Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I'll take this as a personal achievement
Topic Started: Apr 26 2009, 08:35 PM (615 Views)
lebowski2123
Member Avatar
Resident?
Tristan da Cunha
Apr 27 2009, 06:57 PM
Porcu
Apr 27 2009, 06:48 PM
I'm just saying that it seems to me to be a religiously motivated political end
There's no doubt Islam, unlike say Jainism, has always been a political religion since its inception.

But your beliefs about the nature of Islamist terrorism are fallacious. Your theory fails to explain why Islamic terrorists launch attacks on the US but not against France or Sweden or Japan, all far more decadent, secular, and irreligious countries than the US.

The only unifying theme for the international Islamic terrorists' targets in the developed world is that they have all in some way or another assisted in the war against Iraq, or lent support to Israel.

As for the statutory spread of Sharia through democratic means in Western Europe - democracy reaps what democracy sows. Welfare socialism reaps what welfare socialism sows. It's only natural that the European population, aging, secularized, and enfeebled due to their social democratic values, should be swamped with energetic and militating Muslims.

The burden rests on Europeans, not the Muslims, to dismantle the existing system and reestablish their cohesive Christian identity that can counteract these demographic trends.
Huzzah.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Religion, nationalism, regionalism, are used as a tool by men to motivate the masses to accept war. Wars themselves are fought for power or defense from those seeking to remove power from another. That is all. There are no other reasons for war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
New Harumf
Apr 27 2009, 08:40 PM
Religion, nationalism, regionalism, are used as a tool by men to motivate the masses to accept war. Wars themselves are fought for power or defense from those seeking to remove power from another. That is all. There are no other reasons for war.
I'm glad to see someone understands my point. But I can never get it across as clearly. Thank you, NH. I don't really need an argument now. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Porcu
Member Avatar
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

New Harumf
Apr 27 2009, 08:40 PM
Religion, nationalism, regionalism, are used as a tool by men to motivate the masses to accept war. Wars themselves are fought for power or defense from those seeking to remove power from another. That is all. There are no other reasons for war.
^ This I better understand

But I also understand TC's earlier post now. Maybe, like Sedu said, things just were not explained clearly to begin with but they are now :P
Edited by Porcu, Apr 28 2009, 06:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
Apr 26 2009, 09:24 PM
I'm not against being influenced by peers but the key is to run in to the right peers
QFT.

Going on topic for a moment.

For shame U. For shame.

Far better to have a mindless sheep spouting slogans about change than political apathy. I know E will disagree, but I'd rather people had a superficial interest in the system than no interest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
Apr 28 2009, 07:44 AM
Tristan da Cunha
Apr 26 2009, 09:24 PM
I'm not against being influenced by peers but the key is to run in to the right peers
QFT.

Going on topic for a moment.

For shame U. For shame.

Far better to have a mindless sheep spouting slogans about change than political apathy. I know E will disagree, but I'd rather people had a superficial interest in the system than no interest.
As someone that still has a glimmer of hope that the system can be changed from within:

I tend to agree with Nag here (very rare, mark the date). Having even superficial interest is better than no interest at all, and there is always a chance that superficial interest can grow into something deeper over time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
I'm sure that superficial interest can turn into something deeper, but would you rather have someone thinking more deeply before they make choices that could be horrible for them? She's in the kind of protest groups that are causing more harm than not... in that their idea of activism is staging a sit in on an intersection. Typically I let that kind of thing go and say to hell with'm, but I also see someone like her being more effective than just another person being dragged off by the cops spouting slogans in a crowd of other screaming people.

And who said anything about political apathy? I'm sure she can still be a great activist, but since her ways have tended towards making a statement for the sake of making a statement it's as though she's not making a statement at all. That's right on par with political apathy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
She is a typical dumb protester, spouting sound and fury, signifying nothing. They tend to be more dangerous than not, but I would never attempt to discourage someone from political involvement, and since the right to peacably assemble to air grievences against our government is protected by the constitution, I would not put her down for it. I might suggest more useful activity, however, as pointed out above, actually talking to polititions is pretty much a waste of time, since most are dumb as stumps (Nancy Polosi thinks the average American taxpayer makes $250,000 a year for God's sake), and LARGE protests usually get the attention of those stumping for votes ("How can I use these people to my advantage") so petitioning and organizing tends to get more action than silly civil disobedience.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
But it's the fact that I have respect for her intellect that I would prefer her NOT being a dumb, typical protester. And yes, talking to politicians is indeed a waste of time but I still have faith in a few bits of the local forms of government. In a state like Vermont where the governor's constituency is the same size as many states' House representatives then you have a chance of some intellectual involvement in the system.

I'm also all for social changes, and making politics more conducive to the layman/inspiring actual debate.

This is also making me think of a world in which the people posting in this topic control everythi... wait...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Ulgania
Apr 28 2009, 12:31 PM
But it's the fact that I have respect for her intellect that I would prefer her NOT being a dumb, typical protester. And yes, talking to politicians is indeed a waste of time but I still have faith in a few bits of the local forms of government. In a state like Vermont where the governor's constituency is the same size as many states' House representatives then you have a chance of some intellectual involvement in the system.

I'm also all for social changes, and making politics more conducive to the layman/inspiring actual debate.

This is also making me think of a world in which the people posting in this topic control everythi... wait...
LOL, I :love: that idea - but we'd have to "take care" of one or two here first!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Nag Ehgoeg
 
Far better to have a mindless sheep spouting slogans about change than political apathy. I know E will disagree, but I'd rather people had a superficial interest in the system than no interest.
You're right. I do disagree.

Mindless sheep spouting slogans about change is pretty much infinitely worse than political apathy.

Political apathy, at least the kind where you don't care which one of the two identical republicrat politicians gets into office and thus don't vote in elections, is much less destructive than mindlessly following the cult of personality of the day. Low voting numbers at least serve to delegitimize the government's claim that it rules by the consent of the governed. And if you're not wasting time, money, and energy trying to get some asshole elected then you'll have more to spend producing something of value and improving the quality of your life.

Non-votes should count as supporting None Of The Above, and if 50%+1 of the population doesn't vote in an election, it should result in the abolition of the political office in question. That would be a step in the right direction of affirming rule by the consent of the governed. Those who can't bear to hold their nose and choose the lesser of two evils because they both smell exactly like shit are precisely the kind of people whose (non)votes should be counted.

As an aside, an ever greater step towards rule by the consent of the governed would be to insist on unanimity and the ability to secede, (simply opt out of the system,) whenever you feel your interests aren't being represented. Of course, the establishment will never implement anything approaching such a policy, so the only practical solution is to just do it anyways. By it, I mean secede.

What would happen if 1% of the population seceded, either individually or in groups? The state would find it difficult to crush them all and censor it from the news.

What about 5%? They'd have to smear secessionists as racists, polygamists, or some kind of bigots with the mainstream media propaganda machine, (which thanks to the internet, is gradually losing its mind control powers anyways,) in order to legitimize their persecution.

10? 20? How many people have to secede before it becomes widely accepted as a peaceful and practical method of changing the system? When will governments that disallow secession be recognized for the tyrants they are?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Quote:
 
What about 5%? They'd have to smear secessionists as racists, polygamists, or some kind of bigots with the mainstream media propaganda machine, (which thanks to the internet, is gradually losing its mind control powers anyways,) in order to legitimize their persecution.



Think of the Branch Davidian; think of the Mormon families; think of Ruby Ridge. These are all examples of groups that attempted to suceed and they were painted as racists, polygimists and bigots, and, in two out of three, wiped off the planet by the Government. Now, we have a Homeland Security chief that admits she is watching right-wing "extremists" (that's you, E, mis-labeled, I know, but it is you) closer than foreign people intent on causing human made disasters (her words, not mine). The current administration plans on treating any small-l libertarian or anarchist attempts to ignore government as "right-winged extremists" and has warned law enforcement agencies everywhere. This scares the crap out of me, so just personally suceeding, even at a level of 30%, won't be enough. We must re-order the system, restore the proper balance of the place of the central government, and we can only do that two ways - armed, which we would probably loose, or through the existing system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

New Harumf
Apr 28 2009, 02:48 PM
Quote:
 
What about 5%? They'd have to smear secessionists as racists, polygamists, or some kind of bigots with the mainstream media propaganda machine, (which thanks to the internet, is gradually losing its mind control powers anyways,) in order to legitimize their persecution.



Think of the Branch Davidian; think of the Mormon families; think of Ruby Ridge. These are all examples of groups that attempted to suceed and they were painted as racists, polygimists and bigots, and, in two out of three, wiped off the planet by the Government. Now, we have a Homeland Security chief that admits she is watching right-wing "extremists" (that's you, E, mis-labeled, I know, but it is you) closer than foreign people intent on causing human made disasters (her words, not mine). The current administration plans on treating any small-l libertarian or anarchist attempts to ignore government as "right-winged extremists" and has warned law enforcement agencies everywhere. This scares the crap out of me, so just personally suceeding, even at a level of 30%, won't be enough. We must re-order the system, restore the proper balance of the place of the central government, and we can only do that two ways - armed, which we would probably loose, or through the existing system.
Now I wasn't gonna bother argue with E because we just say the same things at each other back and forth (which I love but I've got more important things to do today), but then Harumf steps in and says it all for me. Thanks man. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Quote:
 
What would happen if 1% of the population seceded, either individually or in groups? The state would find it difficult to crush them all and censor it from the news.

What about 5%? They'd have to smear secessionists as racists, polygamists, or some kind of bigots with the mainstream media propaganda machine, (which thanks to the internet, is gradually losing its mind control powers anyways,) in order to legitimize their persecution.

10? 20? How many people have to secede before it becomes widely accepted as a peaceful and practical method of changing the system? When will governments that disallow secession be recognized for the tyrants they are?

First thing I thought of was how every major revolution (French, Bolshevic namely) has only involved 1% or 2% of the population.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Ulgania
Apr 30 2009, 08:58 AM
Quote:
 
What would happen if 1% of the population seceded, either individually or in groups? The state would find it difficult to crush them all and censor it from the news.

What about 5%? They'd have to smear secessionists as racists, polygamists, or some kind of bigots with the mainstream media propaganda machine, (which thanks to the internet, is gradually losing its mind control powers anyways,) in order to legitimize their persecution.

10? 20? How many people have to secede before it becomes widely accepted as a peaceful and practical method of changing the system? When will governments that disallow secession be recognized for the tyrants they are?

First thing I thought of was how every major revolution (French, Bolshevic namely) has only involved 1% or 2% of the population.
American.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
May 1 2009, 01:41 PM
Ulgania
Apr 30 2009, 08:58 AM
Quote:
 
What would happen if 1% of the population seceded, either individually or in groups? The state would find it difficult to crush them all and censor it from the news.

What about 5%? They'd have to smear secessionists as racists, polygamists, or some kind of bigots with the mainstream media propaganda machine, (which thanks to the internet, is gradually losing its mind control powers anyways,) in order to legitimize their persecution.

10? 20? How many people have to secede before it becomes widely accepted as a peaceful and practical method of changing the system? When will governments that disallow secession be recognized for the tyrants they are?

First thing I thought of was how every major revolution (French, Bolshevic namely) has only involved 1% or 2% of the population.
American.
Possibly less than 1%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
That wasn't really a revolution. It was more of a ... revolt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Rebellion. There wasn't really an overthrow of a government. It was rather a rebellion of local governments against the imperial government.

But since the Americans won, it is styled a revolution, because that sounds better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
Sedulius
Apr 27 2009, 03:18 PM
Communism, fascism, and religion didn't kill people. The forces and foolishness of corrupt governments did.
Comunism(since socialism is the berter form of governament avalable...althought is uppose you amercans use this term in another meaning than mine) fascism and religion kill peoples

Free speach, free think, free worship, humanism and social justice are the elements for a better and more equal society.

The power belong to the people and it must exrcite it in the form and ways of a constitution, keep an eye over undemocratical belives and politics and suppress it if necessary, althought you can not suppress a political party or a people only because he belive tha democracy is bad, you can suppress it(or him) only when it(or he) try actively to destroy democracy.

Remember that in history any dictatorship is been always evil and wrongdoing, also if Francesco Storace or Alessandra Mussolini or Armando Cossuta tell you otherwise.

God(or gods depending what you belive to) can be a tyrant and a dicator too so people must be educated in philosophy and history and create a humanist society that bring the man to the first place.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Sedulius
May 1 2009, 10:35 PM
Rebellion. There wasn't really an overthrow of a government. It was rather a rebellion of local governments against the imperial government.

But since the Americans won, it is styled a revolution, because that sounds better.
Naturally. The idea of it being a revolution today might not have survived if the French hadn't had their own massive revolution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
The American revolution was definitely a revolution and not just another revolt. It established the first Enlightenment regime in the world and overthrew millenia of cultural and political assumptions. It literally and radically altered the way people think, thus fulfiling the definition of a revolution. In retrospect the fact that it helped spark the French Revolution only further demonstrates how massively consequential the American one was.

Considering only political and material components the American revolution looks relatively small and modest. But the new ideas it represented were truly revolutionary and even "bizarre". It's very easy to lose sight of this, since the ideas spread by the revolution are commonplace or "mundane" today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Quote:
 
Considering only political and material components the American revolution looks relatively small and modest.
Short term effects

Quote:
 
It established the first Enlightenment regime in the world and overthrew millenia of cultural and political assumptions. It literally and radically altered the way people think, thus fulfiling the definition of a revolution. In retrospect the fact that it helped spark the French Revolution only further demonstrates how massively consequential the American one was.
Long term effects

When I was talking about it I meant that the actions taken were not as extreme as the French revolution. No Robespierre-style figure, and that sort. *insert other minute points here* Sorry, I'm tired and stressed... but you know what I mean at this point
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lebowski2123
Member Avatar
Resident?
I think a point TC was trying to make is that although the American Revolution may not have been as extreme, without the American Revolution the French would have had no blueprint to begin with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Tristan da Cunha
May 2 2009, 12:35 PM
The American revolution was definitely a revolution and not just another revolt. It established the first Enlightenment regime in the world and overthrew millenia of cultural and political assumptions. It literally and radically altered the way people think, thus fulfiling the definition of a revolution. In retrospect the fact that it helped spark the French Revolution only further demonstrates how massively consequential the American one was.

Considering only political and material components the American revolution looks relatively small and modest. But the new ideas it represented were truly revolutionary and even "bizarre". It's very easy to lose sight of this, since the ideas spread by the revolution are commonplace or "mundane" today.
Oh Bull. The ideas brought out of the American Revolution were there long before. They were just kind of... forgotten.

Let's just say the Byzantine Empire had women's rights and upward mobility in the 6th century. Unfortunately Justinian's Plague hit, every bit as nasty as the Black Death, but these things happen.

America rebelled because it felt it had to rebel to profit, which it did. It expanded because of profit. Hell, honestly everything this country has done is either in the interest of profit or defense, but can anymore be said of most countries?

From my point of view, the US was hardly enlightened. The elite didn't like Britain cutting into their profits, so they took stuff Frenchmen, Germans, and Scotsmen had said and persuaded the masses to their side, while not really implementing what they were saying. That the rebellion was more or less over taxes and that the resulting government ended up taxing the hell out of its subjects doesn't speak well for America.

Anyways, I'd have to get in depth to say more. So, meh.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Ulgania
May 2 2009, 07:23 PM
Quote:
 
Considering only political and material components the American revolution looks relatively small and modest.
Short term effects

Quote:
 
It established the first Enlightenment regime in the world and overthrew millenia of cultural and political assumptions. It literally and radically altered the way people think, thus fulfiling the definition of a revolution. In retrospect the fact that it helped spark the French Revolution only further demonstrates how massively consequential the American one was.
Long term effects

When I was talking about it I meant that the actions taken were not as extreme as the French revolution. No Robespierre-style figure, and that sort. *insert other minute points here* Sorry, I'm tired and stressed... but you know what I mean at this point
The American revolution was extremely libertarian while the French revolution was extremely statist. You're confounding the American and European political spectrums.

Also you're confusing the short term effects and long term effects of the American revolution. Just the short term effects alone - establishing the first Enlightenment regime, overthrowing milllenia of cultural assumptions, and radically altering the way people think - justifies the "revolution" label.

Siadhail, the American Revolution was never about "upward mobility", explicitly, or "women's rights". I'm not sure where you got that assumption or your Byzantine comparison.

In fact the Byzantine empire could probably be considered the diammetrical opposite of the new American republic. That's because the key revolutionary doctrines advanced by the Americans were repudiation of divine appointment of governments, and re-orienting of society along individualistic and anthropocentric or so called humanistic lines.

I never claimed the Americans were "enlightened." I specifically capitalized the proper noun Enlightenment, referring to the trends and ideas of the 18th century "Siecle de Lumieres" period of philosophy in general.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply