Do you support the idea of a one world government?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I don't think the French Revolution is a good thing to point to if you're trying to talk about how great the Enlightenment was.PannicAtackWhy not...I enjoyed the irony?
The gubment's out to getcha!Once humanity is all under one tent, the tent will collapse, and those in power will have no problem destroying each and every one of you. First comes socialism. Then comes communism. Then we'll have global fascism. And much like Hitler did to the jewish folks, but even worse, we'll be lead to our slaughter. But not as one nation, or simply one region, but as an entire world.
BioShockOwnz
No, seriously, you pulled that out of thin air.
I don't think the French Revolution is a good thing to point to if you're trying to talk about how great the Enlightenment was.PannicAtackWhy is that? Many good ideas came from it, they destroyed the monarchy which was a huge step. it laid the ground work for quite a lot of good things.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] I don't think the French Revolution is a good thing to point to if you're trying to talk about how great the Enlightenment was.Atheists_PwnWhy is that? Many good ideas came from it, they destroyed the monarchy which was a huge step. it laid the ground work for quite a lot of good things. Three words: Reign of Terror
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] I don't think the French Revolution is a good thing to point to if you're trying to talk about how great the Enlightenment was.PannicAtackWhy is that? Many good ideas came from it, they destroyed the monarchy which was a huge step. it laid the ground work for quite a lot of good things. Three words: Reign of Terror Yes that was bad, but the end result and intentions of the french revolution were good.
There's nothing wrong with the European Union. If the East Asian countries didn't hate each other so much (China/Korea/Japan), an East Asian Union would have formed eventually, and it'd definitely be an improvement. These Unions will either go to war with each other (worst case) or establish strong economic ties, which will eventually lead to some sort of world government.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] Why is that? Many good ideas came from it, they destroyed the monarchy which was a huge step. it laid the ground work for quite a lot of good things.Atheists_PwnThree words: Reign of Terror Yes that was bad, but the end result and intentions of the french revolution were good. Britain was able to solve its monarchy problem without mass murder.
Yes that was bad, but the end result and intentions of the french revolution were good. Britain was able to solve its monarchy problem without mass murder. Of course there were potentially better ways to go about it. I wont deny that.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Three words: Reign of TerrorPannicAtack
Whether or not it is possible, I would still oppose it. The idea is just appallingly terrible, as there are absolutely no external checks for an international government. I would much prefer decentralization of government from where it stands currently.
No they arent. In philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyze the data gathered through systematically gathered observations. Atheists_PwnYou are not dealing with mathematics when you are dealing with people. Rational and irrational ideas are entirely subjective.
You are not dealing with mathematics when you are dealing with people. Rational and irrational ideas are entirely subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning Different forms of such reflection on reasoning occur in different fields. In philosophy, the study of reasoning typically focuses on what makes reasoning efficient or inefficient, appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad. Philosophers do this by either examining the form or structure of the reasoning within arguments, or by considering the broader methods used to reach particular goals of reasoning. Psychologists and cognitive scientists, in contrast, tend to study how people reason, which cognitive and neural processes are engaged, how cultural factors affect the inferences people draw. The properties of logics which may be used to reason are studied in mathematical logic. The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may be modelled computationally. Lawyers also study reasoning. you are also saying that since rationality is subjective that its possible for contradictions to be true, depending on some weird subjectivemanner. its simply not the case. rationality is logical, and logic isnt subjective. the basis of rationality and reasoning is that contradictions are not true (which can be a form of mathematics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning#Reasoning_methods_and_argumentation you should probably read that as well. saying rationality is subjective is like saying logical fallacies are ok sometimes.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] No they arent. In philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyze the data gathered through systematically gathered observations. LJS9502_basic
Different forms of such reflection on reasoning occur in different fields. In philosophy, the study of reasoning typically focuses on what makes reasoning efficient or inefficient, appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad. Philosophers do this by either examining the form or structure of the reasoning within arguments, or by considering the broader methods used to reach particular goals of reasoning. Psychologists and cognitive scientists, in contrast, tend to study how people reason, which cognitive and neural processes are engaged, how cultural factors affect the inferences people draw. The properties of logics which may be used to reason are studied in mathematical logic. The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may be modelled computationally. Lawyers also study reasoning. you are also saying that since rationality is subjective that its possible for contradictions to be true, depending on some weird subjectivemanner. its simply not the case. rationality is logical, and logic isnt subjective. the basis of rationality and reasoning is that contradictions are not true (which can be a form of mathematics) Atheists_PwnAgain...people are not logic problems. They have different ideas about rational and irrational behavior. Most people eat meat. They find it a rational food source. A vegetarian finds that irrational and will not eat meat. A logic problem cannot reconcile the different opinions.
Again...people are not logic problems. They have different ideas about rational and irrational behavior. Most people eat meat. They find it a rational food source. A vegetarian finds that irrational and will not eat meat. A logic problem cannot reconcile the different opinions. Those are ethical and nutritional questions. The questions of whether animal should be killed for food and whether the nutrients are necessary must be explored. the second one is decisively in favor of those who consume meat. That also does not imply that we should only eat meat, or eat meat too much. For some people the ability to not need meat is also there assuming certain nutrients are filled. for example, vitamin b12 can go around 30 years without the need for replenishment. That is a logical example. The morals we choose can be subjective however. But if you choose a certain form of morality you must make a logical argument out of it otherwise its faulty.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] Different forms of such reflection on reasoning occur in different fields. In philosophy, the study of reasoning typically focuses on what makes reasoning efficient or inefficient, appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad. Philosophers do this by either examining the form or structure of the reasoning within arguments, or by considering the broader methods used to reach particular goals of reasoning. Psychologists and cognitive scientists, in contrast, tend to study how people reason, which cognitive and neural processes are engaged, how cultural factors affect the inferences people draw. The properties of logics which may be used to reason are studied in mathematical logic. The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may be modelled computationally. Lawyers also study reasoning. you are also saying that since rationality is subjective that its possible for contradictions to be true, depending on some weird subjectivemanner. its simply not the case. rationality is logical, and logic isnt subjective. the basis of rationality and reasoning is that contradictions are not true (which can be a form of mathematics) LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="Famiking"] Every society has a different meaning for what is "rational".FamikingShow me some differing opinions and how they are incompatible with one an other. Would you be able to live in Saudi Arabia?
I lived in Saudi Arabia. It was absolutely horrible.
Those are ethical and nutritional questions. The questions of whether animal should be killed for food and whether the nutrients are necessary must be explored. the second one is decisively in favor of those who consume meat. That also does not imply that we should only eat meat, or eat meat too much. For some people the ability to not need meat is also there assuming certain nutrients are filled. for example, vitamin b12 can go around 30 years without the need for replenishment. That is a logical example. The morals we choose can be subjective however. But if you choose a certain form of morality you must make a logical argument out of it otherwise its faulty.Atheists_PwnAh but they are opinions that people have and they can and do feel their side is rational and the other is irrational. That is how people operate. In your worldview (using this thread as a guide) people are automatons programmed to think as you wish. But that is not the reality of how people act.
Do i support the government taking from "rich" areas and giving to poor areas? No, and that is exactly what would happen if we were to have one (it happens on a smaller scale in every country anyways). And a one world government wouldn't work. The industrialized nations would become one first, then they would slowly start adding other nations, but there will always be the ones that resist.
Ah but they are opinions that people have and they can and do feel their side is rational and the other is irrational. That is how people operate. In your worldview (using this thread as a guide) people are automatons programmed to think as you wish. But that is not the reality of how people act. rationality is not something you feel. Emotionalism does not dictate what is actually rational. I am a determinist as well. So yeah, I do think people act in a sort of "programmed" way. Logical capacity and the way the brain controls emotions effects everything.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] Those are ethical and nutritional questions. The questions of whether animal should be killed for food and whether the nutrients are necessary must be explored. the second one is decisively in favor of those who consume meat. That also does not imply that we should only eat meat, or eat meat too much. For some people the ability to not need meat is also there assuming certain nutrients are filled. for example, vitamin b12 can go around 30 years without the need for replenishment. That is a logical example. The morals we choose can be subjective however. But if you choose a certain form of morality you must make a logical argument out of it otherwise its faulty.LJS9502_basic
Man can never be united when it is full of fanatics who will stop at nothing to kill those that differ from them.
Uniting us would only caus emore violence and more bloodshed...
I mean, look at Coruscant...
Absolutely NOT!
rationality is not something you feel. Emotionalism does not dictate what is actually rational. I am a determinist as well. So yeah, I do think people act in a sort of "programmed" way. Logical capacity and the way the brain controls emotions effects everything.Atheists_PwnYou are missing the point. Different people believe different acts/ideas rational...and the reverse.
Logic is a mathematical discipline. People's ideas are not mathematical problems. Feelings/emotions have nothing to do with my example.
You are missing the point. Different people believe different acts/ideas rational...and the reverse.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]rationality is not something you feel. Emotionalism does not dictate what is actually rational. I am a determinist as well. So yeah, I do think people act in a sort of "programmed" way. Logical capacity and the way the brain controls emotions effects everything.LJS9502_basic
Logic is a mathematical discipline. People's ideas are not mathematical problems. Feelings/emotions have nothing to do with my example.
Logic, from the Greek λογικός (logikos)[1] is the study of reasoning.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic Reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning Do you accept that logic is not subjective? Do you now accept that logic is not solely in the domain of mathematics? If not, I dont know what else I can do here. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?" In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] As a discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic is part of the classical trivium. Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false"[4]; Richard Whately, '"the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning"; and Frege, "the science of the most general laws of truth". The article Definitions of logic provides citations for these and other definitions.L If not, I dont know what else I can do here.Atheists_PwnWhy do you keep bringing logic, a mathematical discipline, into a post about opinions?
Ive already proven its not solely in the domain of math. we are not talking about opinions. Atheists_PwnI was talking about perceptions of opinions the entire time.:roll:
rational does in fact have a lot of room for people to operate.
Sometimes compromise is the most rational thing. Some people may infact lead better lives with a more individualist life **** assuming they dont harm (or have power over) others im ok with allowing them to live that life **** Im also in favor of a collectivist life **** But t heres a lot more to this as you will see.
In order to reach a logical conclusion you have to examine your own ethical framework first. You cant simply go willy nilly with pure emotionalism, that cannot sustain anything. This does not mean you must ignore emotions. It just means you need to examine them carefully. heres something to think about:
If you were in a situation where happiness was not achievable, and you couldnt kill yourself what would you do? No form of happiness or even "making things less worse" was possible. You would do nothing. The motivation of man is happiness. One cannot ignore the external need for other people to be happy in order for their own SUSTAINED happiness. With self interest in mind, you also have to consider other peoples happiness, which requires hard logic and reasoning in order to sustain a good society that benefits you and others. You need to use arguments to destroy other belief systems that might not work out, for example individualism. I tend to think individualism is very short sited most of the time, so in order for me not to contradict myself, at the very least I need to apply my arguments to individualists. At the same time I need to criticize my own views and take into account what the other person says. a perfect society is probably not attainable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try.Atheists_Pwn
For me, happiness is something that is not external. Happiness is being content with what you have not getting something you want. A society that is driven by unattainable "never content" happiness will fail, in my opinion.
Anyway, what I was saying is that some simple simply don't believe in self-interest - that a person is one dot amongst the 7,000,000,000 other people. Not saying that they or other people are wrong, but many cultures have an anti-individualism mindset, which can easily be rationalized. And they can't co-exist with people driven by self-interest (even if they have a little bit of compassion for others).
Edit: Also, I ask if you've ever been outside a Western country because I think you are not aware how diverse this world really is. The reason we have always been divided by borders is just that; cultures are different, some can barely co-exist.
im not arguing that we need to come up with a good intention for society, im making the argument that happiness IS the drive. in order for sustained happiness you cant stomp all over other people because it will eventually catch up to you. if it doesnt happen in an individualist society (regardless of the society) then I would say the individuals are being irrational.Atheists_PwnAnd I'm saying happiness is a poor drive. Because when the point of your society is to be happy, and to attain said happiness is to satisfy your desires (and the desires in question are with good intention, such as "helping other people), then your society will fail. Because at the end of the day, desires are unlimited and can almost never be satisfied. Happiness comes with thankfulness, not with fulfilling desires or life situation.
If the individuals in the individualist society are irrational because they follow their emotions (greed etc.) then in a way, every human is irrational. Because even in a society like your ideal, people are driven by self-interest. And $1,000,000 is in their interest, then they'll do it. They can still give everyone decent wages, but it would still be against a potential collectivist society on the other side of the planet's morals - that one person earns a much larger salary and lives a higher quality of life than other people.
Anyway I have to go now, so I guess we'll have to talk tomorrow.
I'm an anarchist, so I don't support any form of government.
No, especially because one government couldn't possibly understand the needs of every different region of the world.
too many genralizing ideas about countries so no
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment