So you engage in discussion claiming that my point is somehow invalid (in fact it's the opposite of what's really going on), but you can't really get into why that is?

Hehe, yes.

I don't think of peace as the ultimate goal (even if it is a noble one) and so I personally don't think it's worth sacrificing just about anything to achieve it. I would rather live in a nation that maximized the long term quality of life for me and my descendents rather than one that assured our peace. Work to achieve one of those goals often benefits the other, but not always.

i figured as much from your other post... i was hoping you might get a bit more specific?

i'm not baiting you for a debate. i have no intention on changing your mind. i'm just curious what specifically you believe. i know a lot of people who believe in the illuminati... i probably know more people that do than that don't. and i don't even necessarily disbelieve in the illuminati. it's when you get into the specifics that i part ways with a lot of people who talk about it.

for ex.. i believe the US and probably parts of europe(though i'm less familiar) seems to be trending towards a police/security state. actually i think that's almost a mainstream idea at this point.

i don't, on the other hand, think fema camps are intended for mass extermination or something like that.

but i am curious what you think.

sounds like you are talking about a new world order, my friend

it's funny because HG wells suggested more or less the same thing with his movie "things to come"

i'm mostly skeptical about the logistics of pulling that off without creating a hellish china-like police state where the new war is the party vs subversion rather than nation A vs nation B.

but i do think there is some merit in authoritarian rule that people fail to recognize, due to their ideological dedication to democracy. but of course i've been over this many times

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...mvhdzx4lqy.jpg

I'm sorry, but this is starting to sound like church talk.

why wouldn't she be serious?

The point is beginning to get a little lost or subsumed in other conversations, which is fine, but my contention is still this: right back as far as human history has been recorded there has never, to my knowledge, been any era or even time when a "Golden Age" existed, ie all men lived in peace and there were no wars or hostilities, even if not physically expressed. Unless you believe in the Garden of Eden, that is. Even when not engaging in war, we've been eyeing our neighbours suspiciously, either worried what they're up to or gauging their strength in case we have to take them on.

Man is, and pretty much always has been, in a state of readiness for war, which is why it's so easy for our leaders to push us over the edge into conflict. Cries like "USA! USA! USA", "Kill those English bastards!" or even "Vive la revolution!" all mirror a constant keyed-up state Man remains in, like a coiled spring or a rattlesnake just waiting to be poked. Let's be honest here: it doesn't take all that much to convince us war is the way, and strength of arms is usually seen as the best way to win our arguments and get out of our dilemmas. Sure, nobody WANTS to go to war, and negotiation, sanctions etc are tried first, but really this is more because of the way governments know they will be viewed if they just wade in. I suppose in this way you could say Putin, though a grade A scumbag, is the most honest leader in the world, or at least what we think of as the superpowers, as he just went in and took what he wanted, and **** everyone else. He had the muscle to do so, the economic power to shrug off sanctions and respond to them with ones of his own, and his allies he knew would prevent any major action against him, to say nothing of the spectre of MAD hovering once again over the world.

Even if there ever was a "Golden Age", it was a long, long, long time ago and on the evidence of our recent (say, the last few thousand years) behaviour and attitudes, it seems unlikely in the extreme we would ever get back to that.

I suppose if, in the future, we ever evolve beyond the physical, become beings of pure mind (totally mental!) :D then we might not care about such trivialities as land, possessions, honour and religion, and wars as such might not happen. Or we could develop new powers and kick the **** out of each other with mentally controlled mind rays!

I suppose if, in the future, we ever evolve beyond the physical, become beings of pure mind (totally mental!) :D then we might not care about such trivialities as land, possessions, honour and religion, and wars as such might not happen. Or we could develop new powers and kick the **** out of each other with mentally controlled mind rays![/QUOTE]


I believe the first evolution to which you're referring is called "death."

The second would not even be an evolution at all, but a cataclysmic event of some sort.

I guess I could always sit here and pick gnat **** out of pepper, for arguments sake, but I'm short on time so suffice it to say that I agree, at least, with your overall premise that humans are HARDWIRED for conflict by virtue of being HARDWIRED for survival (sorry my autocorrect keep capitalizing that word FSM???) I'm going to reference my earlier point that "progress" is more or less an illusion created by the modern engineers of mass psychology...

Case in point...

Someone mentioned the feminist movement being a catalyst for the end of mysogyny in this country (well, at least socially-accepted institutionalized mysogyny)... But has the average quality of life REALLY imroved for the modern woman? Do we really have "more choices" or are they just DIFFERENT choices than we used to have? Men no longer oppress us in the classical sense, sure, but as a woman, I argue that we merely traded one bully for another: the mysogynist in exchange for the micromanaging, shrieking fem-nazi.

Real feminisim hasn't happened yet.
Come at me.

Bolded in Red: Not sure what you're referring to there, Chelsea: I only mentioned one evolution, unless you include my lobotomising thing, but that would not be an evolution. The one I spoke of (beings of pure mind) is of course not death. Death is not evolution. I'm talking about hundreds, thousands of years from now, when we, Star Trek-like, abandon our physical bodies and live as beings of pure energy, the relevant word being "live".

Bolded in Green: As for a cataclysmic event, unless you're taking seriously my "shooting each other with mind lasers", I honestly don't understand what you're referencing here...

Hmm .. I've not seen Things to Come. I might check it out.

Making such a huge state run sustainably, efficiently and with minimum conflict does seem like a stretch, but perhaps it could be done by superb management and the aid of future technology.

I also think there are various merits to authoritan rule (even if I'd generally prefer to live in a democracy), but I guess that's for another topic.


It's not about the quality of life for women, although I assume that has generally improved. It's about the worth of human beings and not being lesser for simply being a woman. It's about equal rights, freedoms and opportunities - to get education, to get jobs, to be equally protected by the law. If you're implying that western world women are in no way better off than they were, I'd say that shows a lack of insight.