Amusing ourselves to death

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Hey guys!

I wanted to bring up for discussion a trend in society that I see often. This disturbs me greatly. I just can't hold it in any longer.

I don't know about the condition of Europe, but in the States this has nearly become the norm, so it would seem.

But first I will sum it up with a few quotes:

"The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute talk with the average voter."

"Any society that would sacrifice a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"Under a democratic government, the citizens exercise the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused, and then afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy multitude."

This last one hit it on the head for me. It's from Edward Gibbon.

It seems to be saying that this sovereign power of the citizenry will turn law into a mere reflection of the mood of the day; that policy is based on the fad of the moment.

And truly it seems that this is what politics has become. It is the reflection of the whims of the moment. It seems to me that most of today's politics is centered on buzzwords.

Today, everybody's worried about "greenhouse gas emissions." What about tomorrow, when everyone's bored of "global warming?" What happens when they get tired of seeing that in the news?

Suddenly global warming won't be a problem. What fad will we move on to next?

To cite a few examples:

I am disturbed when I see the President's popularity polls. Have you noticed that his policies are losing popularity, but his personal approval rating is as high as ever? People don't like his politics, but they still love him anyway?

I am disturbed when a politician's smile and demeanor is of greater moment than his politics.

It is an insulting commentary on our nation that anyone would vote based on color, one way or the other.

People who refuse to vote for a black man are disgusting bigots, and people who vote for a black man because he's black (or a woman because she's a woman etc) are foolish and shallow.

Experience? Bah! Who needs experience as long as you look good and talk pretty? When did past performance indicate anything about future performance?

Now that I've said som things that may be considered anti-Obama, I will say some other things.

I also think that it's an insulting commentary on the general public on how they have behaved in politics these days.

When Bush won by a narrow margin, people cried "foul!" and drove around with bumper stickers reading, "Not MY President!"

But now that Obama won, I see bitter Republicans running around making waves about how Obama isn't a citizen blah blah blah. Come on, people! GROW UP! This isn't the 5th grade, arguing about who gets which sandbox toys!

The man is elected. LIVE WITH IT. You don't have to like it, but I think that he at LEAST deserves respect as the President of the United States of America. If WE don't respect him, why should any other nation respect him? And if nobody respects him, they certainly won't respect the United States itself! So we'll act like children because we feel slighted that someone disagrees with us?

Rush Limbaugh. The guy WANTS our President (that's right, OUR President) to FAIL?!?!? Ummm, if he fails, I think it logically follows that the nation fails by and large...

The man actually compared it to a FOOTBALL GAME!!! Are we so stupid, so shallow, so careless, so irresponsible that we think of our nation as a big football game???

HAS ENTERTAINMENT SO BECOME OUR GOD THAT WE UNCONSCOUSLY THINK OF POLITICS IN TERMS OF GAMES AND AMUSEMENT???

OUR SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE IS NOW THE LATEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE. "Well, it happened on "x" show, so it must be right, right?"

OUR WISE MEN AND PHILOSOPHERS ARE OUR ACTORS AND MUSICIANS.

Now, I'm not saying that we should be bobbleheads and always agree with everything our great leader says (I don't agree with the majority of it myself), but honestly.

Lawsuits. It's the American way.

We have taken "personal liberty" so far. If someone looks at you wrong, it's a "hate crime."

It seems that these days, freedom means that if someone does something you don't like, you throw a fit about it.

Ok, I can understand the American Revolution of 1776. That has some legitimate cause.

But now we riot, strike, sue, you-name-it over anything that dares displease us. We really are a bunch of little kids in big bodies.

I am upset that, while killing babies is fine with us, that we stand aghast when our neigbor throws away his pop cans instead of recycling them. "You're destroying our environment!!!"

Well, if society keeps going on this track, I don't think we need to worry about the earth melting in another million years.

Have you noticed how many concience salves we have today? Who cares if you drink yourself to death, ruin your marriage, ignore your kids, and sit at home collecting wellfare when you could just as easily work? At least you use paper, not plastic. Oooooh, or maybe YOU use cloth! Wow.

Also, the recent Bernie Madoff case sheds some light on our judicial system.

You could have guaranteed that he would get the full 170 year sentence before it was pronounced on him. Why? Because it was an emotional case. What he did makes people angry.

Another concience salve, by the way. At least I'm not like him. People feel so righteous when they scoff at murderers and embezzlers.

Madoff was booed when he entered the courtroom, and the audience cheered when he recieved his sentence.

The whole case was like a spectator sport! You knew that Madoff would get the full sentence because people felt sorry for his victims and upset by the story.

Yes, I think that Madoff's actions were aweful. But you can see quite plainly that the court's ruling had more to do with the feeling of the audience than the letter of the law.

You didn't need to know the technicalities of the law to know that Madoff would get 170 years. Needless to say, it would have been a life term even if he'd only gotten the 12 years. He's an old guy. But it made people happy that he got 170 years; it made them feel just, and made them feel like they were upholding the rights of the underdog.

I can go murder a fat white guy, and I would get in trouble, sure.

But a LOT of a LOT of a LOT of murderers have gotten off with WAY less than Madoff is getting.

"Well, what's one life compared to millions of dollars?"

Is this really our attitude today?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Uhm, yeah. Welcome to the golden age of the 21st century. Sucks don't it?

There's no cure but to keep trying our best until it all crashes and burns, at which point people might get the point.

Personally I think the biggest sign recently is the fact that CNN won't talk about anything other than Michael freaking Jackson. Nothing else. Not Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Honduras, not Congress, not crap. Just Michael Jackson.

:wall:

Amazing, isn't it? Or how we sent ACTORS as delegates to Iran? :inquisitive: Oh, how they must be laughing. :wall:

Yeah, Michael Jackson or important world events?

Ummmm... MICHAEL JACKSON!!! :idea2:

Priorities? What are priorities? BAH! We will just go with whatever will get a bigger reaction.

I hardly mean to mock the grave, but really I think we should go on with life...

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that the title of this thread is a book you should read. ~;)

[Andres]

So, this thread is to complain about the horrible modern Western societies we live in?

Let's see. I am not hungry. Nor thirsty. I have a fridge and a cellar with plenty of food, for more than 3 weeks. I have a roof above my head. I need to work 40 hours a week; overtime is well paid. I have savings, I have central heating that keeps me warm during Winter; I don't know which DVD to watch first, which book to read first or which game to play first. My cellar is filled with good wine and excellent beer. I have a car. I can go on holiday two or three times a year.

Ehm, what were we complaining about again?

[LittleGrizzly]

Ehm, what were we complaining about again?

People getting apathetic to politics because thier distracted by thier nice shiny possessions and the fact that a winning smile combined with a load of charisma will get you further than good policy will...

[Andres]

Ehm, what were we complaining about again?

People getting apathetic to politics because thier distracted by thier nice shiny possessions and the fact that a winning smile combined with a load of charisma will get you further than good policy will...

Well, what are you waiting for?

Start practicing on your winning smile and charisma :beam:

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So, this thread is to complain about the horrible modern Western societies we live in?

Let's see. I am not hungry. Nor thirsty. I have a fridge and a cellar with plenty of food, for more than 3 weeks. I have a roof above my head. I need to work 40 hours a week; overtime is well paid. I have savings, I have central heating that keeps me warm during Winter; I don't know which DVD to watch first, which book to read first or which game to play first. My cellar is filled with good wine and excellent beer. I have a car. I can go on holiday two or three times a year.

Ehm, what were we complaining about again?

An interesting point; but this I think is part of the problem.

No offence to you, Andres, but that is a rather complacent viewpoint.

"As long as I have my boat, my truck, and my cabin next to the lake, I don't care what happens with politics."

But that attitude is a perfect way to lose you boat, your truck, and your cabin next to the lake. Or to lose it for your children.

Complacency is part of the problem here.

[Cute Wolf]

Soory for bothering but...

at least, we can tell that democracy is never could be completed and always envolving. Another people demands another thing and yet, not all arguments ended with a mutual respect and good points. And we shouldn't hope that all of these people will get mature, sometimes, immaturity of the people itself shows the wolrd, how good the quality of democracy in itself. It depends on the side of "more mature" people, how to deal with those "immature" people that only knows complaining and complaining...

no, i don't argue against democracy, and in fact, i appreciate them... read the history, there always up and downs with every system available. and after a big down, usually a new refinement will be better, and the overall result is better life quality for common people. Well, all did you have to do for comparison is read the history of some nation, that once embrace democracy, but a group of people then took the government control, and throw that thing away, or put "fake" democracy in place... that nation will become more hoorible after that, no mater what their arguments are...

thik this, and you'll thank God, that you life in a good democratic country... autoritharian one that can put you in jail for almost no reason, and firmly tie you with tons of strict regulation...

Cute Wolf

[Pannonian]

Personally I think the biggest sign recently is the fact that CNN won't talk about anything other than Michael freaking Jackson. Nothing else. Not Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Honduras, not Congress, not crap. Just Michael Jackson.

:wall:
Did you know that Princess Di died recently?

[Viking]

[...]

You do really believe that this is an attribute of our time, rather than of our kind; mankind, that is?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You do really believe that this is an attribute of our time, rather than of our kind; mankind, that is?

Oh, HARDLY! This is certainly part of the human dilemma.

Absolutely; these tendencies have always been in man and in government.

However, I think that as you look at history, you see a cycle.

Thus, we are reaching that part of the cycle where the above issues come up again.

And I think that where you see that part of the cycle, you see that the next part of the cycle involves a measure of disentegration and decay... perhaps even collapse.

Then, as Cute Wolf said, the cycle begins again with a new beginning.

Personally, I think that in each revolution of the cycle, it becomes worse. However, there are a lot of ways to look at it and a lot of historical examples of each.

I guess I would say that it's a two steps forward (getting worse), one step back (getting better). That is partly because of my religious beliefs though. :beam:

In summary, I would cite a quote:

"History is simply man committing the same sins in new and different ways."

[Cute Wolf]

In summary, I would cite a quote:

"History is simply man committing the same sins........"

what kind of sins? :inquisitive:

[Hax]

Greed, gluttony, laziness, apathy, etc

Though apathy is more like a state of mind. They are not sins, necessarily, but something inherent in humanity.. However, by giving the negative connotation "sin" to the word people will feel like they are committing an evil deed. This is also human. I would say mankind is very paradoxal. We have the hardest time trying not to give into "bad" deeds, yet they are tempting.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Erm... probably stuff like murder, piracy, robbery, corruption, war, cheating, ...........

That's what I'm thinkin' he was thinkin'. :idea2:

[Fragony]

Thing is, we have too many politicians and not enough problems.

[Husar]

Complacency is part of the problem here.

Well, Bernie Madoff wasn't complacent, the people who cause the financial crisis weren't complacent, one could say the lack of complacency is a problem in general as well, a lot of thieves, mafia bosses etc. aren't complacent, I'd rather have a population of Andress (plural of Andres) than a population of people who are never complacent and would do anything to further their own goals, whatever it may cost.
I'd even go as far as saying people who illegally download movies and music aren't complacent, many of them only get things illegally because that means they can get more music, more movies AND more of whatever they spend their limited money on instead, could be alcohol, cigarettes, cars, guns or political campaign donations.

The key of course is to find a middle ground where noone gets hurt, but good luck trying to get there, to some extent people have probably tried that since whenever we stopped being complacent monkeys/god created us.

the way i see it, there are both kinds of people and as long as neither side becomes too strong we can have some sort of balance, yin and yang, bananas and apples, marx and gates, something like that.

[Meneldil]

Uhm, yeah. Welcome to the golden age of the 21st century. Sucks don't it?

There's no cure but to keep trying our best until it all crashes and burns, at which point people might get the point.

Personally I think the biggest sign recently is the fact that CNN won't talk about anything other than Michael freaking Jackson. Nothing else. Not Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Honduras, not Congress, not crap. Just Michael Jackson.

:wall:

Don't be sad, the same thing is happening in France.

A typical TV news show goes on like this:
-10 mins of Michael Jackson
-2 mins of random french stuff
-1 min on Iran
-A few seconds on various world event
-2 mins on Sarkozy latest achievement/failure (depending on the channel you're watching)
-5 more mins of Michael Jackson.

That's pretty much it. If the revolution in Iran fails, I'm pretty sure Michael Jackson will have to claim guilty. Not only that, but people were being bored by the events in Iran. They've been told for years that Iranians are extremists nutjobs bent on destroying Israel and the free world, and all of sudden, they discover that there's a large moderate population. Way too intense for the average news-watcher, it wasn't deemed entertaining anymore after 2 weeks.


Ehm, what were we complaining about again?
If you consider that having a full fridge is the final aim to be reached by mankind, then that's kind of disappointing.

[miotas]

When I first read the title of this thread I thought it was about David Carradine...

[Fragony]

Exactly.

The age we live in now, is one where nearly limitless achievments could be accomplished if even a small majority of the population gave enough of a damn. Instead you've got... Michael Jackson's death. Or, "Oh my god, look at the things his father is saying, oh my god he left a will, oh my god look at the funeral procession plans!"

No, "Oh my god, there's a two-front war going on in the middle-east that desperately needs attention." Or "Oh my god, potential badness/goodness in Iran, better keep everyone informed."

I garuntee the last Roman emperor had a full fridge too, so to speak. Right after he filled it up, his empire collapsed.

:wall:

Or you could just go out and have some fun

[LittleGrizzly]

I was talking to my friends about the Neda video, hardly any of them even knew there was a revolution going on let alone had heard of this Iranian woman. Every single one of them without fail know's Jackson is dead though...

In fairness these people are between 18-21 or 22, so it was always going to be a bad group but i can think of one friend who actually knew something about the Iran protests...

[Fragony]

Got quite a lot of friends from iran, things are quiet now. I don't know exactly when she was shot, but count 40 days from her death they are going to raise hell again.

[Husar]

So what then, is the final aim of mankind please?

That we tech ourselves to death either by turning farmers into physics professors or maybe terminator style by inventing out own doom?
Or maybe we should force people to be interested in politics and rocket science for the sake of freedom?
Should we force people to be more successful in life than Bill Gates?
Should we all take up our guns and riot on the streets in support of iran?
How can you riot when you're supposed to invent stuff and try to be successful and reach for the stars all day long anyway? Rioting too much hurts the economy which finances science...

Quite frankly, I don't think the world would work if every single person was an overeager, overzealous person because competition does not only create greatness, it also creates wars, murder and all other sorts of bad things.

That does not mean that I find the huge coverage of Michael Jackson appropriate or not over the top, but these types who run around clamouring for greatness should not try to force everybody to dedicate their lives to greatness, because all people are different and some are not happy when they have to work their :daisy: off every day to achieve some arbitrary, unexplainable and unknown greatness that may or may not lie ahead.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have a fridge and a cellar with plenty of food

My cellar is filled with good wine and excellent beer.If you consider that having a full fridge is the final aim to be reached by mankindWell I can't speak for Andres, but as far as I'm concerned: yes, a full fridge and a beer and wine cellar is the pinnacle of human achievement.

You people worry, me and Andres fill our tummies and exchange some red Bordeaux' for an assortment of Leffe's. :2thumbsup:


There's Probably no Good. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.

I should slam that slogan on a book title, fill it with trueisms about the modern world, sell it to all you atheists with a lingering post-Christian guild complex, and make me a wealthy man. :beam:

[Samurai Waki]

theres always something to gripe about, yes, there are many, many things wrong with our society as a whole. And there always will be, irregardless of whose in charge, and how well everyone is doing. Give them nothing and they complain, give them everything and they want more. :shrug: sorry mate, just the way it is.

[Viking]

There's Probably no Good. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.

Sounds somewhat like a contradiction.

[Caius]

A typical TV news show goes on like this:
-10 mins of Michael Jackson
-2 mins of random french stuff
-1 min on Iran
-A few seconds on various world event
-2 mins on Sarkozy latest achievement/failure (depending on the channel you're watching)
-5 more mins of Michael Jackson.

Wanna feel better? Here would be ours (I dont have a TV, but I know them)
20 minutes on how Swine Flu is spreading. 10 of those are on how the government of the country does nothing. The other 10 are on how the provinces do something, and all complain about how the gov does Nothing.
5 minutes about how the government denies how they lost in the mid term elections.
5 minutes about Michael Jackson.

Talk about something interesting.

[Pannonian]

Wanna feel better? Here would be ours (I dont have a TV, but I know them)
20 minutes on how Swine Flu is spreading. 10 of those are on how the government of the country does nothing. The other 10 are on how the provinces do something, and all complain about how the gov does Nothing.
5 minutes about how the government denies how they lost in the mid term elections.
5 minutes about Michael Jackson.

Talk about something interesting.
When Princess Diana died, the various TV channels notoriously shut down for the day on all subjects but that. Every single channel, every single minute.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, Bernie Madoff wasn't complacent, the people who cause the financial crisis weren't complacent, one could say the lack of complacency is a problem in general as well, a lot of thieves, mafia bosses etc. aren't complacent, I'd rather have a population of Andress (plural of Andres) than a population of people who are never complacent and would do anything to further their own goals, whatever it may cost.
I'd even go as far as saying people who illegally download movies and music aren't complacent, many of them only get things illegally because that means they can get more music, more movies AND more of whatever they spend their limited money on instead, could be alcohol, cigarettes, cars, guns or political campaign donations.

The key of course is to find a middle ground where noone gets hurt, but good luck trying to get there, to some extent people have probably tried that since whenever we stopped being complacent monkeys/god created us.

the way i see it, there are both kinds of people and as long as neither side becomes too strong we can have some sort of balance, yin and yang, bananas and apples, marx and gates, something like that.

Yes, and the problem is that the Madoffs of the world are very active and the rest of us are becoming complacent, thus the Madoffs have an easier way to go.

I'm rather surprised; basically, I keep getting "well, it could be worse so don't worry about it."

Erm, don't we want it to be... better? :inquisitive:


But, uh, this is kind of a vague thread about idealistic generalizations anyway. Not expecting to get much accross.

I confess, it is a vague, idealistic thread. :shame:

The point, though, would be that we are more interested in what Hannah Montanna is wearing to the next galla then who takes office in Iran or whether or not we get nuked by N. Korea. This is bad.

[Andres]

If you consider that having a full fridge is the final aim to be reached by mankind, then that's kind of disappointing.


Exactly.

The age we live in now, is one where nearly limitless achievments could be accomplished if even a small majority of the population gave enough of a damn.

The world would be such a wonderful place if a) everybody would have a full fridge; b) everybody would be happy with just that.

Limitless achievements? If everybody or even just a significant minority always wants more and more and more... then we will never have a peaceful world where everybody is happy. Never. Jamais. Nooit.

Why can't you be happy with a full fridge? Why do you always want more? For what purpose?

Why not enjoying the simple things, like e.g. being at home while it's raining outside, but you're sitting dry, warm and can have a nice dinner with a good beer/wine, because your fridge is filled and you have some bottles in your cellar. Add to that a book to read or a movie to watch after dinner.

Perfect.

Learn to be satisfied and there's no need for "more" or "limitless achievements".





I'd rather have a population of Andress (plural of Andres) than a population of people who are never complacent and would do anything to further their own goals, whatever it may cost.



Or you could just go out and have some fun


Well I can't speak for Andres, but as far as I'm concerned: yes, a full fridge and a beer and wine cellar is the pinnacle of human achievement.

You people worry, me and Andres fill our tummies and exchange some red Bordeaux' for an assortment of Leffe's. :2thumbsup:



They perfectly understand what I'm saying :bow: If only the rest of humanity would follow.

[Caius]

Hannah Montana?

I think you are generalizing too much. I am worried about politics, and a lot of people are. It isa mistake to cgeneralize. We are worried if some are going to get nuked, or if in Honduras the coup declares war.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The world would be such a wonderful place if a) everybody would have a full fridge; b) everybody would be happy with just that.

Limitless achievements? If everybody or even just a large minority always wants more and more and more... then we will never have a peaceful world where everybody is happy. Never. Jamais. Nooit.

Why can't you be happy with a full fridge? Why do you always want more? For what purpose?

Why not enjoying the simple things, like e.g. being at home while it's raining outside, but you're sitting dry, warm and can have a nice dinner with a good beer/wine, because your fridge is filled and you have some bottles in your cellar. Add to that a book to read or a movie to watch after dinner.

Perfect.

Learn to be satisfied and there's no need for "more" or "limitless achievements".








They perfectly understand what I'm saying :bow: If only the rest of humanity would follow.

I could live with that except...

well, I need a house to put around my fridge. And then of course I have to have electricity to run the fridge, and I need a car to run to the store to FILL UP my fridge, and then I want some friends over to enjoy my fridge with me...

And all that takes $$$, which I have to WORK for...

And besides all that, I like to do stuff besides eat and I hafta pay for THAT...

So Andres, I wouldn't disagree with you! Full fridge is nice. But I hafta pay for that stuff, and there are a few movements out there that display tendencies to impair my ability to do so. :sweatdrop:

[Andres]

I could live with that except...

well, I need a house to put around my fridge. And then of course I have to have electricity to run the fridge, and I need a car to run to the store to FILL UP my fridge, and then I want some friends over to enjoy my fridge with me...

And all that takes $$$, which I have to WORK for...

And besides all that, I like to do stuff besides eat and I hafta pay for THAT...

So Andres, I wouldn't disagree with you! Full fridge is nice. But I hafta pay for that stuff, and there are a few movements out there that display tendencies to impair my ability to do so. :sweatdrop:

That's because there are still way too many people out there who want more than just a dry, warm place and a filled fridge.

It's not those that are happy with what they have that need to be conversed here at the rich West; it's those who always want more and are never satisfied.

People who are never satisfied and always want more, bigger, larger,... are the curse of humanity and they will always ruin it for the rest of us, who are just happy with nothing more but a filled fridge and a roof above our heads.

[LittleGrizzly]

Caius maybes it different in South America (Argentina specifically right ?)

I kind of assume as we got wealthier and enjoyed continued periods of stability in the west we have become apathetic to politics... whereas South Americans haven't enjoyed the same wealth and stability so politics is more important to every day people...

Iran riots for example, loads of young people in those riots, in the UK if an election was rigged and i was telling my friends to riot half of them would be wondering why it makes a difference...

"they are all the same anyway"

The motto of the unintrested... the motto of a lot of the west i think...

I'd be happy with a house, my computer, some weed, then whatever food and water i needed to keep me going... I always figured if i can work part time i would do so in no hesitation... material possessions mean little to me... or outside one or two things they mean little to me...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The point, though, would be that we are more interested in what Hannah Montanna is wearing to the next galla then who takes office in Iran or whether or not we get nuked by N. Korea. This is bad.That's stereotyping! Just because I like Hannah Montana does NOT mean I don't know we invaded the Iran! :furious3:

[Meneldil]

Well I can't speak for Andres, but as far as I'm concerned: yes, a full fridge and a beer and wine cellar is the pinnacle of human achievement.

You people worry, me and Andres fill our tummies and exchange some red Bordeaux' for an assortment of Leffe's. :2thumbsup:



I can't believe they got you aswell Louis. You, the french republican, are satisfied by a bottle of wine and some beer. What a shame.
France is supposed to open the path to worldwide enlightenement, to pave the way to universal freedom. It's either that or death.


The world would be such a wonderful place if a) everybody would have a full fridge; b) everybody would be happy with just that.

Limitless achievements? If everybody or even just a large minority always wants more and more and more... then we will never have a peaceful world where everybody is happy. Never. Jamais. Nooit.

Thing is, a lot of people don't have a full fridge. That's part of why I think your statement was disappointing: you have food, so well, everything is fine.
There's a lot of things humanity could improve. First and foremost, obviously, filling everybody's fridge would be a great step forward. But that would be only a beginning.

I personnaly loath stupid people. Call me an arrogant snob, but people who record their cryings because Michael Jackson died or because their favorite soccer team lost turn me mad. People who think they look cool by acting gangsta and speaking in a weird way make me sad. People who keep complaining about everything but refuse to do anything valuable because 'everything sucks' (ie. 'I don't understand and can't be bothered to try') are my bane.
I, for one, would never be happy in a society composed entirely of that kind of people. I'd rather commit suicide than sit down and admit 'oh well, that's fine, everybody has food afterall'.

During the 18th, some thinkers got the weird idea that you could educate people and turn them into decent citizens. I might be old-fashioned, but I think this is a great goal. I'm not asking for everyone to be an expert philosopher, but being an open-minded, enlightened, tolerant and free citizen would seem to be a good start.
Sadly most people prefer to get stuck in their own stupidity and complain whenever something goes wrong, blaming the few people that actually try (with more or less honesty) to do something.

Furthermore, the fact that I think mankind hasn't reached its full potential doesn't prevent from enjoying fine food, fine wine and fine women. One can have pleasure and still be an idealist.

[Caius]

I kind of assume as we got wealthier and enjoyed continued periods of stability in the west we have become apathetic to politics... whereas South Americans haven't enjoyed the same wealth and stability so politics is more important to every day people...
When things go wrong, I assure you that politics are important.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

That's stereotyping! Just because I like Hannah Montana does NOT mean I don't know we invaded the Iran! :furious3:

Sorry; I picked the first one that came to mind. :beam:

I didn't say that Hannah Montanna = clueless.

I think that you see what I do mean though.

We are worrying incessantly about pennies and nickles while we waste dimes and quarters.

For those NOT familiar with US currency, :clown: we are majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors.

[Andres]

I admire your idealism, Meneldil.

I'm not a scientist, but I think we already know how to produce enough food for everybody. But we don't do it.

World hunger hits one billion. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8109698.stm)

How many resources and knowledge are used to give a minority that already has a filled fridge and a roof more than that? How many resources and knowledge are simply not being used, because we can't be bothered?

I'm disappointed in humanity as well, but I think it's hopeless. Many idealists who thought that it isn't, are dead. Many more will die.

:shrug:




There's a lot of things humanity could improve. First and foremost, obviously, filling everybody's fridge would be a great step forward. But that would be only a beginning.

No, we should just stop at that and be satisfied.

I can be happy with a filled fridge, so don't blame me for all problems in the world. It's those who always want more that are to blame.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I can't believe they got you aswell Louis. You, the french republican, are satisfied by a bottle of wine and some beer. What a shame.It was the ancient nemesis of all things French that got the better of me for a moment there: the Fleming and his beer, filled stomach and content peace of mind. :bigcry:


I shall not lapse again.
Allons enfants de la Patrie! Freedom, human rights and enlightenment for the entire world while the last Frenchman still draws breath! March on, to the death! :knight:

[Ariovistus Maximus]

How many resources and knowledge are used to give a minority that already has a filled fridge and a roof more than that? How many resources and knowledge are simply not being used, because we can't be bothered?

OOOOH! Very well said!

See, I think we agree on the basics and simply come to somewhat different conclusions!

:bow:

[Fragony]

Let's agree on the basics, this is a cool fridge.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/Huisjuh011.jpg

[miotas]

[...]but that is a rather complacent viewpoint.
[...]Complacency is part of the problem here.

The thing is, that all the wars and fighting could indeed be solved by complacency. The solution to war is so simple, all it requires is that everybody simply do nothing.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The thing is, that all the wars and fighting could indeed be solved by complacency. The solution to war is so simple, all it requires is that everybody simply do nothing.

Yes, if the right people were complacent. :laugh4:

What if war were declared, and nobody showed?

Yeah. However, since the other side is anything BUT complacent, then we cannot afford to be either.

[Rhyfelwyr]

One's security is another's insecurity I suppose...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

No amount of education will ever prevent the people from being stupid.

The best attitude towards the grievances of the modern world is to shut up, stop worrying and get yourself bread and circuses to death. Enjoy, because the kind of period where every jimmy can have his fridge full does not last much, I would say an optimistic prediction for ours is two centuries before an imminent environmental collapse, bankruptucy or if the overwhelming idiocy of the masses finally leads us to a grievous situation.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

No amount of education will ever prevent the people from being stupid.

The best attitude towards the grievances of the modern world is to shut up, stop worrying and get yourself bread and circuses to death. Enjoy, because the kind of period where every jimmy can have his fridge full does not last much, I would say an optimistic prediction for ours is two centuries before an imminent environmental collapse, bankruptucy or if the overwhelming idiocy of the masses finally leads us to a grievous situation.

The essence of what I'm trying to point out here.

It's VERY obvious in our education system.

We could have the best materials and teachers in the WORLD, but it won't matter a jot if the students don't want to learn.

Best case they'll memorize the bare info to get through class. Summer vacation > out it goes to the mental landfill.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If you consider that having a full fridge is the final aim to be reached by mankind, then that's kind of disappointing.

Once everyone on earth has a full fridge, we can talk about how disappointing it is. Personally I think that will be humanity's greatest achievement in the modern era, about a billion times more important that landing robots on Mars.

edit: nevermind, just got to the post where Andres said basically the same thing. Put me down for that.

[Strike For The South]

Life's to short to worry about the politics. Espacily a life that includes cheap beer and loose women.

[Husar]

I admire your idealism, Meneldil.

I'm not a scientist, but I think we already know how to produce enough food for everybody. But we don't do it.

World hunger hits one billion. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8109698.stm)

How many resources and knowledge are used to give a minority that already has a filled fridge and a roof more than that? How many resources and knowledge are simply not being used, because we can't be bothered?

I'm disappointed in humanity as well, but I think it's hopeless. Many idealists who thought that it isn't, are dead. Many more will die.

:shrug:




No, we should just stop at that and be satisfied.

I can be happy with a filled fridge, so don't blame me for all problems in the world. It's those who always want more that are to blame.

Another good post, as I said, it's people who are not content with what they have who often make the world a better place, so many countries throw perfectly fine food away to keep the market prices stable while people in other parts of the planet die of starvation. Maybe if one could get all that food beyond the market (in this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=WcU4t6zRAKg) sense), then we could keep market prices stable AND feed people.
But I'm sure somebody can find a reason why that wouldn't work so we'll continue keeping the market prices stable and increasing share values while other people just die. :shrug:

[Sheogorath]

The problem is our leaders.

Leaders are supposed to, you know, LEAD. But, here in the US at least, virtually every politician is focused on getting reelected rather than actually doing anything. The people who motivate the masses, who can get people to not be apathetic, don't care. They, as has been mentioned, have full fridges and, therefore, every interest in maintaining the status quo, and a stupid population.

The institutionalized bribery (AKA: Lobbying, special interest groups, etc. (I do realize that not ALL lobbying groups use bribery, some simply give information, which is fine and good.)) which plagues the US government is, in my opinion, the cause.
The grease on the wheels has congealed to the point where the machinery has effectively been jammed and only a serious jolt ever causes any movement.
The problem is, the gears in the machine are the ones who have the power. They certainly aren't going to vote for less grease if they can help it.

My main hope for Obama was his inexperience. Everybody said this was a negative point, but I held out some hope that 'inexperience' meant 'less corrupt'. Sadly, day by day, he seems intent on dashing that hope.

Short of outright revolution, the only way to solve the problems of the government would be sweeping reforms which, I think, Obama could pull off. He has the support of the people, for now at least, but the question is, of course, whether he is a Democrat, or an American. Can he act for the good of the state and the people first, or is he just another Politician?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The problem is our leaders.

Leaders are supposed to, you know, LEAD. But, here in the US at least, virtually every politician is focused on getting reelected rather than actually doing anything. The people who motivate the masses, who can get people to not be apathetic, don't care. They, as has been mentioned, have full fridges and, therefore, every interest in maintaining the status quo, and a stupid population.



PRECISELY!

You know, if George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers had been more interested in their pocketbooks than in the good of their fellow men, the US would have collapsed before it started.

We don't seem to have many Washingtons or Adams' in today's politics.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you believe that saying that the life span of a democracy is about 200 years, then we (The US) are in the death stage right now.

[miotas]

Where did you pull 200 from? The USA has been a democracy for over 230 years, and Britain has been democractic for over 300 years.

[Prodigal]

@OP d00d your first quote was Winston Churchill, and having met some of the apathetic electorate, he has a point.

[Sheogorath]

Where did you pull 200 from? The USA has been a democracy for over 230 years, and Britain has been democractic for over 300 years.

Clearly the system we need to go with is a republic. Venice lasted over 1,000 years.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where did you pull 200 from? The USA has been a democracy for over 230 years, and Britain has been democractic for over 300 years.

It is just a saying I heard. Depends if you think that the US are no longer Democratic due to our government officials no longer doing what the people need but what can get them re-elected. If you think in that sense, then neither can be considered truly Democratic except maybe symbolically. I honestly don't agree with the statement, but I see it thrown around a lot.

[Sheogorath]

I'm not sure what you would really consider the US. We're still a democratic-republic in the sense that we elect officials. I suppose you could say we've become a very corrupt democratic-republic, in that the officials we elect don't do anything, except maybe get rich and get reelected.

And with our apathetic public, 2/3 of the voters just vote for whoever was in office last time, or with party lines. The remaining 1/3 either get cynical and stop bother ('all the politicians are the same, why vote?') or have their votes invalidated by the mass of 'cattle votes'.

Unfortunately I don't think the US can support a revolution, peaceful or otherwise. We don't have the huge under-30 population of Iran.

There is some hope, though. Very few of the young people I talk to, at college at least, are apathetic. Even online, the US citizens I meet are seldom not opinionated. I think, given time, the US may see a reinvigorated voter base, since apathy is gradually, very gradually, losing its 'cool factor'. We're finally starting to cast off the cynicism of the 80's.

I'd say that next decade will see some big changes in American politics. If the younger generations can gain the momentum, then things may change for the better. If not, and if we find ourselves sinking into another apathetic slump, then the US might just not be able to recover, at least by the standard means.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'm not sure what you would really consider the US. We're still a democratic-republic in the sense that we elect officials. I suppose you could say we've become a very corrupt democratic-republic, in that the officials we elect don't do anything, except maybe get rich and get reelected.

And with our apathetic public, 2/3 of the voters just vote for whoever was in office last time, or with party lines. The remaining 1/3 either get cynical and stop bother ('all the politicians are the same, why vote?') or have their votes invalidated by the mass of 'cattle votes'.

Unfortunately I don't think the US can support a revolution, peaceful or otherwise. We don't have the huge under-30 population of Iran.

There is some hope, though. Very few of the young people I talk to, at college at least, are apathetic. Even online, the US citizens I meet are seldom not opinionated. I think, given time, the US may see a reinvigorated voter base, since apathy is gradually, very gradually, losing its 'cool factor'. We're finally starting to cast off the cynicism of the 80's.

I'd say that next decade will see some big changes in American politics. If the younger generations can gain the momentum, then things may change for the better. If not, and if we find ourselves sinking into another apathetic slump, then the US might just not be able to recover, at least by the standard means.

We can hope.

I don't buy the revolution/civil war stuff, don't think it would happen.

Reason #1 for me is that most of my generation has just enough energy to press "next channel" on the remote. No way they're going to fight a war; they don't even have beliefs to fight for. Just a lot of "whatever."

Interesting point about the lifespan of a democracy; I've thought the same thing many times.

However, the US is not a pure democracy, which changes the equation. Neither is UK. And there haven't really been that many gov'ts with such structure as ours, so it's hard to judge historically.

Something else that makes me sick is how people (US) couldn't care less about the country they live in. So long as they have a sofa, beer, and a football game they are happy.

Less than half the high-schoolers in some states can tell you how many stripes are on the US flag. I doubt more than a few % could tell you what the colors mean.

How many people know the nat'l anthem? How many people know the pledge of allegiance?

And how many of them could care less of what those things stand for even if they DID know???

They have LOST connection to our roots as a country. No; they have THROWN IT AWAY.

Thomas Jefferson:

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. "

The man is SCREAMING at us!

And worst of all, I find that many people of this country see NOTHING wrong with ACTUALLY SAYING that it is the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to sustain our livelihood!

THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY. In fact, average citizen, YOU are subject to responsibility. I'll bet that's a new one on you. And furthermore, I SHUDDER to think of giving the government such powers as sustaining my livelihood. For if this is the case they can just as easily take it away.

Sorry to those who are not the average.

[a completely inoffensive name]

+1 internetz for A.M. above me. However, the quote, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." Should have the bold word looked at carefully. The quote itself puts me in a conflict over meaning and makes me doubt my previous saying in another thread, specifically the underlined part:

The people are to be in control of their government, but mostly through indirect means because of their ability to be easily manipulated. The trust is actually put in those that are elected, not the general public. If the people are to be considered to be responsible adults, you should wonder why the Founding Fathers did not instead establish a direct democracy?

I wish to see the full letter or published work the quote comes from to see if there is any missing context or explanation around it. Doesn't saying that the rulers should not be trusted with government alone indicate that they are to be trusted with some measure and yet the next statement claims that only the general public and not the rulers should be trusted?

[Lord Winter]

Ariovistus Maximus you do know that most farmers didn't care about politics in Jefferson's time. If they pulled through okay I think the country will last as long as a determined minority understand the work that needs to be done.

[Strike For The South]

Ariovistus Maximus you do know that most farmers didn't care about politics in Jefferson's time. If they pulled through okay I think the country will last as long as a determined minority understand the work that needs to be done.

Agreed. We are much better off now than we were in the olden days.

Some of you need to realize that knowing how many stripes are on the flag and what they mean does not equate a productive populace.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I wish to see the full letter or published work the quote comes from to see if there is any missing context or explanation around it. Doesn't saying that the rulers should not be trusted with government alone indicate that they are to be trusted with some measure and yet the next statement claims that only the general public and not the rulers should be trusted?

Certainly the gov't should be trusted with leadership. Or what's the purpose of government?

But am I going to trust the government to save me while I sit on my duff and get drunk? Ummm, no.


Agreed. We are much better off now than we were in the olden days.

YAY! We can commit the same evils in new and different ways!!! And with new tools in different environments!!! WOHOOOOOOOOO!


Some of you need to realize that knowing how many stripes are on the flag and what they mean does not equate a productive populace.

If this is as deep as you look into things, it's no wonder you're having trouble with this. Try more than skimming the surface...

No, the farmer does not depend on knowing the name of the 1st President to succeed in his profession.

However, when people around me behave like the following, I find it rather discouraging:

George Washington...? Ummmmm, uhhhhh....

OOOOOHHHHHH!!! MICHAEL JACKSON!!! HE'S MY HERO!!!!

It speaks to the condition of society and where it's priorities are. And when it is so painfully obvious that we are more interested in amusement than in the preservation of our freedom, I think it indicates (and history shows) that the loss of freedom is not far off.

By the way, I'd encourage you to check out that word: amuse.

The root word = muse, which means to think.

"A-" is a prefix meaning the absence of

Thus, amusement literally means the absence of thought.

So, when people actually pay money to have their intelligence suppressed, and when people would rather go to amusement parks than to museums (see that word there?) I think we have a problem.

Interesting that we can quote lines from our favorite movies, and we know hundreds of our favorite songs by heart, but we cant recite the the pledge of allegiance or remember the national anthem.

Does it look to you like people are interested in maintaining their freedoms? Looks to me like anybody could step up and rip it away and many people wouldn't notice.

As long as the dictator gives them free beer and lets them keep all their TV channels, he can do whatever he wants.

Of course, when he actually GETS what he wants, the free beer and TV go away, unless it is convenient for him to let them continue...

[Louis VI the Fat]

If this is as deep as you look into things, it's no wonder you're having trouble with this. Try more than skimming the surface...


By the way, I'd encourage you to check out that word: amuse.

The root word = muse, which means to think.

"A-" is a prefix meaning the absence of

Thus, amusement literally means the absence of thought. When people would rather go to amusement parks than to museums (see that word there?) I think we have a problemI am afraid you mix up Greek and Latin. Indeed, 'museum' is rooted in Greek 'muse'. And 'a' in Greek means 'absense of'.

However, amusement is a French word, via Latin. The 'a' here means 'to', as in the Fench word 'à'. 'Muser', while possibly distantly related to Greek muses, here has a different meaning: 'a trifle', 'a diversion'. (Note the a's here are English 'a', and do not mean 'not' or 'to' :wink:)

Amusement then, is 'to divert oneself with entertaining matter'. The very wod preserves
the notion that it is trivial, and that hence there are graver matters. A man's mind should not be exclusively given to the pursuit of only either one.

[Viking]

but we cant recite the the pledge of allegiance or remember the national anthem.

A joy for a dictator would be to have his people learn a national anthem and have them to pledge allegiance. Freedom opens up for diversity; what you describe could only work against it.

[Strike For The South]

I don't really know what your on about other than trying to pump yourself up as the lone freedom fighter in a sea of unwashed peasants.

We gained our freedom when 90% of the country was illeterate and lacked formal schooling. So were going to lose it now?

[SwordsMaster]

Well, a lot of what you say is right (the OP that is). I have myself first coyly, and every day more seriously considered that the governments across the world should legalise duels. That would make people think before they talk, because sometimes those words would be returned to them with a bullet or on the wrong end of a sword. Which should also cut down on lawyering costs and teach people some responsibility.

[Lord Winter]

Yet the enlightenment was an elitist movement. Yes, this was the ideal but you can't start preaching the end of the world just because we fail to live up to our utopias.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

A joy for a dictator would be to have his people learn a national anthem and have them to pledge allegiance. Freedom opens up for diversity; what you describe could only work against it.

A dictator can also function quite well if the masses are too ignorant to know what he' up to or to stand up to him. ;)

Stupidity is not freedom. Stupidity lessens your freedom.

Except in the sense that if you are so ignorant that you don't know what freedom IS, I guess you wouldn't miss it...

Education is essential to the preservation of a free state.

Want to verify that with the historical record? Go ahead; it's all there. :book:

You will notice a pattern that the uneducated people are the ones doing manual labor for the educated ones...


I don't really know what your on about other than trying to pump yourself up as the lone freedom fighter in a sea of unwashed peasants.

We gained our freedom when 90% of the country was illeterate and lacked formal schooling. So were going to lose it now?

First of all, I don't see what you're on about me being on something. :laugh4:

I do agree though, that argumentum ad hominem is fun. Shall we pass it around? :shame:

If, however, I have really given that impression, and you're not just out to cry "goody two-shoes" because it makes you feel good:

Then I will clarify and state that I am hardly trying to give that impression. If, however, you (that is, a general "you all") can't recite the pledge of allegiance to your country, or if you couldn't pass the citizenship test if you were required to do so, then I suggest you study up on a few things. :2thumbsup:

I hardly want to put myself on a pedestal, and I think you're making some assumptions to get there.

However, I'm hardly going to back down and say that ignorance is a good, happy thing and that we can just sit around and wait for someone else to work on our problems.

To use your example:

The thing, strike for the south, is that when BOTH you and the bad guy can't read, that's even.

However, when the bad guys start to read and the good guys STILL can't read... then I think it's time to learn a bit.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yet the enlightenment was an elitist movement. Yes, this was the ideal but you can't start preaching the end of the world just because we fail to live up to our utopias.

No we can't, but wouldn't it make sense to try and make it better?

Yes, it could be worse. So what? It could be better!

It's not the end of the world. Who said it was? So how about we work on it a bit?

You will also see in the cycle of history the following:

Generation A suffers from poverty, lack of education, or the like. So when they become old enough to do something about it, they will work extremely hard to pull themselves out of the problem.

After an incredible amount of effort (often social upheaval or even war), these people will establish themselves, making a life much better than what they had before.

Having reached this point by their own hard work, they have the skills and diligence to KEEP the things they earn.

Then they die. Their hard-earned possessions are passed to their kids, generation B. Now, their kids didn't get the wealth for themselves, but they have had a solid upbringing and have lived through a few hard times too.

So then they die, and pass their not-so-hard-earned possessions to THEIR kids. Now, generation B wanted their kids to have AAALLL the things they DIDN'T have when they were kids. So they give all this stuff to generation C.

Generation C hasn't had to work for any of it. They just had it passed to them. So they think it grows on trees. Of course, as they get older, they learn a few things about that.

But they die and pass it on to generation D. Now, generation D is SOOO far off from the original generation that did all the work, and they have had everything handed to them on a silver platter. So they become proud, wasteful and abusive of those less fortunate.

So much so that the lower class of society suffers from poverty, poor education, and the like. (Sound familiar?) And the cycle begins again.

See what I'm saying here? Thus, society tends to degenerate. So I suggest we work out a few things. :yes:

[Lord Winter]

Name one generation which was significantly better then ours. Why so?

By resorting to this idealistic nihilism you are ignoring the successes that we have achieved in this time. A black man is president when 50 years ago he couldn't vote, the fact that we even consider the poor and minorities is a giant step forward. Instead of proclaiming the downfall of the west, why not try to address the wrongs you see in the world? Progress is not made by looking back on some non existent golden age, or even looking at the present. True progress only looks at the possibilities of the future.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When people talk about how much disappointment they have in the current generation it reminds me of this xkcd:
http://www.xkcd.com/603/

[Viking]

A dictator can also function quite well if the masses are too ignorant to know what he' up to or to stand up to him. ;)

Stupidity is not freedom. Stupidity lessens your freedom.

Except in the sense that if you are so ignorant that you don't know what freedom IS, I guess you wouldn't miss it...

Education is essential to the preservation of a free state.

Want to verify that with the historical record? Go ahead; it's all there. :book:

You will notice a pattern that the uneducated people are the ones doing manual labor for the educated ones...

I am sure the school children of North Korea are well educated about the greatness of Kim Jong Il.

Knowledge alone cannot grant anyone freedom; nor can a critical view on things. But a combination of knowledge and a critical view, I am sure can help keeping dictators at bay; as long as it found in masses, of course. I keep pledges and national anthems as far away from me as possible as a means of preserving a critical view.

[Jolt]

In summary, I would cite a quote:

"History is simply man committing the same sins in new and different ways."


what kind of sins? :inquisitive:

From an Assyrian Tablet called "Dialogue of Pessism" ca. 2800 BC


"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching."

[Husar]

You will notice a pattern that the uneducated people are the ones doing manual labor for the educated ones...

So your point is we should educate everybody to the point where noone does manual labour anymore?

Didn't someone link to an article about how manual labour isn't as bad as many people say/think lately?
It's a good thing to have a looooong list of bookmarks. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=working%20with%20your%20hands&st=cse) ~D

So yeah, and now what's bad about that? And is it really true or is it sometimes so that the happy people are doing manual labour for the never-satisfied egomaniacs?
Just because someone is in the management doesn't necessarily mean he or she is intelligent or even supporting freedom and democracy, their education can make them selfish, think they are superior, look down on less educated people etc, traits you find in oligarchs, nobles and dictators... :sweatdrop:

[Melvish]

Here in Canada you have to get an education to get a manual job. If you didn't have some kind of education (school or self-learned). You're pretty much un-employable (and the state will strongly compel you to get one AND pay for it).

I don't like the guy that refined this theory and shown how effective it is at turning a country around but he was right on this one. You reform a country by beginning with the youth education(by youth i mean less than 18-21 years old.). The values they are inculcate with will remain for their life and there is a good chance they will past them down to their children. This 'solution' can be use for good or for evil. Give them strong moral values and teach them how to think for themselves. Make them value knowledge and debate rather that sports and fashion.

The old saying "A country is only as good as it citizens" is quite true you know.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So your point is we should educate everybody to the point where noone does manual labour anymore?

Didn't someone link to an article about how manual labour isn't as bad as many people say/think lately?
It's a good thing to have a looooong list of bookmarks. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=working%20with%20your%20hands&st=cse) ~D

So yeah, and now what's bad about that? And is it really true or is it sometimes so that the happy people are doing manual labour for the never-satisfied egomaniacs?
Just because someone is in the management doesn't necessarily mean he or she is intelligent or even supporting freedom and democracy, their education can make them selfish, think they are superior, look down on less educated people etc, traits you find in oligarchs, nobles and dictators... :sweatdrop:


Hardly what I was implying. Think HISTORICALLY now...

I was referring to slavery and serfdom. See?

[Strike For The South]

Ah yes. The good ol days. Where women couldn't vote and minorties were more or less on the level of dogs and heavy machinery.

The good ol'days were hardly good and its rather insulting to sit here and say they were.

I would argue a socitey that imopsed property regulations for voting and kept people in bondage is hardly what a nation state should aspire for. Even the greatest generation had a quasi caste system.

If these people worked so very hard and knew all there civics why would they do this to groups of people? Why would the McCarthy hearings happen?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why would the McCarthy hearings happen?

Fear, which overrode any logic.

[Husar]

Hardly what I was implying. Think HISTORICALLY now...

I was referring to slavery and serfdom. See?

You mean where the romans had greek slaves who taught their kids because they were really clever people from a country that had happened to lose a war? :dizzy2:
Nobles during the middle ages couldn't all read and write either, some of them were just better educated in the sense of how to club a peasant.
I'm not sure education decided who ruled who, I'd rather think who ruled who decided who got better education and who didn't.