This is what happens when politics go one sided

Flowki said:

It is inherent in human nature that 9 nations could live peacefully ruling themselves while that 10th nation will rise as an aggressor with free reign to enslave the other 9 nations. This isn't my opinion, it's historical fact. It's also backed up by all of nature, aside from our ability to inflict catastrophic out comes on the entire planet.

I believe we need some form of authority in a peaceful nation in order to protect that peaceful nation. Violence is not going away because free will by definition allows it to exist. I do believe as a species we are on a downward spiral to destruction and all that can be changed is the time scale.

Maybe one aggressive force ruling all nations would end all wars but as seen with cultures that have came close to that, other groups rise up to seize power or the dominating group rots from within until total collapse.

Expecting all people to rule their own lives is an ideal world but like the human body, if you remove all the white blood cells bad things have no check. Places still exist in this world where you can go and rule your own life. That does not exempt you from war or the wrath of bad men.

As a direct answer I guess. Aggression and peace define each other and neither will cease to exist although in varying amounts from place to place or time to time. Authority, historically is a big tool in allowing ''successful'' aggression and equally so it is required to ''defend'' your ideal way of life.

If the peaceful authority is lacking that nation is going to be oppressed, economically or physically. If the peaceful authority is stronger it will prevail but in time power corrupts. This is why I think our species is fucked.

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

Give me one single instance in all humanity of a government that has not gradually took dictatorship control and it's people suffered. You talk about the people having power but that's untrue 99% of the time. We have seen civil war or land slide voting in many country's and things go back to economic/forceful dictatorship sooner or later. You can try to be positive and look to the future but the history by fact has it appearing bleak. If a horse has lost 99 races any logical man would bet on it losing it's 100th.

Government corruption into dictatorship followed by civil war of some sort is a constant. The things that change is the general standard of life for those on the lucky side while those who aren't have to face the ever more advancing war machine. It isn't just a physical war, the physiological means of control are everywhere. It is a losing battle, most civilians have to go and work to earn a living, they have so many distractions and manipulations. Governments and corps have people who's job is to literally find ways to control you. They spend much time doing it and are far more equipped to control you than you are to avoid it.

Reality of government > your idea of government.

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

He does claim to be left but in this country that is as good as saying ''I'm not racist'' because that is what the right is falsely boxed up as these days. His morals and actions show a true balanced stance. To have that stance makes this man a hero considering where he was raised and how he has been treat, could easily have went culturally extremist.

Any thriving country needs elements of true left and elements of true right socially and economically in order to productively function long term, regardless of being a true dictatorship or democracy. What this mans life and country events describe is a blatant cultural shift to a far left mine field of ''not offending minority's'' for what I can only assume is intentional or opportunist political gain/preservation. If it shifts hard enough as it did the economy also suffers. However leaving the EU for example was a much needed right swing back toward central. The free movement of people may be the hippy love thing to do but it does not help a country's economy or social structure thus will suffer long term.

The left elements to this is that yes, mixed religious or minority's are more than welcome in a regulated fashion. The right side is that no, you can not disrespect the country's laws/traditions or else get the fuck out, now. We have swept the right under the carpet and many people have died or had life long trauma as a result. Ignore the right and the left gets even more left, the old left becomes the new right and is not strong enough to keep the new left in check. The same happens if you go right and forget the left.. economic dictatorship. We have that in bundles too.

The ideology of what true left and right is gone, although I personally have no anchored political stance because life is not that static and the scale keeps changing as a political play. The bench mark for true left and true right is as simple as this. Left is about helping the weak while right is about helping the strong BUT you need both dynamically. Anything more left or more right of that will create imbalance. ''lets tax all big corps by 40% and give it too the poor''.. extreme left, big business leaves, we earn less or pay more. ''Let's destroy free health care while people have little alternative'' .. extreme right, people die or live in pain.

Politicians (not all) are payed by crooked cleaver people. For example a far left move to ''open the borders'' is easily an agenda that can be capitalized on by far right for cheap foreign labor and short term income gains. It may even be the seed agenda of the far right but planted as a ''left'' move to ''save the world''. Unfortunately a good balanced party who dynamically addresses situations does not exist (at-least with a shot at winning). People are voting for the same left or right politics time and time again and our solutions to problems always wind up being left or right in nature (with lasting effects set in by law). Because of that we have to wait for situations like hundreds of children being raped or people dying in their own homes from hypothermia before anything gets done.. and it gets done very slowly.

Not sure if I had a over all point to make here, maybe just a rant. Well, maybe a decent true middle party will eventually come from all this extremity.. I could anchor to that.

Click to expand...

PCXV said:

I wonder how stupid and destitute your kids would be without public education.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

I wonder why you support ideas which require a threat in order to be funded ?

If I thought I had a good idea and you didn't want to participate in it or fund it, do I have a right to make you pay me anyway?

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

It is inherent in human nature that 9 nations could live peacefully ruling themselves while that 10th nation will rise as an aggressor with free reign to enslave the other 9 nations. This isn't my opinion, it's historical fact. It's also backed up by all of nature, aside from our ability to inflict catastrophic out comes on the entire planet.

I believe we need some form of authority in a peaceful nation in order to protect that peaceful nation. Violence is not going away because free will by definition allows it to exist. I do believe as a species we are on a downward spiral to destruction and all that can be changed is the time scale.

Maybe one aggressive force ruling all nations would end all wars but as seen with cultures that have came close to that, other groups rise up to seize power or the dominating group rots from within until total collapse.

Expecting all people to rule their own lives is an ideal world but like the human body, if you remove all the white blood cells bad things have no check. Places still exist in this world where you can go and rule your own life. That does not exempt you from war or the wrath of bad men.

As a direct answer I guess. Aggression and peace define each other and neither will cease to exist although in varying amounts from place to place or time to time. Authority, historically is a big tool in allowing ''successful'' aggression and equally so it is required to ''defend'' your ideal way of life.

If the peaceful authority is lacking that nation is going to be oppressed, economically or physically. If the peaceful authority is stronger it will prevail but in time power corrupts. This is why I think our species is fucked. Our ability to use science is the biggest question for me. Would you say it's saved more than it's killed?.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

you voluntarily agreed to pay property taxes and sent your kids to public schools. take some responsibility for your own choices in life, you food stamp mooch

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

So, basically you are in agreement that individual people should have the authority to use defensive force to defend themselves, but no individuals have the right to use offensive force and if they do they are the "wrong kind of authority" ?


Science? A broad topic, which requires definition of the parameters before I can answer your question.

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

If people need a government to tell them they have the ''right'' to attempt self defense.. then they are fucking idiots. It's an instinct.

I'd argue about the pretense of rights and context of offensive force. As we have come to understand it the use of aggressive force is wrong, but by who's measure?, certainly not by any of the laws of nature. We are a species that has a lot of brain power, the battle was of academics who made up ''rights'' in order to have a chance in a world that was otherwise governed by ''physicality''. Not that having a chance academically is a bad thing, nor was physicality all about rape and murder. Your rights only exist for as long as those with physical power over you abide by the ''rules'' and aside from that rights is like money, a lot of it at that top, not so much at the bottom. Giving people a false sense of rights makes them think they are safe and in turn drop the ability to truly defend themselves. As they also abide by the rules in order to validate the falsity of rights they offer no real opposition and are easy to rule by more powerful people in either sense. ''Rights'' you could say are a control mechanism that allowed smart academics to manipulate their way to the top, control armies thus control populations. They are more dangerous as they have the brains to manipulate those with aggressive natures in the most damaging way, such as blitzkrieg, napalm, nukes, etc. A manipulation method, patriotism.

Good people with physical ability don't use force at all these days, that's partly why some evil academic people have an easy time. ''Offensive force'' is often deliberately mislabeled by academics. What that force is, should you contemplate miss used academia as an attack, is defense against that attack through physical force. Our society's now are heavily governed by academic rules and rights to the point that any physical attack on a person that is academically doing you wrong is against the law. Flip that around, it's like somebody wanting to beat you but you are not allowed to talk and calm the situation as it's against the attackers ''rights''.. you just have to accept you can't fight back and take the beating in silence.

I don't suggest a world governed by one or the other is better, the strong or the smart have shown to fuck things up all the same.

By science I mean has it saved more than it has destroyed. Penicillin has saved countless lives but pollution is taking countless lives. Cave men were susceptible to nature but only possessed sticks and stones to kill each other with.

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

If people need a government to tell them they have the ''right'' to attempt self defense.. then they are fucking idiots. It's an instinct.

I'd argue about the pretense of rights and context of offensive force. As we have come to understand it the use of aggressive force is wrong, but by who's measure?, certainly not by any of the laws of nature. We are a species that has a lot of brain power, the battle was of academics who made up ''rights'' in order to have a chance in a world that was otherwise governed by ''physicality''. Not that having a chance academically is a bad thing, nor was physicality all about rape and murder. Your rights only exist for as long as those with physical power over you abide by the ''rules'' and aside from that rights is like money, a lot of it at that top, not so much at the bottom. Giving people a false sense of rights makes them think they are safe and in turn drop the ability to truly defend themselves. As they also abide by the rules in order to validate the falsity of rights they offer no real opposition and are easy to rule by more powerful people in either sense. ''Rights'' you could say are a control mechanism that allowed smart academics to manipulate their way to the top, control armies thus control populations. They are more dangerous as they have the brains to manipulate those with aggressive natures in the most damaging way, such as blitzkrieg, napalm, nukes, etc. A manipulation method, patriotism.

Good people with physical ability don't use force at all these days, that's partly why some evil academic people have an easy time. ''Offensive force'' is often deliberately mislabeled by academics. What that force is, should you contemplate miss used academia as an attack, is defense against that attack through physical force. Our society's now are heavily governed by academic rules and rights to the point that any physical attack on a person that is academically doing you wrong is against the law. Flip that around, it's like somebody wanting to beat you but you are not allowed to talk and calm the situation as it's against the attackers ''rights''.. you just have to accept you can't fight back and take the beating in silence.

I don't suggest a world governed by one or the other is better, the strong or the smart have shown to fuck things up all the same.

By science I mean has it saved more than it has destroyed. Penicillin has saved countless lives but pollution is taking countless lives. Cave men were susceptible to nature but only possessed sticks and stones to kill each other with.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

I think if I don't like something done to me, then I probably shouldn't do it to other people. In nature, animals generally do not adhere to that. What makes us human (I hope) is the ability to distinguish, discuss and alter our behavior in regards to how we treat and respect other humans.

Thank you for clarifying your science question. I think the jury is still out, but what concerns me is when / if people act like beasts and misuse science the question could be answered as well as maybe become moot in one incident of science.... for instance...

What I hope someday

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

Treat people how you expect to be treated only works if everyone is a decent person, it's impossible, how people ''think the world should be'' over how it factually is will continue irreversibly by natures rule. Science could remove elements of free will and aggression but you no longer have peace and happiness because they have no opposite to define them. Maybe that definition can be computer simulated but human nature in such a controllable state would be a dream come true for evil men.

Science is all that makes us human, take away that and we are shitting in the grass like everything else. You can make good of science billions of times, as your photo depicts it only takes one bad act to undo so much. We don't know what future destruction science will invent but historically the level always increased. We seemed to delve from the physical of throwing stones into the periodic table and then deeper into quantum physics. That scientists are getting a better understanding of the smallest building blocks is pretty scary. It's like messing with plankton in the food chain.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Specifically, who are you talking about? Who deliberately mislabeled "Offensive Force"? What did they say? Which academics "made up rights" and what did they say?

Why is it bad that people are no longer legally able to attack those who say things they disagree with? For fucks sake, are you saying you want us to return to trial by combat and dueling for a perceived insult?

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

You may have mistaken me for a pacifist, I'm not. I think we should begin our interactions by treating people the way we'd like to be treated, meaning most people like the ability to determine their OWN lives, so respecting that is key.
It's the most compassionate way I know of to be and logically is the path to our own freedom.

That doesn't mean I'm blind to the idea that some people like to determine their own lives AND determine your life for you whether you want them to or not. Those people should be ignored if you can, made to pay restitution and dealt with using defensive force if necessary. It's a justice based philosophy.

Science? My photo? I was going bra less in that photo. Nice rack eh? No science or silicone in those furry mammaries, they're real. What's wrong with shitting in the grass?

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

If people need a government to tell them they have the ''right'' to attempt self defense.. then they are fucking idiots. It's an instinct.

I'd argue about the pretense of rights and context of offensive force. As we have come to understand it the use of aggressive force is wrong, but by who's measure?, certainly not by any of the laws of nature. We are a species that has a lot of brain power, the battle was of academics who made up ''rights'' in order to have a chance in a world that was otherwise governed by ''physicality''. Not that having a chance academically is a bad thing, nor was physicality all about rape and murder. Your rights only exist for as long as those with physical power over you abide by the ''rules'' and aside from that rights is like money, a lot of it at that top, not so much at the bottom. Giving people a false sense of rights makes them think they are safe and in turn drop the ability to truly defend themselves. As they also abide by the rules in order to validate the falsity of rights they offer no real opposition and are easy to rule by more powerful people in either sense. ''Rights'' you could say are a control mechanism that allowed smart academics to manipulate their way to the top, control armies thus control populations. They are more dangerous as they have the brains to manipulate those with aggressive natures in the most damaging way, such as blitzkrieg, napalm, nukes, etc. A manipulation method, patriotism.

Good people with physical ability don't use force at all these days, that's partly why some evil academic people have an easy time. ''Offensive force'' is often deliberately mislabeled by academics. What that force is, should you contemplate miss used academia as an attack, is defense against that attack through physical force. Our society's now are heavily governed by academic rules and rights to the point that any physical attack on a person that is academically doing you wrong is against the law. Flip that around, it's like somebody wanting to beat you but you are not allowed to talk and calm the situation as it's against the attackers ''rights''.. you just have to accept you can't fight back and take the beating in silence.

I don't suggest a world governed by one or the other is better, the strong or the smart have shown to fuck things up all the same.

By science I mean has it saved more than it has destroyed. Penicillin has saved countless lives but pollution is taking countless lives. Cave men were susceptible to nature but only possessed sticks and stones to kill each other with.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

What's a 'good people'?

Isn't one man's freedom fighter another man's terrorist?

Gotta leave the absolutist thinking behind. It gets you in trouble with reality.

Click to expand...

Flowki said:

Do you have the capacity to understand what good really is?. In nature an animal or insect will take or do what it needs to survive, yes, sometimes including killing things that are a threat to it's own survival. Sometimes you get a mad dog, sometimes you get a mad human, that's life. In a man made society most of us don't directly kill, but we do very often take way more than we need to survive, indirectly killing many more people by resource hogging or terrible practices. ''Good'' by the most simplistic definition is taking what you need to survive and doing only what is necessary to achieve it. How far away from that are most of us in today's society? (myself included). No religion can be proved so none of it's commands or requests hold any weight.. and the fact that all religions are seriously out dated show them for what they are. The laws of nature hold plenty of weight because they are consistently relevant no matter how much human civilization changes. In-fact the more humans change the more evident the laws of nature become, or the consequence of breaking them. We don't want to learn anything from nature because it kills profits and makes our lazy ass lives harder.

You want to speak about reality.. as if we have all not been born into this alternate system. A species born to run spends most of it's time sitting on it's big fat ass watching trash tv.. but no man made laws are being broken so ''good person''.

I don't know what you imply by absolutist.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

What does all this mean?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

What does all this mean?

Click to expand...