the World Peace Paradox

If people aren't gullible explain bush minor or explain Hitler... not that I am equating the two because I am not... except that both were elected.

Well, I dunno about Bush. I dont care much for following American news.

Hitler though, thats easy.

Hitler was charismatic. He was a very very powerful speaker. He took existing predjudices and hatreds and expanded on them. He made them much more real.

A person didnt need to be gullible to be persuaded by Hitler, he was a very potent speaker. Inflaming German nationality and the natural superiority of the Germans to other 'lesser' races.

The Problem with this is that once going to war, any setback meant the German morale was completly smashed, once the momentum was gone, nothing was left.

Too short term.

Again, aiming too high and hitting, but missing with the second throw.

I am not saying do away with leaders, i am saying that they should have as little power as possible because as soon as they get some they want more and more and more.

A leader with little power is pointless.

A leader does not a society make.

Ok then, a nation is completly democratic, every single decision made for the people is done by popular vote.

Who has the power? The person who counts the votes. He is in charge, he can count wrong 'accidentally' and guess who wins?

So the people make a way of enforcing his votes, some people who will watch over the counter. Now they have the most power together.

Now, people are just ignoring certain laws so someone needs to enforce them, suddenly the police have the most power and are in charge.

See how this keeps going and going? Society runs because any destabilisation will make the whole thing come crashing down.

Cutting off the top means the bottom suddenly stands too tall, overstretches its bounds. Cutting off the bottom means the top comes crashing down.

If the top can bring up the bottom, then both rise, do you get me?

I say i want CCTV throughout my city so i can catch criminals and keep a police presence where police arnt actually present.

He says to a guy with 16 CCTV cameras in his house and yard.

Make decisions without recourse to facts. Make decisions based on assumptions. State assumptions as if they are chiseled in stone and handed down from On High.

Yup. Democrat.

He says to a guy with 16 CCTV cameras in his house and yard.

Good, then you understand me.

Make decisions without recourse to facts. Make decisions based on assumptions. State assumptions as if they are chiseled in stone and handed down from On High.

Yep, sounds like ATS as usual.

Yup. Democrat.

Umm...

well you stop pushing American values on me?

1. Im an Australian and proud of it.
2. Liberal. Look it up.

Liberal, as practiced in America:

Make decisions without recourse to facts. Make decisions based on assumptions. State assumptions as if they are chiseled in stone and handed down from On High.

And, no, I don't begin to understand you. You contradict yourself, you don't understand things when they are explained as simply as they can be explained and you state nonsense as if it were revealed to you from heaven.

Liberal, as practiced in America:

I already said i was an Australian, why dont you listen?

And, no, I don't begin to understand you.

I may need to explain more fully then.

You contradict yourself

Where?

you don't understand things when they are explained as simply as they can be explained

What dont i understand?

you state nonsense as if it were revealed to you from heaven.

At least my 'nonesense' makes sense compared to the other twaddle people say the heavens tell them.

I reveal my beliefs and ideas because i have put much thought into it. I have talked with the people and they say it works, it is acceptable. What is unanimous, though, is that Americans would never accept it becuase it puts a small degree of control over their lives. Americans seem to hate a good idea.

Make decisions without recourse to facts. Make decisions based on assumptions. State assumptions as if they are chiseled in stone and handed down from On High.

You mean like WMD? Like we will be welcomed as liberators and it will be a cake walk? Like no planning for the aftermath?

[edit on 16-9-2007 by grover]

You mean like WMD? Like we will be welcomed as liberators and it will be a cake walk? Like no planning for the aftermath?

Damn you Grover I was saving that for at least another post or 2.

yes, i do think discussion ahead

oh well, its out now.

yes, you keep on telling me which American political party i am in, as if the American system is completly flawless.

Im sorry, the Hypocracy of America has really gotten to me. A few choice selections are:

1) Noone is allowed WMD's apart from America
2) American constitution is freedom, and everyone wants it even if they dont say so
3) We bring peace by dropping bombs indiscriminately


A few others i wont mention yet like non socialist medicine, Manifest destiny and 'Republic'....bleh.

so, do i make sense to anyone at all in this thread?

you sorta make sence,

As we support monarchs around the world, overthrow elected goverments and put in right wing dictators, we further our cause of spreading democracy and freedom to the peoples of the world.

Can I add these to the hypocricy White Mans Burdin, Rugged Individualism, and Chosen People

My head hits the table when people say we are in Iraq to free the people. I know I now have to give a 100 year history lesson to the person to continue the conversation.

Its capitalism not freedom we are spreading, markets to all corporations and proffit to the few.
(insert applicable patriotic song and flag waving)


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Redge777]

Its capitalism not freedom we are spreading, markets to all corporations and proffit to the few.
(insert applicable patriotic song and flag waving)

Well put. The American belief in the constitution is that it is perfectly correct, divinely given and absolutly inviolable.

Fine, the Americans can have it. But the damage it has wrought upon the collective Extelligence, and the world as a whole, is phenomenal.

Firstly, the fact that it is "divinely given" and "Inviolable" has created a mindset that:

1. It cannot be wrong
2. Every person in the world wants these "freedoms"

The problem is that not all people agree with it. This is fine, most people dont need to deal with America...

or do they?

No America has asserted itself as the dominant global power, people have needed to make decisions.

Now, the world would be fine...except for a few reasons.

firstly, American freedom means that voting isnt mandatory, also the American system means that the majority doesnt always win. Which many people dont agree with. I dont, the majority is a majority for a good reason.

This means that there is leeway for idiots to get into power.

Idiots who have the ultimate bargaining chip.

the right to Bear arms.

Now, this doesnt seem to have much of an influence on the global scale, if one country has guns, who cares?

Well...Having guns in the constitution means that they are also seen as being 'right' and 'inviolable'. Again, not a huge problem until you bring in a couple of factors.

many Americans abuse the right and have massive stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. This means a mentality has been made, an arms race. You need more guns, better guns, so the criminal is outclassed.

But...These kind of people can get into positions of power.

These people can get access to nukes.

Do you see why people have to be careful when dealing with America?

How do you deal with a country which is stubborn in its beliefs and will not lose one ounce of freedom for the common good, and if threatened, can wipe out all of the living creatures on this planet?

Its like trying to deal with a maniac with a bomb.

The American society has hundreds of little things which all equal one big problem. Idiots with Nuclear weapons.

You will never give them up without a fight...a fight that if you lose, you can kill everyone.

Hooray...you win...

I will pass on commenting on how an individual wanting to own guns lead to a president wanting nukes thing.

I also want to say the framers, being masons replaced devine right with self evident because they believed in logic and not spirit. You can actual view the original where the text was changed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

I am going to try and boil this down to my guess at why we disagree.

I think you have a trust in govenment, power, the ability for good to rise to the top in positions of leadership.

So it is best to support them by not letting nuts have guns, or people without the intelect and knowledge they have speak out of turn.

If our leaders were 'good' many of your points would make sence.

Where I disagree,Is I believe that power, leaders and government through history have mostly turned to self gain, that does not help most people. Capitalism itself premotes this, but that is another topic.

I want people to have guns incase some nut case in the white house declares all people over 6 foot tall need to be knee capped, or some other thing that we all agree is wrong. I choose extream example so you see the point. what if government chose to do something terrible to people. 'What if', our founding fathers feared many 'what if' possibility.

You want less guns because you worry about the nuts in society.

A societal nut may cause some harm, a governmental nut will cause much more.

Ok I am rambling a bit, it comes down to this, we must always watch and control government and power, not give them control because we trust it is for our benifitt.

It may be that you believe in eliteism I see that as a possibility, your name supports that, you may believe the few should rule the sheeple. In this context the sheeple need to be tagged watched and controlled. If you are argueing to win the point and hiding true feelings of what is right and wrong. For instance if you believe 90% are too dumb to rule themself and need collors and tags, it would save us all time.

CCTV on streets only help people if that is what the info gathered is used for. Who gets to choose which clips get released to the media. A police dashboard cam can protect the police, a cam inside the victims car can protect the victim. CCTV is owned and controlled by the state and protects them, What if they are evil.

Run all your arguments by the premise that the government wants to kill your family and friends, then ask if you still agree with what they want. It is extream to show the point. If my government only wants to help me and my fellow citizens most of my points fail, but they seem to not be concerned with our wellbeing.



[edit on 17-9-2007 by Redge777]

I will pass on commenting on how an individual wanting to own guns lead to a president wanting nukes thing.

Good good, i am biased one way, i guess you may be biased the other.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Ah, see here is the thing, the founders of your country may hold those truths to be self evident, not all people agree.

But i am unsure whether the American constitution can be changed, even by the people.

So it is best to support them by not letting nuts have guns, or people without the intelect and knowledge they have speak out of turn.

Not true, i support people not having guns because guns create a mentality, "Hit once so you dont get hit back", "Shoot, hide, shoot, hide". Im big on Personal honour and guns are the antithesis of my beliefs.

Where I disagree,Is I believe that power, leaders and government through history have mostly turned to self gain, that does not help most people. Capitalism itself premotes this, but that is another topic.

Hmm, not as such, throughout history leaders have done things which are good for themselves, some have done it because they have been decieved.

Consider Tsar Nicholas II, i am confident that he would have been a very good leader of Russia if he wasnt so cut off from his people, and if he wasnt pushed around by advisors.

You are right, capitalism was originally created so the people who did the work got the benefit, but it has been perversed, subverted and created into something where a person at the top does nothing but gets the most while a person at the bottom does it all and gets not nearly enough.

I want people to have guns incase some nut case in the white house declares all people over 6 foot tall need to be knee capped, or some other thing that we all agree is wrong. I choose extream example so you see the point. what if government chose to do something terrible to people. 'What if', our founding fathers feared many 'what if' possibility.

I am wondering something though. Here is where my belief in ATS seems to fall over, when people consider these scenarios.

So the Government says all people over 6 feet need to be Kneecapped (im 6 foot 5, so this would affect me)

Now, who is going to do it? The people wouldnt, they wont stand for it. The police wouldnt either, the idea makes no sense. The people would rise against the government.

The police and the army are institutions made up of the people, for the people, not the government.

In America, this also has been subverted. It is not true everywhere. You can have a good long chat with a policeman in the middle of his beat and you can realise he is still a person.

So who will do the kneecapping? What justification can the government make to convince people to do this?

You want less guns because you worry about the nuts in society.

A societal nut may cause some harm, a governmental nut will cause much more.

Not as such, i worry about guns because of the way they influence the mentality of people, even those who dont have them.

I explained in my last post how it influences people, if i wasnt clear i will explain it again if you wish.

Ok I am rambling a bit, it comes down to this, we must always watch and control government and power, not give them control because we trust it is for our benifitt.

I agree to an extent. But it has to be respect. The government must be given power and the respect and trust to use it for the betterment of ALL people. Any legislation which could be considered harmful must be put to popular vote.

It may be that you believe in eliteism I see that as a possibility, your name supports that, you may believe the few should rule the sheeple.

Please, i had alot of respect for you, dont use that term. I hate the word 'sheeple'

For instance if you believe 90% are too dumb to rule themself and need collors and tags, it would save us all time.

Of course not, but i do support mandatory schooling, high schooling and even university if i could get away with it.

The world needs to be educated, years 1-10 isnt enough.

CCTV on streets only help people if that is what the info gathered is used for. Who gets to choose which clips get released to the media. A police dashboard cam can protect the police, a cam inside the victims car can protect the victim. CCTV is owned and controlled by the state and protects them, What if they are evil.

Well ive been seeing technology recently where computerised programs are used instead of visual. The program flags where illegal activity happens when it sees it.

If this program could be perfected, the system could be closed off, the machine views all the cameras and the people never do. No worry about privacy, but the purpose of the CCTV is maintained.

Run all your arguments by the premise that the government wants to kill your family and friends, then ask if you still agree with what they want.

Why? This truth isnt self evident, so i you need to consider all eventualities, not just the perceived one.

It is extream to show the point. If my government only wants to help me and my fellow citizens most of my points fail, but they seem to not be concerned with our wellbeing.

Then once i being Imperator i shall keep in touch, to make sure i keep up to your expectations

But seriously, the American government is something else, the rest of the world isnt like this, it really isnt.