SerS - The Serious Squad Thread

So since tsujoi came up with that great idea of the serious squad, but accidently established it on IB. I am going to found the real serious squad in SD.

In this thread we will discuss seriously about every topic that is worth it.

hope that omnicide and some other guys will come here so we can make serious business

EDIT (I will update here every now and then):
If any RS is going to ask something topicunrelated in this thread, please use this one thread instead.
I established it cause elfen lied and an other guy already postet topicunrelated stuff.

SerS meet RS


BASICS (We will use the advice of aznstoner)
We start off with a serious topic, and after a number of people discuss the topic(minimum 1 page of discussion) someone will ask,"Have we discussed this topic enough" or "can we move on to the next topic". And after the person receives at least 3 replies to move on to a new discussion, the person who originally proposed to start a new topic, will present the next topic of discussion.


IN ADDITION:
If the topicposter hasn´t changed the topic after lets say 6 hours after most people are willing to change, any person can suggest a new topic (so be sure to check the time when most people want to change topic. also be sure to check the timezone your living in). If it happens that two persons post a new topic at the same time, the last persons topic have to be deleted.


MEMBER LIST:
If you want to join the Sers please PM me or simply make a comment in your post, I will then add you.
RD´s are welcome to discuss but will not be added to the list.
Furhtermore You can not be in both Squads, so decide please.

Eranox - founder of the SerS
aznstoner -
Ramsus -
Malik_USMC - Official Guardian of the SerS
PrzAce -


TOPICS DISCUSSED
equality vs liberty-------by Captain_Falcon
Legal Tender------------by Captain_Falcon
nuclear energy----------by Eranox
censorship in hentai-----by (>'.')>¿;=
usage of the A-bombs---by RaiArashi
sex marriage-------------by hydrocortisone
Internet Privacy-------------by Malik_USMC

LATEST DISCUSSION
Copyright-------------by Eranox

starts at:----------page 10 post 6
current status is:---page 10


MISCELLANEOUS

How about we do it like this: We start off with a serious topic, and after a number of people discuss the topic(minimum 1 page of discussion) someone will ask,"Have we discussed this topic enough" or "can we move on to the next topic". And after the person receives at least 3 replies to move on to a new discussion, the person who originally proposed to start a new topic, will present the next topic of discussion.

Take this seriously guys!(bad pun intended)

Edit:

After a topic change has been approved, the topic changer will receive a pm by whoever willing that their topic may now be presented.

Good idea^^

Ok, let's try equality vs liberty
__________________________________

You can't say that liberty and equality are the same thing. In a perfect world, the two would go hand-in-hand, but obviously we haven't reached that point. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that 19th century Americans generally were more fond of equality than freedom. I think this is true, especially today, because there naturally tends to be an inequality when everyone has absolute freedom. Face it, some people are just better at math, better at sports, better at whatever. So, what should be the higher priority today? Equality would ensure equal rights to everyone, without any discrimination whatsoever; however, it could put limits on freedom. Someone at my school was discussing this book (which the name I have forgotten) where, in the near future, everyone was equal, yet there were limits on those who were naturally more gifted - perhaps the better basketball player had to play with special glasses that limited vision whilst playing against another player with poor vision. Of course that isn't to say you couldn't increase the skills of the poor player instead of reducing the skills of the better one, but until we reach the point where equality and liberty touch, what should we put more emphasis on? Liberty, where I may do as I please? Or equality, where everyone has an equal opportunity to "succeed" in life, whatever that may be?

I think a careful balance is needed. It's important that people who were no born with the natural advantages of others can lead happy and successful lives but it's also important to not put limits on those with talents as that stunts our growth as a species.

Edit: Eranox I'm giving you a +rep for starting this thread. In fact most of my +rep from now on will probably go into this thread if things go as I hope they will.

no difference.

whichever we put our emphasis on,we'll just seeks out for the another one naturally to balance things out.

try liberty first.let's just say there's individuals who stands above/have more than the rest,the rest will call for equality.

or equality first.let's just say that everybody is on the same terms with another,then the creative/better individuals will call for liberty.

it's going on a circle,basically.

PS:please do not enlist me as a member.

:arrow:

i never thought liberty would ever conflict equality, my opinion is, liberty is the freedom to do things, and everyone should have the freedom to do whatever the hell they wanted, equality, on the other hand is focused on the treatments of different groups by different means, equality by gender or equality by race etc.

where they actually sometimes come in touch is by means of law, equality before the law is generally respected by the society, it's the basic principle that every individual is subjected under the same laws, with no special privileges what so ever, but the pursuit of freedom comes into place and argue that everyone should have the "rights" to do what they wanted, though absolute freedom will never be actually achieved.

as stated, both concepts should be balanced out by certain means, though i personally support liberty much to that of equality, the world will never be perfect, thus equality among all and the absolute liberty to all will never be reached, it's to my best interest to just let the current social standards and values to set a limit in things.

i asked this question before(in the old serious thread),but i'll ask again:

with all seriousness:is there any chance of the two squad members hang out together,fap things,drink alcohol,smoke crack,get wasted,and stares at the sunset at the beach together?

just asking this as a guy who doesn't belong to both squad.

has no one noticed that the serious squad nick name is the SS?

the SS was a nazi unit!

PLEASE STOP

YOU ARE DISTURBING THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS THREAD

I already said that SS is not a good name, that is why serious squad is now SerS.
And I thinks since RS is so desperate to meet/discuss with the SerS you can do so here

SerS meet RS

But in this thread please don´t post topic-unrelated stuff.

to remind you current topic is equality vs liberty

Meet and Greet is a bad section to have the mentioned topic go on. This is in the Serious Discussion which is the right section so I say we leave them alone Elfen...

Back on Topic:
WARNING: The following may be offensive, but does not completely reflect on my beliefs and my view on the subject. Please do not be offended for it is only for the sake of argument.

Thank you.

I agree with Captain Falcon. I really don't think equality will go hand in hand with either a reduction to freedom due to inequality or reduction to equality due to increased freedom. Humans are naturally a race that are self absorbed. Not everyone might admit it, but they do think more about themselves than any other. Maybe a very few numbers might prove this statement wrong but on very rare occasions and it usually depends on the surrounding scenario. Many people without realizing it think better of themselves than others. This "superior" way thinking comes subconciously and will lead to inequality. In this case the state or the government will try to increase equality by means of restriciting freedom. For example: We cannot say the word "Nigger" because that is degrading African Americans, but is contradiciting the first ammendment of freedom of speech. If we want more freedom we will have to sacrifice equality. The freedom to be in different classes: The rich and the poor. If we wanted equality, everyone should be making the same wages disregarding their rank in the business world.

As Ramsus said, balance is needed, but it is going to be impossible to really have both of it. I doubt even a utopian society will be able to succeed in having both.

:arrow:

i don't think equality should be looked at as uniformity here, it's certainly without doubt that no two person on the face of this earth will ever be identical with each other in every other aspects, it's just....impossible, to reinforce my point, equality should be foremost focused on the equal ethical treatment of every individual, despite the fact their background may differentiate from gender and race, not a matter of "makin" everyone the same. the equal distribution of wealth could be considered equality, but it's a goal seemingly too far to reach for today's society.

yes, by tryin to accomplish either of the 2 concept perfectly(liberty or equality), the other will, in some way, be sacrificed, but a perfect balance will never be reached either, but by personal opinion, liberty stands over equality, equality is a principle which is made up by man, it involves the various human "rights" which are merely "ideas" generated from the mind, unlike it, liberty is the way of nature, it has no restrictions whatsoever, it defines an individual by his or her act of his or her own will.

among us, some are individualist, others are socialist,

People seem to have a misinterpretation of freedom of speech, it's really just restricted to speaking about government officials. If you say the President is stupid, unqualified, and an ass they can't jail you for it regardless if it's true or not.

But when speaking about people outside of government it's libel and slander for falsehoods or if it's true/fitting then you can be hit up with mental anguish among other things. So getting jailed, fined, or punched in the face for speaking about people is not against freedom of speech but we'd all like to think it was.

I have no references to back up so prove me wrong and let me learn something.

In my opinion, liberty and equality are two different things.

For one liberty defines the right to do something without being under restraints. Of course laws can be restraints but for an important purpose: As long as what you freely do does NOT interfere with the lives of others or puts their own lives at risk, that is freedom, liberty, etc. That is totally different from what equality dictates.

Equality defines that everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sex, are equally given the right to enjoy and do what everyone else does without inhibitions to what their person is. There is still much racism/sexism today and there always will be. There are places which only allow women to congregate and not men, such at certain college gyms during certain hours. This is of course Islam. Yes, those Islamic women do have a right to freely express and practice their religion, that is equality. But it's a double edged sword, as it clearly interferes with male students who may have had plans to use the gym at the same time the women congregate; or interferes with the liberty of others. This is also segregation.

Most people may not know it, but there seems to be a fine line between the two, with a FEW similarities, but MANY differences.

Freedom of speech in the constitution is actually freedom of speech "within reason" The government can take action on anything that they see fit. Some examples are threats, verbal harassment, and self-incriminating statements.
_____________________________________________________

On topic.

I did some thinking on the subject and I have come up with what I believe to be the extremes of liberty and equality.

The most extreme form of liberty would definitely be anarchism. Meaning that everyone would have complete freedom to do whatever they want and government would be completely non-existent.

There are two extremes of equality. First is perfect equality, or eutopian equality. If Eutopian equality were to exist, the global population's quality of life would be increased until everyone was equal, this creating a perfect world. Even though this is ideal, it would be impossible to attain. The second extreme would be "realistic" equality. The entire population would consist of the middle class, and government would not exist.

In conclusion, equality and liberty would both have the same outcome (anarchy) except that in one scenario all would be equal, and in the other some would rise above others and become extraordinary.

Actually your concepts were fleshed out by Asimov in the planet Solaria. The population never interacted except through hologram communication and only when both parties agreed to converse, neither was given notice when communication was started both merely had to wish communication at the same time causing no reduction of liberty to the other. The society genetically refined the species to hermaphrodites along with increasing lifespans to centuries making physical interaction null and void, again to increase liberty. Each living out their full lifespans doing whatever they preferred or had the whimsy to do. The economy was driven by robotic labor making every person within the planet a ruling class participant. So every person was equal and had large quantities of resources and energy to exercise their liberty.

Though ever reaching towards a more perfected liberty the Solarian society was moving farther and farther to lower populations over the planet. Attempting to reduce it below the stable 20,000 population. For as the land parcels were divvied between less and less people the liberties increased along with the equality of the people. Mostly the restriction was on refining head mounted transducer lobes that translated the entropy affecting the planet to larger and larger scales. Eventually it seemed the goal was a single world to a single person population spreading the Solarians over an expected galaxy that would eventually become empty as the current civilization killed itself off. Patience and pacifism honed to an art.

Though whether any of us would want that type of society is dubious.

Now I will admit that there was a very loose and restricted government that did standardized decision making like when a Solarian died which burgeoning child would inherit the land mass among a few small issues like that but it was a tiny council of volunteering citizens. It was a very odd Solarian that would consider interacting even by holo on specified months with a group numbering in the double digits. But in all truth the government basically did replacement and deliberation on land masses that no longer had ownership which in essence did not affect or raise eyebrows of any minding their own business.

Is anyone ready for the next topic?

I'm ready for the next topic. I think the other one ran it's course pretty well.

I'm going to join in for the next topic.

:arrow:

where's the topic?

lol, that's what I'm wondering.