Behold.
Wow.
We're still working on it, still altering and changing the little details, still tweaking... but I really wanted to get it out before it's leaked.
And let's face it, it is BRILLIANT.
You can start trembling now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4,932 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 4801 – 4932 of 4932Ah, see, I think in fully punctuated sentences. :P
It's alright, Star. I'm hardly the queen of greetings myself.
star: he's always had the intentions to do it.
And bats are very bat-like.
@Sophia: Fairy nuff, then. :)
(That claims to be a nation, I mean. Will they be allowed to come? And anyway, I recognize my religion, so why is it not valid? )
trip: perhaps. or we can watch the world burn. Choose your pick.
@Moss: But I like you and would want to greet you. :P
I don't tend to see bats.
@Fera: How do you know your 'right ideas' guy doesn't? He could be lying to you.
(Ah, thanks. Much like Star, I would say I too think in punctuation. I don't mean to be rude, I just genuinely wasn't sure what you meant :p)
star: because i'd think the guy would've learned from hitler's mistake.
(commas and fullstops just stop me from reading faster, or typing faster but i'll try )
Or keep on what we're doing now? This is not a binary problem. Our current syste m has worked for centuries and survived all sorts of other ideas that came and went in that time. Why stop now?
But he couldn't please everyone in the world! There's bound to be at least one person who is unhappy with how they solved the problem.
@Fera: Hitler is just a metaphor. They could be planning to do something equally as bad.
OH YEAH
Speaking of bats, there's something I need to go do now. Will be distant.
...
It's actually nothing to do with bats.
(just because he learned from it doesn't mean he/ she wouldn't make a whole bunch of mistakes just as bad, no one person can be trusted with that kind of power. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.)
Yes Trip.
And Fabi is most Fabi-like.
@Moss: :)
@Trip: :) Yes.
trip: because this is not the past. In the past, technology, advances, global warming, ice age, world hunger were not such problems. We could manage with this system back then. However not now, not for long anyways.
con: yet people seem to be doing just as badly.
And Trip is rather Trip-like, now that you mention it.
(Trip - What they claim to be, and what they are, are entirely different things. As I said - they are a paramilitary terrorist organisation. Anything they claim to be will be only to provide propaganda for more members to join.
There is a difference between a religion and a personal belief system, in the respect that a religion has a more public and formal aspect to it - not in numbers, but by availability, structure and other such determinations.)
Something I had to figure out once, fera, is that if you are alone in your view a s people don't understand your argument, or are unconvinced by it, there's a strong possibility you're wrong.
(Thanks.)
See you soon Fabi!
Oh, he is also rather derp-like, it seems!
trip: There's no such thing as wrong, i thought you said/implied? Yeah, and the majority of people did not agree with the earth being not flat. or giving women equal rights. Or not believing in god.
(in my mind we're doing better than we would be should we be oppressed by the judgement of a dictator)
(I would also like to point out that a monarchical system in England had been in place longer than democracy has. It changed when it was realised it was no longer fit for purpose. Some day, the same thing will happen to democracy and it will be replaced by another system.)
@Trip: Barely anyone supported gay marriage a hundred years ago. Does that mean the people who did were wrong?
pǝsnɟuoɔ ɯ,ı
con: you can't say that. Russia is doing just fine(well, depends on where in russia).
Sophia: possibility.
Fangirl moment
Omfg! Derek actually retweeted my tweet
"So like musical Hunger Games? AWESOME!"
*nods*
*ends fangirl moment to allow regularly scheuled programming to continue*
@Fera: Yeah.
@Siphia: Probably. :) But so far, democracy is the best system I can see THAT IS LIKELY TO WORK.
(sorrry laughed at that last one had to, because the other two are A obvious and B something that should be allowed, gay is just the newest thing to be allowed and it's ok that we are finnaly coming around to it ..... you said the last one like it HAS to be real.)
(Star - As I said, presuming the majority is right is a bad point about democracy.)
(russia beat up a gay couple almost to death for kissing in public... yeh they're leading by example of good countries in my mind.)
Why not? I don't think Nazi Germany was a smaller threat than global warming.
(But now you're discriminating against a minority. Sure, ISIS has a military wing, but so do all nations. They are an aggressive group, yes, but they are a people your world government is trying to make things better for. Why do they not get to be represented?)
(Star - It worked only because of the time and the opinions of those at the time and at this current time. And given the fact that a few decades ago, the Irish were against gay marriage and now they voted for it, it is a good example of how quickly the standards of those in the country can change.)
@Sophia: and the fact the majority can be wrong is one of the major disadvantages to democracy.
trip: global warming will literally kill everyone if we don't do something aobut it. it is far more of a threat than the nazis.
@Sophia: Yes.
Russia is in recession.
Maybe you're right there, Star. The point is more about trying to remember to look at yourself and see that you are the one arguing the false case.
@Fera: Eh, idk. I have faith that humanity will survive global warming somehow.
(Trip - It is irrelevant of number. I am more considering the numerous breaches of human rights the group has undertaken, and countless war crimes - stopping them being one of the purposes of the council.)
@Trip: Thank you. Yes.
The Nazis would rule everyone and kill everyone who disagreed with them. In addition, to kill a Nazi, you had to shoot or bomb them, to defeat global warming you must convince people of its reality and then act upon it. For a democracy, this sort of thing is far easier than a war.
(You are getting the hang of it Star, yes.)
star: yeah...if we do something about it. otherwise, not really.
You know when earlier I was saying that people who lack empathy are equally human, but that if they cause harm (eg. murder) I will believe they should be locked up regardless of their humanity, because many over the few?
Same with ISIS. If you take away other people's basic rights (like the right to not be murdered) you get yours subtracted.
IS IS as a religion may be able to be representative, but not as an organisation.
@Soph What the hell are you talking about? Why are you still talking about the gay marriage vote?
(They are of large number and political influence. Clearly, their number is large and well funded enough to take on the armed forces of two small nations. They possess considerable territory. Why are we of considering them if you are so willing to accept Iran?
And surely, if this expanded UN was to represent all nations, what about those that disagreed with the bill of human rights, like Iran or North Korea?
(Part of me would actually like to see humanity being pushed to the brink of extinction due to global warming. It would be a fantastic, "I told you so" moment.)
trip: it is far more of a challenge to reduce the consumption of certain things/create new environmentally friendly methods to reduce global warming, in a product-hungry world, than it is to bomb an army.
@Fera: Eh. Build a dome or two. Hide from the outside environment. Easy.
@Sophia: :) I'm glad we're reaching common ground.
@Star wrong is subjective.
*not considering them
@Kas; it was an example. Like a metaphor.
sophia: actually, lots of people are trying to do things to stop it. IF that happened, it would be a huge "fuck you" to the face of those people, rather than the "i told you" to those who didn't care. you can't just be selfish and see everything from one perspective.
And my comment isn't a metaphor. Right and wrong are what you make of them.
star: you clearly have no idea of what conditions we need to actually sustain our society. It wouldn't be nearly as easy as you're portraying it.
Once again fera, you are let down by your lack of 20th century knowledge.
Thank you Kas, that is what I should have been saying. You propose these ideas so that your ideologies that you believe to be the correct ones will become prominent. What makes you better than the extremists?
(Trip - As I said, if they actually had the power to take decisive action...)
The logistics and spending involved in defeating the Nazis...
Everything we have done since has been pittance in comparison.
trip: once again, i don't need to know a lot about the 20th century as long as i have common sense.
@Kas: My comment was @your comment @sophia's comment @gay marriage.
Right and wrong are subjective. Therefore EVERY decision the majority makes is wrong in soneone's view. Of course the majority can be wrong.
(Tia - I actually stopped talking about the gay marriage vote beforehand, its mention was only an example, nothing more and nothing less.)
(But on the world stage no one does, Sophia. If they did then fear's world dictatorship would have already come to pass.)
@Fera: Nah. I know.
@Star seriously, what's got you so annoyed about the vote?
Do you think there shouldn't be a vote? Should we suddenly abandon democratic principles? Should we maybe elect a group of a hundred or so straight conservative politicians to vote for us?
star: ok ^_^
@Kas: What the fuck???? It was Sophia who objected to the vote! I'be been arguing for it all night!
But we're literally talking about a fifteen year period of history in the 20th century here. About 1930-1945. You do need to know about 20th century history in this instance, it's the topic.
but i guess, one day, if someone appears, someone who hands all the power to the people's hand, we'll see how good they're gonna deal with it. I'd guess very badly, but that's just my opinion.
And I have made EXACTLY your argument all night! My point about democratic principles was what got us talking about dictatorship vs. democracy!
@Star depends on what you mean by right. A majority cannot be right or wrong, it can simply have a view you agree or disagree with.
trip: I know enough.
That was @Sophia, sorry for freaking you out! :S
That ideology is anarchism, fera. And yes, so do I. That's why democratic states elect representatives. It's basically a middle ground.
(Trip - We are discussing a theoretical council which would consist of the majority, if not all of the world, upholding human rights. This way, banning trade would be crippling if a country did not enforce human rights. Banning of trade has been done before, only in that situation it would actually do something.)
@Kas: Ah. Sorry. :)
Glad we agree. :) :)
And - exactly. :)
Millions died to end the second world war.
I'm fairly sure that the death toll in the fight to reduce carbon emissions is still below triple figures.
( Look art ! I uploaded most of what I HAVE... now just accept that people vote because it's easier to do that than have the possibility of starting a war... anyone here want a war? I sure as hell don't just because it would burden me more than anything else. A mere annoyance. so let the puny humans vote on how to live their life let them vote even when we know what is right all we can do is voice out opinion and hope it'll be heard.)
trip: well, the thing is...why do we think that this works better than anarchy, whereas democracy is supposed to be the same thing just with representatives? IF we are doing better, is this true democracy, or do they just say it's democracy?
(Tia - I disagree with some democratic principles. I am not against the outcome of the vote, just that gay marriage was not allowed beforehand and that there had to be a vote about it - if society was equal and tolerant, it could be simply integrated without complaints.)
trip: yet if we loose the fight, it will be going over 6 figures.
Furthermore, I believe the vote *should* be for everybody because that's the only way it'll be fair. You can't make exceptions for who gets to vote for what because that can go downhill real fast.
( A this point you're just suggesting a world democracy. But one that isn't really very democratic. What happens when you try to elect the Illuminati.)
Yes Las.
I'm agreeing with you a lot today. How nice. :)
@Sophia: 'if society was fair and tolerant' yeahhhhh :( I wish it was too. :( :(
*Kas
Gosh. Sorry. Autocorrect.
I may need to go to sleep soon. :P
We have true democacy. We left representatives who then go on to vote on and discus things on a day to day basis and vote on big important matters in referrendums. Anarchy is more "NO GOVERNMENT! EVERYONE CONTROLS THEMSELVES! THE EASON NO ONE WILL MURDER ME IS BECE I'LL MURDER THEM IF THEY TRY!"
XD Love that representation of anarchy, Trip.
(Trip - I believe in a system like that, you would get the best of both worlds. The voting of representatives and the power of a dictatorship.)
trip: given they actually consider people's opinions. i don't agree with the concept of nations either.
@Sophia So you're complaining that you weren't born in a time and place where we had marriage equality. Got it.
Now stop complaining. It got legalised. That means that someone changed it from what it was before. And what it was before made sense to be there right until it didn't, hence the reason for the vote.
*promotes Slipknot by mentioning its awesomeness in this comment*
(Yeah Kas. And if we're being honest Ireland is not a very tolerant place, on the whole. In fact, the only place in Great Britain now with still no gay marriage is Northern Ireland. So Franky, no, the country is not very equal and tolerant. It's something of a theocracy.)
(Actually, Tia, I am complaining that there had to be a vote on whether to support equality or not, rather than equality being the norm.)
@Fera: Yeah. Our system isn't being as democratic as it could be.
The power of a dictatorship means that things will get done, but without a guarantee that it's things that people want or need that are sone, with no oversight to stop it.
That's the point where you call your friendly neighbourhood terrorist and ask them to blow up the dictator.
@Sophia: I can support that complaint.
Omg i'n agreeing with almost everyone now.
(A democractc dictatorship, you mean? I came up with something akin to that for a jok country.)
They do, fera, it's how they get reelected. And nations work well. They are an excellent way of representing what groups of people want.
(because equality can't exist whilst there is still someone to argue the other end of it.)
I think there should be just one country, names the united nations, and we stop being so horrible to each other, even countrywise. Maybe then i wouldn't think the world needs a dictator.
trip: maybe, but if people would learn how to live with each other, there would be less conflicts.
@Fera: "stop being so horrible to each other" Hmmm mm yeah not gonna happen. Nice idea though. :)
(would like to take this time to point out only 25 more comments left)
(Sounds good to me. I'm up for equality being the norm. I'm also up for the way it was determined it was in fact the norm in stead of a co travertial piece of legislation being forced upon an unwilling people.)
Alright. I finished downloading music. I am agreeing with most people. It is ten to one. I will possibly go to sleep now.
star: in that case, if that can't happen, then i don't see why a dictator would be a bad thing to have.
@Sophia These are laws from a different time, which, again, had a reason to exist. Maybe changing them was overdue, but you can't just go and change a constitution.
It's not how things work. It's not how things should work.
As I said at the beginning fera, I like you naïveté.
And also yes, if everyone got along there would be fewer wars, but it isn't really that simple, is it?
:/ yeah...
*Ignore the last sentence.
bye every1
@Fera: "if we can'r all be nice, let's let people live in slavery and oppression and get shot for looking the wrong way" . . . nah. I think people sometimes not being able to get jobs due to their gender is preferable to concentration camps. We will never be 100% nice, but we can be nicer than a lot of dictators.
Next post:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1104475307058729066&postID=1065222850356840384&isPopup=true
:) Thank you, Kas.
Bye, Fera!
I guess here next ?
:) And thank you, Conductor.
Oh. My link may be wrong.
(I dunnno first one I saw without 5000 comments :/)
yeah...probably...
con: yeah....you're right...
we can go to yours if you want kas ? kas's link :P
I'm going to summarize my argument against a dictator:
1. They rule through oppression and fear, so any gains are negated by the fact that you lose your ability for self determination.
2. Their ideas while seeming right and sensible to you could very well be anathema to someone else. Because of this, why is the dictator the one with correct ideas?
3. The dictator simply cannot please everyone, this is human nature.
4. Social change cannot be forced. When people ry this i t always ends up in failure, e.g Mao. It must be eased in.
5. No dictator, going back to the very root of the post in the Roman Republic has not done something drastic that ended in a lot of dead or impoverished people.
6. To find a dictatornall the peoples of the world could accept as the leader to begin with is fanciful and impossible.
7. You would have literally no say in government policy anymore. None. Only the dictator is right.
8. ALL OF 1984 AND THE 20TH CENTURY.
And with that, my friends, good night.
yeah, "good" night
@Trip 9. From the beginning of a dictatorship, we know how it'll end.
Goodnight little hobbit :P
Post a Comment