The "Extremely Profound Yes or No Question" Thread!

I don't really believe that theory that says that most of the advances that we as a species were blessed with was only done with the help of some extraterrestrial help. While I may as clueless as the majority of the people walking around the earth at this moment about the reason why or how we became the dominant creatures on this planet, I would like to think that all of that was accomplished by own merit. We were lucky enough to be able to thrive in a time where the threat of dinosaurs and other large, terrifying monsters were gone, and through a long period of learning and adapting, we slowly grew stronger, smarter, and wiser, again, due to the help of some of the luckiest timing in the history of this planet. Our species as we knew it was forged from chaos, unbelievable odds, and random chance, and it's just utterly amazing that we got to where we are now. I think it cheapens all the amazing things we have done as living beings to say that some other species just gave us everything we know. We are just the craziest things to ever exist and we should give credit to ourselves when it is due, because, at the end of the day, think of how utterly awe inspiring it is that we can do what we do. Saying that Aliens did it all is just really lame and kind of a cop out.

Can you recover from a crisis of faith and think you can continue living up the ideals of your faith, even though you know that object of worship is not real? Reworded in another way... Say that you were religious person, devoted to your calling and faithful to the bone. One day, through some experience, you find that the odds of your religion being true was pretty much non existent. Does it shatter everything that makes you you if you find that there is no Omniscient figure guiding you through your life? Does it make the things that made you what is considered by majority of people in the world as good person pointless? Does this break who you are at your core knowing that what you believe could quite possibly utterly and completely wrong? What would you do if you experience such a thing and how would you think you would carry on your life afterwards?
 
Yes

I was raised a devout Christian, and I'm not here to debate religion with anyone, but the more I studied as a teen, the more double standards and hateful policies I found. It led to a very confusing and turbulent time trying to find morals based on something other than 'god says so' but I got through it . In a way, I'm closer to my true self because I'm no longer stifling myself or forcing things to conform to the way I thought I should be.

Would the world be a better place if there was no threat of nuclear weapons?
 
No.

Don't get me wrong, I want them to disappear, but there are so many other weapons in the world (that is used daily in some parts of the world), so the world wouldn't really get better just because one threat was gone. I think that all kinds of weapons disappearance might make the world a better place, but everything can be used as a weapon, even kitchen knives or a broken mirror or a hammer. So it's not that likely that we will actually get rid of all weapons, nor any of our weapons (except for those which goes out of fashion). So instead of thinking, the world would be a better place without weapons, I think the world would be a better place if humans decided that they didn't want to use weapons and violence anymore. Which probably won't happen in a long time, if ever.

Do you think it's possible to get world peace some day in the future?
 
Humans are very violent creatures. They will eventually find another thing to fight about; and while peace is a very tempting and desirable objective for the human race, it can never be. Peace would probably bring on more domestic violence, and it would be soon short lived. Greed and need are two great levelers here. Say for example;


Country One needs anti-toxin for an epidemic, while Country Three needs it as well. Both are demanding more resources, but Country Two cannot provide without some sort of payment. And both Country One and Three are in debt. So, they invade Country Two. Thus, peace world wide is shattered.


Needless to say, oil, food, and other humanly needs are constantly being demanded. When those demands are not kept up, war breaks loose. And let's not forget the side battles such as racial equality, women's rights, GLBTQ's constant struggles for equality and for the people of this group's death toll to fall, and religious persecution.


Domestic violence would rise due to stress on the economy. With peace, there would be no use for the military forces, so the job source would put many out of business. Another reason world peace is very improbable is that humans are power hungry creatures. There is always going to be a thorn in the rose bush; dictatorships, communism, etc. will ensue.

And people will take advantage of this ‘peace’ to commit acts against humanity.


The world can never see peace because the world can never agree or coexist.


So my answer is no.


Do you believe that a person who has done so many bad things, can be reformed completely? Bad things such as:


-Domestic Violence

-Drug Trade

-Murder, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. I do believe that A person who has done many terrible deeds can be reformed. Can EVERY person? Probably not, no. But I am a firm believer in the plasticity of the human mind in response to a change in conditions. If people did bad things simply because they were bad, crime rates would be even across all socioeconomic groups. Yet crime and poverty relate almost directly- so the way I see it, take away the environment and you can reform the criminal in a lot of cases, especially if you start early.

So, an argument I had today...
I am firmly pro-military, and just as firmly anti-war. I believe we should have a small, elite defensive force ready to defend ourselves or our allies at a moment's notice. I believe veterans are all deserving of our respect and gratitude, that we should all do the good ole 'murican thing and support our troops- and that we should not send them into danger unless it is immediately necessary. It's like saying you're pro-cow and also pro-cheeseburger as far as I'm concerned.
What do you think?

Yes or no: It is possible to be both pro-military and pro-war.
 
NOPE! No equality in the future! EVAR. It's my opinion.

If you've ever watched the Fairly OddParents cartoon on Nickelodeon, there's an episode where Timmy wishes everyone in the world would look the EXACTLY the same because another kid was picking on him because of his terrible buckteeth. Even after everyone was turned into a gray glob with exactly the same features and proportions, there was still something he could be made fun of.

That's essentially how I feel. They say the entire world will start to look the same with all the interracial marriage, and the phenotypic prediction is that everyone will kinda look like they're Brazilians. Everyone's still gonna find some way to judge another person.


Yes or no: Socializing online, though not as nearly stimulating as socializing with real people, IS ACCEPTABLE as the main medium of social interaction.
 
NO!!!!

Online socializing (which we are all doing, ironically) deminishes the experience of real world socializing, is dangerous because it's even easier to be lied to and tricked when you can't see the person, has less privacy than a public bus, and is not the way people are born to interact. I personally have no facebook or Twitter and never will, because I prefer to talk to people face to face, the way we're supposed to.

Of course, my saying it shouldn't be the main medium of interaction doesn't mean it won't be. In fact it kind of already is.

Yes or no: Society will eventually have to deal with the issue of inter-species relationships. (I'm not talking men and turtles here, I'm referring to after First Contact if there are compatible extra terrestrials.)
 
No, I don't believe so. Becauuuuuse while I believe there are extraterrestrial species, I think they are bacteria, viruses, or parasites. To me, if there were truly intelligent life forms from another planet, you'd think we'd have found them by now. If anything, we might need to develop treatments for extraterrestrial diseases.

Yes or no: Today, the have already developed ways to put two male's different genes to both create a new fetus with traits of two fathers and the same with two mothers. This makes me believe that by extracting the genes, it is possible also to create your own child with specific phenotypic traits, even some that have not been created before--purple or red eyes, green hair, spiked teeth. Do you believe this is a bad idea? Because what if with this you could also avoid passing on inherited diseases or hereditary medical conditions?
 
That is a hard topic to reply to, but I'd say yes.

Because humans are capable of choosing bad and good, I'd say to give them a chance. Banning something because 'it could go wrong' is like saying that money should be taken from the world because it is corruptible. Some traits I think should be banned, but if it enables two fathers to have a biological child than it benefits.

However, that brings me to my question;

Do you believe that it is morally wrong to keep reproducing children when there are so many kids without a home and are overloading the foster care system?
 
YES. I'm very big into human rights, and I believe that every person on this planet deserves to have a comfortable life. Clearly we don't have the resources to provide this to everyone, so the solution is to cut back on the number of people. Negative growth is just fine by me; I think the current rate of human population growth is sickening. As far as I'm concerned, it is morally bankrupt to purposefully have a child when the parents themselves do not have the means to provide a comfortable life, decent education, etc. Bringing a new life into the world should be for the betterment of that life, not some whim of the parents or as a bargaining chip.

On a related note....
Yes or no: if it was up to you, punishment for some crimes should include sterilization.
 
Yes.

I don't mean to be morbid, but I'd go further past sterilization and--for men--castration. Sterilization just means that they can't reproduce, it doesn't stop the ability to...y'know. Yeah, NEXT QUESTION.

(Also, if you'd like ask the same question, and hope someone else might answer.)

Yes or no: a life sentence in prison is worse than execution.
 
Yes.

Because you get to watch your life waste away compared to having been executed and having your punishment done in one small act. I think that rapeists, murderers and pedos should be subjected to this.

Yes or no:

Is it contradictory to execute someone who has committed murder?
 
No.
Is it contradictory to take money from those who have taken money? I don't understand why people are fine with the idea of taking money from a thief, but not with taking life from a murderer.

Yes or no: human life ought to be considered somehow sacred or special, incapable of having value in the same way that objects and animals do.
 
I believe that human life is special and unique, at least to our own sense of perception, due to the fact that we, ourselves, are living out human lives right now. While people may argue about animal rights until the end of time, us humans ,so far, can only completely understand existence as one singular creature; a human being. Even the most callous and coldhearted of people find value in their very own existence; take away their creature comforts and they,too, will feel outrage. The fact that our own self preservation is not unique to just our own selves is proof that human lives are unique, strangely enough. The urge for self preservation within us is so strong that we can empathize with another human's will to live; that we can feel powerful emotions about their fate even though it has no real barrings on our own survival. It is our own Empathy is what makes human lives unique and special.

There can be a pretty big divide between people's perceptions of different works of art, perhaps even between how the audience interprets it and what the author's main intent was. Though this maybe an frequent topic talked about online, Do you think that the audience has more power to ultimately shape how a work is interpreted more than creator and is it fair?

Links for Homework stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor

...I've been watching too much Idea Channel from PBS Digital and basically stole my idea from one of the episodes(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVm65tlhqw8)
and thought it was such a good topic, I wanted to hear what fellow Iwakuians felt about the question
 
Yes.

While the artist when creating it made it out to be of one thing, someone else might look at it and think something completely different. Or read it if it should be word art. Either way, we as humans vastly take on things and see things differing to what they are actually meant to be. For example, an artist draws a picture of a man in an old, topless car, surrounded by people. He means the picture to just be a man lying down while someone is driving by on a bright sunny day with many people out.

However, this is how other's see it:

A parade. And that was not the artist's intention, he had intended the piece to be a depiction of a bright sunny day and enjoying it.

I hope that made sense to you; I explained as best I could (I have ADHD and get distracted so staying on topic is an issue of mine)

Yes or no:

Revenge; we use it when we feel there is an injustice done to us or someone we love. But, without thinking, we constantly act on it. And in doing so, we have just committed a willful act of cruelty. But to us, it isn't cruel. Do you think revenge is ever justified and do you think that turning to this is a bit out dated (such as singing in tune to our unsophisticated past)?
 
Yes.

The reception of artwork depends greatly on the audience, because everyone is raised learning different languages, cultures, and meeting different people who also impact a person's life. in essence, you could site show an abstract piece off aartwork to a certain class off people and each one will have different interpretations, though they may accurately describe the danger picture.

Ninja'd.

Revenge is justified, though never the ideal answer. To me revenge is the exaction of punishment and is one option of the many consequences. I believe it is.never the answer, however, as revenge tends to breed yet more revenge

===

I have a classmate who learned English as a second language. She still speaks with a heavy accent and is sometimes unfamiliar with slang or neologisms. Some other classmates who speak English become irritated with her because of the unfamiliarity with the English language. I defended her and they retorted that since she is in a college anything she should already have advanced her English to a much greater extent.

Yes or no: Should an English-learner be held to the same standards as an English-speaker, especially in a mode of higher learning (college or university level)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A speaker of any language should be held to the standard of their duties to other people... so, in a way, yes, but not entirely.
For example, a maid in a hotel only needs to know enough of the language that she will clean the right rooms with the right equipment, be polite to the guests, and understand any of their requests or comments. A concierge at the same hotel, though, is the face of that hotel to the guests. They should be fluent enough to communicate easily, and familiar with the language enough that no mistaken word choice or grammatical error confuses a guest. So, for a college student learning in English around other English speakers, a knowledge of English enough to understand the professor and communicate with his or her teammates on a group project is to be expected.

Yes or no: "American" should be considered an ethnicity*.
Not race. Race is biological; ethnicity is cultural.
 
Yes.

However, I hold "American" as the Native American Indians. I call the White American populace "Anglo-Americans" as in from "England." It might be more appropriate to say "Euro-Americans" as Blacks are called "African-Americans" or "Afro-Americans."

===

I believe the incidence of crime has increased after the cessation of public executions. So bear with me as we speak hypothetically.

Yes or no: Public execution should be reinstated.
(Assume the following: cruel and unusual punishments are banned; a felon must be legally tried by a court of law, found guilty, and be sentenced to death; attendance to these executions are optional.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No

Somehow I perceive public execution as somewhat backwards and barbaric. It makes me imagine the middle ages, where peasants come and witness a hanging like a source of entertainment. By having it publicized it puts more awareness into death and somehow makes the entire experience less grim and seroius. "Hey guys want to attend the next execution. Won't that be fun." Although I might be over thinking it.

Yes/No
If we had reached a point in technology where we can genetically enhance a child to be something greater than what we define as human. If we could make an entire generation of these "neohumans" that surpass us in intellect, and strength. Do you believe we should let them become the next stage of human evolution, completely wiping our current species off the world.
 
No.
While I fully support creating a race of "superhumans", evolutionarily speaking it would be a better idea to let both of us coexist; if one side has a real advantage over the other, over time their genes will overrun the less advantageous and it will be a moot point. If we allow our own gene pool (I don't think we'd be a different species) to die out, we'd be creating a massive narrowing of traits. Most responsive to change and least genetic diversity rarely go hand in hand. We never know what else we might accidentally introduce or break in genetic engineering, and having every individual be modified is asking for trouble.

Yes/No
Bringing extinct species back to life is a good idea.