489 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

We're doing terrible enough to the point where I draw diagrams, theories, shematics on how throwing this world into total chaos might work. Also some of my thoughts are about wiping out the human race.

I created a presentation for my speech class about how structured limited genocide, a culling of the herd so to speak, would solve several modern day issues and put humanity "back on track". Received an A.

[Inquisitor Recon]

[quote]Luc0s wrote...
The human race is not so different then it was 5 thousand years ago.[/quote]
[/quote]

It's more recent than 5,000 years ago but if anybody has ever done a lot of reading about the Roman Republic and Empire, you'd see that we (humanity) really hasn't changed that much. Though the Romans were much more open about what a debased society the were.

Nothing's new in the world.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 06 septembre 2011 - 09:19 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Yes, because Paganism and Epicureanism was expanded and mostly accepted throughout the empire. The good humans of that era were Christians, and followers of few philosophies (Platonists, Stoics etc.) and some religion in Civilized Asia.

[Wereparrot]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Might have been better off leaving the Area to the Soviets imo. As to Afghanistan. It wasn't given its independance. It always had it. No one has ever took control of it save Ghengis Khan, and only then as he wiped out 50% of the Population.

It gained it's full independence at the end of the Third Anglo-Afgan War. It had a degree of independence before that, but it's foreign affairs were controlled by Britain.

[KenKenpachi]

The world isn't overpopulated, every single person would fit in the state of Texas with an Acre of land each. It just seems that way as we have alot of people in jobs they aren't qualified for, people who don't know how to Farm (Mexico as a whole is guilty of this and are directly responsible for the Desertfication of that region.) manage resources very poorly. Or Food production is a joke. And 50% of the land surface is unexplored Wilderness. So we have plenty of Resources and space. Democracy just gives us such Fine Leaders.

In the states we all **** and moan about "World Hunger" yet our restruants and grocery stores have more food than they ever sell, and throw out tons a day. The World lacks a clear strong leadership that can effectively distribute goods. Also ****ty Urban planning doesn't help the problem. Nevermind its been proven Cities for the most are unnatural places, and whose inhabitants make up the bulk of the mentally Ill.

And speaking of limited genocide. Your Welcomed to try, government supported or not, I have no problem hiding every last one of you eugenists in the Swamps around me, after I remove you. In fact if you want to make humanity better, kill every last person that agree's with such an event. Who made you god? Judge Jury and exicutioner? that you can decide who lives, who dies, what is "Best" for us all? Most of you may have alot of book smarts. But in the Words of Wrex "I'ld love to see you try." Removing your ilk would imporve humanity 1000%.

Heh people in the West worry about the "Evil Muslims" Better start looking at the eugenists. The Snobbery and bigotry of the wealthy and the elitist always shows through, call it what you will, rationalize it how you want. But at the end of the day, siping whatever fancy brand of coffee you like, your the same as the KKK and Hitlers SS. And the world is best rid of those groups. And if governments weren't in love with such people, more so the money they have, the general public would do the job, they won't.  Technocrats can also be thrown in here. Why I support more of a Military rule. Fine tuned and merit based if performed correctly. Who your parents are, what race you are, how much money you have, doesn't matter for much in such groups. In fact food for thought, all of us and who we were born to is nothing but luck of the draw.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 06 septembre 2011 - 12:52 .

[KenKenpachi]

We do, and we have plans for such, but it is always someone else who knows someone who gets the job rather than who deserves it, and no we arn't. Think what you will.

No your no murder, but you'ld support removing the unwashed, and that makes you worse. Least I am willing to dirty my own hands, and not hide behind others. Thoughts lead to ideals, Ideals lead to action. Actions are the problem.

I call it as I see it, those worthy of judgement should be judged. And no I never assume. I can go into more detail on this, but what is the point? We will not see eye to eye, nor will we ever meet. Just if you wish to have "Thoughts" on a distasteful task, do it yourself or not at all. Never ask anyone to do what you won't. And if your opinion isn't worth fighting for, keep it to yourself. As someone else might find its worth fighting you for saying. Kinda like the old west in that reguards.

Politics give the orders, soldiers take the blame. But what is, is.

Also I'm leaving this alone now. So yeah say, do whatever.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 06 septembre 2011 - 01:17 .

[Wereparrot]

Ulous wrote...

Mr. Sprinkles101 wrote...

Communism would fix everything... that is all

Democracy is non-negotiable.

Democracy has failed.

[Wereparrot]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Ulous wrote...

Mr. Sprinkles101 wrote...

Communism would fix everything... that is all

Democracy is non-negotiable.

Democracy has failed.

That was a tribute to Liberty Prime, Fallout 3. And yeah, I go with Churchill: "Democravy is the worst type of goverment there is, excluding those we already tried."

I don't agree. If the best democracy can provide is the illusion of freedom and choice then it is not to be compared with the long term strength and stability that monarchy can provide.

[Wereparrot]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

I don't agree. If the best democracy can provide is the illusion of freedom and choice then it is not to be compared with the long term strength and stability that monarchy can provide.

The problem either way is, how to get that leadership and how to make sure no one breaks it for its own lust for power?

That's exactly the point. All democratically elected governments are obliged to please their major backers and investors before the interests of the country at large because if those backers are scared off then they have the ability to bring the party down. However good a PM, he will always be shackled by this. Democracy has also become corrupt, as evidenced by the lies used to obtain power, remain in power and subdue the populace. It's tyranny for the modern era; tyranny disguised as fairness, and guaranteed tyranny with every government. A little reason with the tyranny serves only to dupe the people into thinking that it isn't tyranny.

A king doesn't need to please any backers because his position is his by birth, leaving him free to concentrate on governance. He has also been trained in the roll from birth, whereas a PM or president has not.

If there is a bad king, it is relatively easy for the next king to set things right, because he has a whole life's reign ahead of him; whereas if there is a bad PM it is hard for the next PM to put things back in order because his term in office is limited (barring re-election) so legislation is rushed though without proper thought, and the relentless policy changes are detrimental to the morale of the nation.

[Mr.Zinn]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

We're doing terrible enough to the point where I draw diagrams, theories, shematics on how throwing this world into total chaos might work. Also some of my thoughts are about wiping out the human race.

What's left if you wipe out humanity though? Some random animals and natural processes that still lead to mass extinctions and suffering like it has for the entire existence of the earth? Nature is not pretty when you look at it closely. Also, intelligence might evolve again, and whatever had it would have to make the same mistakes we did all over again.

Besides, all we really have to do is be able to spread life to another planet before the next global disaster(large asteroid impact or whatever) hits earth and we'll justify our existence many times over.

[KenKenpachi]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...

[...]
No your no murder, but you'ld support removing the unwashed, and that makes you worse. Least I am willing to dirty my own hands, and not hide behind others. Thoughts lead to ideals, Ideals lead to action. Actions are the problem.

[...]

There's the misunderstanding. I would never condone any murder. Never would I support for example a war or anything the likes. And the reason I only think about such things (and trust me, I review all the sides I can fathom, but there is only so little you can think up yourself if there is no one that you can discuss with, hence my comment on that one issue) and not propagate it or such is that I, just like you know there is no one in this world that would be at right to judge on who to live and who not.

If a disease would wreck the world and I would have the means to cure it, I would do, otherwise I would indeed be a hypochritic murderer. And again, a disease would only kill those people in poor regions that can not afford sufficient help, like most regions in Africa, so those who'd die were never those at fault, only those unlucky. And I think we can agree that the most dangerous individuals do not live in poor regions. They live in luxury, have the best medicine available and so forth.


BUT, as stated, I have grown tired of being sad over people dying. It is mostly still a shame and I still feel anger against murderers or the likes, no less than before, if not even more. But I won't hazzle a single emphatic thought over some guy that crashed into a tree because he drove too fast. That is the kind of apathy I am talking about.
I am no saint, but I ain't a demon either. I am simply a human and if I die because I drove too fast and there is a thing like an afterlife, I would facepalm at me own idiocy. I am no hypocrite.

I care about this world, enough to be fed up by what we are doing to it, because if possible I would like to live a very long life, but that wouldn't work if we destroy our own planet.

Then you have my apologies in that reguards. While I understand and agree to an extent, I wish to solve problems, not sweep them under the rug so to speak, and I consider the above movement to be the biggest rug sweep ever.

[Wereparrot]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Unless people are deciding to shake things up a little. And it doesn't even have to be a revolution, just think of all the accounts of a king's assassination. That position is as fragile as any other.

It is the very core of man that has to change, before any government can work. In the end, everything boils down to the education system.

Education is the epitome of importance.

But a monarchy is only fragile IF it is threatened by rebellion of any sort be it civil or family infighting; democracy IS fragile, through the need to please any given party's backers as well as the possibilty of rebellion. Democracy is therefore twice as fragile as monarchy. It would be so easy to overthrow the government if the population was still possessed of only medieval levels of education.

I really think that, with today's education, this could be the age of kings. Medieval kings could be tyrannical due to the values and education system of the time, but they were also responsible for some of the strongest government we have had; and they, far more than elected officials, have been responsible for shaping society, for good or ill.  

The historic role in England of a prime minister is to convey the will of the king to the people, and was only brought about because the king at the time couldn't speack much if any English.

[Wereparrot]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Unless people are deciding to shake things up a little. And it doesn't even have to be a revolution, just think of all the accounts of a king's assassination. That position is as fragile as any other.

It is the very core of man that has to change, before any government can work. In the end, everything boils down to the education system.

Education is the epitome of importance.

But a monarchy is only fragile IF it is threatened by rebellion of any sort be it civil or family infighting; democracy IS fragile, through the need to please any given party's backers as well as the possibilty of rebellion. Democracy is therefore twice as fragile as monarchy. It would be so easy to overthrow the government if the population was still possessed of only medieval levels of education.

I really think that, with today's education, this could be the age of kings. Medieval kings could be tyrannical due to the values and education system of the time, but they were also responsible for some of the strongest government we have had; and they, far more than elected officials, have been responsible for shaping society, for good or ill.  

The historic role in England of a prime minister is to convey the will of the king to the people, and was only brought about because the king at the time couldn't speack much if any English.

Pretty ironic, isn't it.

But as I have once stated much to the dismay of my politics teacher: "So what if it's a dictatorship, if it works ...".

The problem is, whenever someone has THE power, others will try usurp it, especially nowadays.

I still think the thereotic communism, once production of essentials surpasses the need for same is the best that could happen.

What did your politics teacher say? I'd like to know the answer to that question myself. If the government is strong, stable and as fair as capitalism allows (I don't approve of communism-I think Karl Marx once said ' from every man according to his ability; to every man according to his need', but I would replace the term 'need' with the term 'effort'-I believe since not all men are equal in effort not all men can be equal in attainment) then it shouldn't matter if it is a dictatorship. Of course, I prefer monarchy (different-the absolute monarch in practice holds less power), but it's still an autocracy.

[Wereparrot]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

 Only not with the explicit purpose to earn money, because they don't have to anymore, instead just to do it because they enjoy.

But that's surely still the flaw; people will still work and get paid according to their effort (or whatever the employer thinks is their worth), and so the whole cycle will come round again to capitalism. I don't think you can expect people to work for nothing just because they have every thing they need already. Effort requires suitable reward. And if people are only going to do as work what they enjoy, then not many people are going to do the vital but disgusting jobs, such as working in a sewage plant.