[CP5670]

And saying world government is a good or bad thing is like saying, say, cake is good. Sometimes that's true, but what if it was a **** cake? Would you want to eat that? I thought not. I suppose there are ways a global government could be done right, but having an evil, greedy, self-interested creep holding absolute power is not one of them.

But that is the only realistic and practical way it can work; in fact, I remember you yourself saying (or maybe it was an0n) that this is not a world in which everything is perfect, and you have to work with what is plausible. It would still be better than the current situation of competing nations though, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Stryke 9]

Not necessarily. Compare, say, Afghanistan or Somalia in their current anarchies to Russia under Stalin. Which has the higher proportional bodycount? Lower overall quality of life? At least in a warring anarchy you're not a slave.

The worst-case scenario should not be what is feasible- if it is, it's time to throw the whole idea out the window. Me, I think a multilayered government is possible, and the best possible outcome under the circumstances.

[Rictor]

CP: Again, you manage to be too logical. You claim that absolutist rule is a good thing, and so is a one government world. Howveer, what you dont consider is, what if this government that ruled the world was not to your liking? What if the Chinese took over the forced their beliefs on you, forced you to live their way. Would you like that? You always support something until it bites you in the ass. Well, assume it has bitten you in the ass right now, becuase by the time it does it'll be too late.

The Balkans article is about an article in the New York Times  (I think it was the times) about how American imperialism in Bosnia has really benefited all involved. The authour (of the counter articel, not the original one) goes on to say how thats a crock of ****. Specifically, it ttalks about the town of Brcko , which the US claims has prospered under its rule. It talks about how the three religions are forced to attend the same school, as if forcing them into unity is helping. It talks about the peace between the ethnic groups, as if the US is to credit. In fact, Brcko is located on such a spot so as to escape the rule of the Bosnian government and the people really are more interested in other matters than killing each other. Essentially, the Times article claims that outright imperialism in Bosnia is a great thing. The counter article shoots that premise down..

edit: The world isnt perfect, but thats all the more reason you should always strive to make it perfect. Thats like saying "My shirt is red, but I really want a blue shirt. Oh well, nothing I can do about it, despite the fact that I have a blue shirt in my closet."

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
You trust historians? They're worse than the reporters!

And, to be honest, the silent majority isn't for ****. You could put in place a tyrant whose first job was to pass the "Let's Mash Everyone Up In a Giant Meat Grinder Act", and 80% of people wouldn't care. They're irrelevant. It's the other ten or twenty percent that aren't just walking furniture that matter, and they're the ones politics are made of and for.

They make their living by doing proper research instead of finding sensational images and soundclips, and you will notice I used the plural.  Their opinions I evaluate critically (see original post), and would point out that they always present nuanced interpretations that are rarely black-and-white.  The primary reason I turn to historians more than reporters is that their books contain far more comprehensive accounts of the facts with which I can draw my own conclusions.

As for the "silent majority", I would point out that your argument is setting up a straw man and then knocking him over.  Further, while it is the politically active that make up the constituents of the political arena (by definition), the very idea of freedom and liberal democracy that you are pulling for quite explicitly looks towards the greater good of the majority, even if in practice non-participation makes that an ideal that cannot fully be realised.  If you are going to dismiss the majority, you are being inconsistent with your own protest.  Besides, anyone happy to have the Americans there would not protest precisely as a sign of their happiness, so the argument goes bust there, too.

Anyway, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I've papers to write, so I'm outta here.

[CP5670]

CP: Again, you manage to be too logical. You claim that absolutist rule is a god thing, and so is a one government world. Howveer, what you dont consider is, what if this government that ruled the world was not to your liking? What if the Chinese took over the forced their beliefs on you, forced you to live their way. Would you like that? You always support something until it bites you in the ass. Well, assume it has bitten you in the ass right now, becuase by the time it does it'll be too late.

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter in that situation since my opinions would not be relevant. Anyway, all that is happening right now as we speak, even in the most democratic countries in the world, so it wouldn't change anything. Persuation is a form of forcing if you think about it, and in fact the most "evil" form since it alters people's minds themselves, and obviously this has been happening since the beginning of civilization and continues today. Here is an interesting scenario: suppose that in the future a new technology comes out that allows patterns in the human brain to be modified and governments use this system to "persuade" their populaces to do whatever, do you think this would be a good thing and why or why not? Remember that the people would all want to do whatever the government has them doing, so they would not think the government is "evil."

Also, you can never be too logical in an argument.

The Balkans article is about an article in the New York Times  (I think it was the times) about how American imperialism in Bosnia has really benefited all involved. The authour (of the counter articel, not the original one) goes on to say how thats a crock of ****. Specifically, it ttalks about the town of Brcko , which the US claims has prospered under its rule. It talks about how the three religions are forced to attend the same school, as if forcing them into unity is helping. It talks about the peace between the ethnic groups, as if the US is to credit. In fact, Brcko is located on such a spot so as to escape the rule of the Bosnian government and the people really are more interested in other matters than killing each other. Essentially, the Times article claims that outright imperialism in Bosnia is a great thing. The counter article shoots that premise down..

Well I'm not familiar with the situation there, but how exactly is having one school for the religions a bad thing? Also, you could say that the US can take some credit for the peace there if the people are now united against the US, since then they are temporarily friendly with each other.

edit: The world isnt perfect, but thats all the more reason you should always strive to make it perfect. Thats like saying "My shirt is red, but I really want a blue shirt. Oh well, nothing I can do about it, despite the fact that I have a blue shirt in my closet."

That's a silly example in this context; I like the original example about "living on the moon with butterfly wings and having everyone happy" or whatever it was that I read a few days ago at this place. You cannot immediately try for totally unrealistic things especially when the workings of human nature do not allow for them.

[Rictor]

Yes but you should not embrace human short commings. You should try to alter human perception, so that the world is as good as it can be. Look at the situation 1000 years ago? Havent things improved. Havent people become more tolerant, more peacufull, more logical? So why do you think that cannot continue? What you state about human nature is conjecture. History is all the proof we have, and that proof says that people will continue to better themselves



Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter in that situation since my opinions would not be relevant. Anyway, all that is happening right now as we speak, even in the most democratic countries in the world, so it wouldn't change anything. Persuation is a form of forcing if you think about it, and in fact the most "evil" form since it alters people's minds themselves, and obviously this has been happening since the beginning of civilization and continues today. Here is an interesting example: suppose that in the future a new technology comes out that allows patterns in the human brain to be modified and governments use this system to "persuade" their populaces to do whatever, do you think this would be a good thing and why or why not? Remember that the people would all want to do whatever the government has them doing.

Bad thing. Because we should strive for the ideal human condition, and the oppression of the majority is not going in that direction. Your whole rational is based on the greater good. But the greater good is not that if the majority are not satisfied. The inability to think for yourself is doing just that. Might does not, or should not, make right..

[CP5670]

Yes but you should not embrace human short commings. You should try to alter human perception, so that the world is as good as it can be. Look at the situation 1000 years ago? Havent things improved. Havent people become more tolerant, more peacufull, more logical? So why do you think that cannot continue? What you state about human nature is conjecture. History is all the proof we have, and that proof says that people will continue to better themselves

I certainly do not see any such trend; all things considered I would say we have stayed more or less the same in those matters. The levels of tolerance and peace have gone up and down over the centuries and human thought has always been "equally" logical for whatever the task at hand was. Things might in the future if the individual human is fundamentally altered, but they have not so far.

Bad thing. Because we should strive for the ideal human condition, and the oppression of the majority is not going in that direction. Your whole rational is based on the greater good. But the greater good is not that if the majority are not satisfied. The inability to think for yourself is doing just that. Might does not, or should not, make right..

No no, there is no opression there. All the people would like the situation perfectly and are fully satisfied, more than they ever they ever liked their freedom situation.

[Sesquipedalian]

Okay, I know I said I was leaving, but I have to reply to this:

Originally posted by Rictor
Look at the situation 1000 years ago? Havent things improved. Havent people become more tolerant, more peacufull, more logical?

... No!  Certainly not.  Technology has advanced, which has allowed us to help or harm each other more effectively than before.  Which one we are more likely to do has not changed at all.  

As a Christian, I believe we should certainly strive to let goodness increase in the world, but do not for a moment think that "progress" is somehow going to eradicate the self-serving, destructive impulses that riddle human nature.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by CP5670


I certainly do not see any such trend; all things considered I would say we have stayed more or less the same in those matters. The levels of tolerance and peace have gone up and down over the centuries and human thought has always been "equally" logical for whatever the task at hand was.



No no, there is no opression there. All the people would like the situation perfectly and are fully satisfied, more than they ever they ever liked their freedom situation.

When has humanity ever been more tolerant or more peaceful than it is today? I'de like to know, cause I dont see it. As for logic...please tell me you're kidding. Science was rejected as heresy, superstition reigned supreme. Your precious math was rejected when it went against religion.

Oppression is still opression even if you dont know it happening. The inability to have your own opinion is oppression of the worst kind.

[CP5670]

When has humanity ever been more tolerant or more peaceful than it is today? I'de like to know, cause I dont see it. As for logic...please tell me you're kidding. Science was rejected as heresy, superstition reigned supreme. Your precious math was rejected when it went against religion.

You think today's humanity is tolerant and peaceful? (and that wouldn't necessarily any better or worse anyway) As for logic, how about before that in the period when humans were the cave-dwelling hunter-gather types? They had to be logical enough to perform the tasks needed to survive with whatever they had. It goes up and down over long periods of time.

Oppression is still opression even if you dont know it happening. The inability to have your own opinion is oppression of the worst kind.

Why? It wouldn't matter anymore since you would no longer care. And about the opinion, I really should keep that statement as a quote. Sure that is oppression of the worst sort, but we are living through it as we speak and it is inescapable since we are in the same universe. Have you ever been persuaded by someone else to do change your opinion on something? This is exactly what the government is doing in that example I gave, so it should cause no trouble unless you consider persuasion by talking to be oppressive (which would actually make some sense).

[mikhael]

Pathetic.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Rictor


When has humanity ever been more tolerant or more peaceful than it is today?

When has it ever been less?  It has always been a mixture of blood and blessing.  

Besides, since when is tolerance the chief value?  Tolerance is just apathy.  Love is much greater.

As for logic...please tell me you're kidding. Science was rejected as heresy, superstition reigned supreme. Your precious math was rejected when it went against religion.

Please tell me you are kidding.  Logic is as old as the human mind, and the rules have always been the same.  Science was not rejected as heresy by any religion at any time: certain theories were rejected at certain times because people thought they were wrong.  That whole speil you just regurgitated is merely so much spin doctoring by those who have thier own agenda and want to claim scientific investigation as their own property in support of it.

Edit: Wow, CP and I on the same side of an argument.  How unusual.

[CP5670]

Edit: Wow, CP and I on the same side of an argument. How unusual.

Maybe we can get back to that last religion argument sometime. I have a nice response to your last one but it would take me a couple of hours to type it all up and I don't have that much free time anymore.

[Sesquipedalian]

Me neither.  Actually, I really do have to go get back to work.  Later.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by CP5670


You think today's humanity is tolerant and peaceful? (and that wouldn't necessarily any better or worse anyway) As for logic, how about before that in the period when humans were the cave-dwelling hunter-gather types? They had to be logical enough to perform the tasks needed to survive with whatever they had. It goes up and down over long periods of time.



Why? It wouldn't matter anymore since you would no longer care. And about the opinion, I really should keep that statement as a quote. Sure that is oppression of the worst sort, but we are living through it as we speak and it is inescapable since we are in the same universe. Have you ever been persuaded by someone else to do change your opinion on something? This is exactly what the government is doing in that example I gave, so it should cause no trouble unless you consider persuasion by talking to be oppressive (which would actually make some sense).

You still havent answered the question. Tell me a period in time when humanity has been more tolerant and more peaceful. I dont think there is. What is logic? The ability to observe an event with objectivity. Thats about the jist of it imho. Since the beggining of civilized man, I dont think there has ever been a time when humanity has been more logical. I dont see how your caveman thing applies.

Can you really be so set in your mindframe that you are willing to support something that would ultimately rob YOU of your will so that OTHERS can prosper? You talk about human nature, but one of the basic human instincts is self survival. You talk about all this, but I doubt you would be willing to implement your theories in real life. Anyone can talk. Mostly people are just talking, they would not actually like it if it came around. Thats the thing, VERY few people are willing to implement extremist systems, even if it benefits them..and particularly if it does not benefit you..

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
When has it ever been less?  It has always been a mixture of blood and blessing.  

Besides, since when is tolerance the chief value?  Tolerance is just apathy.  Love is much greater.

Please tell me you are kidding.  Logic is as old as the human mind, and the rules have always been the same.  Science was not rejected as heresy by any religion at any time: certain theories were rejected at certain times because people thought they were wrong.  That whole speil you just regurgitated is merely so much spin doctoring by those who have thier own agenda and want to claim scientific investigation as their own property in support of it.

Edit: Wow, CP and I on the same side of an argument.  How unusual.

When has it been less? If the witch hunts were to happen today, they would be condemned by most people. Why? Either because people are kinder than before, or more logical becasue they dont believe in superstition. Both are admirable traits.

Yes, love is good too, and also applicalbe. Kindness too.

When people put more weight in religion, which cannot be proven, than if scientific fact, which can be proven, I call all illogical. No religion has outright rejected all science, just those theories that contended with religion. If all theories overlapped, and threated to destabilize, religious teaching, they would all be condemned. Its not that they accepted science, they simply didnt have a quarrel with it. Today, people are more tolerant, or atelast keep their intolerance under control. Look at race relations. The Crusades pitted one religion against another. The slave trade in America and worldwide. The Inquisition. 400 years of imperialistic rule. Can you claim that those people were more tolerant, or kinder, or gentler, or had more love for their fellow man, than today?

[Stryke 9]

Ses: What? No, if the majority doesn't give a **** either way, **** them. They don't matter, because it's all the same to them. Now, if they actually want to get up and do something about their situation, say something, that's a different story. But it's ridiculous to dismiss the majority of the voices you hear under the assumption that there's a "silent majority" that disagrees with them and says nothing about it. That's not democracy, that's perverting representation to further one's own views.



Rictor: So, the crusader going out to defend an allied empire is intolerant, yet the yokel who beats up a black guy, chains him to the rear fender of his pickup, and drags him to death is a kind, tolerant, accepting, peaceful person? Is Hitler that much nicer than, say, Pope Urban II or Cortez? Are the guys who ran Buchenwald or are running Guantanamo better than any of those moldy old characters from history? Is Osama?

People are people. That doesn't change. If anything, the bodycount from psychotics and bigots and their capability to influence other psychotics and do damage has increased over the years, but that's because of better transit and communication, not an increase in intolerance. And that's pretty far in the left field of OT, so unless you and CP would rather tie this back in to merciless America-bashing or statements of sympathy for the Empire, hush.



CP: You claim to be logical and objective, and yet you consistently rule out the most important factors in the human equation, claiming that they're irrelevant because you personally don't believe they should exist. In the future, I request that you correct this inconsistency. But as for most of your other stuff, aight. And what I said to Rictor.



Mik: More pathetic than snide one-word jabs at nothing in particular, or more pathetic than a guy who takes the time to sneer at a bunch of people he's never met online for wasting their time without his ever contributing anything, when he could be doing something useful? Enlighten us,

[Rictor]

We've got one pissed of asshole, one guy who pushes logic to the limits and one guy who just doesnt give a damn, yet participates anyway...my moderate viewpoints just cant compete with such extreme characterisitcs

Stryke: look at the proportion of people who are doing, or more importantly supporting, the injustices. Then and now. Since most people arent in a sitation to actually commit the injustices themselves, I'll take all the supporters as one group. So, in proportion to the number of people on the planet, then and now, how many people support race discrimination, religious intolerance, superstition, imperialism, exploitation...There are always madmen with power. Cortez, Hitler, Stalin. But, if anything, I think that their ability to kill has decreased. Why? Becuase people wont stand for it. They have the technology, but people would not be willing to support such killings. If today, even against Iraq,m the US suffered half a million casualties, would even the mpost right-wing hawks still support the invasion? In Iraq, several thousand civilians died, as opposed to the several million killed in WW2, Vietnam etc. The Thirty Years War wiped out 1/4 of Europe's population. Would anything like that be acceptable today? I dont know the numbers, but now many million Africans were sent to America to work as slaves during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries? That number cannot compare to the relatively few blacks (uhm, should I capitalize or not?) that are exploted or killed today. 300 years ago, the KKK was the norm. Is it today?

Good point about CP. You cant just discount something cause it shouldnt exist. It does.

Also, good point about the silent majority. If you arent willing to take a stand, then you leave your fate in the hands of others.

[CP5670]

You still havent answered the question. Tell me a period in time when humanity has been more tolerant and more peaceful. I dont think there is. What is logic? The ability to observe an event with objectivity. Thats about the jist of it imho. Since the beggining of civilized man, I dont think there has ever been a time when humanity has been more logical. I dont see how your caveman thing applies.

How about a decade ago? Some people say that 9/11 and subsequent events have made people less tolerant of others than they used to be. Also, your defition of logic is very strange; the logic concept is related more to thought processes than observation. You are right about the last sentence, but the converse also holds; over long periods of time, there has not been any time when they have been less logical either, since they have remained the same.

Can you really be so set in your mindframe that you are willing to support something that would ultimately rob YOU of your will so that OTHERS can prosper? You talk about human nature, but one of the basic human instincts is self survival. You talk about all this, but I doubt you would be willing to implement your theories in real life. Anyone can talk. Mostly people are just talking, they would not actually like it if it came around. Thats the thing, VERY few people are willing to implement extremist systems, even if it benefits them..and particularly if it does not benefit you..

Of course I would not go out of my way to do that and would likely resist any attempts for the time that my mindset is the same that it is now. But you still have not gotten the whole point of my posts; your will cannot be "robbed" any more (or any less) than it already is being so because you already exist in society.

As for the rest of that, I have no theories that need implementing; if I have come up with them, it is because I think that they will occur without any efforts from myself or anyone else. Like I said earlier, I don't care much for politics other than as a source of amusement, so I wouldn't bother wasting any effort with that. In this particular thread however, I haven't said anything at all about implementing theories and "what should happen."

CP: You claim to be logical and objective, and yet you consistently rule out the most important factors in the human equation, claiming that they're irrelevant because you personally don't believe they should exist. In the future, I request that you correct this inconsistency. But as for most of your other stuff, aight. And what I said to Rictor.

What exactly are these factors? I never said anything "should" happen; in fact, I have always spoken heavily against arguing in terms of absolute shoulds and should nots. (that sounded funny )

Good point about CP. You cant just discount something cause it shouldnt exist. It does.

Again, what are these factors? Also, this is exactly what I was saying to you in the last political argument.

[Stryke 9]

1. War was a lot more lethal back in the days when a good arm wound would mean gangrene and death in days. And the Thirty Years' War is hardly a prime example of bigotry, being as it was a conflict between several closely related neighbors. They hated each other, but it was on national-ideological grounds, not ethnic or religious.

And if you think Cortez killed more people (not counting inadvertent smallpox victims) than Hitler or Stalin, I recommend you check your history. If you think more people died in the Crusades than in the Cold War, once again, you're sadly mistaken. Quite the reverse is true, we're talking thousands as opposed to millions- but when you factor in the increase in population and broader global reach increasing the warring nations' killing power, comparable.

Last I checked, just about everyone I met on the street passionately hated France for opposing the Iraq invasion and thought camel-humping jokes were funny. Doesn't seem more of an accepting, cosmopolitan society to me. At the moment, it's true, we're in a slight decrease in the general hatred and bigotry, but it's rocketing back up and it was just a temporary dent in a long, historical line that's full of dents but more or less a straight course.