevent stealing of essays. Perhaps people could vote on weather the book-essays were good or not similar to how Amazon lets users rate reviews, as to weather the review was "helpful" or not.

     

    So, as an example, you could submit a best selling book as a reason to agree with an idea, and then right a thoroughly convincing explanation of why this book agrees with the idea, and an essay that proves that you understand the main points of the book.

     

    If Google really wants to organize the worlds information, they must do this. We have plenty of books, we have plenty of content on the internet. We need ways of organizing this information into what it all means, and how all this information should affect us. The only good way information can affect us, is for it to help us make better decisions. In order for us to make better decisions, we must know all of the reasons to agree or disagree with a particular course of action. In order to do this, we should not start at ground zero, with only our own thoughts in our head. We should bring together all of the great thinkers from the ages from every corner of the planet, and organize all of their great thoughts, so that we can make the right decisions.

     

    As you can see, this algorithm could be very simple, but it could also offer programmers hundreds of years of challenges to make it more sophisticated. I believe this is a strength of the idea, because it allows for continual improvement.

     

    Examples

     

    Books that agree that schools need to be reformed.

    1. De-schooling Society, by Ivan Illitch

    Interest

    Please help me brainstorm the most probable interest of those who agree or disagree with Romney on each issue. Just leave what you think motivates each side in the comment section, and I will add it to the list. Also, tell me the percentage of those who agree with Romneyyou think are motivated by each motivation. I will try to put the most likely motivation towards the top of the list.


    The book Getting to Yes, tells us that we need to focus on interest instead of positions. To understand why someone believes something we must understand their interest. What are their values? Different interest or values lead to different positions.

    Of course it is best when the author of an idea submits their interest. However others users of the website could submit and then vote on the most likely motivations of each side.

    We need to also classify interest as opposing interest or mutual interest. 

    Businesses interest might include low taxes and good infrastructure.