[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"]I would ban freedom then. That's the whole point of banning, you know.super_mario_128You make a good point. Controlling the thoughts of an entire population is a little different than preventing somebody from smoking in public though. :roll: It's a lot more useful too, that's for sure. People are only ''free'' because they could rebel if some rigths were taken from them, thus outweighting the benefit of outlawing something.
JabbaDaHutt30's forum posts
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Culture, Literature, diversity of views, uniqueness: all that are provided by the language of every nation; not only communication. For some people language means a whole lotta deal about their civilization (in fact sometimes it's what it sustains it), their literature, their cultural identity. The practices of uniformity (If I got this word right - I mean making everything look and sound the same) are military practices. Language is also art in its own prespective and also in it's outcomes like literature, poetry etc.Language only complicates understanding a culture. It is not the language that truly sets apart one culture from another.AHUGECAT
I just don't see how people do not get this point. How can anyone disagree with us?
I would ban people who disagree with me.[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="mfacek"] Banning religion would destroy as many cultures as banning their language, or typical customs would. No one claims that religion has done no harm, but why can't you see the good it's caused as well. People need purpose in their lives, and for better or worst, the majority of them find it in religion. I think what you really want is coexistence between the world's religions. super_mario_128Ideally for coexistence there would be either no religion or one religion. The idea of one religion or no religion is absurd. Everyone has their own views on the world and on God. To indoctrinate everybody so that we all believe in a single thing, or nothing, would be mind control, and effectively nullifying the term 'freedom'. I would ban freedom then. That's the whole point of banning, you know.
Like what? The only use of languages is communication. The whole point of communication is practicality. Communication would be more practical if there was only one language - there would be no drawbacks. Tradition is not a very good excuse for upholding anything.Culture, Literature, diversity of views, uniqueness: all that are provided by the language of every nation; not only communication. For some people language means a whole lotta deal about their civilization (in fact sometimes it's what it sustains it), their literature, their cultural identity. The practices of uniformity (If I got this word right - I mean making everything look and sound the same) are military practices. Language is also art in its own prespective and also in it's outcomes like literature, poetry etc. Language only complicates understanding a culture. It is not the language that truly sets apart one culture from another. If you consider it an art, then I guess people should be free to use it in literature. Poetry sucks, anyway.[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I wouldn't ban languages for anything in the world. If we start thinking about the practical side of everything then we might as well ban many other things. I am totally against it.Teenaged
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="mfacek"] Banning religion would destroy as many cultures as banning their language, or typical customs would. No one claims that religion has done no harm, but why can't you see the good it's caused as well. People need purpose in their lives, and for better or worst, the majority of them find it in religion. I think what you really want is coexistence between the world's religions. swazidoughmanIdeally for coexistence there would be either no religion or one religion.
WRONG
Different people have different thoughts and opinions so one religion or no religion wouldn't work.
It would work if you ban all (other) religions.You aren't actually reasoning that I am wrong, but saying that the ideal would be impossible.
[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]I would ban religion. There are so many religions that claim to be the "real one". It makes me sick.
That's right guys, no more "holy" wars and biggotry!
swazidoughman
Banning religion is impossible simply because religion is such a big thing in peoples lives.
In fact, banning it would probably just cause more problems.
The best step to take is better science education.
You do know that banning anything universally is imossible, right?[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]Banning religion would destroy as many cultures as banning their language, or typical customs would. No one claims that religion has done no harm, but why can't you see the good it's caused as well. People need purpose in their lives, and for better or worst, the majority of them find it in religion. I think what you really want is coexistence between the world's religions. Ideally for coexistence there would be either no religion or one religion.I would ban religion. There are so many religions that claim to be the "real one". It makes me sick.
That's right guys, no more "holy" wars and biggotry!
mfacek
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"] Undiverse world is undiverse. I'd ban racism or facism.TeenagedOne unversal language would be far more practical. I wouldn't ban languages for anything in the world. If we start thinking about the practical side of everything then we might as well ban many other things. I am totally against it. Like what? The only use of languages is communication. The whole point of communication is practicality. Communication would be more practical if there was only one language - there would be no drawbacks. Tradition is not a very good excuse for upholding anything.
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"] I suppose you'd make that one language English :roll: super_mario_128That would be the only logical decision, since English is the most popular language in developed regions. Tell that to China, who are predicted to be the next economic superpower in the near-future... Even if that's true, I don't think it will affect the popularity of English - especially if their language gets banned.
[QUOTE="clembo1990"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]You are being ignorant. Stalin and Mao were Communists, THAT was their dogmatic dictatorship. Atheism is a rejection of God's existance, it's not bound by any rule other than that, Atheists are not an organised belief system they are just people.So has atheism. Josef Stalin and Mao ZeDong alone (who presecuted millions of Christians) put anything Christian (and even Islamic) radicals did to shame.
AHUGECAT
And Christians/Muslims are just people as well.
I do not hate atheism, or any religion. I am just saying you can't say with a serious face only religion causes harm and atheism is perfect.
Atheism is perfect in what it does - a lack of deity-worshipping. I don't see how that could be improved.
Log in to comment