i know this will never happen.......but what if..................the people of the world go against cops...........they wouldnt do anything! we would all be free..............
Printable View
i know this will never happen.......but what if..................the people of the world go against cops...........they wouldnt do anything! we would all be free..............
It's called a revolution. History has seen a few of those...
And it doesn't work very well, we mostly just get killed.
Free from what? Order and Safety? It is plausible, however it would not be long lasting and would probaly result in an even worse world, where the strong dominate and enslave the weak then after a century or so we would be back at square one.
free from what? the police aren't stoping me doing anything i want to, i'm not murders biggest fan.
free from the man.............lol it sounds funny
Personally, I don't think it's cops that make the world a bad place. Try going a bit further up the authority ladder.
[q=gokufusionss1]free from what? the police aren't stoping me doing anything i want to, i'm not murders biggest fan.[/q]
Ditto ditto. And why do we want to be free, anyway? Captivity and trappedness is all in nowadays; sadly so. :( People enjoy their bondage; some take a sadistic, cynical PLEASURE in it!!! :eek: And some people...
They're....
MASOCHISTS. :weep:
i remember this topic in like.. yr 6 xD
What rules would you overcome?
All kids would be able to drive Limo's..
Oh. I thought you were being serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's Real Lover(really
As far as I know, The Man resides at Fool's Gold mostly these days. So I don't see why we need to free ourselves of someone that's not here.
EoFF joke aside, what exactly are you talking about? You need to elaborate more. When you say free from the man, do you mean anarchy? Because anarchy would suck. Human beings naturally will go towards chaos unless we're kept like sheep. There's also a good chance that some idealist would rise up and enact a government that could be much worse than what we have.
I really don't know how to address what you're saying.
You say you want a revolution, well you know, we don't want to change the world.
Necron stole my post. :p
Yeah, I'm not too exact on what it is you mean to be "free" from, but I assume you're talking about anarchy...which, if it worked idealy correct (say, the hippie idea of anarchy), thn there'd be peace on earth, but that would require everyone to be civilized and share and get along and not kill each other without laws and governing bodies protecting anyone...
And well, incase you haven't noticed, mankind isn't very good at that sort of thing. =/
One time I considered the fact that I lived in the same state as The Man and that I could easily enough track him down and throw a brick at the back of his head, but I ultimately decided that, hey, he's doing the best he can.
Know what else is funny? Apple Sauce. The glory that it brings to any meal is unheard of by any other side dish. BUT WAIT! It is all just a conspiracy by "The Man" to get us to eat their mind control forumla. STOP CITIZENS! STOP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's Real Lover(really
Hay u guyz gues wut? Dis is EotW! Mang, how 'bout we tlk liek were serios!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
I think you're probably being silly, but I wouldn't want to live in an anarchic country. However, I do feel that there are certain authoritarian positions that aren't as closely monitored by the public, and ergo get away with too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.K
Actually try going down it as well to the scumbag terrorists, rapists, racists, murderers etc who create the need for the governement to impose laws and infringe on our privacy. Then beat the crap out of them.
It has to be said that some people don't deserve the power they hold. No names mentioned.
So you mean that we have to be kept like sheep?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
Anarchy is just a term reffering to anything without sommeone in charge.
Normally, married people divorce if one of the cupples goes in charge.
How can you have this little trust in humanity? Of course anarchy is possible, but not today.
Why?Quote:
Actually try going down it as well to the scumbag terrorists, rapists, racists, murderers etc who create the need for the governement to impose laws and infringe on our privacy. Then beat the crap out of them.
Let's rather forgive them, there's no need to use violence here in this society.
You also seem to hold a grudge against terrorists, while they are just mind washed by authority, those in charge. Theyr "The man," if you will.
They're not worse then you, young one.
Rapists? They are naturally bad, but do "brute" police force help to prevent rape?
I'm not stating that the police is brute, I'm saying that it wouldn't help against rape if the cops were given more power.
Racists? Yes of course they are bad, but do they "create the need for the governement to impose laws and infringe on our privacy"?
Personally I dont think so. They're not really much harm unless they use violence, and that's a different discussion.
If the cops were given enugh power to use all the violence they could think of, there would only be more violence, not less.
Murderers? better metal-dettectors could help against this one, better laws? not likelly, as there's allredy a law against murdering.
Not really. I have a lot of trust in humanity, but I can assure you that anarchy would be an unwise decision. Only a free society with a reduced government with the professed goal to protect others' rights from being violated would work. Anarchy would lose the first time a person realizes that he or she can just force others to do whatever he or she says. Anarchy can quickly erupt into gang warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
There's an advocate in Anarco-Communism that makes shure these things dosnt happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Alltought punishment isnt that severe, it wold work if you're theory is what you said.
You said one would force others to do things. Basically that's also what heppens today, so the difference isn't big. People can allways say no, in expecially in Anarchy, where there's no gain if you say yes.
You might be threatened, of course. A free society requires a rather hard state first, a government that takes care of every tank and gun that could be found in society, just to remove it.
Violence is unessesary, this should be the first thing every child should learn.
This is simply not true, and the problem with society today is that too many people believe this. Sometimes violence is necessary--the bully at school isn't going to stop beating you up if you give him all your lunch money, only learn that he can beat you up for your lunch money. The bully at school will only stop when you buck up and give him a black eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
But the bully is aslo using violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
If he'd also learn that violence is unecessary, we wouldnt have this problem. People cant let bully's take overhand in this issue. Freedom and peace are two things far more important then to "kick that bully's ass!"
Of course, he might not stop, you could get him banned from school.
But this philosophy mainly works at a mature age. There wont be a reasong to use violence at a mature age. If you get your ass kicked at a bar, you don't have to fight back. I didn't fight back, why should I have?
That guy fought against three of us and we didnt fight back.
If we had fouhgt back, we wuold have gone down to hes level; the violence level.
Sure, I can name other occations where violence is "necessary."
In certain revolutions, if the dictator or president is a violent person who shot annyone who oppose him, violence might be necessary, but the Gandhi way should be tryed first.
But then again, this dictator is using Violence.
What you're sugesting directly states that women should surender themselves to the raper's cock. Violence is bad, if we lot society run us down with violence, I can't really agree uppon the fact that humanity has "evolved" much since the barbars and the vikings.
Yeah. That's realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
Except when confronted with violence, or the threat of violence--in politics, in law enforcement, in military, and sometimes in everyday situations gone wrong.Quote:
But this philosophy mainly works at a mature age. There wont be a reasong to use violence at a mature age.
Why should you and your buddies have fought back? Maybe so you didn't get your asses kicked? Maybe if you value some sense of pride and dignity in yourselves? Maybe so that schmuck at the bar would get the idea that he can't go around trying to beat people up, and thus nobody else would have the same problem with him?Quote:
If you get your ass kicked at a bar, you don't have to fight back. I didn't fight back, why should I have?
That guy fought against three of us and we didnt fight back.
If we had fouhgt back, we wuold have gone down to hes level; the violence level.
Where in the smurf did you ever get that stupid smurfing idea from anything I said? I won't even pursue this subject.Quote:
What you're sugesting directly states that women should surender themselves to the raper's cock.
There is a reason why Communism and similar philosophies fail. It's just not in our nature to follow.
You can get some people to agree, but you can't get everyone to agree. There will ALWAYS be people who believe that they can, for some reason or another, take something by force.
Do you know why they so often become totalitarian states? It's because you have to MAKE people change their minds. If you want anarchy, you'll have to spend the first few generations in a totally oppressive government forcefully changing people's minds. After that, the government isn't going to want to step down because they'll enjoy too much power, and then you have a dictatorship.
Ah, but what to define as violence... physical force is certainly violence, that much we can agree upon. But, what about the mere THREAT of force? Isn't that violence? How about the threat of something that might even be worse than physical harm? I mean, if I pulled a gun, pointed it at some guy's daughter, and started giving said man orders, I have yet to perform a violent act, yet even to threaten violence against the man I control, but I still use violence.
Even peaceful action is still the use of force to manipulate or control a situation. It may not require even the threat of physical retaliation, but power is still power. After all, during the civil right's movements, the most effective technique was, is, and will always be the boycott. Money is the lifeblood of power in our society. And power, focused into force, is violence as pure as any missile barrage or armed invasion.
Thus, there is nothing but violence to grant freedom. Imprisoning, banding against, beratting, insulting, or ostracizing those who use physical violence... that is, in and of itself, violent actions. So, no, we're no more advanced that we ever were. Just more skilled and more clever and more effective.
So, I'll stick with whatever method is most effective. If stopping a bully means breaking his nose, I'll do just that... and probably take out a few teeth or something... not on purpose, but I won't be trying all that hard to protect the well being of said bully. In the nature of politics, my violence is a simple ballot box, imput, and words... of course, I lost my last battle (against Mr. Bush), but fair is fair.
Let your heart bleed every way you like, the truth is that everyone does nothing but what they want, unless forced by some other situation. We eat because we must to survive, we love because that is our desire, we work in order to make those things possible for us... and when we want to take, we do so unless stopped. If that involves being shot by the victem, imprisoned in jail, or simply chickening out due to fear, it is violence that stops us.
As much as i dont like the majority of police officers out there(there are rarely ethical ones...and i still feel they need more requirements than JUST a High School education) i really dont think a revolution is the thing this country needs >_>
Of course it is. I could have done it with my bully but I didnt want it.Quote:
Yeah. That's realistic.
I'm opposed to any form for military or militant movement.Quote:
Except when confronted with violence, or the threat of violence--in politics, in law enforcement, in military, and sometimes in everyday situations gone wrong.
They all have the military for defence, so I see no point into equipping it with futhurer equipent then they have.
Never in everyday situations gone wrong. Parents should never spank theyr children becouse it wont teach them anything at all, just that doing what they did gives them paint by their parents, they'll never know how unless they're older, but then they alreddy have a personality.
If there's ceating in a cupple, violence is unessesary and wont solve anything.
Give me one good reason where violence is nessesary. In this example, try to make a senario where you, the one using violence, should use violence to solve a problem that violence hasnt been used by any counterpart.
Basically I want you to give me an example of a pasifistisk situation, or an unviolent situation, where violence is nessesary.
Is it nessesary to express an oppinoin? no.
Is it nessesary to "teach your fiancee a lession? of course not.
Children? no.
My friend got sterile that day and I lost a great deal of my hair, my other friend got almost killed due to stangeling. Yes, we did get our asses kicked.Quote:
Maybe so you didn't get your asses kicked?
By using violence, you mean?Quote:
Maybe so that schmuck at the bar would get the idea that he can't go around trying to beat people up, and thus nobody else would have the same problem with him?
That wouldnt change much, it would just be twice as cool for him becouse he'd feel that he took a harder target and was beaten, thus he'd need more muscle to kick our ass again. Violence dosnt solve problems, it just hands them to other people, or it just grows untill it comes back.
If you kick a bully's ass, he wont bother you, but the others will get a harder beatdown afterwards becouse he need to get hes name back again. It's better to be beat then to let other people be beat.
Oh, it's easy.Quote:
Where in the smurf did you ever get that stupid smurfing idea from anything I said? I
If you say that people should use violence on people that use violence, the bullys, your'e technically saying that it's ok to be a bully aswell, but against the bully.
If a raper rapes a woman, the woman should rape the man. Simply becouse bout of these things are brute, evil, and ugly unecessary things.
We're talking about the cops here tough. I've never read anything about this philosophy so I am aware of the fact that my words, at this state, will be able to give responsoe to your doubds. But it just happens that all my intelligent friends are Anarco Communists, while all my stupid friends lean to the right. And it just happens that my political compass results putt me as an anarco-communist.Quote:
There is a reason why Communism and similar philosophies fail. It's just not in our nature to follow.
In reallity, I know little about it. :)
Doubdfull.Quote:
You can get some people to agree, but you can't get everyone to agree. There will ALWAYS be people who believe that they can, for some reason or another, take something by force.
If they feel they can take something by force, what should it be?
Power? that very instant they do, it isnt called Anarchy anymore.
Such a society requires a gradual change, I think, it requires children to be teached to live in a calm an quiet time. It requires that Nazism is gone, sexism is gone, racism is gone. It's the ultimate utopia, and we're gradually going there. Just look on the rapid decreace of homopobia latelly. Look on how women are farly more respected now then they used to be. Look how blacks are threated in the US and compare that with slavery. Look on the Jews now, and back in WW2.
We'll allways move toward that dirrection, that's what we have been doing and that's what we'll keep on doing. If there's a change in our movement toward that direction, there'll be a nice revolution, like that one of Bolivia just recently, or the famous Cuban revolution.
The first part is what Marx called the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" but it's commonly reffered to as "Socialism."Quote:
Do you know why they so often become totalitarian states? It's because you have to MAKE people change their minds. If you want anarchy, you'll have to spend the first few generations in a totally oppressive government forcefully changing people's minds. After that, the government isn't going to want to step down because they'll enjoy too much power, and then you have a dictatorship.
Yes, it's needed, it's written, and it's the hardest thing there is in the whole theroy. But that's communism, anarchy is even existen today in many cases. Marrage, Friend-goups without leaders, among the bums, in certain bands, often also in move sets where the actors and the others might express all theyr creativiry.
Of course there can be possitions and such in an anarchicstic society, aslong as everyone can decide. It's basically a bit more "free" kind of Democracy, if you get me.
You're wrong on the fact that they'll love theyr power to much. However if they do, there's this other part of the philosophy called the "revolution."
Take Castro, he's not Cuba's President. He's theyr Capitan.
That's title is more communistic, actually, as he's not in complete charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba
Hes title is just a nice thing that makes shure that he keeps controll. They dont have a president in Cuba, and Castro is theyr front figure, he's ultimatelly the one to decide. Things are turning really good in Cuba, tough.
They have some of the best medics aruond, they can have whatever religeon they want, economics might be on the negative side, but they manage to feed all the habitants, even the poorest. They have free health care, women and men earn just as much and are looked uppon as being equally worth. Race dosn't count at all, and just recently, right-winged people were allowed to hold a meeting therein, what means that they might have an ellectin when Casto's gone.
Yes, and you're doing something unecessary.Quote:
Ah, but what to define as violence... physical force is certainly violence, that much we can agree upon. But, what about the mere THREAT of force? Isn't that violence? How about the threat of something that might even be worse than physical harm? I mean, if I pulled a gun, pointed it at some guy's daughter, and started giving said man orders, I have yet to perform a violent act, yet even to threaten violence against the man I control, but I still use violence.
We should allways forgive people as much as we can. To preform such an act, you'd need to have had a reason. A bad childhod, perhaps? :)
That's why people should learn right from wrong at a young age, even in school, first grade students should be forced to know this.
It wont allways be like that. And none's gonny bleed or even get hurt out of a boycott. People rate money as to important for society, rememmber that boycotters arent paid while they boycott.Quote:
Even peaceful action is still the use of force to manipulate or control a situation. It may not require even the threat of physical retaliation, but power is still power. After all, during the civil right's movements, the most effective technique was, is, and will always be the boycott. Money is the lifeblood of power in our society. And power, focused into force, is violence as pure as any missile barrage or armed invasion.
What you're talking about isnt violence, it's a passiffic movement, you're not pointing any gun, nor are you "kicking ass" ether, you're just relaxing, while other people get to decie (in peace) wether or not to agree uppon the request or not. No big harm.
That isnt the most effective way, he'll just take hes anger out on other people. The most efficent thing to do woult be to boycott him or her, but that requires hes or her friends to follow, what is illogical.Quote:
So, I'll stick with whatever method is most effective. If stopping a bully means breaking his nose, I'll do just that... and probably take out a few teeth or something... not on purpose, but I won't be trying all that hard to protect the well being of said bully.
If you've got friends, stick to them and keep a low profile around that guy. Workout to gain muscles, you wont be a funny taget afterwards and working out isnt that bad, especially if you're working out with a nice sport like the dance Kapoeira, or something similair.
You'll also gain some more social contacts, and perhps some more poppularity becouse you'll be one of those that can do something speciall. It wount be populair to hit you after that.
If we're getting shot by a victim, we used violence in the first place. If we're chickening out due to fear, it isnt violence, but the fact that we know that stealing ist that nice, especially that kind of violent robery, what goes around (violence) comes around.Quote:
Let your heart bleed every way you like, the truth is that everyone does nothing but what they want, unless forced by some other situation. We eat because we must to survive, we love because that is our desire, we work in order to make those things possible for us... and when we want to take, we do so unless stopped. If that involves being shot by the victem, imprisoned in jail, or simply chickening out due to fear, it is violence that stops us.
Imprisoned in jail? there's no violence involved unless the cops used violence.
This country? are you talking about America?Quote:
As much as i dont like the majority of police officers out there(there are rarely ethical ones...and i still feel they need more requirements than JUST a High School education) i really dont think a revolution is the thing this country needs >_>
I can't participate in that dicussion.
They dont need much more then a high school education. They need amroe secure job. To make sure of that, guns should be made illegal, for everyone but the cops for a start, then for everyone, even the cops.
A revolution would be great in the US, I think. To splitt the union and so on. The politics prefered in NY is fairly different compared to the one preffered in Texas, if they had a different president, things would be more fair.
A revolution for that prupose would do the trick.
A revolution to putt someone else in charge, politics in the US has been domined by two parties for a long time, this wont chage. The people of the states certanly would only benefit if some of the other parties were even populair, this wont happen becouse the Republicans and the Democrats have way to much commercials for the other parties, becouse the other parties arent composed by rich men in suit. They're part of the people.
Take Cobb, he's great! A revolution that satt him in charge could only bennefit the states. Gay marage and free hospital rights would be avalable, the nature would be treated bethe becouse he would give a sligly effort to fight pollution. These things were unknown by manny, hes chance of victory was just to slim becouse he's not a comercialized peice ofin suit, like the two famous alrernatives.
I've run out of time so I cant really care to spell-check.
No, actually I can say with some certainty that they'll like the power too much to give it up, and the people will be so brainwashed from all of the forced reeducation that they won't rise up in revolution unless something really drastic happens. And if they do, they'll be quickly put down, as one of the major ways to make people listen to you is take all the guns. Look at the feudal system. It took the Black Death to make significant changes.
The problem with Anarchy is that it's based off the ideal that NOBODY will be naturally inclined to take something by force, and that's just not the case. If there is no law, plenty of people will realize that there's no repercussions for their actions. That's how bullying starts, if the teachers don't do anything the bullys realize they're free to continue to do what they're doing. It's a major problem in Japan, where it isn't really addressed.
Uh, Mr. Air Field, you do realize you are insane, don't you? Insanity is the state where you perform the same actions repeatedly, yet expect a different result every time. ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY proves what you say wrong. Every war, every social movement, everything ever put down on paper that records or explores or studies human behavior all contradicts what you seem to believe.
Violence is the use of power to force another to comply with your will. And I've taken down a few bullies. You beat them once, and they fear *you*... you then protect others, and they'll stop entirely for fear of you stopping them by force. It has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong"... it's nothing but power. Boycotts are still the use of power to force another to do what YOU want, instead of what THEY want. That is no more or less right than beating the crap out of them. Subtler, yes, and probably more effective, but still violence.
Your name wouldn't happen to be Ender Wiggin by chance, would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
I agree, but I don't know if it's because of the same principles you're arguing for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
I don't think it's in a person's nature to follow an ideaology that places the group over ourselves, which is what communism implies. A person sees himself as himself before he sees himself as, well, a brick in the wall. And that's not incorrect thinking - he is himself before the group. Communism asks that you give up your individualism and suppor the group. It's foolhardy and bordering on dangerous for the human psyche.
And, to address the other aspect, I think that communism is the cause of force, yeah. Nationalizing my property "for the good of society" is taking it by force. Nationalizing my soul, if you will, because the word "I" is an outdated, cruel idea is attempting to take my soul by force.
In politics the threat of violence exists only because a few people want power. The real solution is to take away thier power before a war can start. (Don't confuse this with 'starting a war'. For more info, see Iraq)Quote:
Except when confronted with violence, or the threat of violence--in politics, in law enforcement, in military, and sometimes in everyday situations gone wrong.
I am inclined to disagree as we have cultures that are highly group-oriented instead of individualistic. Many Asian cultures fall under this category. Some people can live like that, some cannot.Quote:
I don't think it's in a person's nature to follow an ideaology that places the group over ourselves, which is what communism implies. A person sees himself as himself before he sees himself as, well, a brick in the wall. And that's not incorrect thinking - he is himself before the group. Communism asks that you give up your individualism and suppor the group. It's foolhardy and bordering on dangerous for the human psyche.
If they wont raise up against the government, let me just remind you that even dictators eventually die.Quote:
No, actually I can say with some certainty that they'll like the power too much to give it up, and the people will be so brainwashed from all of the forced reeducation that they won't rise up in revolution unless something really drastic happens. And if they do, they'll be quickly put down, as one of the major ways to make people listen to you is take all the guns. Look at the feudal system. It took the Black Death to make significant changes.
I wouldnt say that they would be so braindwashed that they wouldnt even raise upp against the government, people are people, they're all rather inteligent. If they cant make such a desicion, something is wrong.
Yes, but you're breaking forum rules by changing the subject to a more personal attact against me. Please don't, mister. :)Quote:
Uh, Mr. Air Field, you do realize you are insane, don't you?
Now I'm chocked, you even guess you're able to know what I expect! This is an outrage! :)Quote:
Insanity is the state where you perform the same actions repeatedly, yet expect a different result every time.
That's tremendeaous, you must be the most social guy I have ever seen, you even speek for the entire human race tought history! You're great!Quote:
ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY proves what you say wrong.
I'm sure that you've missed Gandhi in your raport. I'm also sure you've missed me and a cupple of other people. Martin Luther King, Fidel Castro and the cuban revolution, Rosa Parks, Thich Quang Duc and well, I can just state that you're statistic got some holes.Quote:
Every war, every social movement, everything ever put down on paper that records or explores or studies human behavior all contradicts what you seem to believe.
Is that what you want? becouse this would make you a narcisist and those people arent really ideal, especially in political issues. Ehter way, So you'd tather lower youreself to the level of using "slavery" rather then to be left more in peace by the bullies by leaving them in peace? If you find what the bullies did to be wrong, is it right by you to use what they did against them? I think not, you'd just be worse then them becouse you'd also be a hypocrite.Quote:
Violence is the use of power to force another to comply with your will.
So you want to be feared by sommeone?Quote:
You beat them once, and they fear *you*... you then protect others, and they'll stop entirely for fear of you stopping them by force.
Let's look on it, using violence is an act. If you dislike this act, try not to use violence.
You can also just tell them to let you people be, get organized with your friends, the bully's other "victims" and theyr friends and just live peacefully with them. I dont know wether or not he'll attack, but if he does, you could just hold him back and take him away, no need to harm him to much.
Nothing but power, eh? He's more power full then you becouse he can forgive you. If he wanted to, he could quicky gather a nice, larger, heavyer group of people and attack you, and he'd have no problem in that.Quote:
It has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong"... it's nothing but power.
What I want? Yes most certanly.Quote:
Boycotts are still the use of power to force another to do what YOU want, instead of what THEY want.
Women food-striking in the feminist movement, tibetan monks burning themselves in the name of peace, workers boycotting theyr office bcouse they want better rights, but they're not payed when they're preforming this act.
Look, where's the enemy's blood? The government is free to reject these things, they're not forced to follow this. The government isnt bleading, the president wont break hes foot. None is hurt but the boycotter.
And therfore you say that it dosnt make a difference wether the black buss boycotters would have boycotted the busses, or thrown bombs at the president to keep him afraid? It's basically what you're stating.Quote:
That is no more or less right than beating the crap out of them. Subtler, yes, and probably more effective, but still violence.
that is incorect, good sir.Quote:
Communism asks that you give up your individualism and suppor the group.
It just asks for you to support the group. You're an induvidual wether you're working in good conditions (The democratic communism asks for corporations to follow strict laws) or not (today's corporations), and wether your'e a poor sick guy (communism = free health care) or a rich sick guy (MONEY in many nations are more worthy then humanity.)
You're a great person, this is what communism tells you, you're value isnt messured in cash, and you can do whatever you want, you'll still have as much respect as a doctor.
So you messure people's soul and induvidual by what they own? :)Quote:
Nationalizing my soul, if you will
The best sollution for Iraq would have been if the civiles raised against Saddam. The US could have sent some letters to him asking him to leave hes possition, the entire would could have. They should have sent support to the civiles telling them to raise against him. They should have had sent men to the Iraqi-reveloution leaders. They should have held a revolution. :)Quote:
In politics the threat of violence exists only because a few people want power. The real solution is to take away thier power before a war can start. (Don't confuse this with 'starting a war'. For more info, see Iraq)
Eveyrone can, it just takes time. You shouldnt devide these groups as races, I'm not saying that you did, I'm saying this for everyone.Quote:
I am inclined to disagree as we have cultures that are highly group-oriented instead of individualistic. Many Asian cultures fall under this category. Some people can live like that, some cannot.
There are no dangerous races, just different cultures. Cultures are shaped and formed very accuratelly, you see. If this sort of life theory became "law" for a while, we would be right in an outstanding utopia.
And more will replace them. There are two ways to keep people in line in this day and age. A) Brainwashing. Easily done, and if you wanted to attempt to install an anarchic or socialist system, you would HAVE to brainwash people into acting as you dictate. There is no way around it. B) Control of force and weaponry. Also easily done. If you don't manage to brainwash the populace, if you control all the weapons, you can MAKE someone do what you want fairly easily. A man with a gun can kill dozens of people without even getting scratched. If you control all of the guns, you control everybody.Quote:
If they wont raise up against the government, let me just remind you that even dictators eventually die.
I wouldnt say that they would be so braindwashed that they wouldnt even raise upp against the government, people are people, they're all rather inteligent. If they cant make such a desicion, something is wrong.
Again--it's a nice idea, but it just won't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
Send letters to Saddam asking him to leave? Yeah. That's a good one.
Iraq has been under UN embargos and trade restrictions (or was supposed to be, if certain parties--i.e. France, Germany, etc.--weren't dealing under the table) for decades, and they didn't do anything but breed more animosity towards the Western world.
By the way--there was a revolution against Saddam, shortly following the Persian Gulf war. By both the Kurds and the Shi'ites, I believe. It was brutally crushed, and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. What are we gonna do, write letters of encouragement to the next generation to tell them Saddam won't have them mowed down in cold blood like he did their parents?
"Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
Version 2:
"Hey Saddam. We're tired of your
-America"
That's right, and that's why the Second Amendment was put in, to make sure that doesn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold The Void
But what if I don't want to support the group? What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself? What if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned? Would the group allow it?Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
No, but that is one way to do it. I meant, you must see that communism functions under a banner that proclaims "Shut up and obey the collective," which is why I said that. My soul or spirit or whatever is not up for auction, to be squeezed out for another man or men. Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Thank you, that is possibly the greatest compliment I have ever been given... I am actually honored by that statement, touched to the point where it's actually kinda embarrassing. That I would be compared to such a great (if fictional) person. What should amaze you is 1. that I even got that reference and 2. I'm not being sarcastic about my above statements.
Anyways, back to subject. No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution. Oh, and Ghandi or Reverend King were effective only because the public outcry became greater than the resistance. Hell, in Ghandi's case, there was fear of his believers starting a revolution, actually. (that fear was probably not justified, but that makes it no less real to those who felt it). As for King... well... I already explained boycotts, and sit-ins are even more forceful... as for marches, those are a show of force... Rome loved using THAT method, and no informed person would consider them peaceable.
All were, and are, methods to compell others to obey YOUR will, instead of their own. Racists were forced to at least pretend not to be racist. That is violence. Armies were broken by the mere threat of public reaction. Again, violence. No matter how you slice it, these were methods of violence, even if they lacked the physical signs. Call it mental violence... which, much like emotional abuse, is quite possibly more powerful. After all, destruction can be measured... whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
Not really, braindwashing isnt an option, I wouldnt call it that, it's a change in the culture, thats all. By your statement, we're all braindwashed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
That is completelly true. Bush had promessed them that he would help. Have you seen the movie "Three Kings" ? It's exactly about that issue. These people would have won the revolution if everything had gone as planed, and if Bush had done what he had been telling them, Bush's son wouldnt have had to deal with the problem afterwards. But when the new Bush delt with the problem, he did it wroung, becouse the people of Iraq didnt join in, they were held in theyr possition. He should have joined a revolution that the Iraqi's had started. Annyone in Iraq, really, just not America.Quote:
By the way--there was a revolution against Saddam, shortly following the Persian Gulf war. By both the Kurds and the Shi'ites, I believe. It was brutally crushed, and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.
That, but without the rape point. Rape is still as frequent, must you know.Quote:
"Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
Leters like that is what Amnesty International usually send. Such a letter would wake other people upp. The lether should be sent publically, not written.
You mean like, you dont want to give the poor people a chance to get cured in a normal hospita, and you wouldnt like other people to have a good time becouse they earn less, or becouse they want to give what they have to other people?Quote:
What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself?
Well, then you're a narcasist, and should have nothing to say about society and big groups of people. Really.
But you forgot one thing: Cash is un-existent in communism, you're mixing it with socialism.
And we're discussing cops and cop-power.
You're not taking what another person has earned, that cash goes to everyone, and not to you as a single induvidual. Free health for everyone is an issue that is worth more then that little cash you give away to that issue alone. As the entire state gives for it, it's all good.Quote:
hat if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned?
I never siad that. I never said Shut Up, I'm not a facistic kind of communist, I'm an anarco communist. You're mixing me with facism, please, don't do so.Quote:
I meant, you must see that communism functions under a banner that proclaims "Shut up and obey the collective," which is why I said that.
I'm saying that we're gradually moving toward that field of the political specter. I'm opposed to dictatorship, but sometimes it's ok, deppends on the dictator.
I never said "Hey! Let's have communism tomorrow!" This thing takes time. You can get fairly close with a nice revolution, but you still need time afterwards to althern people culture to be more gracefull for what they have and what they gives, for humanity, for enviroment, for the beauty of different foods and different people, and less gracefull for economy, cars that drive fast but pollute a bit, violent solutions and well, that kind of stuff.
Well, that's only if you didnt work for that before. You're not putting one man or woman trought this hell. All, or most of that cash goes to the state, what means that all that cash collected by the entire state gets mixed. Really, they'd all collect cash so that eveyrone could have a good time. Bills? what bills? they would all had been taken care of by the state. That man or woman in your example have no bills to pay herself or himself, so what difference does it make? :)Quote:
Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.
Not all, might I ad. What difference would it make if the cityzen of Hiroshima attacked the US after that bomb? These people were allreddy dead, and the war was finished shortly after.Quote:
No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution.
Troy? Might be, but that was many years ago, people have or should have learned allot since.
If I had a doughter and she was raped, raped again, killed, then raped, I would protest if the pedophile murderer was charged for death penality.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would make the world blind, young sir.
Dissagree. Of course these cases were world famous, Gandhi had to deal with the famous England, King had to deal with the evil racism in the US.Quote:
Oh, and Ghandi or Reverend King were effective only because the public outcry became greater than the resistance.
It's all a mather of where the enemy was. Of course, the fact that manny people knew about didnt harm.
Not likelly, hes believers loved him becouse he'd never use violence. They'd never use violence ether.Quote:
Hell, in Ghandi's case, there was fear of his believers starting a revolution, actually. (that fear was probably not justified, but that makes it no less real to those who felt it).
A peacefull revolution? Nice. But I dont see why this should spread much fear.
You're mixing King with Malcolm X. King didn't like Violence in protests at all. Just paecable marches, where they walked, or they satt, and did nothing to harm anyone.Quote:
As for King... well... I already explained boycotts, and sit-ins are even more forceful... as for marches, those are a show of force... Rome loved using THAT method, and no informed person would consider them peaceable.
Boycotts? who's bleeding? what's burning? There is no form for violence in a normal boycott.
What? Boycotts? yes indeed. But it's YOUR chose wether to accept the request or not.Quote:
All were, and are, methods to compell others to obey YOUR will, instead of their own.
None's forcing you to say yes.
They were not, youngster!Quote:
Racists were forced to at least pretend not to be racist. That is violence.
They became even more racist after Martin Luther King, but atleast the black people got theyr rights. Martin Luther King, as he had some agreers on the white side, had some people that was negative to hes words on the Black side.
What he did cant be considdered egoistic. He didnt force anyone to obey him, the state just decided to agree, but society? That's another mather.
Please, reform this. I'm not born in an English talking nation, please understant.Quote:
Armies were broken by the mere threat of public reaction. Again, violence.
They were not, none has ever been forced to do anything in these examples you mentioned.Quote:
No matter how you slice it, these were methods of violence, even if they lacked the physical signs.
It isnt called mental violence, it's called pacifism. You're not forcing anyone, people feel guilty, society changes, you putt youreself on play, you never use your fists or guns. There is no violence involved.Quote:
Call it mental violence... which, much like emotional abuse, is quite possibly more powerful.
Yes... :)Quote:
whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
And that's why forcing the children with racist parents to collaborate with children of other nations is a great way to deal with racism.
First of all, you can stop with the "youngerster/youngin'/young man" crap. It doesn't matter what age any of us here are, only our knowledge of the subject at hand and maturity in the way we debate it.
Actually, "Three Kings" was about a few soldiers who wanted to steal the gold that the Iraqis had stolen from Kuwait during their invasion. It centered around that, and the uprisings in smaller villages, but not on the revolution on a grander scale. America did tell the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but when they did--expecting American assistance--they were struck down and trampled, tortured, executed, and worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
You're serious about this? Hell, I was being sarcastic, if you didn't notice. And by the way, random rapes may still be as frequent, but women no longer have to worry about being kidnapped and raped by entire squads of Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers. But letters like this haven't changed much of anything in the past, and they wouldn't change anything in this case--if you haven't noticed yet, violence is never a first resort.Quote:
That, but without the rape point. Rape is still as frequent, must you know.Quote:
"Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
Leters like that is what Amnesty International usually send. Such a letter would wake other people upp. The lether should be sent publically, not written.
What? You want to KEEP some of they money you earn? You're evil! You're selfish! You're narcisitic! What kind of world would we live in, if people actually had a motivation to work?!? If one man's greater work ethic put him above another man's laziness? Oh, the horror--oh, the humanity!Quote:
You mean like, you dont want to give the poor people a chance to get cured in a normal hospita, and you wouldnt like other people to have a good time becouse they earn less, or becouse they want to give what they have to other people?Quote:
What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself?
Well, then you're a narcasist, and should have nothing to say about society and big groups of people. Really.
No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.Quote:
You're not taking what another person has earned, that cash goes to everyone, and not to you as a single induvidual. Free health for everyone is an issue that is worth more then that little cash you give away to that issue alone. As the entire state gives for it, it's all good.Quote:
hat if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned?
All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.
They'd "all collect cash to that eveyrone could have a good time"??? Yes, because we all know that everybody in Communist and Socialist countries just have the time of their lives every day, they couldn't be happier, right? :rolleyes2:Quote:
Well, that's only if you didnt work for that before. You're not putting one man or woman trought this hell. All, or most of that cash goes to the state, what means that all that cash collected by the entire state gets mixed. Really, they'd all collect cash so that eveyrone could have a good time. Bills? what bills? they would all had been taken care of by the state. That man or woman in your example have no bills to pay herself or himself, so what difference does it make?Quote:
Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.
Yes, your bills would all be taken care of--by everybody else. And you'd be paying everybody else's bills. Income would be distributed equally, and the entire population would be completely equal in their poverty.
If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, the war would have went on for months, possibly years, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more soldiers on both sides. By using (extreme) violence against the citizens of Japan, that was avoided. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it works.Quote:
Not all, might I ad. What difference would it make if the cityzen of Hiroshima attacked the US after that bomb? These people were allreddy dead, and the war was finished shortly after.Quote:
No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution.
Troy? Might be, but that was many years ago, people have or should have learned allot since.
If I had a doughter and she was raped, raped again, killed, then raped, I would protest if the pedophile murderer was charged for death penality.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would make the world blind, young sir.
If you had a daughter that was brutally raped and mudered, you would shame your family by placing more value on the life of the rapist/muderer than the life of your daughter, and I pray nobody like you ever breeds.
According to your illogic, that would be forcing something upon those children, which would make it violence, and very very wrong.Quote:
Yes... :)Quote:
whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
And that's why forcing the children with racist parents to collaborate with children of other nations is a great way to deal with racism.
No, you may not beat me. :mad2:
It's just my way to say Sir or Miss without knowing your sex. Do you have another sugestion for that?Quote:
First of all, you can stop with the "youngerster/youngin'/young man" crap. It doesn't matter what age any of us here are, only our knowledge of the subject at hand and maturity in the way we debate it.
You are all young, not neccesarraly yuonger then me, but you're still young, so I yought "Young one" shuld be an OK word to use. I'll refere to you as Good miss, then, and guess that you're a woman.
But then they ended up freeing some helpless people. People that were fighting becouse they had heard that they should have support from the US under the revolution. Help they didnt get. That's the part I reffered to, not the rest. I reffered to the movie from the middle to the ending, that, being the importance and impact of the movie.Quote:
Actually, "Three Kings" was about a few soldiers who wanted to steal the gold that the Iraqis had stolen from Kuwait during their invasion. It centered around that, and the uprisings in smaller villages, but not on the revolution on a grander scale. America did tell the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but when they did--expecting American assistance--they were struck down and trampled, tortured, executed, and worse.
If the US had helped the rebbels, the US would had done something nice. But by telling them to fight, they basically told them to jump on armed guns. These people were under-equiped. They were tortured indeed, I blame it all on the US.
Of course you was sarcastic, but it's my oppinion and yes, if many people did it, Iraqi rebels might have had gotten some backbone to stand upp against Saddam. They would then have asked for help, and the US soldiers would have been welcome, with the Russians, the Italians, the French, the German, the Danish, the Japanese, the Chinese and well, everyone that would like a nice revolution. I wouldnt count on the US on that as a revolution is gennerally looked uppon as being farly leftist, but Bush wanted a war, so they could agree on it.Quote:
You're serious about this? Hell, I was being sarcastic, if you didn't notice.
But it isnt a last resort ether. Letters like this would potentially give influence to everyone who heard them. Surounding countries would care, the Iraqui's would even get to hear it if the message was sent at the corect TV chanel. If not, you could allways send a letter to Iraqui journualists with a nice video clipp. Much like what Osama Bin Laden does, but without the treats.Quote:
And by the way, random rapes may still be as frequent, but women no longer have to worry about being kidnapped and raped by entire squads of Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers. But letters like this haven't changed much of anything in the past, and they wouldn't change anything in this case--if you haven't noticed yet, violence is never a first resort.
Rapes were even more frequent right after the war, and before the ellection. Things should be more normal now, tough.
I never said evil, you're just like the rest of them. People would work becouse they want to help other people. For survival, like wolfs in tribes, they hunt for food together. If one wolf is sent outside the tribe, that wolf is dead. We're a bit more intelligent so we wont die alone, but we'll hunt in a group, with society, if you get me.Quote:
What? You want to KEEP some of they money you earn? You're evil! You're selfish! You're narcisitic! What kind of world would we live in, if people actually had a motivation to work?!? If one man's greater work ethic put him above another man's laziness? Oh, the horror--oh, the humanity!
As you're reffering to Socialism in most cases, you get to keep some of your money, but you have to give around 50% to the government. It isnt much, considdering all that the government gives back to you.
It's more socialist to have free health care then to force every civile habitant to pay for theyr own health care. Should rich people have right to higher medication? I think not.
Not really, medics are farly common in Cuba.Quote:
No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.
And do you really think that a title is more important then civil rights?
Is a lawer more important then the smiling guy who serves food at a common resturant? Not really. Food coulnd be served without the waitress.
What about the bussenis man (edducation needed) in countrary to the artist (creativety needed)? The artist is, in my oppinoin, clearly more important, as he contributes more to society then the bussenis man.
The fundamental importance in this logic is that people are allways, whitout any exeption, more important then cash or any item.
The level they should be? I strongly disagree!Quote:
All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.
They all play an importance to our society. Without the baker, people couldt get bread from the market. Without the garbage men, people would live in a more clean nature. There are people alive today that care for nature even tought caring for it dosnt putt you in a high job possition, I guess these people would still care if theyr title gave them as much importance as the medic.
Of course this is sacasm, but I didnt mean it like the time of theyr day. I ment it like, if everyone in those countries had free health care, they would be more happy then if everyone in those countries had to fight or sell theyr body just to cure theyr decease.Quote:
Yes, because we all know that everybody in Communist and Socialist countries just have the time of their lives every day, they couldn't be happier, right? :
But of course, they can allways organize something funny with each other. You cant buy happyness etherway, what's the difference?
When I said that bills would be payed by others, I ment that it would be more or less free. It's rather common these days that you can use stuff for free. Take the net, now we have broadband, what could also be distribuited for free by the government. The same could be done with electricity. Nothing to pay, really.Quote:
Yes, your bills would all be taken care of--by everybody else. And you'd be paying everybody else's bills. Income would be distributed equally, and the entire population would be completely equal in their poverty.
Completelly equal in their poverty and wealth, yes. What's the problem?
If they all can eat every day, I see no problem what so ever. If they get sick, they've got a cure for free, unless it's an incurable deseace of course. They'll live in a cleaner enviroment, and they'd just be happy with each other.
That's brutal! I'd rather see 3.000 dead soldiers then 30 dead civiles. Years? not likelly WW2 didn't last long enugh for that. Months? possible.Quote:
If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, the war would have went on for months, possibly years, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more soldiers on both sides. By using (extreme) violence against the citizens of Japan, that was avoided. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it works.
I wouldnt shame my family! I would not put more value in the raper, I'd just put enugh value in him not to get him killed. That would be more a honour then a shame, really. Strenght is to forgive. My family, as far as I can rememmber, has allways been opposed to death penality.Quote:
If you had a daughter that was brutally raped and mudered, you would shame your family by placing more value on the life of the rapist/muderer than the life of your daughter, and I pray nobody like you ever breeds.
Not really. It's not a brute force, I basically mean that they should putt those children in the same project as the foringers, at a very young age. The childrens would learn early that foringers arent nessesarraly evil, what theyr parents try to say.Quote:
According to your illogic, that would be forcing something upon those children, which would make it violence, and very very wrong.
People would not work becuase they want to help other people. They would be forced to work, and they would do it under a banner of "humanitarian principles. Humans are neither loners who can/could go through their entire life without human beings, but nor are we "pack animals" looking out for the good of the pack. We trade. No matter how glorified you make it out to seem that people help each other expecting nothing in return. That reduces humanity to mutual slavery, prostating themselves to others and expecting to be bowed to back.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
And another quick thing - no one has the "right" to medication. One has a right to life (basic and obvious), liberty (freedom of choice - i.e. where one's money goes, to think and speak as they want, etc) and the pursuit of happiness (to achieve the most that one can in this lifetime). Socialism/communism hampers the last two inalienable rights and reduces the first to a level of sustenence - and intends to justify it by claiming that since all people are poor, it's all right.
Medication needs to be paid for. It's not a right, but it is possible. It requires personal responsibility.
No offense, but this is wrong. I would think society would need the lawyer a hell of a lot more than the waiter. That is why the lawyer is paid a hell of a lot more. And, the business man is obviously in more need than the artist. The artist fulfills a fundamental need of a human - art- but he does not lead an industry that will create products to help everyone existing in that society. (Oh, and he does it for the money, not to help people. Everyone wins.)Quote:
Not really, medics are farly common in Cuba.Quote:
No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.
And do you really think that a title is more important then civil rights?
Is a lawer more important then the smiling guy who serves food at a common resturant? Not really. Food coulnd be served without the waitress.
What about the bussenis man (edducation needed) in countrary to the artist (creativety needed)? The artist is, in my oppinoin, clearly more important, as he contributes more to society then the bussenis man.
The fundamental importance in this logic is that people are allways, whitout any exeption, more important then cash or any item.
...hrm. I understand your logic, and it's true. Every spot needs to be filled. But what Sasquatch (and I, any anyone who recognizes the importance of capitalism and freedom) is stressing is that these people be placed there on ability. That is true freedom - allowing a person to go as high and as far as his ability can take him. Just like someone destined for fast food should not be the president, neither should a person worthy of the president should be a fast-food worker.Quote:
The level they should be? I strongly disagree!Quote:
All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.
They all play an importance to our society. Without the baker, people couldt get bread from the market. Without the garbage men, people would live in a more clean nature. There are people alive today that care for nature even tought caring for it dosnt putt you in a high job possition, I guess these people would still care if theyr title gave them as much importance as the medic.
Im sorry guys im gonna have to report this thread to the Office of Homeland Security...
j/k
Yeh revolutions could happen not likely anymore though.
Essentially, yes. Have you taken a good hard LOOK at society recently? Brainwashed.Quote:
Not really, braindwashing isnt an option, I wouldnt call it that, it's a change in the culture, thats all. By your statement, we're all braindwashed.
Heck, I could even say you've been brainwashed, either by yourself or by someone else, into believing what you believe. You might contend that I am brainwashed because I believe what I believe, although I can produce substantial evidence that my brainwashing is at the very least not severe, if not for the better (as I've been taught to question and analyze). Not saying that you've actually been brainwashed, but one could easily infer such a thing from what you've been saying.
Humans are NOT out for the good of all. For the most part, we couldn't care less what happens to someone in the next state, much less thousands of miles away. Our brain is specifically wired to look after its own interests. We have a self-serving bias that is extremely powerful, for example we are much more interested in something if we know how it applies to us than if we do not. We care about number one. After that, we care about our close family and friends. Beyond that, we tend to be a bit nationalistic, but the rest of the world if pretty much beyond our cares entirely. Expecting humans to actually care about most of the people in their country is foolhardy. It isn't going to happen unless you somehow manage to heavily brainwash people, and even then, it won't really work. Most cases of people who've had strictly authoritarian parentage are known to revert back to how they normally are fairly soon after moving out and no longer living under such authority. We are who we are, and most of us just don't care.
Actually, the war with Japan could have gone on for another DECADE if we stuck with conventional weaponry. Their government was designing a new super-plane (by back then's standards) that was faster than anything we had by far, had better firepower, was more manuverable, and could carry a heavier missile/bomb payload. Analysts believe that the things could have taken on our planes in 3 to 1 odds, and still won the battles. And, whatever you want to say about it, the Japanese pilots were just *BETTER* than ours in the sky. Mostly because our pilots wanted to live, and theirs would rather die in combat than return in defeat. Oh, we would have eventually won, after their population started starving to death, but not any time before then. So, sometimes, the ultimate weapon is the only weapon that works.
"Armies were broken by the mere threat of public reaction. Again, violence."- haven't you ever heard of this? Or did Vietnam escape your history lessons. America LOST that war (uh, "police action"), not because we got beat in the field, but because the people back home WANTED US TO LOSE!!! Therefor, public reaction crushed that army.
Other countries were less bold, and the second it became clear that they would end up fighting in unpopular wars, they backed out. I know Ghandi's people were pacifists, no one would disagree with that, but the only ones who knew it THEN, were his people. And a portion of the world learned it. If anyone attempted to force them to comply, the nation's own habitants would have fought back, in every way available to them. Not to mention a few trade embaragoes, and some suitably damning propaganda.
As for King, his marches were certainly non-violent, which is why they attracted so many non-blacks. However, it was a CLEAR show of force. Klan members could have marched strait at them, and been trampled underfoot as they moved forward. Numbers are the greatest power humans have. And his way drew in numbers, and thus power.
The best response I ever gave to a bully was the time in 5th grade a bully was getting up in my face. I stood up to him and he punched me right in the gut. I sucked it in and stood there as if I didn't feel a thing for about a minute. Then he just kinda shook his head and walked off, and never bothered me again. I neutralized his violence without resorting to my own violence, and I didn't "give him my lunch money" either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
To be the man you have to beat the man.
Um to the person about police, its just alot of cover ups we dont see and that they abuse their power alot and using tax payer money on overtime that can total up to over 300K a year..>_> I feel that we need more requirements rather than just a HS diploma which means ANYONE can go out there and shoot someone saying its in self-defense. Its why some police dudes would steal someone's Fajitas in SF and then claim the person attacked THEM instead...sure not all of em are bad but if crap arrives and you dont cover it up with the rest..you know you are so screwed..
Going against the cops? look, without the cops, this world would be in serious hell.
Think about it.
Heh, I'll dropp the communist issue, I'm still holding on my arguments, but I see that we'll be spinning in a circle if it goes on like this. Also, I'm not really up for long posts as my fingers are pratically destroyed at the moment, I play guitar, you see.
That's where I win my argument. But it's called a change in culture, not brainwashing. I dont want to transform them to dumb people, and I would never like to keep people from having oppinoins. I'd rather "brainwash" them to pacifists, hippies, lovers of peace and other people.Quote:
Essentially, yes. Have you taken a good hard LOOK at society recently? Brainwashed.
We, I'm no we. And I'd rather side with Japan on this issue, tough, becouse of the Hiroshima bomb, and becouse I prefere "their" culture by far over the American one, and I prefere "their" food. Oh and "they" dont have a John Wayne. They had the Rape of Nanking, so to be honest, I'd rather side with nether of the two groups... But I would never fight a war with the American flag on my back, that's an outrage, they're to matherialistic.Quote:
Actually, the war with Japan could have gone on for another DECADE if we stuck with conventional weaponry. Their government was designing a new super-plane (by back then's standards) that was faster than anything we had by far, had better firepower, was more manuverable, and could carry a heavier missile/bomb payload. Analysts believe that the things could have taken on our planes in 3 to 1 odds, and still won the battles. And, whatever you want to say about it, the Japanese pilots were just *BETTER* than ours in the sky. Mostly because our pilots wanted to live, and theirs would rather die in combat than return in defeat. Oh, we would have eventually won, after their population started starving to death, but not any time before then. So, sometimes, the ultimate weapon is the only weapon that works.
The Americans wouldn't have won that war, it would end up as a tie, like the Vietnam war, I think. Why would they start to starve? Them Americans would also start to starve, especially after the Japanese had made that super plan, they would take out the american food resorts, I guess.
But you forget a fundamental thing here, tough: This is a war. Violence was alreddy in use. Why was it alreddy in use? becouse sommeone started to use violence in that war, I have no idea who, tough, but this is just a prrof that violence leads to more violence. I think the Japanese started with an attack agaisnt China. China called for help and the US responded. Then the Japanese came to attack the US, also becouse they sided with Hitler and Mussolini, Mussolini sided with Hitler becouse the alternative ally was the US, and he found them to be way to materialist.
Why should I have about Vietnam in my history lession? I'm not American, why should I care about the Vietnam war? why do you assume that I'm an American? this is an offence.Quote:
haven't you ever heard of this? Or did Vietnam escape your history lessons.
I didnt learn much about various wars in my class becouse unlike the US, my Nation dosnt try to participate in every war that excist, and it dosnt interfeer with foregin nations at the same level as the US. I'm a Norwegian person, why should the US even be involved in this debatte? this is an outrage!
I've never heard that, but what does it change?
Great! You lost it. I couldn't be more happy. You'd lose ether way becouse they were just better wariors, with traps and such.Quote:
America LOST that war (uh, "police action"), not because we got beat in the field, but because the people back home WANTED US TO LOSE!!! Therefor, public reaction crushed that army.
Oh, and they didnt win ether.
They could have taken India back afterwards. And beside, they knew it. A militant violent man would never boycott food for peace, he'd rather fight.Quote:
I know Ghandi's people were pacifists, no one would disagree with that, but the only ones who knew it THEN, were his people.
Power, but no violence.Quote:
As for King, his marches were certainly non-violent, which is why they attracted so many non-blacks. However, it was a CLEAR show of force. Klan members could have marched strait at them, and been trampled underfoot as they moved forward. Numbers are the greatest power humans have. And his way drew in numbers, and thus power.
People clearly realized that they should give blacks a chance, politicans aswell.
5th grade? yes.Quote:
The best response I ever gave to a bully was the time in 5th grade a bully was getting up in my face.
Hes culture was alredy changed, he was alredy using violence thoward you. You could have done something else, buy there shouldnt be a reason.
If you feel to be violent, it's better to use violence.
But if you can see another solution, it's clearly a better one.
Or we could do this:Quote:
To be the man you have to beat the man.
I'm the man.
Therfor I decide that you're the man, and that lady over there is "the woman."
Hey, were all the "man" or "woman" together! We're all very special induviduals.
So your logic stands as following:Quote:
I feel that we need more requirements rather than just a HS diploma which means ANYONE can go out there and shoot someone saying its in self-defense.
If you got an high education, you're a gentle man, nice guy, you never lie and you're great!
I must say that I disagree with this.
There should be stronger laws against guns, that's all. In all the world. Gun fabrics should be demolished, tanks should be destroyed, there should be no military, every existing gun should be destroyed, bombs to. Only hunters should be allowed to keep them, and these guns should be armed with sleeping bullets, they should carry a knife to kill the animal with afterwards.
Of course, this would take ages to do, but it's worth it.
Tought about it. We'd be in serious hell on some issues such as rape, but "harmless" drugs such as Marijuana would be legal, what means that there would be less criminal youngsters in every rich country, think about that.Quote:
Going against the cops? look, without the cops, this world would be in serious hell.
Think about it.
I fail to see how you've won the argument. I'm not familiar with Norwegian culture, but I HAVE seen this both in America and in parts of Europe such as England and France.Quote:
That's where I win my argument. But it's called a change in culture, not brainwashing. I dont want to transform them to dumb people, and I would never like to keep people from having oppinoins. I'd rather "brainwash" them to pacifists, hippies, lovers of peace and other people.
Essentially, we've been brainwashed into materialism and non-thinking. And yes, you would be brainwashing them. And it wouldn't be for the better either. The thing with your ideals, is what do you do to those who disagree? You know, there are a lot of people who say "I'm going to stand up and fight for what I believe in, I REFUSE to let someone trample over my rights." What happens to these people? They don't agree with you and they don't fit in your world view. They don't believe entirely with what you arbitrarily decide to be what is right.
However, they'll be a hell of a lot better equipped to deal with the people who say "Wow! Look at all these wimpy pacifists! I'm going to start taking what I want from them because they won't fight back, they'll just lie down and take it!"
And I am going to state right now that I do not believe total brainwashing is possible. There are always people who will rebel against something. People are who they are, and some people just have the inherent belief that might makes right. If you are going to be a pacifist, just hand over all your property to them now, because they're going to have no qualms about beating you until you give it to them.
To beat the man, (WOOOOOOOO) you gotta be the man.....or something. Seriously, get into power and you can beat the other MAN.
I'd like to have a military there untill the rest of the world has followed my footstepps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
What to do with those who dissagree? Not much, they'll change eventually, like the majority changed from being homopobes to being pro-homosexuals in just a few years.
As soon as they realise that people are worth more then items, they'll follow the humanitary move and care less for items.
It's fine that we disagree on the subject, you seem like a nice chap, you're anti materialism so you would be more then welcome in my utopia.
Rebells? Not likely, if the evolution goes as it should go, but perhaps, however these people will be disrespected by a greater majority, like the Nazies today, basically.
Look, I'm takling about years and years of evolution to archive this. You wont be alive, I wont be alive ether. Who knows, maby we'll all go down in 20 years becouse the rainforest will be gone then if they keep it on like this.
If you have a military you're in direct violation of your pacifistic ideals. Pragmatism aside, military power is a show of force. If you have an army, you are a direct threat to every other country out there. People aren't going to just "follow suit", they'll make their own armies to prevent an invasion from you, if not to test the mettle of your forces. You can say you're a pacifist all you want, but the best you can hope for is that people will leave you alone, unless you have something they want. At that point, they'll just come over and take it. If you resist, as is the point of an army, there goes your pacifism.Quote:
I'd like to have a military there untill the rest of the world has followed my footstepps.
What to do with those who dissagree? Not much, they'll change eventually, like the majority changed from being homopobes to being pro-homosexuals in just a few years.
As soon as they realise that people are worth more then items, they'll follow the humanitary move and care less for items.
It's fine that we disagree on the subject, you seem like a nice chap, you're anti materialism so you would be more then welcome in my utopia.
Rebells? Not likely, if the evolution goes as it should go, but perhaps, however these people will be disrespected by a greater majority, like the Nazies today, basically.
Look, I'm takling about years and years of evolution to archive this. You wont be alive, I wont be alive ether. Who knows, maby we'll all go down in 20 years becouse the rainforest will be gone then if they keep it on like this.
A utopian society is an impossible ideal because we are human and by nature imperfect. Not everyone will agree with how to do things, and a world this large cannot be unified under one banner without a show of excessive force. Expecting things to fall into place because it's the "right thing" is asinine, not everyone agrees that your way is the right way, for one thing, and even if a general consensus were reached that your way was, indeed, correct, there would still be those who would detest it and rail against it. And as you profess to pacifism, that means that you might have an army, but you'd be loathe to send them out and actually fight, making it that much easier for the dissenters to walk all over you.
I'd have an army just for show. It wouldnt be big, and our arms would be horible. I'd never use any money at all to make it better. I'd dropp it as soon as I'd have signed a contract with the surounding countries and agreed uppon certain anti-war issues.Quote:
If you have a military you're in direct violation of your pacifistic ideals. Pragmatism aside, military power is a show of force. If you have an army, you are a direct threat to every other country out there. People aren't going to just "follow suit", they'll make their own armies to prevent an invasion from you, if not to test the mettle of your forces. You can say you're a pacifist all you want, but the best you can hope for is that people will leave you alone, unless you have something they want. At that point, they'll just come over and take it. If you resist, as is the point of an army, there goes your pacifism.
I agree that an utopian society might look impossible in our curent state, however as close as we can get is however a posebility.Quote:
A utopian society is an impossible ideal because we are human and by nature imperfect. Not everyone will agree with how to do things, and a world this large cannot be unified under one banner without a show of excessive force. Expecting things to fall into place because it's the "right thing" is asinine, not everyone agrees that your way is the right way, for one thing, and even if a general consensus were reached that your way was, indeed, correct, there would still be those who would detest it and rail against it. And as you profess to pacifism, that means that you might have an army, but you'd be loathe to send them out and actually fight, making it that much easier for the dissenters to walk all over you.
What makes war?
Money, therfore we need to dropp money.
Religeon? we need to make sure freedom of speech is a respected reality in this field.
Also, pollution destroys humanity and animals, therfor we need to derstroy pollution.
Decease kills everyone, therfor we need to fight deceases, and we need to give people free health care so everyone can have a chance at this.
These are very basic things, as you see, but they are hard to reach. But the only one that might even look impossible today is the abolishment of cash, but we'll get there, eventually.
If you want to change humanity, you should start with the kids. It is perfectly possible to get rid of racism if kids are teached up to know that each race are equal, I guess you get where I'm going.
If some of these people were to protest, they'd be outnumbered by the democratic majority, untill their theory would eventually dissapear, like the burning of wiches dissapeared, and like the fetish rich English men had to see super deformed people (like the Elephant man).
Look, homophobia will be gone in the majority of the world in just a few years, I'm sure about that.
And yes, if sommeone protested, they would go in charge, I could of course take him to jail if I wanted to, becouse I would not be using violence to do that. If hes words reached to a majority, I'd just give him my possition. But I wouldnt be alive for that decission, I'm just saying that if I was alive, and everyone's admin, I'd do that.
An admin is just a basic regular person that makes sure that everything is in place in an anarco communistic society, I dont know enugh about this philosophy so I'd rather not go to that discussion. :)
I'm more concerned about how much freedom we can make.
We could remove Nazism. Some might dissagree and say that this is just the same as preventing the valuable "freedom of speech," but it isnt. It's just the same as to teach a child a different, more logic way of thinking then what theyr nazistic parents might teach them, they get to chose wether their parents are right about jews and niggers, or wether the friendly foringer isnt an exeption to hes race and nationality.
We need to start with the kids.
Then you'd get trampled over by another country with a much stronger army. A small, ill-equipped army for show is little better than having no army at all.Quote:
I'd have an army just for show. It wouldnt be big, and our arms would be horible. I'd never use any money at all to make it better. I'd dropp it as soon as I'd have signed a contract with the surounding countries and agreed uppon certain anti-war issues.
Takes us right back to socialism, which we've already pointed out doesn't work. However, I'm more than happy to do so again. Destroy money? Destroying money effectively eliminates any incentive to work. If you're given the same things no matter what you do, why bother? Money is IMPORTANT. It developed for a reason. Money allows humans to be given a deep-seated need: compensation for the work they do. If there is no money, humans have no incentive to try hard. It's happened before and it will happen again. I've heard a story of someone who was in a communist country. They went to eat at a restaurant. After eating, they noticed no bill came. Eventually, they gravitated towards the counter and asked. The owners simply replied that they were given the same amount of materials to make the food every day. They had no real reason to try to collect on the bill (the money would be taken by the government to propogate the system anyways) and they had no real reason to try their hardest to make the food good.Quote:
I agree that an utopian society might look impossible in our curent state, however as close as we can get is however a posebility.
What makes war?
Money, therfore we need to dropp money.
Religeon? we need to make sure freedom of speech is a respected reality in this field.
Also, pollution destroys humanity and animals, therfor we need to derstroy pollution.
Decease kills everyone, therfor we need to fight deceases, and we need to give people free health care so everyone can have a chance at this.
So if someone disagrees they go to jail? Some utopia.Quote:
And yes, if sommeone protested, they would go in charge, I could of course take him to jail if I wanted to, becouse I would not be using violence to do that. If hes words reached to a majority, I'd just give him my possition. But I wouldnt be alive for that decission, I'm just saying that if I was alive, and everyone's admin, I'd do that.
And here we get to the crux of the argument. We do NOT have the right to tell ANYBODY how they should think. Do you have any idea how easily that lends itself to being abused? We start with that, OK, things are going great. But wait! There's this other way of thinking that doesn't conform to our narrow vision of what the world needs. Time to outlaw that! Hey, maybe we can get a group together, let's call them the "Thought Police", to incarcerate or "reeducate" everyone who isn't thinking right. Isn't that a great idea!?Quote:
I'm more concerned about how much freedom we can make.
We could remove Nazism. Some might dissagree and say that this is just the same as preventing the valuable "freedom of speech," but it isnt. It's just the same as to teach a child a different, more logic way of thinking then what theyr nazistic parents might teach them, they get to chose wether their parents are right about jews and niggers, or wether the friendly foringer isnt an exeption to hes race and nationality.
We need to start with the kids.
Last time I checked, Japan are not allowed to have an army stronger then for defense only, what means that many nations have a stronger army.Quote:
Then you'd get trampled over by another country with a much stronger army. A small, ill-equipped army for show is little better than having no army at all.
They're not being over run.
Norway's army is less strong then the US army, yet this nation is not being over run by the US.
I'd have an army for defence untill everyone have agreed uppon removing the army. If everyone keep it for defence, there's no point in keeping it.
We didnt agree on that.Quote:
Takes us right back to socialism, which we've already pointed out doesn't work.
Yet there are other communists that does this work for humanity today. Yet we have volunteers, we have friendly people today. Of course people would do their best. It's for their own intrest, tough, to see how good they can push themselves. Every good invention has been invented for the good if the people. Einstein didt think for money. Doctros save lifes, if they did this for the money they would all be brutal egoistic people, really, that didnt care about the lifes they saved. Money has this influence on us, it gives us greed, greed is unhealthy.Quote:
Destroy money? Destroying money effectively eliminates any incentive to work.
And the abolishment of cash is communism, not socialism.
So now we need items to tell us how hard we work? now you should realize how low our race has fallen. Before, we'd be happy just to hear that we're doing great.Quote:
compensation for the work they do.
Do you really want to have a job you hate just for the income? I gues you'd be more happy if you can take whatever job you'd like.
SomeQuote:
I've heard a story of someone who was in a communist country. They went to eat at a restaurant. After eating, they noticed no bill came. Eventually, they gravitated towards the counter and asked. The owners simply replied that they were given the same amount of materials to make the food every day. They had no real reason to try to collect on the bill (the money would be taken by the government to propogate the system anyways) and they had no real reason to try their hardest to make the food good.
Communist country? wow, that story must be atleast 200 years old. Not even that... 1000 years, maby?
There has not been a communist country in a long, long time.
You're takling about a socialist country, in wich there are many alternatives. We have Stalins USSR, even communists are opposed to hes brutal regime. Lenin, a bit better, but to strict for my oppioin.
Castro? now that's more like it, he's still strict, tough.
Ether way, they had no real reason? that means that the change has come to quick. People need to be tought that people are more important then cash, that they have to try harder just for the fun of it.
And he didnt want to collect the income? what means he's an egoist that didnt care about the enviroment, and the free health care. This would change as soon as he turned sick and would need health care.
I'm talking about those who brutally disagree, with violence and rebellive moves.Quote:
So if someone disagrees they go to jail? Some utopia.
He couldnt force people to follow him becouse they would have nothing to gain on that and nothing to lose if they didnt, unless he killed them or theyr family, however he's be forcing them with him, what means that they'd turn away as soon as they could.
I'm not saying that we shal outlaw it, I'm saying that we should change our culture into this belief that people are all people, foregin or not, and that we shal allways judge people differently. If he's Italian, he's not neccecaraly into soccer, becouse he's another person. If there's a jew, he should be respected, being a Jew isnt a chrime.Quote:
We do NOT have the right to tell ANYBODY how they should think. Do you have any idea how easily that lends itself to being abused? We start with that, OK, things are going great. But wait! There's this other way of thinking that doesn't conform to our narrow vision of what the world needs. Time to outlaw that! Hey, maybe we can get a group together, let's call them the "Thought Police", to incarcerate or "reeducate" everyone who isn't thinking right. Isn't that a great idea!?
I'm saying that this kind of teaching should be tought in school, to small kids, I'm not forcing anyone to go with this at this stage, not even aftert. If a few of those kids with nazie parents turn into Nazies afterwards, I will not care, becouse atleast some of those with nazie parents will not be nazies anymore. The children of these nazies will then go tought the same, and we'll filter even another layer of possible nazies. This way, we'll eventually take it down.
What i mean was that police many times shoot first and ask later, only to give the reason of self-defense. Other times they try to agitate the person into anger and then make them get a little violent, and shoot the crap off you. I have seen some people getting their wallet after getting pulled over and then getting shot because the police thinks the person has a gun :rolleyes2 I wont trust some 18 year old who graduated out of HS to be a cop and get all this authority and be able to hold a gun thinking he is all that. Heck i dont trust just about any cop cept this friend's dad who is a cop. I dont mean that policemen are all bad people, but really, if they knock on my door i am not even going to answer them unless they have a warrant. I just cant trust 98% of government officials(and in the case of policemen, some just graduated from HS as well, teens and kids thinking they are just all that because they are cops. Its what every kid that wants to be a cop is, they wanna be cool and authorative and hold that gun with power especially when they cover up for each other). If a small government assessor recorders office at where my uncle works at has so much politcal drama as it is against him and with so many workers, you can bet its everywhere..just not easily seen by the general public.Quote:
So your logic stands as following:
If you got an high education, you're a gentle man, nice guy, you never lie and you're great!
I must say that I disagree with this.
There should be stronger laws against guns, that's all. In all the world. Gun fabrics should be demolished, tanks should be destroyed, there should be no military, every existing gun should be destroyed, bombs to. Only hunters should be allowed to keep them, and these guns should be armed with sleeping bullets, they should carry a knife to kill the animal with afterwards.
I am sorry i believe everyone should have a gun, you are not going to shoot someone if the person can shoot your head off too. I feel we need laxer gun laws however we shouldnt just hand them out as well..a license maybe. Your proposed idea is so unrealistic its just...lol? In any case you remind me of Redneck v2.3 O_o so i will greatly disagree with just about everything you say.
I don't thrust anyone with a gun.
People with guns are involved in shoting, they treathen the hous thiefs by pointing guns at them. It's better to be robbed then to shot an armed hous thief that would'nt shot you unless you threatened the house thief.Quote:
I am sorry i believe everyone should have a gun, you are not going to shoot someone if the person can shoot your head off too.
Guns are dangerous for kids, also. They might find them and use them against others.
Guns should be illegalized. I realize that this is hard as they are allreddy in circulation, but we could start a nice, long lasting, but very rewarding project that collects every gun ever released, every bomb and every destructive wepon. Durning this process, police officers should be able to hold guns.
That, or the only ones with guns should be criminals and police officers.
People are to paranoid, if you keep a gun in your house, you're just as much of a threat to society as any avredge pick pocket criminal and armed nazi there is. You're directly supporting death penalty, and murdering happens so rarelly, it's strange that the gun laws are so slack.
If you hold a gun, you can kill people. Guns kill people, not people.
By holding a gun, you're directly tempted to use it.
Even worse, you're giving a horible influence to your child.
That's because they're aligned with America, and attacking Japan is tatamount to attacking America. We have military bases there, and it provides a good staging ground if we need to go into Asia (as does South Korea) so we're willing to protect our interests. The America Army is one of the finest trained in the world, my friend mentioned something about one soldier being worth somewhere around fifteen or more of the opposing force. Thus, one of our guys, on their own, can take down about fifteen of theirs before getting killed.Quote:
Last time I checked, Japan are not allowed to have an army stronger then for defense only, what means that many nations have a stronger army.
They're not being over run.
Norway's army is less strong then the US army, yet this nation is not being over run by the US.
I'd have an army for defence untill everyone have agreed uppon removing the army. If everyone keep it for defence, there's no point in keeping it.
I'm talking about the rest of us in this thread, although you did back down from the point.Quote:
We didnt agree on that.
No, it isn't, and no, they wouldn't do it. Volunteers do what they do because they have the CHOICE. Some people CHOOSE to volunteer and CHOOSE to pursue careers for many different reasons. However, that doesn't mean ALL of us wish to do that, nor should we be expected to do it. Charity is all well and good, but we humans are specifically wired to look out for number one. It's a survival method and a darn good one at that. How many people work in an office job? Spending hours upon hours in cubicles their entire life. You can be darn sure they don't do it for the good of mankind. They do it because they want the money to live and to be able to do things they want to do.Quote:
Yet there are other communists that does this work for humanity today. Yet we have volunteers, we have friendly people today. Of course people would do their best. It's for their own intrest, tough, to see how good they can push themselves. Every good invention has been invented for the good if the people. Einstein didt think for money. Doctros save lifes, if they did this for the money they would all be brutal egoistic people, really, that didnt care about the lifes they saved. Money has this influence on us, it gives us greed, greed is unhealthy.
And the abolishment of cash is communism, not socialism.
Try around 60-80 years old. I believe it was somewhere in Europe, I'll have to ask next time I see him. And no, it wouldn't. He'd demand health care and he'd get it, as would all of the other people who did the exact same thing. And the government would have to provide it too. Guess what happens to the economy after this? People can be VERY lazy, and if someone is placed in such a system, you can be guaranteed that many of them would choose this path. If I got stuck as a waiter for the rest of my life, you can be darn sure I would.Quote:
Some
Communist country? wow, that story must be atleast 200 years old. Not even that... 1000 years, maby?
There has not been a communist country in a long, long time.
You're takling about a socialist country, in wich there are many alternatives. We have Stalins USSR, even communists are opposed to hes brutal regime. Lenin, a bit better, but to strict for my oppioin.
Castro? now that's more like it, he's still strict, tough.
Ether way, they had no real reason? that means that the change has come to quick. People need to be tought that people are more important then cash, that they have to try harder just for the fun of it.
And he didnt want to collect the income? what means he's an egoist that didnt care about the enviroment, and the free health care. This would change as soon as he turned sick and would need health care.
[quote]I'm talking about those who brutally disagree, with violence and rebellive moves.
He couldnt force people to follow him becouse they would have nothing to gain on that and nothing to lose if they didnt, unless he killed them or theyr family, however he's be forcing them with him, what means that they'd turn away as soon as they could.[quote]
If you have no weapons you're going to have a darn hard time subduing him without violence. You can sit around and plead all you want while he cracks your skull with whatever hard, heavy object he can pick up. If you have enough of these people, you're pretty screwed.
You can educate all you want but you seem to be operating under the "putty" line of thinking, i.e. the line of thought that states that humans are completely driven by nurture. I disagree and while I cannot prove it I've a good deal of evidence that can support it. Just look at how radically different siblings can be, and how much alike twins can be. People are different, with different ideas and different values, and there are certain traits that we often exibit. If we don't have to work to do something, we generally won't work. Work is a chore, it isn't fun and we don't want to do it. Not everyone can have a job they want, and those who don't are much less inclined to work hard if they don't have any incentive (i.e. a big fat paycheck that they can use to get what they want).Quote:
I'm not saying that we shal outlaw it, I'm saying that we should change our culture into this belief that people are all people, foregin or not, and that we shal allways judge people differently. If he's Italian, he's not neccecaraly into soccer, becouse he's another person. If there's a jew, he should be respected, being a Jew isnt a chrime.
I'm saying that this kind of teaching should be tought in school, to small kids, I'm not forcing anyone to go with this at this stage, not even aftert. If a few of those kids with nazie parents turn into Nazies afterwards, I will not care, becouse atleast some of those with nazie parents will not be nazies anymore. The children of these nazies will then go tought the same, and we'll filter even another layer of possible nazies. This way, we'll eventually take it down.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Human beings don't really *LIKE* to be idle, they want to do something and be part of the community. But socialism takes away the freedom of CHOICE in that path, and thus lends itself to collapse on that angle as well.
If we did have a utopia, where everything menial and physically difficult was done by some other force (I'm thinking robots, because any higher power that might have the ability seems disinclined). Maybe, just *MAYBE* some people would want to do something for work, just to do it. Not as a job, but as a hobby that they get to do for the community. We would have no shortage of artists and other performers.
Same with the police my friend. I dont trust many people out there anyway but there are reasons why truck drivers and sales clerks at places have guns...its a tool like anything...a pencil could be used to kill people too >_> But i know you arent going to change your views.Quote:
I don't thrust anyone with a gun.
The only reason i would see America defending Japan is if China ever attacked in which i dont think so unless provoked...but even then with all the provacations i seen lately China shouldnt and just should develop themselves internally first. But nyah whatever.
America has a vested interest in Japan's well-being, with regards to commerce and military bases. They'll make sure Japan is protected.
Truck drivers are basicly there own company there are few truck drivers who work for a company.Trucking driving is a private business.They have to spend so much money on gas and there truck and to make sure there shipments make it to the city on time.When they see that there shipment they are carrying is on the line and about to get stolen they have to protect it or there whole way of life is on teh line. A lot of truckers get killed because a group of thugs on a freeway surrounds them kills the driver and takes the shipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
Truck drivers also use those guns to rape and kill women too :P But yes i agree with you for the most part of why they have it, however its also illegal in some states for them to hold one. They take one because they can and have a union of sorts to protect them, not because they could however.
lol Truck Driving is a risky business endeavor like all endeavors. though if oyu don't do your research then failure is your only option.There are truck drivers who jsut drive more agressively especially when they get into bigger cities such as Dallas were you have to drive agressive and say "hey I'm the truck you little four wheeler now ge tout my damn way or die!!!!" Sadly it has to get htat way because a 18 wheller truck can't jsut stop if a car cuts him off right in front of him.No that car is basicly gonna get buldozed over by the big 18 wheeler( think how long it takes for it to just slow down.).When a truck gets into an accident its a real hassle and it effects the driver being able to make the deadline.
Lol i said i agree with you for the most part, i am just trying to say the flip side of their guns protecting the drivers, they drivers sometimes predetate other people out there. There has been murders before and is highly thought to be by truck drivers who can easily just get up and leave.
However i feel that sometimes, its a necessary evil..
Yeah I know your agreeing with me I just wanted to say a few facts lol of why it sucks to be a truck driver.
I jus thtink there needs to be strictly gun control laws and these laws needs to be strict on which kinds of guns and rifles can be owned by civilians.Like there is no need in the USA for someone to own a AK-47, M16.Now the first step they did was banning the civilians use and ownership of the .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle.Which I'm actually glad because a weapon like that is just tooo deadly with a firing range up to 1 mile yeah.
Also they need to crack down on gun smugglers and on smuggling period.
but can we actually do it?