Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 99 of 99
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Well, think about it. We were not asked to discuss homosexuality, but the right of one country to dictate to another. The truth is that might makes right. USA is the mightiest country on the planet. What they say appears to go. The example of Iraq is particularly telling. USA is intractable and even hostile to the demands of others, but quite strident in trying to get their own way and act in their own interest. Is any of that in question?

    Surur
    Still trying to use the "only George Bush thought Iraq was bad" line? Maybe you should go back and read archived reports from 1999-2002 and see what the world thought Saddam had. Poor example, normally you have a little substance to your arguments, but this one is pretty lame.
    Every country is going to hold out as long as they can on the position they think is right. The wording in the letter (or at least the way it was presented) did not show any attempt to force a country to do as we say or else.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Some of the more scientific predictions (which I agree are likely and are supported by validated climate models) are reduction in the polar ice caps, increasing ocean levels, and possible stabilization of global temperatures (think of it - if the polar ice caps melt - then the ice released would cool down the ocean temperatures eventually).

    The gloom & doom scenarios such as continually increasing hurricane/storm activity, flooding and destruction of vast swaths of populated land areas due to rising ocean levels, continually rising global temperatures (and the possibility that the temperate climates become tropical!) have not been supported by scientific data or models - these are just speculations by a handful of scientists.

    That does not mean that we continue to blithely ignore this issue and act as if did not matter - but act in the interest of self-preservation. There is always the possibility that our scientific models could actually underestimate the negative consequences of global warming and things could get far worse than we imagined. I, for one, would rather err on the side of caution - the worst that could happen is that we have cleaner air to breathe a 100 years from now.
    Chillig35, this is one of the most well thought out post (from either side) on global warming I have seen on TC. Some try to convice everyone that every event is because of GW (global warming and/or George W.) and the other side acts like we have endless resouorces to waste.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Democracy is not enough, else you just end up with a tyranny of the majority. You also need an independent judiciary to keep things fair, an active press to keep people honest, and a constitution to provide stability, so the fashion of the age cant just warp the country forever.

    Of course America has/had all of these things, which makes it even more of a mystery why they dont want this for the rest of the world combined. They ignore the world court, they act unilaterally on the world stage, ignoring the democratic process in the UN, and they act in secrecy, trying to suppress the press in other countries.

    I say bring on the One World Government and New World Order!!!!

    Surur

    I am glad you are views are in the minority.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #84  
    I'm afraid a one world govt would be a step back... There is more freedom if states & countries have the right to set up their own rules.... "love it or leave it" has some validity. If you don't like having your kids exposed to gambling, you can leave Los Vegas for the conservative Bible Belt. If all the laws are the same- where do you go? What if one country or state or small community doesn't agree with the actions of the one world govt.? Will they be allowed to dissent (thus resulting in two governments- not one), or forced to Assimilate (Borg reference)?

    The power grab when the feds take state's rights away, or the state overules a town, or the UN dictates to a country- seems to limit choice and freedom. The individual colonies were very suspicious of a strong federal government- they were fighting the king and didn't want to just replace him with another. Thus they tried to limit federal power.

    Here's an example from some church denomionations:

    Some believe that the denomination owns and controls the local congregation- the higher-ups dictate who will be the pastor, and how money will be spent and what doctrines are to be taught. If a denomination that was against something (say having women as pastors for an example, or homosexuality, or for the inerrancy of the Bible- whatever) "chainged it's (collective) mind", they could force the submission of every local church- do what we say or we will remove your pastor and padlock your building. It happens here in the US even though in most cases it was the local congregation that paid for the church building, and the national group that chainged its doctrine. Sounds unfair. So some churches specifically say that the building is owned by the local congregation, and is only affiliated with the larger body because they want to be, and is free to leave if it wants and keep their building.

    back to the US- Technically it may have been right for the South to leave the union if they wanted, they were members of the United States of America because they chose to be- they didn't have to sign the Declaration. Even today, isn't Texas considered somehow an indepentant republic, entity in some way?? The founders- I think- would be flabergasted to see the wimpyness of the states compared to the strong control the Feds have over them. There are some exceptions... Some states do not require helmets for motorcyclists, and tell the feds who threaten them by witholding fed money for roads to stuff it. There is an attempt to allow states to decide for themselves if they want to accept same-sex marriages performed in other states. But in general- the feds seem to win.

    Again, I can't see a one-world government as being condusive to freedom.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Chillig35, this is one of the most well thought out post (from either side) on global warming I have seen on TC. Some try to convice everyone that every event is because of GW (global warming and/or George W.) and the other side acts like we have endless resouorces to waste.
    Thank you for your kind words sir!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by redbelt
    ^^

    That is my point. If you do take this to a vote in the UAE or any country in the area
    my point is that there is no such thing as voting in that part of the world - so why bother discussing a hypothetical situation?
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. #87  
    Regarding global warming, we need to address it out of self-interest, and I do think there are the posibility of feedback cycles making things much worse than we would expect. I personally support an industrial approach to managing it e.g. fertilizing the sea, paiting roofs white, sunshades in space, solar farms etc etc In other words ambitious mega-projects. Carlin is very wrong when he says we cant destroy the world. He vastly underestimates the power of humanity. Thats like saying a virus cant kill an elephant or whale, or a brain cancer cant kill a person.

    Regarding the OWG, I certainly expect the world to come together at some point. Or do people think the world is too heterogeneous to be under one rule?

    Surur
  8. #88  
    surur... what if the one world gov't declares your views treasonist... will you gladly give them up?
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    ...Regarding the OWG, I certainly expect the world to come together at some point. Or do people think the world is too heterogeneous to be under one rule?

    Surur
    I do as well. I suspect calamity (natural or otherwise) will facilitate the transition. While the world is heterogeneous, self-preservation is a common denominator.
  10. #90  
    The transition is also easier as decreasing numbers of people subscribe to the notion of objective truth.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The transition is also easier as decreasing numbers of people subscribe to the notion of objective truth.
    why (and how) would the transition to OWG become easier if fewer people seek an objective truth???
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    why (and how) would the transition to OWG become easier if fewer people seek an objective truth???
    Let me preface my response with a question?

    On what basis do people who oppose the notion of a one world government do so?
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Let me preface my response with a question?

    On what basis do people who oppose the notion of a one world government do so?
    i've never heard the concept of OWG before (at least as a serious discussion) - so i'll hazard a guess that the main reason people oppose it is: "what the heck for? we're happy with the way things are!"
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Regarding global warming, we need to address it out of self-interest, and I do think there are the posibility of feedback cycles making things much worse than we would expect. I personally support an industrial approach to managing it e.g. fertilizing the sea, paiting roofs white, sunshades in space, solar farms etc etc In other words ambitious mega-projects. Carlin is very wrong when he says we cant destroy the world. He vastly underestimates the power of humanity. Thats like saying a virus cant kill an elephant or whale, or a brain cancer cant kill a person.

    Regarding the OWG, I certainly expect the world to come together at some point. Or do people think the world is too heterogeneous to be under one rule?

    Surur
    That's the pompous view of mankind. We really think there is nothing we can't control or destroy. Granted, that just because we haven't done something, doesn't mean we can't. But millions of species have come and gone. The world did not end, it only changed. I think physics says that energy can't be destroyed, only change form. It may be the end of the world as we know it, but not the end of the world. I wouldn't compare a world or universe to a species. Of course a virus can kill a whale. These things rely on each other. We rely on the world, it certainly does not rely on us.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Regarding global warming, we need to address it out of self-interest, and I do think there are the posibility of feedback cycles making things much worse than we would expect. I personally support an industrial approach to managing it e.g. fertilizing the sea, paiting roofs white, sunshades in space, solar farms etc etc In other words ambitious mega-projects. Carlin is very wrong when he says we cant destroy the world. He vastly underestimates the power of humanity. Thats like saying a virus cant kill an elephant or whale, or a brain cancer cant kill a person.

    Regarding the OWG, I certainly expect the world to come together at some point. Or do people think the world is too heterogeneous to be under one rule?

    Surur
    I'm sorry surur - some of those industrial "solutions" sound scarier than the problem they purport to solve!

    As for Carlin - I think he's absolutely right - the earth has survived meteor impacts that had far more destructive power than all the nuclear weapons on earth - and has undergone other catclysmic changes that would pale in comparison to our meddling. It's just our a$$ (or rather our children's) we gotta watch out for.

    As for OWG - who the heck needs that? as the saying goes - variety is the spice of life - let us all find our own way living and governing ourselves. Sort of like life on this planet - every species finds its ecological niche by adapting and surviving.
    Last edited by chillig35; 05/12/2006 at 02:04 PM.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    i've never heard the concept of OWG before (at least as a serious discussion) - so i'll hazard a guess that the main reason people oppose it is: "what the heck for? we're happy with the way things are!"
    Understood.

    When I saw your question, I realized I had made an assumption about how people react to the notion of OWG--which, at least in your case, was a wrong assumption on my part.

    Anyway, here goes on the answer to your question:

    The typical view of OWG that I have encountered sees it homogenaeity to the nth degree. It is perceived as a top-down, controlling environment, where personal liberty is absent.

    My perception is that those who do not subscribe to objective truth, ultimately do not hold strong objection to such an arrangement provided they are getting three square meals and sufficient amount of leisure.

    Those who do subscribe to notions of objective truth generally also have beliefs in a being of higher power (god/God/G_d), who ascribes purpose and value to humanity. These types typically are opposed to the lowest common denominator arrangement associated with OWG.

    As a write, I realize I have made sweeping generalizations, so I welcome rebuttal and confirmation, as my thinking in this area needs some sharpening.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The typical view of OWG that I have encountered sees it homogenaeity to the nth degree. It is perceived as a top-down, controlling environment, where personal liberty is absent
    yuck! sounds like being a vegetable!! count me out!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  18. #98  
    People arnt really happy with the way he world are. They may be happy with their little bit, but America isnt too happy with Iran, or North Korea, Tibet with China, Argintinia with Britain etc etc. You dont see the european states arguing about borders anymore, or states in USA. When people come together (peacefully) under one government and law things tend to settle down.

    The European Union is growing rather organically, and due to nations desiring to join, not being forces. If/when Russia joins it will be the biggest political force in the world.

    OWG does not have to mean tyranny, it could and should be as democratic as representative as the USA.

    Surur
  19.    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    my point is that there is no such thing as voting in that part of the world - so why bother discussing a hypothetical situation?
    Excuse me? What do I vote on then every couple of years then?
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions