5th May 2003, 7:05 PM
Quotes jumbled. Late. Sorry. ABF and Nintendarse. Alternating. Somehow. I think. *sleeps*
Oh fer God's sakes, no. Look, I really appreciate how you'd enjoy yet another layer of bureaucracy to steal your money and tell you how to live, but nut-uh, not gonna happen, not in my lifetime.
With all due respect, that is an idiotic statement. How did "it" come back to haunt Rome? All peoples the Romans conquered were submitted and assimilated, might did indeed make right for them. In fact, they were defeated by those against whom they failed to use might and instead tried to be buddy-buddy with: Germans and Sassanid Persians. The British Empire was dismembered with the greatest caution because the people who ran it understood that it was not the right way, and Britain still has amicable relations with most of its former possessions. I do not recall anything blowing up in the face of the British, perhaps you could enlighten me. The French did face the Algerian crisis, but one case hardly makes a majority, and doesn't make up very good evidence for you to say you "WILL be next".
I think I'll agree to say precisely the contrary that you did, my good man. The French have no business being proud of French accomplishments unless they took part in them firsthand.
On the contrary, Napoleon was a great man, sir. France has had many great leaders throughout the ages, and Napoleon Buonaparte was perhaps the greatest. He was a man not afraid to take to arms and fight an enemy often much more powerful than himself, for both his own glory and the institution of better government for mankind; two entirely valid and just purposes. It is outright insulting to the human mind to claim that Napoleon had no "right" to impose his code of laws on a decayed society based on exploitation of the largest part of the population. When men are scared, when men don't know any better, when men rot in that kind of social state, it is up to the better ones among them to make a stand and lead them against those who oppress them. I would like to add that in Quebec, Napoleonic Code is still law.
I think it doesn't. You're not even examining the ideas at hand here, you're just assuming no idea is superior. According to you, the human race has made no progress whatsoever in its mode of government over the past HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of YEARS *clears throat*. Dude, if you want us to go live in caves and pick the lice out of each other's hair, just say it.
Some ideas are superior. Some societies are unfortunate enough to not have said ideas. Take the lead, and show them.
This isn't justifying people like Hitler and whatever other evil beings you listed in there, but it's not because those people tried to impose their will on others. It's because their ideas were clearly inferior, and even more clear after mankind experimented with them and demonstrated their inferiority.
And this would be correct and right, if it weren't an outright lie. If fascist dictators really would get things done, and not allow or cause atrocities to occur, and allow freedom also (I kinda value that personally), would Fascism not be superior to all other forms of government? I believe it would, but that statement is a lie, thus it isn't.
I will also add that the United States of America, if you consider them an empire, are unlike any other empire that ever existed. The Romans, the Chinese, none even neared the amount of influence the USA has on the planet. There may be *one* that comes close... that is, it comes close if you agree to remove three and a half continents from the face of the Earth, and that is the empire of the Great Khan, who styled himself Conqueror of the Universe. He barely came close to the amount of influence and power America has, and remained united for perhaps a century. The United States will be here much longer than that.
Quote:There needs to be some international force stronger than the UN that has no national ties, makes legislature, enforces international law, and acts in the best interest of humanity.
Oh fer God's sakes, no. Look, I really appreciate how you'd enjoy yet another layer of bureaucracy to steal your money and tell you how to live, but nut-uh, not gonna happen, not in my lifetime.
Quote:Exactly as I said.... but worded better. Sure, it won't hurt in the short term... but might doesn't make right and in the long term it'll come back to haunt you... it did for Rome, France, Britain... we WILL be next if we continue to act without caring about what anyone else thinks. Not for a long time... but it'll happen.
With all due respect, that is an idiotic statement. How did "it" come back to haunt Rome? All peoples the Romans conquered were submitted and assimilated, might did indeed make right for them. In fact, they were defeated by those against whom they failed to use might and instead tried to be buddy-buddy with: Germans and Sassanid Persians. The British Empire was dismembered with the greatest caution because the people who ran it understood that it was not the right way, and Britain still has amicable relations with most of its former possessions. I do not recall anything blowing up in the face of the British, perhaps you could enlighten me. The French did face the Algerian crisis, but one case hardly makes a majority, and doesn't make up very good evidence for you to say you "WILL be next".
Quote:I think it's okay for the French to be proud of French accomplishments, but I think we can agree that France crossed the line when it forced other countries to conform to the Napoleonic model.
I think I'll agree to say precisely the contrary that you did, my good man. The French have no business being proud of French accomplishments unless they took part in them firsthand.
On the contrary, Napoleon was a great man, sir. France has had many great leaders throughout the ages, and Napoleon Buonaparte was perhaps the greatest. He was a man not afraid to take to arms and fight an enemy often much more powerful than himself, for both his own glory and the institution of better government for mankind; two entirely valid and just purposes. It is outright insulting to the human mind to claim that Napoleon had no "right" to impose his code of laws on a decayed society based on exploitation of the largest part of the population. When men are scared, when men don't know any better, when men rot in that kind of social state, it is up to the better ones among them to make a stand and lead them against those who oppress them. I would like to add that in Quebec, Napoleonic Code is still law.
Quote:My point is that saying "we" are superior to "them" usually leads to bad foreign policy. Because when we (humans) act on this assumption, we assume silly things like, "Their opinions aren't worth as much as ours!" or "Their way of doing things is backward!" or "We should take advantage of them because we can!" or, the worst of all, "Their lives are insignificant!"
And the only way we can assume that "we" are superior to "them" is through narcissism. Because, if you think about it, you had the equal chance of being born into "we" or "them." And you had no control in the matter. So the person you think you are superior to could have easily been yourself. And how would you like it if "they" thought "they" were superior to "us"? Is that something you would feel is justified? I try not to assume that I'm superior to anything. It's an extension of the "Golden Rule," and I think it makes sense.
I think it doesn't. You're not even examining the ideas at hand here, you're just assuming no idea is superior. According to you, the human race has made no progress whatsoever in its mode of government over the past HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of YEARS *clears throat*. Dude, if you want us to go live in caves and pick the lice out of each other's hair, just say it.
Some ideas are superior. Some societies are unfortunate enough to not have said ideas. Take the lead, and show them.
This isn't justifying people like Hitler and whatever other evil beings you listed in there, but it's not because those people tried to impose their will on others. It's because their ideas were clearly inferior, and even more clear after mankind experimented with them and demonstrated their inferiority.
Quote:"Fascism is superior to all other forms of government. While Democracies bicker and weakly allow atrocities to occur, fascist dictators get things done. Judging by the current course of things, Democracy is on its last legs."
And this would be correct and right, if it weren't an outright lie. If fascist dictators really would get things done, and not allow or cause atrocities to occur, and allow freedom also (I kinda value that personally), would Fascism not be superior to all other forms of government? I believe it would, but that statement is a lie, thus it isn't.
I will also add that the United States of America, if you consider them an empire, are unlike any other empire that ever existed. The Romans, the Chinese, none even neared the amount of influence the USA has on the planet. There may be *one* that comes close... that is, it comes close if you agree to remove three and a half continents from the face of the Earth, and that is the empire of the Great Khan, who styled himself Conqueror of the Universe. He barely came close to the amount of influence and power America has, and remained united for perhaps a century. The United States will be here much longer than that.