Originally posted by Diablos
Originally posted by AacesFinally, "vast material and resource gains". This may actually be your strongest argument. However, I think
you forget one of your lessons from preschool, SHARING. As I believe I've well proven to anyone with two functioning hemispheres, war is
counter-productive to the survival and perfection of the human genome. So, if we decided to form a world government and distribute resources as
needed, we wouldn't need to WASTE resources on the perfection and manufacturing of your beloved war devices.
Did you just implicitly call a world government a good thing? I cannot take you seriously after that, and I'm sure most here would agree. Everyone
here who supports Ron Paul is against the extreme leftist liberal idea of a "world government", and the majority of people would never tolerate such
a fascist regime and would quickly overthrow it.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)
Diablos, you have once again displayed a pure ignorance to the art of argument. You have failed to debate the actual issue, which was whether or not
war was beneficial. I hate to embarrass you in front of your friends, but seeing as you have once again left me with no intelligent points to debate,
I will spend my reply further educating you.
Firstly, I will break down your argument to show the number of logical fallacies you have displayed, and then I will actually humor you by debating
your off-topic reply. Firstly, "I cannot take you seriously after that, and I'm sure most would agree." All of my points previous to the one you
found fault with were based on sound logic and a scientific mindset. So rather than concede defeat, which would've been the honorable thing to do,
you found the part of my argument that you thought was weakest (when I get around to debating it, I will prove how you are sorely mistaken, and have
actually encountered a very strong link in my chain of logic and reason). This is known as composing a "straw man". The second fallacy you have
committed is known as "appeal to authority", as in "Everyone here who supports Ron Paul..." You have made yourself an authority among of the
personal beliefs of people in this thread, whom if you've taken the time to read, actually don't seem to agree with you very much.
And once again, you stray further and further from the issue. This fallacy is known as a "red herring". Which the actual issue is that you are
INCORRECT in your statement that war benefits mankind. Even the point that you did respond to, you failed to debate the actual issue, which was
sharing resources rather than killing each other. Instead you chose to make the issue about a "world government" and stipulated my entire argument
was wrong based on what is once again, a composition of your own opinions. This is known as the "false dilemma". You have stated that my claim is
false, without citing any forms of evidence, and that therefore, your claim is still true.
Now, here is where you REALLY slip up, "no one would tolerate such a fascist regime". Why does a united world government have to be a fascist
regime? Only because you feel it helps your argument. People on this site do not hate world government. It inherently is actually a good idea. You
have made the logical failure of connecting the NWO, as it would be called, with any attempt at a globalized government. As a matter of fact, I
believe quite a number of threads on this forum display a trending towards the belief that this year will bring a coming ascension into a 4th density
Christ consciousness that will bring us all together in unity as the human race, rather than divided nations. This would call for the formation of a
benevolent world government, which if it truly was a world government that unified, united, and drove prosperity for all in a fair, just manner, could
not be a bad thing. It is not the system of government itself that is corrupt, rather those people who abuse their powers to control and deceive. As
the world government that I was talking about was not only purely hypothetical, but focused on sharing and distributing resources equally, I think we
can both safely, and quite joyously, come to the conclusion that I was speaking of a BENEVOLENT world government. You know, that whole idealistic view
of government where it serves and unifies the people, rather than becoming a total abuse of power. Your stipulation of any and all forms of world
government as a feared fascist regime is a very weak straw man.
Now, are you actually going to return to the ACTUAL issue, or would you like to further debate the semantics of a hypothetical government, created to
prove a point that you completely ignored. Oh wait. I forgot, you can't debate me because I was actually right, and you didn't really have anything
to say. I know my Darwanism, little boy, tread carefully.