Let us be extreme
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
no?
then why make a complete poll with NOTHING but possible negative effects of the treaty? that's completely one sided, and biased, and that was your intention.
your opinion is that the treaty is bad. so you simply copy paste your opinion with nothing but negative comments.
and then you dare to say you're making no arguements for either side? come on, i'm not THAT stupid.
if you wanted a clear view of people's opinions, you would have stated the pro's and cons.
don't ask ME to state them, i'm not making your discussion.
you know jack shit about discussing things, only try to sketch a particular view on things, so it fits your opinion, stating half truths, pulling things out of context and leaving things out so the outcome will most definately fit your view.
clear example is the treaty thread:
a page full of possible negative parts of the treaty, from a source that is hardly to be called independant.
then after that crap load of negative comments you ask "what do YOU think?"
and you call that genuine interest? pathetic.
if your interests were genuine, you'd have used multiple independant sources, and would have highlighted PRO'S and CONS. BOTH.
and THEN asked the same question.
Jeslek
Banned
Um, this isn't the Kyoto page, in case you didn't notice. And I did not copy and paste it, I typed it up.Shadowfax said:
It seems you are. Lets view the original post:
Lets be black and white for a minute. Given the option, would you prefer no government or total government?
See? NO OPINION EXPRESSED.
Hell no. People can think for themselves.
Yes master. I know you know everything there is to know, but please bear with us mortals.
Nothing is independent. I merely posed my opinion and it just so happens it didn't agree with YOURS. Now if I posted something you'd agree with, you would not be harassing me like this.
What is wrong with that? People gave feedback against what I posted, but did not give clear reasons why.
Oh I'm sorry sir, forgive me please?
Thanks for telling me how I should have done it. You seem to know so much about how everything should work. However, in a debate you usually argue for one side. Not both ok?
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
...
you really don't get it do you?
first of all, i was talking about the kyoto treaty thread, yes the OTHER THREAD I KNOW.
you said you wanted other people's opinion on that one. then you must see both sides of an issue, not just one.
i'm not going to argue with you on this one, because you are clearly never going to see what i mean.
you really don't get it do you?
first of all, i was talking about the kyoto treaty thread, yes the OTHER THREAD I KNOW.
you said you wanted other people's opinion on that one. then you must see both sides of an issue, not just one.
i'm not going to argue with you on this one, because you are clearly never going to see what i mean.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
While there is no centralised government in a truly anachistic society localised self-government is practised where each individual has a responsibility to support himself and the group as a whole and has equal status for decision making within that group. Decisions are made via discussion and consensus within the group. (my understanding of the theory - simplified)
If you are talking about anarchy in the popular sense of being total chaos then forget it. But if you are talking about it in the true sense then I would consider it preferable to the centralised, de-humanised, authoritarian system that we have now. However, there would have to be some fundamental changes in human behaviour and thinking before it was really possible.
Violence, except to defend oneself and the group, is not an option.
If you are talking about anarchy in the popular sense of being total chaos then forget it. But if you are talking about it in the true sense then I would consider it preferable to the centralised, de-humanised, authoritarian system that we have now. However, there would have to be some fundamental changes in human behaviour and thinking before it was really possible.
Violence, except to defend oneself and the group, is not an option.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
True anarchy could not work given the earth's current human population. It requires a state of mind that is, ironically, denied us by the demands of staying 'civilized'. We have in us an instinct to mark our territory, to claim 'our space', just as most animals do. But that instinct is now denied and repressed in humans, keeping us all insane. At this point, it has been 'generalized' to the point that we don't even realize its there...but it is....eating away at us, day after day.... Its overpopulation that causes the ills of society...
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Squiggy said:
Overpopulation? There's more than enough land to go around. The problem is not overpopulation. It has to do with the uneven distribution of resources, and the human penchant for laziness. I'll explain before somebody gets crispy...
It's always easier to take what somebody else has than to work for it yourself.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Keeping in mind that it takes 6 acres of vegetation/person to filter the air properly (not counting whats required to feed us), And much of the earth is a 'hostile' climate, I think you overestimate what is left. Our social tendencies have been mutated to fit the needs of today. Granted, you need to hold this picture at a distance to see the pattern, but its overpopulation that causes the problems...
freako104
Well-Known Member
ash r said:
so am i. i voted anarchy and just so you know ash, anarchy can work in small groups. communism can work but its really the gov't that needs to work and in the past they did get corrupted just like our own so no gov't is perfect.even anarchy isnt all that cause again no rules think of what can happen.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Perhaps, but on an even larger picture, most of our breathable air is produced by algae and sea plankton.Squiggy said:Keeping in mind that it takes 6 acres of vegetation/person to filter the air properly (not counting whats required to feed us), And much of the earth is a 'hostile' climate, I think you overestimate what is left. Our social tendencies have been mutated to fit the needs of today. Granted, you need to hold this picture at a distance to see the pattern, but its overpopulation that causes the problems...
Also...6 acres may not seem like much per person, but do you know how many acres there are in the US? How about the whole planet? Divide that by the population, and give me some figures on arable and hostile land and we can work something out. 
Ardsgaine
Active Member
ash r said:
Riiiiiiight. Let's create a social system based on sacrifice of the individual for the good of society and hope no one ever corrupts it.
Psst... Ash. It's the prinicple of sacrificing the individual for society that's corrupt. That's why it has always been corrupt when put into practice.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
Squiggy said:Keeping in mind that it takes 6 acres of vegetation/person to filter the air properly (not counting whats required to feed us), And much of the earth is a 'hostile' climate, I think you overestimate what is left. Our social tendencies have been mutated to fit the needs of today. Granted, you need to hold this picture at a distance to see the pattern, but its overpopulation that causes the problems...
There is more than enough land to feed the population of the earth, it is 3rd world debt that is responsible for much of the suffering in the 3rd world. While governments are busy growing cash crops to sell to the west to pay off their debts their people starve. Try reading some independent press for a change instead of the biased crap we get at home...
New Internationalist
Back Issues
Jeslek
Banned
Very unbaised...Aunty Em said:
Since the second world war
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
has bombed 21 countries
China 1945-46, 1950-53
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Former Yugoslavia 1999
Iraq 1991-20??
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-02
True, but that communicates a message... Once again we are the bad people in this world. Yup, very unbaised. No mention of all the good things we did.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
It's just a fact, what other people read into it is up to them. When you're not being given the true facts or they are being hidden from you isn't that biased?
Since the current issue is about the other side of the US, the one that your own papers won't write about or do so in derisory terms because of their bias, why would they list who the UK has bombed or Saddam has bombed or Argentina has bombed? I'm sure if you bother to read through the archives you will find many of those facts and many more on different regimes and problems around the world. You see it's an "International" publication which highlights the plight of the disadvantaged - one of whom you are not. Why should the voice of the big corporations be the only ones heard, aren't the rest of us who don't have money, position or power allowed to voice our opinions and life experiences and have them heard? Obviously not in your world. Fortunately we don't all live in your world with it's shuttered windows and it's boasting "I'm alright Jack" attitude. There are people out here who care about their fellow man. If the truth makes you uncomfortable tough, it doesn't change the facts.
All most people want is the opportunity to work for a fair wage and to be able to pay their debts, educate their children and be happy, without being forced into slave labour and starvation wages for the large corporations amongst others. The myth of their being too lazy to work is a fantasy concocted to assuage the guilt of you and I and others like us so that we don't have to think about what we allow these people to do in our name.
Since the current issue is about the other side of the US, the one that your own papers won't write about or do so in derisory terms because of their bias, why would they list who the UK has bombed or Saddam has bombed or Argentina has bombed? I'm sure if you bother to read through the archives you will find many of those facts and many more on different regimes and problems around the world. You see it's an "International" publication which highlights the plight of the disadvantaged - one of whom you are not. Why should the voice of the big corporations be the only ones heard, aren't the rest of us who don't have money, position or power allowed to voice our opinions and life experiences and have them heard? Obviously not in your world. Fortunately we don't all live in your world with it's shuttered windows and it's boasting "I'm alright Jack" attitude. There are people out here who care about their fellow man. If the truth makes you uncomfortable tough, it doesn't change the facts.
All most people want is the opportunity to work for a fair wage and to be able to pay their debts, educate their children and be happy, without being forced into slave labour and starvation wages for the large corporations amongst others. The myth of their being too lazy to work is a fantasy concocted to assuage the guilt of you and I and others like us so that we don't have to think about what we allow these people to do in our name.