Have you been screened from a radio talk show, or cut off by the host because your ideas were too offensive, subversive, politically incorrect, etc.?
Or maybe your statement was too intelligent, too reasonable, and not sensationalist enough to excite the listeners.
There are ideas which need to be expressed, which are very relevant and pertinent to the issues discussed today in the public discourse, and yet which are brushed aside as "wacko" because they don't fit into some formula, or into some popular jargon which the talk show pundits or the politicians have instituted as standard.
For example, Michael Medved rejects the question, What is "terrorism"? as unacceptable for discussion, because it doesn't fit into a formula he imposes. Even though he favors the "War on Terrorism", yet he refuses to define "terrorism". Yet, he also welcomes callers who are incoherent and cannot form an intelligent question or viewpoint.
Many talkshow hosts enjoy talking to callers who are incoherent and of low I.Q., because then the host can make himself look good by ridiculing the caller. Medved likes to take the most incoherent least intelligent call each week and make it into a special feature (the "call of the week") and play the call back on a later program, and he especially replays the stupidest part of the call, sometimes several times, for its entertainment value.
But intelligent callers who disagree with the host and who are coherent and effective in giving their arguments are usually cut short, or worse, are screened out by the call screener. (Not just the Medved show, of course, but virtually all the radio talk shows do this.)
Do you know any ways to create a more rational public discourse and to give forbidden ideas a hearing?
For starters, here are a few forbidden ideas:
Convicted felons should be sterilized, because there is a genetic component to criminal behavior.
Parents of severely deformed or mentally retarded infants should have the option of having the infant euthanized, rather than letting it grow up to become a cost burden on them and the taxpayers.
The procedure of "partial birth abortion", though messy, is probably more humane to the aborted fetus (infant?) than the abortion procedures done earlier in pregnancy, because most of the latter are prolonged procedures which require a painful period of suffering inflicted onto the fetus, whereas the "partial birth" procedure is quick and kills the fetus/infant instantly.
A strong superpower with the mightiest military force in the world needs to have a war periodically in order to keep its forces in top shape. It is necessary to try out new equipment and practice new strategies for meeting the changing circumstances on the battlefield. Thus, the U.S. needs to launch a new war, perhaps every 10 or 20 years, even if there is no compelling need in terms of national security. Actual combat on a real battlefield is necessary in order to give the best training and best experimentation of the new military technologies. And the world's #1 superpower is obligated to keep its forces in the very best possible condition, in order to minimize battlefield casualties and ensure the quickest victory in any future conflict. The Iraq invasion of 2003 might be justified partly on this grounds (though of course it is politically incorrect to ever admit that this plays any part in the argument for any military action).
The attack on the U.S. on 9-11-01 had an aesthetic and entertainment value to it. It was sudden and spectacular. Possibly this event, over time, will stimulate enough sensationalism and entertainment so that, measured in dollars, the total benefit and profit may outweigh the pain and death and economic costs. The media industry as a whole will probably profit from this event. Of course, it is insensitive and politically incorrect to say such things.
Why should we warehouse the severely retarded and criminally insane at taxpayers' expense? Isn't it a waste of resources? Why not euthanize them instead?
Is torture always wrong? Can't it be a valuable tool in wartime to get needed information from enemy captives? Of course you are told by anti-torture crusaders that it doesn't work and that there are other ways to get the information and that the victim will just lie in order to stop the pain. But even so, isn't torture sometimes the best way to get the information? Even if not usually, does that mean it never is? Does anyone seriously believe the U.S. never used any torture on some Nazi and Japanese prisoners in WW2 in order to get information? They probably did and probably saved some lives by doing so. Yet it's politically incorrect to suggest that torture might sometimes be useful. We're not supposed to say such things.
Do you have a forbidden idea to share? Post it in this web page (click here) or in SocialContract.com Message Board and we'll argue about it.
Good Message Boards (They're getting better!)
The improved message boards now let you move from one post to another on the same topic without needing to click to another page. You can just scroll down through multiple messages which address the topic and argue with each other. These are a great debate forum for people who like to argue. Arguing is good.
FreeStateProject.org
Libertarian-oriented. Proposals for freedom-lovers to all move to one
state and try to "take it over." Philosophical arguments about how to pull
this off and what should happen in the "free state" after they "take it over."
3rdParty.org
Another minor political party. Maybe the best. Has a "Convention Floor"
(message board)
which lets participants shape the party's policies/platform proposals. Not
necessarily conservative or liberal or moderate or ----. Just seeking the
best positions on all the issues.
XAT.org
Perhaps a little flaky, this one. Kumbayah, sweetness and light,
butterfly wings, etc. But open to all
viewpoints. Proposes a new economic system without taxes or "usury". But
you can disagree and offer your own theories.
LibertyForum.org
Mostly libertarian. Lots of topics.
More sites will be added to this list. This listing will be limited to high-quality message board sites only which allow easy access and are open to all viewpoints on the announced topics.
Night Owl Mk. II Philosophy of Life Good arguments, "Agree with me or show me where I'm wrong"
Thats a Lie. A listing of lies popularly told and accepted in society. Know any good lies? Add your own example(s) to the list.
The Minimum Wage pros and cons
WhyTheyHateUs.net The "war on terror" // Militant Islam vs. the West
WeDebate.com (another debate website).
OK to Kill When is killing right and when is it wrong? Capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.
Extensive list of third parties
Labor Theory of Value Does anyone really defend the labor theory of value anymore? Where are you Marxists? Come and defend this theory or admit that Marxism makes no sense. Have you all jumped ship?
Some alternative political parties worth considering: