INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: TheoK on August 12, 2009, 10:12:27 AM
-
I thought you Americans would like to know why we have such incredibly cowardly gun laws in Europe. I link to a discussion on one of the most pro-gun forums in Sweden and you can read for yourself. You'll understand most of it with Google Translate.
Four year old shot his sister in the USA (https://www.flashback.info/showthread.php?t=965159)
Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=en#)
-
i dont speak...but i have a pro gun friend there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbs64GvGgPU
-
I also have some friends there who could give their opinion on it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ohr4P8E_io (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ohr4P8E_io)
-
I thought you Americans would like to know why we have such incredibly cowardly gun laws in Europe. I link to a discussion on one of the most pro-gun forums in Sweden and you can read for yourself. You'll understand most of it with Google Translate.
Four year old shot his sister in the USA (https://www.flashback.info/showthread.php?t=965159)
Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=en#)
I couldn't get it to tranlate the whole forum, but here is a translation of the article they are discussing:
Four-year-old shot his sister in the U.S.
Av TT Of TT
Publicerad 25 juli 2009 16.31 | Uppdaterad 25 juli 2009 16.44 Published July 25, 2009 16.31 | Updated July 25, 2009 16.44
STOCKHOLM. STOCKHOLM. En tvåårig flicka i Las Vegas svävar mellan liv och död efter att ha skjutits i bröstet av sin fyraårige bror. A two-year old girl in Las Vegas hovers between life and death having been shot in the chest of his four-year brother.
I South Carolina sköts en fyraårig pojke i magen av sin treårige lillebror. In South Carolina shot a four-year-old boy in the stomach of his three year younger brother.
Båda olyckorna skedde i torsdags kväll i USA, och båda har samma orsak: Föräldrar som låter laddade pistoler ligga framme så att barnen kan få tag i dem. Both accidents occurred on Thursday evening in the U.S., and both have the same cause: Parents who allow loaded guns lie ahead so that children can get hold of them.
Den skadade pojken från Gray Court i South Carolina, vars bror hittade en pistol under en säng, fördes till sjukhus i helikopter och opererades. The injured boy from Gray Court, South Carolina, whose brother found a gun under a bed, was taken to hospital in the helicopter and operated. Enligt polisen kommer han att klara sig, rapporterar BBC. According to police, he will survive, reports the BBC.
Värre ser det ut för den tvååriga flickan, vars tillstånd är kritiskt. Unfortunately, it looks for the two-year girl, whose condition is critical.
Åtal har inte väckts mot föräldrarna i något av fallen. Prosecution has not been brought against the parents of any of the cases.
De två vådaskotten inträffade mindre än en vecka efter att en femårig pojke dog efter att ha skjutit sig i huvudet med en pistol som han hittade i pappans bil. The two accidentally shoots occurred less than a week after a five-year-old boy died after shooting themselves in the head with a gun which he found in his father's car. I det fallet har åtal väckts för äventyrande av barns säkerhet. In that case, the charge of compromising children's safety.
I USA är rätten att bära vapen inskriven i konstitutionen. In the U.S. the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution. Man räknar med att det finns mer än 200 miljoner skjutvapen i privata händer, detta i ett land med cirka 306 miljoner invånare. It is estimated that there are more than 200 million firearms in private hands, this in a country with approximately 306 million inhabitants.
Apparently, much of the rest of the world pictures us as a bunch of cowboys in the old Wild West and their media uses propaganda to perpetuate this myth.
I think that this guy made sense:
The problem that causes this kind of tragedy is that the liberals who control both the USA and Sweden want to remove the weapons from the people. Weapons must be something dangerous and mythology that only the police and the crooks are. This means that you create an environment where ordinary people do not have a natural relationship with the weapons and the knowledge on how to act on weapons and how to teach their children from an early age to handle weapons.
A three-year-or four-year-old will not of course deal with weapons, at least not without adult control, but they still need to know how to behave around guns. They should know that if they encounter a gun they should get an adult who can take care of the gun, or are they in all cases, leave the room where he is.
As adults, we must also know that children are smart and attentive, they will know where the gun is hidden, or were the keys to the weapons cabinet is. therefore must have procedures about guns that makes the children not to access the weapons and that, if they access the weapons do not think they are exciting, but lets them be.
In a healthy society included weapons vett in kindergarten and school education so that citizens can handle weapons, in all cases secure and charge them. and so that they can educate children to act safely around firearms.
Such a society will be a demystify the firearms and weapons can not demystify power play on fear of the unknown in order to gradually get rid of the honest citizens' ownership of weapons through propaganda and legislation.
-
Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!
-
guns dont kill people. our american todlers do.
-
You are a responsible gun owner PPK, and you know the rules of how to use your weapons and the danger involved with them. Unfortunately, there are the 'tards out there that don't give a shit about what they are meant to do, like the kid who shot up Columbine and the other kids who practice similar shootings. I know I said once on zOMG that disarming the public would be the way to go, but only responsible ownership is what will work. If you totally disarm the public, the nutters will still get weapons through the 'black market', which is the last thing anyone needs.
You only have to look at Martin Bryant and Port Arthur here to see what happens when nutters get arms. Only thing is, Howard went too far.
-
Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!
Like Swedish politicians (all Swedish politicians with any real power are against liberal gun laws). They have the security police protect them 24/7, so they don't have to worry much themselves.
And the judges and jurors in court, who convict people who have defended themselves with guns to "self-defense excess" don't live in neighbourhoods where they're likely to get robbed or raped either. ::)
-
You are a responsible gun owner PPK, and you know the rules of how to use your weapons and the danger involved with them. Unfortunately, there are the 'tards out there that don't give a shit about what they are meant to do, like the kid who shot up Columbine and the other kids who practice similar shootings. I know I said once on zOMG that disarming the public would be the way to go, but only responsible ownership is what will work. If you totally disarm the public, the nutters will still get weapons through the 'black market', which is the last thing anyone needs.
You only have to look at Martin Bryant and Port Arthur here to see what happens when nutters get arms. Only thing is, Howard went too far.
Most gun owners are responsible. We have yet to have a school shooting in Sweden, but there have been two in Finland. About ten people were killed in each. Then the newspapers, TV etc cry for harsher gun laws (Finland has slightly more liberal gun laws than Sweden). What they don't mention is that two millions of gun owning Finns did not shoot kids at school, or that about the same amount of people as in a school shooting is killed every week on the Swedish and Finnish roads, all the time.
-
Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!
Its not hypocritical at all, even if they ban average citizens from having guns (e.g. over here in the UK), people who need armed police protection get it. Bear in mind that Ted Kennedy had his two brothers shot to death, it would be suicide for him not to have armed bodyguards. Same with Bill Clinton. As for the average citizen, they don't need the protection for the most part.
Also disarming the plebs doesn't seem a bad idea to me, provided I was one of the few who got a gun, of course.
-
The "plebs" are disarmed in England.
-
Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!
Its not hypocritical at all, even if they ban average citizens from having guns (e.g. over here in the UK), people who need armed police protection get it. Bear in mind that Ted Kennedy had his two brothers shot to death, it would be suicide for him not to have armed bodyguards. Same with Bill Clinton. As for the average citizen, they don't need the protection for the most part.
Also disarming the plebs doesn't seem a bad idea to me, provided I was one of the few who got a gun, of course.
If the plebs were disarmed, and I mean ALL guns taken away (including hunting rifles, target pistols, and shotguns), I bet you would still get yours from the afore-mentioned 'black market'. The general PCs over in Britain aren't armed, and it's only the special force that carry guns there. In the US (correct me if I'm wrong PPK) you can get a rifle or any semi-automatic weapon without a wait, but you need to wait 14 days for a handgun. Still, anyone who can get a permit to carry can own a weapon.
Here, Howard got everyone to hand in ALL weapons unless you could show a specific need to own one. Farmers and sporting shooters were generally the only ones allowed to carry, as well as the cops and millitary. Collectors had to keep their under lock and key, but the crims managed to get themquite easily.
-
In Vermont and Alaska you just do a quick background check (in principle just the gun dealer calling the cops) and if they say it's OK, you're instantly allowed to buy any semi-automatic that you want.
-
if I was president of the Untied States I would expect protection to. as it is, I'm not, so I don't. if I lived somewhere where I could own a gun, I probably would do, but definitely not a loaded one if I lived with a kid in the house. that being said, I don't support letting people have guns in this country. I'd much rather only the police etc had them than my neighbours and the kids down the road
-
if I was president of the Untied States I would expect protection to. as it is, I'm not, so I don't. if I lived somewhere where I could own a gun, I probably would do, but definitely not a loaded one if I lived with a kid in the house. that being said, I don't support letting people have guns in this country. I'd much rather only the police etc had them than my neighbours and the kids down the road
Yes, you can always trust the cops - like in the Soviet Union, for instance. ::)
-
I trust the cops here more than the majority of the civilians here
and don't knock the Soviet Union... take a lesson from your german mates there :thumbup:
-
The state is the greatest mafia there ever was. It doesn't change anything that you live in a "democracy".
-
Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!
Its not hypocritical at all, even if they ban average citizens from having guns (e.g. over here in the UK), people who need armed police protection get it. Bear in mind that Ted Kennedy had his two brothers shot to death, it would be suicide for him not to have armed bodyguards. Same with Bill Clinton. As for the average citizen, they don't need the protection for the most part.
Also disarming the plebs doesn't seem a bad idea to me, provided I was one of the few who got a gun, of course.
It is hypocrisy when they claim they believe in equal protection under the law and make damn sure they are better protected than those they disarm. If they simply said "I have mine, fuck all the rest of you", then they would not be hypocrites.
As far as politicians needing, or deserving, more protection than the unwashed masses, there were 16,137 homocides in the USA in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)
Just how many of these were politicians Hadron? So which of these 16,137 people who were murdered in 2004 did not need protection Hadron?
In numerous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that Police have no obligation to protect individuals they know to be in specific danger. Here is one such ruling from 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_t=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_t=1)
-
Yes I agree with that Callaway. I get particularly pissed at hypocrites like Ted Kennedy, Rosie O'Donell, Bill Lockyer and Bill Clinton who seek to disarm the plebes in society yet use their money and influence to carry like Lockyer or have full time armed bodyguards like FFK, Rosie and slick Willy do. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" fucking fucks!
Its not hypocritical at all, even if they ban average citizens from having guns (e.g. over here in the UK), people who need armed police protection get it. Bear in mind that Ted Kennedy had his two brothers shot to death, it would be suicide for him not to have armed bodyguards. Same with Bill Clinton. As for the average citizen, they don't need the protection for the most part.
Also disarming the plebs doesn't seem a bad idea to me, provided I was one of the few who got a gun, of course.
It is hypocrisy when they claim they believe in equal protection under the law and make damn sure they are better protected than those they disarm. If they simply said "I have mine, fuck all the rest of you", then they would not be hypocrites.
As far as politicians needing, or deserving, more protection than the unwashed masses, there were 16,137 homocides in the USA in 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)
Just how many of these were politicians Hadron? So which of these 16,137 people who were murdered in 2004 did not need protection Hadron?
In numerous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that Police have no obligation to protect individuals they know to be in specific danger. Here is one such ruling from 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_t=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_t=1)
Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?
As for the supreme court ruling, it is ridiculous. Then again, the average American is ridiculous politically, so I am not all surprised. Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.
-
Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?
What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.
As for the supreme court ruling, it is ridiculous. Then again, the average American is ridiculous politically, so I am not all surprised. Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.
And you are an elitist snob who did not answer the question about "which of the 16,137 murder victims listed in the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report did not need protection?", I find it interesting that you, at times, claim to be a revolutionary and in this thread claim that politicians deserve protection. So what are you about Hadron? Being a revolutionary or protecting the status quo? I also find it interesting that you approve of disarming citizens but approve of school shooters. Maybe you just want to make the spree killers work easier?
-
Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?
What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
As for the supreme court ruling, it is ridiculous. Then again, the average American is ridiculous politically, so I am not all surprised. Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.
And you are an elitist snob who did not answer the question about "which of the 16,137 murder victims listed in the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report did not need protection?", I find it interesting that you, at times, claim to be a revolutionary and in this thread claim that politicians deserve protection. So what are you about Hadron? Being a revolutionary or protecting the status quo? I also find it interesting that you approve of disarming citizens but approve of school shooters. Maybe you just want to make the spree killers work easier?
You can be elitist and a revolutionary - as I have said countless times I am a social meritocrat. Just happen to be disgusted at how the current social order is comprised; it is anything but merit.
As for the 16137 homicides, a minority of whom were genuine victims, that minority would be safer if guns were gotten rid of. In the UK, its almost always gangland members who get shot and if our rates were scaled up and compared to the US - less than 500 people would get shot. In the case of the politicians, however, having armed bodyguards makes them safer. The maths here is practically unarguable.
-
Just seen some of the adverts doing the rounds about our NHS, the fact that they are being aired at all shows what a mess the US is as a society.
:agreed:
-
Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?
What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
The ones who occupy such offices and want to trample my rights can fuck off and die.
You can be elitist and a revolutionary - as I have said countless times I am a social meritocrat. Just happen to be disgusted at how the current social order is comprised; it is anything but merit.
Depends on which way the wind is blowing when you wake then?
As for the 16137 homicides, a minority of whom were genuine victims, that minority would be safer if guns were gotten rid of.
The specific Supreme Court case I referenced was about Domestic violence not gangbangers. And again, you have stated in the past in numerous threads that you approve of spree killers. From that I conclude that you approve of spree killers having access to the guns that you would deny to ordinary citizens.
In the UK, its almost always gangland members who get shot and if our rates were scaled up and compared to the US - less than 500 people would get shot. In the case of the politicians, however, having armed bodyguards makes them safer. The maths here is practically unarguable.
And aside from no 2nd Amendment guarantees you also have no protection from Ex Post Facto laws ( Atticle 1, Section 9 ), something a few Brits are whining about with regards to Gary McKinnon, yeah you have it made.
-
Things aren't perfect here, not by a long shot. But personally I'd much rather live in the uk than most parts of america.
At least Obama seems ti be changing a few things though
tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either
-
Things aren't perfect here, not by a long shot. But personally I'd much rather live in the uk than most parts of america.
At least Obama seems ti be changing a few things though
tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either
Why should there be double standards for the people and the ones in charge? It's hypocrisy to call a country a democracy if the citizens don't have a right to bear arms.
-
so all citizens should have the same level of security as presidents?
I wouldn't be happy if I knew any random person where I live could easily have a gun in their house. I'm not stupid enough to think that world leaders should just walk around without any kind of protection though
If someone breaks into your home, call the cops and smash his head in (the intruder, not the cop)
-
so all citizens should have the same level of security as presidents?
I wouldn't be happy if I knew any random person where I live could easily have a gun in their house. I'm not stupid enough to think that world leaders should just walk around without any kind of protection though
If someone breaks into your home, call the cops and smash his head in (the intruder, not the cop)
All citizens should have a right to buy, keep, carry and use firearms for self-protection. That includes self-protection against a tyrannic government. The Second Amendment is brilliant. The only thing wrong is not in the Amendment itself but in the fact that the US armed forces are incredibly more powerful than they were when it was written.
Calling the cops won't help you against a dangerous intruder. And the worst criminals are the one taking away law-abiding citizens' guns. The UK is a real disgrace, even worse than Sweden.
-
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either
What Hadron clearly doesn't understand in making the above post is that I believe that politicians are expendable but rights are not. The 5th Amendment Right to not be put in jeapordy of life or liberty twice for the same offense came about because the English Crown did exactly that to Sir Walter Raleigh among others. Writs, or Titles, of Nobility are likewise prohibited in part because there was no desire to create a noble class here who could hang a starving peasant for having the temerity to hunt on His Nibs land to feed his family.
Writs of Attainder are likewise prohibited because again the Crown had done this sort of thing to the Irish and others throughout the history of the British Empire, disenfranchising entire groups of their rights to vote, own property etc.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder (http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder)
The rights in the Constitution have been wrestled over in the Federal and State Legislatures and Courts pretty much from the begining of the Republic. The system is not perfect but I can live with it. Any President or other elected official who desires to disarm the citizens of my country should lead by example and not pull this "do as I say, not as I do bullshit" that so many of them pull.
-
Well you might want to check out the mortality rate of politicians from assassination back 50 or so years ago when they did not have that protection. Feel free to do the calculations and assure yourself that they are less safe than the average law abiding citizen from guns. Do you honestly believe the most powerful man in the world should not have protection?
What I don't believe is that is that politicians are so inherently better than citizens that they should have means of protection that they would deprive citizens of.
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
The ones who occupy such offices and want to trample my rights can fuck off and die.
Its your fellow countrymen who trample on your rights, not the people at the top.
You can be elitist and a revolutionary - as I have said countless times I am a social meritocrat. Just happen to be disgusted at how the current social order is comprised; it is anything but merit.
Depends on which way the wind is blowing when you wake then?
I have always been pretty consistent with my political beliefs thank you.
As for the 16137 homicides, a minority of whom were genuine victims, that minority would be safer if guns were gotten rid of.
The specific Supreme Court case I referenced was about Domestic violence not gangbangers. And again, you have stated in the past in numerous threads that you approve of spree killers. From that I conclude that you approve of spree killers having access to the guns that you would deny to ordinary citizens.
I said I don't object to spree killers who take a lot of nasty people with them - its an improvement all around.
In the UK, its almost always gangland members who get shot and if our rates were scaled up and compared to the US - less than 500 people would get shot. In the case of the politicians, however, having armed bodyguards makes them safer. The maths here is practically unarguable.
And aside from no 2nd Amendment guarantees you also have no protection from Ex Post Facto laws ( Atticle 1, Section 9 ), something a few Brits are whining about with regards to Gary McKinnon, yeah you have it made.
You might want to check out some of the things the US does to its own citizens before you even think of starting on us. Like the 2nd Amendment protects you at all - it is another lie like democracy.
-
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either
What Hadron clearly doesn't understand in making the above post is that I believe that politicians are expendable but rights are not. The 5th Amendment Right to not be put in jeapordy of life or liberty twice for the same offense came about because the English Crown did exactly that to Sir Walter Raleigh among others. Writs, or Titles, of Nobility are likewise prohibited in part because there was no desire to create a noble class here who could hang a starving peasant for having the temerity to hunt on His Nibs land to feed his family.
Writs of Attainder are likewise prohibited because again the Crown had done this sort of thing to the Irish and others throughout the history of the British Empire, disenfranchising entire groups of their rights to vote, own property etc.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder (http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder)
The rights in the Constitution have been wrestled over in the Federal and State Legislatures and Courts pretty much from the begining of the Republic. The system is not perfect but I can live with it. Any President or other elected official who desires to disarm the citizens of my country should lead by example and not pull this "do as I say, not as I do bullshit" that so many of them pull.
You are living proof that 99% of people are too stupid to get the vote. Big flaw of democracy - 99% of people don't know what is good for them.
Though I should point out that when politicians are unprotected from assassination, you have a hell of a dictatorship. May as well just let the Mafia run the country and be done with it.
-
Its your fellow countrymen who trample on your rights, not the people at the top.
While there are non elected citizens who want to do so it does not let elected or appointed politicians off the hook.
-
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either
What Hadron clearly doesn't understand in making the above post is that I believe that politicians are expendable but rights are not. The 5th Amendment Right to not be put in jeapordy of life or liberty twice for the same offense came about because the English Crown did exactly that to Sir Walter Raleigh among others. Writs, or Titles, of Nobility are likewise prohibited in part because there was no desire to create a noble class here who could hang a starving peasant for having the temerity to hunt on His Nibs land to feed his family.
Writs of Attainder are likewise prohibited because again the Crown had done this sort of thing to the Irish and others throughout the history of the British Empire, disenfranchising entire groups of their rights to vote, own property etc.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder (http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder)
The rights in the Constitution have been wrestled over in the Federal and State Legislatures and Courts pretty much from the begining of the Republic. The system is not perfect but I can live with it. Any President or other elected official who desires to disarm the citizens of my country should lead by example and not pull this "do as I say, not as I do bullshit" that so many of them pull.
You are living proof that 99% of people are too stupid to get the vote. Big flaw of democracy - 99% of people don't know what is good for them.
Though I should point out that when politicians are unprotected from assassination, you have a hell of a dictatorship. May as well just let the Mafia run the country and be done with it.
And you do? This is why people should have rights
-
You are living proof that 99% of people are too stupid to get the vote. Big flaw of democracy - 99% of people don't know what is good for them.
Aside from being an elitist piece of shit that would like 1% of the population to order the others around, you are also a bullied little coward who would not have the nerve to say that face to face.
-
It is not the person who is getting protected, but the office, the institution of government. Given your obsession with the constitution, I would have thought you would have liked to see it protected. Which means protecting the occupiers of said offices.
tbh I've never really understood the huge obsession with the "right to bear arms" a lot of americans have. I guess as we haven't had an issue with it here in recent memory, we just don't see it as an important "right" to have over here. People here just see it as a given thing that they don't have a gun and their neighbour likely doesn't either
What Hadron clearly doesn't understand in making the above post is that I believe that politicians are expendable but rights are not. The 5th Amendment Right to not be put in jeapordy of life or liberty twice for the same offense came about because the English Crown did exactly that to Sir Walter Raleigh among others. Writs, or Titles, of Nobility are likewise prohibited in part because there was no desire to create a noble class here who could hang a starving peasant for having the temerity to hunt on His Nibs land to feed his family.
Writs of Attainder are likewise prohibited because again the Crown had done this sort of thing to the Irish and others throughout the history of the British Empire, disenfranchising entire groups of their rights to vote, own property etc.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder (http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder)
The rights in the Constitution have been wrestled over in the Federal and State Legislatures and Courts pretty much from the begining of the Republic. The system is not perfect but I can live with it. Any President or other elected official who desires to disarm the citizens of my country should lead by example and not pull this "do as I say, not as I do bullshit" that so many of them pull.
You are living proof that 99% of people are too stupid to get the vote. Big flaw of democracy - 99% of people don't know what is good for them.
Though I should point out that when politicians are unprotected from assassination, you have a hell of a dictatorship. May as well just let the Mafia run the country and be done with it.
And you do? This is why people should have rights
Democracy only works with a well informed, intelligent and well informed public. Without that, the whole house of cards comes falling down.
As for people knowing what is good for them, I think even the average 10 year old could make a list as to what sort of society they want. Unfortunately those options never land on the ballot paper, making the whole process a big lie. Thanks to the 99%'s gullibility and stupidity, the system is maintained.
-
So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you? Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that
-
You are living proof that 99% of people are too stupid to get the vote. Big flaw of democracy - 99% of people don't know what is good for them.
Aside from being an elitist piece of shit that would like 1% of the population to order the others around, you are also a bullied little coward who would not have the nerve to say that face to face.
Stupidity is a lifestyle choice, quite frankly. It is only right that those who choose to adopt it are put in their place and punished for it, where as those who want to achieve are given the chance to do so. Democracy does not allow this kind of correction of society.
-
So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you? Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that
Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision. The people are allowed to produce a general document (by demarchy and referendum) every 5 years which provides a set of objectives for the meritocratic decision makers. The irony here is that they have a lot more power than in a democracy.
By the way, the state can do what it likes, whether you have guns or not. Even if 1% sees the light, you have the stupid 99% who will stick to the system like dutiful sons and daughters. Hence why terrorism is the scissors to the paper of democracy - it is the only way ordinary people can actually influence anything fundamental these days.
-
Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision.
Again who are these people?
-
Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision.
Again who are these people?
The people who are the best in their respective fields, making decisions on their fields, along with some generally intelligent people with a lot of clever ideas. As I said the most qualified. Given the people set the broad agenda, decisionmakers can be accurately measured. Much better than the current system where decisions are made by the biggest suck up and the best connected - qualities which lead to poor decisionmakers and poor decisions.
In short, the average citizen gets a society which just works, giving them an optimum position and opportunities in society. People are only judged for what they can do, in a strictly relavent context. Social meritocracy is a brilliant system, unfortunately the current social elite have brainwashed people to think its a bad idea.
-
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
-
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.
-
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.
so then who designs and maintains the system?
-
It still would depend on who you know and whose ass you'd kiss just to be picked to be in such a system.
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.
so then who designs and maintains the system?
Those designing and maintaining it would also control it
-
I got two papers with mistakes on them - absolutely ridiculous for a maths exam. Which would be less of a problem, if
they published their actual marking procedures.
Got extra time (25%) this year - though didn't claim it last year because I didn't trust them to adhere to the basic data
protection laws (which they have flouted on several occasions). Though in all honesty they are not enough, next year I
am going to insist onwell defined marking criteria published in advance, as well as having what I need to know being well defined. Should ensure I get a first.
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you? Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that
Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision. The people are allowed to produce a general document (by demarchy and referendum) every 5 years which provides a set of objectives for the meritocratic decision makers. The irony here is that they have a lot more power than in a democracy.
Like the Staff and Faculty of your University?
-
Hadron, you're full of shit. Try studying actual fact instead of the fantasy that you are quoting.
People elect governments to act on their behalf to form laws (legislation) and to run the country for them. Thus it's the PEOPLE who VOTE for these individuals that are their 'employers'. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms goes back to the days of the citizen militias back in the 19th century, nad has been kept in case of the possibility of revolution. Very unlikely, as the authorities would just overrun them with the armed forces anyway. But the 2nd amendment by itself doesn't guarantee RESPONSIBLE ownership. That has to be taught. Claude said 'it isn't the weapon that kills but the idiot behind the trigger' (or words to that effect. True, but if everyone was given lessons on how to responsibly manage their firearms, then maybe things would be better too. Most police are trying NOT to have to use guns, and are heading toward NON-LETHAL force such as pepper spray or Tazers. Problem is, you can still get the cops who seem too trigger-happy. Proper training is the only way to go, and responsible ownership as well.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
-
Name one anarchy that has actually worked and has been able to trade with any other country successfully. Bet you can't, becuase once the leaders have been done away with, and the citizens take over, none of them can make a collective decision to save themselves. However much you hate politicians, they are a necessary evil to stop everything from going arse up.
-
I could accept a society, but not that "fucking holier-than-thou and" "I am God" attitude. The average Swedish politician is considerably more stupid than I am, so I don't accept being treated as a retarded child by those cowards and arseholes.
-
I could accept a society, but not that "fucking holier-than-thou and" "I am God" attitude. The average Swedish politician is considerably more stupid than I am, so I don't accept being treated as a retarded child by those cowards and arseholes.
But short of revolution (which won't work because everyone would be running around like headless chooks) there is nothing you can do about it except front up at the polls next election and vote for someone else. Everyone else all over the world has to cop shitty politicians as well, so there is no point complaining.
-
It still would depend on who you know and whose ass you'd kiss just to be picked to be in such a system.
Not at all - applications are done blind and anyone caught cheating (not that many could) immediately finds themselves on the bottom rung. My meritocractic system counts integrity as a form of merit, you see.
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.
so then who designs and maintains the system?
Those designing and maintaining it would also control it
[/quote]
Same as the current system then. I never remember signing up to it.
-
I got two papers with mistakes on them - absolutely ridiculous for a maths exam. Which would be less of a problem, if
they published their actual marking procedures.
Got extra time (25%) this year - though didn't claim it last year because I didn't trust them to adhere to the basic data
protection laws (which they have flouted on several occasions). Though in all honesty they are not enough, next year I
am going to insist onwell defined marking criteria published in advance, as well as having what I need to know being well defined. Should ensure I get a first.
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
Not at all, in a meritocracy we include the right to leave on reasonable terms. You will notice that the only thing which comes close to a meritocracy, Singapore works rather well. People can leave, but choose not to.
So who would make all these informed decisions people who agreed with you? Because it seems people who don't are just the 99% who say are too stupid. Make me want to go out and get some guns in case it ever comes to that
Qualified people who actually know something about the decisions they make whilst making the best decision. The people are allowed to produce a general document (by demarchy and referendum) every 5 years which provides a set of objectives for the meritocratic decision makers. The irony here is that they have a lot more power than in a democracy.
Like the Staff and Faculty of your University?
Its only the senior management I have issue with, who have gotten a position by being related to royalty or else been promoted out the classroom for sheer incompetence. Under a meritocracy most of my universities problems would go away for the simple reason no-one could buy their way in there or get promoted by sucking up to people.
-
It still would depend on who you know and whose ass you'd kiss just to be picked to be in such a system.
Not at all - applications are done blind and anyone caught cheating (not that many could) immediately finds themselves on the bottom rung. My meritocractic system counts integrity as a form of merit, you see.
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.
so then who designs and maintains the system?
Those designing and maintaining it would also control it
Same as the current system then. I never remember signing up to it.
[/quote]
So how are you a revolutionary then :P
-
It still would depend on who you know and whose ass you'd kiss just to be picked to be in such a system.
Not at all - applications are done blind and anyone caught cheating (not that many could) immediately finds themselves on the bottom rung. My meritocractic system counts integrity as a form of merit, you see.
yeah but who decides who the decision makers will be?
The system, using a due meritocratic process which is designed to have a high probability of picking such people. Similar to the current order, where the system decides. The difference is that this system is a lot fairer and picks candidates for the right qualities.
so then who designs and maintains the system?
Those designing and maintaining it would also control it
Same as the current system then. I never remember signing up to it.
So how are you a revolutionary then :P
[/quote]
I want to replace the current social order, which is based nepotism and cronyism, with one where people are rewarded for using their talents whilst not being held back arbitrarily for their difficulties. Social meritocracy at its purest.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
But the politicians in charge are like ordinary people; it's not meritocracy.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Like you? ::)
Edit: TCO you read my mind.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Like you? ::)
Edit: TCO you read my mind.
Great minds think alike... :evillaugh:
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
Obviously including myself.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
Obviously including myself.
Given some of the crap you've written on your 'theories' about how the world should be run, I'd say your far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer. We all know that politicians are fuckwits, but even you should know that any -ocracy you repalced the system with would be worse than the one we have. Take the mess socialism made out of Russia, and the mess fascism made out of Germany - neither worked and was doomed to fail from the start. If you want change, either form a party and run for election, or stop whining and do what YOU can to make your life a bit happier. Cos until you wake up, smell the coffee and realise that all your talk on revolution and meritocracies being the way to go, and an end to a nightmare being just a pipedream, then you'll just keep running around in circles, like a headless chook.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
Obviously including myself.
Given some of the crap you've written on your 'theories' about how the world should be run, I'd say your far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer. We all know that politicians are fuckwits, but even you should know that any -ocracy you repalced the system with would be worse than the one we have. Take the mess socialism made out of Russia, and the mess fascism made out of Germany - neither worked and was doomed to fail from the start. If you want change, either form a party and run for election, or stop whining and do what YOU can to make your life a bit happier. Cos until you wake up, smell the coffee and realise that all your talk on revolution and meritocracies being the way to go, and an end to a nightmare being just a pipedream, then you'll just keep running around in circles, like a headless chook.
Don't argue with hardon. He's convinced most of what he says is true.
-
I'd rather have a few idiots with guns than a million idiots with guns
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
Obviously including myself.
Given some of the crap you've written on your 'theories' about how the world should be run, I'd say your far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer. We all know that politicians are fuckwits, but even you should know that any -ocracy you repalced the system with would be worse than the one we have. Take the mess socialism made out of Russia, and the mess fascism made out of Germany - neither worked and was doomed to fail from the start. If you want change, either form a party and run for election, or stop whining and do what YOU can to make your life a bit happier. Cos until you wake up, smell the coffee and realise that all your talk on revolution and meritocracies being the way to go, and an end to a nightmare being just a pipedream, then you'll just keep running around in circles, like a headless chook.
Actually as I pointed out there is a perfectly working society which has partially implemented the system I propose - Singapore. Singapore seems to do better in nearly every measure of national success than the US, but without having anything like the initial resources.
As for your examples - might want to check how Hitler came to being in charge of Germany. Last time I looked, he was elected. Along with many evil and useless governments. If anything liberalism has been the greatest obstacle to development in the 21st century.
-
Singapore :laugh:
We'll have to cane you for that one.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
Obviously including myself.
Given some of the crap you've written on your 'theories' about how the world should be run, I'd say your far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer. We all know that politicians are fuckwits, but even you should know that any -ocracy you repalced the system with would be worse than the one we have. Take the mess socialism made out of Russia, and the mess fascism made out of Germany - neither worked and was doomed to fail from the start. If you want change, either form a party and run for election, or stop whining and do what YOU can to make your life a bit happier. Cos until you wake up, smell the coffee and realise that all your talk on revolution and meritocracies being the way to go, and an end to a nightmare being just a pipedream, then you'll just keep running around in circles, like a headless chook.
Actually as I pointed out there is a perfectly working society which has partially implemented the system I propose - Singapore. Singapore seems to do better in nearly every measure of national success than the US, but without having anything like the initial resources.
As for your examples - might want to check how Hitler came to being in charge of Germany. Last time I looked, he was elected. Along with many evil and useless governments. If anything liberalism has been the greatest obstacle to development in the 21st century.
He may have been elected as chancellor, but it was pretty much a bloodless coup. The previous chancellor (fucked if I remember his name - Hindenburg or some shit) was pretty much forced out of office by the machinations behind the scenes. The Germans pretty much had no choice but to elect the Nazis in 1933, and by Kristalnacht they had definitely begun to regret it. And the fact that Hitler had lost the war as well as killing himself AND the fact that by 1948 Germany was fucked economically spelled the death knell for that shit. I actually KNEW some Germans who had been through it, Hadron, so don't tell me to get MY facts right.
So, tell me - what would it achieve if you had a revolution in the UK that forced a meritocracy on its subjects like you want? Singapore is only a small island which still belongs to the Commonwealth (last time I looked), and their population is nowhere near the size of the UK. How would you guarantee trade and any other dealings with your EU neighbours? Or would you try to invade them and try to take them over viz Hitler in 1939? That would put you back where you started. How many others around you are thinking the same as you, and would want this 'meritocracy' to take place? If it's only your small Uni group, then you are fucked from the start - when was the last time you checked your own armed forces, or police force? Don't forget Kent State Uni in 1970 - and they were UNARMED.
Your best bet is to stop all this fantasizing and get with the real world and worry about what affects you.
-
So when I state that I don't trust the government with my personal information or to run my life you state that I am too stupid to know what is best for me. But when your own data is at stake with those who know best at your Uni it's a different story is it? Hypocrite POS.
That's actually the way politicians here usually "argue": "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with guns", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with drugs", "'Ordinary people' can't be trusted with this and that"...and the outrageous thing is that most people accept this attitude from those arseholes. :thumbdn:
They are right - ordinary people cannot be trusted, including politicians. It should be the bright, clever and imaginative people whom should be in charge. Politicians in most cases are merely ordinary people who have ended up being put into an extraordinary office.
Such as yourself, I take it..... Where's that flying pink elephant when you need it.
Obviously including myself.
Given some of the crap you've written on your 'theories' about how the world should be run, I'd say your far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer. We all know that politicians are fuckwits, but even you should know that any -ocracy you repalced the system with would be worse than the one we have. Take the mess socialism made out of Russia, and the mess fascism made out of Germany - neither worked and was doomed to fail from the start. If you want change, either form a party and run for election, or stop whining and do what YOU can to make your life a bit happier. Cos until you wake up, smell the coffee and realise that all your talk on revolution and meritocracies being the way to go, and an end to a nightmare being just a pipedream, then you'll just keep running around in circles, like a headless chook.
Actually as I pointed out there is a perfectly working society which has partially implemented the system I propose - Singapore. Singapore seems to do better in nearly every measure of national success than the US, but without having anything like the initial resources.
As for your examples - might want to check how Hitler came to being in charge of Germany. Last time I looked, he was elected. Along with many evil and useless governments. If anything liberalism has been the greatest obstacle to development in the 21st century.
He may have been elected as chancellor, but it was pretty much a bloodless coup. The previous chancellor (fucked if I remember his name - Hindenburg or some shit) was pretty much forced out of office by the machinations behind the scenes. The Germans pretty much had no choice but to elect the Nazis in 1933, and by Kristalnacht they had definitely begun to regret it. And the fact that Hitler had lost the war as well as killing himself AND the fact that by 1948 Germany was fucked economically spelled the death knell for that shit. I actually KNEW some Germans who had been through it, Hadron, so don't tell me to get MY facts right.
You miss the point, the system of democracy has not changed, in fact it is ran on the basis of shit going on behind the scenes. So back to my point, Hitler emerged out of a democratic system and more importantly it could easily happen again.
So, tell me - what would it achieve if you had a revolution in the UK that forced a meritocracy on its subjects like you want? Singapore is only a small island which still belongs to the Commonwealth (last time I looked), and their population is nowhere near the size of the UK. How would you guarantee trade and any other dealings with your EU neighbours? Or would you try to invade them and try to take them over viz Hitler in 1939? That would put you back where you started. How many others around you are thinking the same as you, and would want this 'meritocracy' to take place? If it's only your small Uni group, then you are fucked from the start - when was the last time you checked your own armed forces, or police force? Don't forget Kent State Uni in 1970 - and they were UNARMED.
Your best bet is to stop all this fantasizing and get with the real world and worry about what affects you.
Actually, to enforce a social meritocracy, you can do it behind the scenes by taking over significant organisations. Though if your trade problem emerged, I am sure Russia and China would back the new pariah of the world. Along with others. No need to worry at all, no one is going to annex us like Cuba. For one, we are too powerful.
-
Hitler still had a hell of a lot of support after Kristallnacht actually.
Whichever way you look at it - he wouldn't have got anywhere without their backing before 1938
also it wasn't "socialism" that made a mess of russia
-
Singapore :laugh:
We'll have to cane you for that one.
I like their noodle dish, Singapore Noodles. Yum yum. (thankfully we have a good place around here that makes them really good).
-
Singapore :laugh:
We'll have to cane you for that one.
Caning in schools wasn't a bad idea - at least it meant the kids learnt their timestables.
-
I think a lot of aspies particularly would have had a bad time with that
from what I've seen (and it's the same with me too) kids with AS tend to respond better to encouragement rather than just punishment/fear
that's one of the biggest problems I had in school - they drag you down instead of telling you you can do it
if I'd been caned I think that would hvae just has the same effect only on a bigger scale
-
Any teacher trying to cane me would have gotten :boxers:
-
I think a lot of aspies particularly would have had a bad time with that
from what I've seen (and it's the same with me too) kids with AS tend to respond better to encouragement rather than just punishment/fear
that's one of the biggest problems I had in school - they drag you down instead of telling you you can do it
if I'd been caned I think that would hvae just has the same effect only on a bigger scale
I dunno - the generation of Aspies above us seem to be having a lot better time than our generation. I think the one-dimensional learning approach ended up being one that suited us quite a lot. Bear in mind most of my lecturers are probably somewhere on the spectrum, though they hide it well for the most part. The younger generation of academics seems to have a lot less of us in there...