[NT] Present your ideas to be constructively criticized

[murkrow]

Another attempt to make something at least mildly useful of this forum.

Post your ideas which could use a bit of new perspective and we'll do some group work on 'em.

please don't be shy.

if no one posts within 48 hours I'll throw some of mine in.

 

[Spamtar]

I got some/too much Coleman's white gas or camping fuel. I want to get rid of some of it but don't want to be environmentally unsound/nor break the law by dumping down the sink. There is a chemical disposal sight but its a bit of a drive. Could I just pour the stuff in my gas tank?

 

[murkrow]

well if you were pulled over while burning that you'd be fined.
Ready to risk that?

 

[Spamtar]

Maybe...it would be nearly impossible for them to prove and I wwould feel more ok about it than pouring it down the sink.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Provoker]

I got some/too much Coleman's white gas or camping fuel. I want to get rid of some of it but don't want to be environmentally unsound/nor break the law by dumping down the sink. There is a chemical disposal sight but its a bit of a drive. Could I just pour the stuff in my gas tank?

Why don't you sell it or else give it to someone who could use it?

 

[Prototype]

I got some/too much Coleman's white gas or camping fuel. I want to get rid of some of it but don't want to be environmentally unsound/nor break the law by dumping down the sink. There is a chemical disposal sight but its a bit of a drive. Could I just pour the stuff in my gas tank?

How can you have too much fuel?... Seriously? It only has one purpose, keep it and use it for what it is intended for, and don't forget the steak...

 

[BlackCat]

How can you have too much fuel?... Seriously? It only has one purpose, keep it and use it for what it is intended for, and don't forget the steak...

Yeah you could put it in another container and store it.

 

[Lily Bart]

Do you have any junk mail you need to get rid of? You could pile it up in your driveway and dump the Coleman's fuel on it and light it and that way you'd solve two problems at once without hurting your car (unless you have a small driveway).

 

[6.4]

I was gonna post how life was meaningless or something but I thought of an idea I had a few years ago and posted on a few forums and got flamed for (not constructively I felt).

Smoking license!

If you smoke, you can pass test and get a smoking license. A person with a smoking license would be able to buy tobacco at x% discount.

This test involves naming at least 5 diseases smoking increases, naming 10 seriously harmful chemicals in a typical cigarette, what and how does nicotine affect the brain etc

But the main point of the test is to scare/motivate people into quitting smoking. It would sneakily have questions like 'If the average smoker loses 10 years of his life, and Jimmy, who is a smoker, would die when his/her grandchild is 15. Would Jimmy, if he was a non-smoker, see his university-bound grandchild graduate from a university, if he/she were to graduate at 22? And, if the average smoker spends roughly £x a week on smoking, how much does he spend in 10 years?

It would be a fairly hard test to pass with a reasonable amount of studying needed, the point being during the studying, it truly educates; chemically, medically, philosophically, economically, mathematically, other sciencewordally everything about tobacco smoking so that most people put real steps into stopping smoking before they take the test. The minority that do carry on, do so accepting the real and serious risks.

p.s. I'm a heavy smoker

 

[6.4]

Also why do we have an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. When we can have economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members available to use?

srsly

 

[BlackCat]

Also why do we have an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. When we can have economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members available to use?

srsly

We should find an island and start another country!

 

[Sniffles]

It's crucial to note a distinction between truth and opinion; even though one maybe confused as to where exactly the line between them exists. An important part of intelligent discourse is to try to find where the truth is amidst opinions. However, one must avoid the error in confusing the two as being the same thing.

Ok shoot.

 

[Blank]

It's crucial to note a distinction between truth and opinion; even though one maybe confused as to where exactly the line between them exists. An important part of intelligent discourse is to try to find where the truth is amidst opinions. However, one must avoid the error in confusing the two as being the same thing.

Ok shoot.

The only thing about that is that there is no real "objective" proof. Every human has his or her own subjective idea or interpretation of events. There is no outside force to point out where this arbitrary "line" really is, so it has and will always be debatable where it begins and where it ends.

 

[Mad Hatter]

It's crucial to note a distinction between truth and opinion; even though one maybe confused as to where exactly the line between them exists. An important part of intelligent discourse is to try to find where the truth is amidst opinions. However, one must avoid the error in confusing the two as being the same thing.

Ok shoot.

An opinion can be disproved. Truth cannot eventually be verified.
How about that?

 

[JustHer]

Throw some of yours in!

 

[6.4]

I've also been thinking about sociopaths for a about a year now, they do fascinate me. Read this article first Damn Interesting; The Unburdened Mind

I also remember reading somewhere that sociopaths might almost be a slightly different species to humans (this was something to do with scientist testing what sociopaths convicted of rape found attractive, and they were more attractive to seemingly healthy women, the type of women that would produce good children. Whereas non-sociopathic rapists, didn't really care how naturally attractive a woman was in order to be attracted to them).

I think more research needs to be done on them fast, but, what if the research finds out that 1. They are indeed incurable, 2. Sociopaths breed sociopaths and are a different subspecies of humans. 3. There is a way to test for them with 100%ish accuracy.

Then surely the government or even the entire world needs to get together and find every last one of them and remove them from the general population. What to do with them would also be an interesting debate...

 

[murkrow]

It's crucial to note a distinction between truth and opinion; even though one maybe confused as to where exactly the line between them exists. An important part of intelligent discourse is to try to find where the truth is amidst opinions. However, one must avoid the error in confusing the two as being the same thing.

Ok shoot.

Where's the error of confusing the two arise from?
I can think of a few reasons it can pop up:

ethical/moral statements: Whether or not these can be taken as truth or simply opinion is in itself a matter of opinion. However we certainly don't want to hastily consider all disagreed upon positions to be purely opinion. A good rule of thumb might be to preface all moral statements with a clarification of their basis in situations where people are unaware of your personal system of ethics.
eg. "According to the form of utilitarianism I subscribe to, the workers have been unfairly treated by the management staff."

This statement has pretty effectively converted an opinion into an undeniable fact.

formulating predictions as fact: "tomorrow it will rain" is simply not a possible object of knowledge.

As an overall rule I think those statements where the cause of the statement have been accurately identified (implicitly often) can be considered truth. This is because when we receive a statement that has more of it's causal links in tact we know how to fit it in with our model of the situation. We can test when it will remain true and when it will become false. Opinions are usually presented as inherently true, without any links to external truths or falses.