NationStates Jolt Archive

Today we live in an age where life is valued, the hocus pocus beliefs of the past have no impact on our lives because of science, where disputes are settled via court rather than vigilante justice. Oh, oops that's only in the modern first world nations. Everywhere else it's either totalitarianism or a third world nation where all the hocus pocus beliefs are still prevalent, where life is barely valued and where scientific knowledge is limited.
If you had the power would you actively stamp out all those things I listed? How would you make such an attempt.

In my opinion such an attempt would be pointless.

Anyway...discuss!

I'm all for stamping out courts and science humbug.

Unless the mistakes of the past are in pencil, I think it's a little late to get rid of them now.

I'm all for stamping out courts and science humbug.

I know just the place. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :p:wink:

i don't think we can put genies back in bottles, but we can stop being quite so emotionally attatched to universally destructive assumptions just because they happen to be familiar to us and grandpa got away with them.

(ps: according to those warning signs, i'd steer clear of christianity and america. probably all super powers and most if not all major religeons as well!)

Open borders would go a long way. People don't choose to believe in random religions or live under totalitarian governments - they do so because they either don't know an alternative exists or they're prevented by force from choosing it.

Let them leave the places they don't like and once they're exposed to the fruits of the enlightenment, they'll be in a good position to make up their minds. And I don't think many will return home and tolerate any crap.

Open borders would go a long way. People don't choose to believe in random religions or live under totalitarian governments - they do so because they either don't know an alternative exists or they're prevented by force from choosing it.

Let them leave the places they don't like and once they're exposed to the fruits of the enlightenment, they'll be in a good position to make up their minds. And I don't think many will return home and tolerate any crap.

a men! i'll second that emotion.

The death penalty is still legal in many states in the US, evangelical religious groups have decided the past two presidential elections, the economy is in the pits, the rich can buy their way out of justice while the poor face injustice due to an inability to hire a lawyer, and the vice-presidential candidate for one of the two biggest political parties in the country believes that religious beliefs should be taught alongside science so that students may be brainwashed into believing hocus pocus religious beliefs.

Sounds like the US fits the criteria perfectly for this fixing you propose.

Absolutely not.

Starting an ideological campaign with the idea of "I'm all knowing, you are ignorant and must be enlightened by me for your own good" against a culture of which your nation knows fuck all is a recipie for a long and bloody conflict.

The United States is, in my eyes, backward, aggressive, and morally, spiritually and ethically (and heading for literally) bankrupt. I regard it as fundamentally at odds with most cultured nations, and I tend to treat it's foreign policy statements as suspicious, if not downright dangerous.

As such I feel it is my moral duty to immediately invade it and topple it's propagandistic, corrupt government, and impose my own. At the same time I shall take their hocus bible religion of them and enforce my own, superior and enlightened set of beliefs. I shall dispose of it's tired, archaic traditions and impose my own culture, customs, dress, food, literature and style upon it's poor, ignorant, primitive people. No more silly "sneakers" and jogging suits. No more oppressive slacks for enfeebled "soccer moms"! No more Bible indoctrination! I've come to liberate you!

You can see where it'd go... Every single other nation would feel pretty much the same.

I dislike the UK parliament. I don't share all of the British cultural traditions. I'm not even entirely British. I don't share the national religion, I don't eat British food, I have gaps in my historical knowledge about the country. Once I've graduated, I'm actually considering moving abroad. But, if you came to try and "civilise" this country by force, I'd join the military, and I'd fight to the bitter end to defend it's culture, it's traditions, it's religion and it's government.

Absolutely not.

Starting an ideological campaign with the idea of "I'm all knowing, you are ignorant and must be enlightened by me for your own good" against a culture of which your nation knows fuck all is a recipie for a long and bloody conflict.

The United States is, in my eyes, backward, aggressive, and morally, spiritually and ethically (and heading for literally) bankrupt. I regard it as fundamentally at odds with most cultured nations, and I tend to treat it's foreign policy statements as suspicious, if not downright dangerous.

As such I feel it is my moral duty to immediately invade it and topple it's propagandistic, corrupt government, and impose my own. At the same time I shall take their hocus bible religion of them and enforce my own, superior and enlightened set of beliefs. I shall dispose of it's tired, archaic traditions and impose my own culture, customs, dress, food, literature and style upon it's poor, ignorant, primitive people. No more silly "sneakers" and jogging suits. No more oppressive slacks for enfeebled "soccer moms"! No more Bible indoctrination! I've come to liberate you!

You can see where it'd go... Every single other nation would feel pretty much the same.

I dislike the UK parliament. I don't share all of the British cultural traditions. I'm not even entirely British. I don't share the national religion, I don't eat British food, I have gaps in my historical knowledge about the country. Once I've graduated, I'm actually considering moving abroad. But, if you came to try and "civilise" this country by force, I'd join the military, and I'd fight to the bitter end to defend it's culture, it's traditions, it's religion and it's government.

Britain doesn't have a national religion..

Absolutely not.

Starting an ideological campaign with the idea of "I'm all knowing, you are ignorant and must be enlightened by me for your own good" against a culture of which your nation knows fuck all is a recipie for a long and bloody conflict.

The United States is, in my eyes, backward, aggressive, and morally, spiritually and ethically (and heading for literally) bankrupt. I regard it as fundamentally at odds with most cultured nations, and I tend to treat it's foreign policy statements as suspicious, if not downright dangerous.

As such I feel it is my moral duty to immediately invade it and topple it's propagandistic, corrupt government, and impose my own. At the same time I shall take their hocus bible religion of them and enforce my own, superior and enlightened set of beliefs. I shall dispose of it's tired, archaic traditions and impose my own culture, customs, dress, food, literature and style upon it's poor, ignorant, primitive people. No more silly "sneakers" and jogging suits. No more oppressive slacks for enfeebled "soccer moms"! No more Bible indoctrination! I've come to liberate you!

You can see where it'd go... Every single other nation would feel pretty much the same.

I dislike the UK parliament. I don't share all of the British cultural traditions. I'm not even entirely British. I don't share the national religion, I don't eat British food, I have gaps in my historical knowledge about the country. Once I've graduated, I'm actually considering moving abroad. But, if you came to try and "civilise" this country by force, I'd join the military, and I'd fight to the bitter end to defend it's culture, it's traditions, it's religion and it's government.
^^^This.

I knew there was something wrong with this topic, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it, and Abju laid it out nicely.

Stamping out the mistakes of the past is something that has been attempted by rising powers and revolutionaries for centuries, and just look how it turned out every time. In other words, it's a mistake of the past, and if you're going to stamp out anything, why not start with this one? How about, just for a change, we try leaving people the fuck alone instead? How's that sound for novelty?

Ask the Dark Angelshttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/DeathWing.jpgDeathwing. *nods*

I don't think they should be.

For one, we as humans learn from mistakes, even if they are the mistakes of others. To forget those mistakes is to be doomed to repeat them over and over again. We're already pretty good in our ignorance when it comes to lessons learned from the past.

Secondly, if you were to go ahead and spread your gospel of truth forcefully, I bet you would encounter a lot of opposition and resentment. People don't like to be told what is right or wrong, let alone what they should believe is right or wrong. Insight is only gained by personal experience, yet with an example of past mistakes of others as a guideline, the mistakes the person has to make to gain said insight are of a lesser extent, I would say.

Britain doesn't have a national religion..
Neither does the US. In fact, we don't even have a "token" "Church of <nation>" the way Britain (or part of it at least) does. Hasn't helped us much, and I'll bet it doesn't make much difference in Britain, either.

In my opinion such an attempt would be pointless.


"I just don't think you can change the hearts and minds of men with rules and regulations."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In other words, I agree. That sort of stuff goes on so much in other parts of the world that it's practically part of their culture... Many of these instances are due to blood hatreds that are far older than the United States. Westerners cannot change these situations simply because the only way to stamp out such behavior is with brute, dictitorial power (something the West cannot/will not use)... Even then, that only pushes it under the carpet. Yugoslavia is a prime example... As soon as the oppressive communist regime (which kept ethnic warfare at bay) broke down, all the ethnic groups just started killing each other off again.

Today we live in an age where life is valued, the hocus pocus beliefs of the past have no impact on our lives because of science, where disputes are settled via court rather than vigilante justice. Oh, oops that's only in the modern first world nations. Everywhere else it's either totalitarianism or a third world nation where all the hocus pocus beliefs are still prevalent, where life is barely valued and where scientific knowledge is limited.
If you had the power would you actively stamp out all those things I listed? How would you make such an attempt.

In my opinion such an attempt would be pointless.

Anyway...discuss!

Nope.

i'd replace history books across the globe with one i would write. one where i did everything, and anything good in the world is my doing, and anything bad in the world is Ruffy's work. that ought to do it.

sounds kinda like the bible, don't it

We should have a one world Goverment under Russia

i'd replace history books across the globe with one i would write. one where i did everything, and anything good in the world is my doing, and anything bad in the world is Ruffy's work. that ought to do it.

sounds kinda like the bible, don't it
Nice! Maybe you could also include a chapter on how cool I am and that I gave moral support to your deeds?
Sure does. Will there be a King James version, too? Thou hast to do it!!!

Great post by Abdju.

It is one of those complex questions. When to intervene? Not just as a society, but even in your individual life.

Most rational people think that you should live and let live, not get involved, let people make their own choices if it doesn't harm anyone else, etc. But then, most "good" people think that the strong have a moral obligation to help the weak.

Also, if the good and rational people live and let live, those arrogant, not good people definately think they have a right to intervene all the time. If those self righteous pricks intervene with no-one stopping them, then the world gets messed up.

How does one decide that you, as a good person have to step in? Do you stop the bully picking on somoene else? Do you try to liberate a country? How do you know that you are a good person doing a right thing, not an arrogant prick doing something selfish?

Britain doesn't have a national religion..

Well, there is an official religion, sanctioned by the state. Basically the same thing.

Britain doesn't have a national religion..

Our head of state is also the head of the Church. Our head of state is bound to uphold the CoE.

Not directly, but moves should be made to deal with them. For example, nations upholding them shouldn't be attacked unprovoked, but their decline should be sped up as much as possible. Unless, of course, you're willing to use force. In which case, by all means use it so nothing will get worse.

Stamping-out any part of the past which is undesired sounds like Nineteen Eighty-Four to me.

Would it resemble 1984 to stamp out the very forced conformity that 1984 represents? That's stamping out mistakes of the past...

Not directly, but moves should be made to deal with them. For example, nations upholding them shouldn't be attacked unprovoked, but their decline should be sped up as much as possible. Unless, of course, you're willing to use force. In which case, by all means use it so nothing will get worse.
I'd like to know two things:

1) What part of the above is different from the standard operating procedures of the past -- you know, the time when all those mistakes were racked up?

2) Exactly how is using either stealth or force to hasten the downfall of countries you don't like going to make sure that "nothing will get worse"? Worse for whom?

Would it resemble 1984 to stamp out the very forced conformity that 1984 represents? That's stamping out mistakes of the past...
And how do you intend to get everyone to stop conforming without making them all conform -- to what you want them to do, that is?

And how do you intend to get everyone to stop conforming without making them all conform -- to what you want them to do, that is?


It's not forcing them to relinquish their views, per se, just to keep them from forcing said views upon others.

It's not forcing them to relinquish their views, per se, just to keep them from forcing said views upon others.
Uh-huh...how, precisely? I'm asking if you have some kind of procedure in mind.

If you had the power would you actively stamp out all those things I listed? How would you make such an attempt.

In my opinion such an attempt would be pointless.



This is confusing. By saying "if you had the power" you're setting up a hypothetical situation where we have the power to stamp this out. However, you then go on to say that you think such an attempt would be pointless. How could it be pointless if, in this situation, we are given whatever de facto power (be it political office or magic wand) needed to correct things?

In any case, were it *possible*, then yes, I would. But you can't send a bunch of soldiers into a region torn by thousands of years of violence and staunch fanaticism; it's like trying to make a child grow by stretching him on a rack. The only thing that can bring a country out of the mire of religious brutality is time.

hmmmm...nothing specific, as of yet, but generally speaking if there's some other country that does this, increase infighting, get people riled, basically, get them at war with themselves, Iraq demonstrates that it's not too hard, then give aid to those who don't want any part of all this until they're with you (refugees) while all of those with conservative views are only fighting others with said views, so they still do what they want.

hmmmm...nothing specific, as of yet, but generally speaking if there's some other country that does this, increase infighting, get people riled, basically, get them at war with themselves, Iraq demonstrates that it's not too hard, then give aid to those who don't want any part of all this until they're with you (refugees) while all of those with conservative views are only fighting others with said views, so they still do what they want.
So, in other words, this:
I'd like to know two things:

1) What part of the above is different from the standard operating procedures of the past -- you know, the time when all those mistakes were racked up?

2) Exactly how is using either stealth or force to hasten the downfall of countries you don't like going to make sure that "nothing will get worse"? Worse for whom?
The exact same Kissinger-esque BS that created or worsened so many of the mistakes we're dealing with today.

Britain doesn't have a national religion..

Yah, it kind of does, actually. The Church of England is nominally the official religion. The irony is - this has created a less theocratic, and more tolerant nation than the theoretical 'separation of church and state' that the US aspires to/claims.

Would it resemble 1984 to stamp out the very forced conformity that 1984 represents? That's stamping out mistakes of the past...

Stamping it out of the past, as in not acknowledging it happened? Yes, it most certainly would.

Today we live in an age where life is valued, the hocus pocus beliefs of the past have no impact on our lives because of science, where disputes are settled via court rather than vigilante justice. Oh, oops that's only in the modern first world nations. Everywhere else it's either totalitarianism or a third world nation where all the hocus pocus beliefs are still prevalent, where life is barely valued and where scientific knowledge is limited.
If you had the power would you actively stamp out all those things I listed? How would you make such an attempt.

In my opinion such an attempt would be pointless.

Anyway...discuss!
Who gets to pick what to stamp out?

In the UK, the general public are an easily riled mob, the ruling classes are a bunch of self-serving in-breds, and we middle class people reckon (at least to a degree) we ought to rule the world, but would be too filled with indecision when the time came to actually do anything.

Yah, it kind of does, actually. The Church of England is nominally the official religion. The irony is - this has created a less theocratic, and more tolerant nation than the theoretical 'separation of church and state' that the US aspires to/claims.
Having the CoE has not created a less theocratic and more tolerant nation than the US. That would be fact that nowhere in the UK is more than a hundred or so miles from the coast, and hence immigrants, and a long history of being skeptical about religion in general, as seen by the fact that our only real religious dictator had to enforce his power by the use of the military. And they banned Christmas and footie, which is never a good plan when it comes to the British public :tongue:

Stamping it out of the past, as in not acknowledging it happened? Yes, it most certainly would.

That makes more sense, I thought you meant something along the lines of dealing with the problems through force...

Who gets to pick what to stamp out?

In the UK, the general public are an easily riled mob, the ruling classes are a bunch of self-serving in-breds, and we middle class people reckon (at least to a degree) we ought to rule the world, but would be too filled with indecision when the time came to actually do anything.

This is a perfect system. The ruling class try to change policy to serve themselves, but the general public get riled by it and put a stop to it while the middle-class.. watches and complains, I suppose.

That makes more sense, I thought you meant something along the lines of dealing with the problems through force...

I am opposed to "stamping-out" mistakes in the past or the present. I make mistakes all the time, leave them alone. Let me smoke my cigars, let me waste my money, let me believe in absurd concepts.

Having the CoE has not created a less theocratic and more tolerant nation than the US. That would be fact that nowhere in the UK is more than a hundred or so miles from the coast, and hence immigrants, and a long history of being skeptical about religion in general, as seen by the fact that our only real religious dictator had to enforce his power by the use of the military. And they banned Christmas and footie, which is never a good plan when it comes to the British public :tongue:

I'm not saying that having an official state religion is the ONLY causative factor, but I'm not ruling it out, either. My experience with the Church of England has always been that it's kind of easygoing, when compared to some other interpretations of Abrahamic faith, and I think that having a 'cool uncle' religion as your state religion goes a long way to explaining why the UK is the way it is. If The Church of England was 'fire and brimstone', maybe things would be different.

But the irony still stands, in this case, that the official state religion in the UK corresponds to a more progressive interaction between church and state, less conflict, and arguable greater tolerance... as opposed to the claimed 'separation of church and state' in the US.

I am opposed to "stamping-out" mistakes in the past or the present. I make mistakes all the time, leave them alone. Let me smoke my cigars, let me waste my money, let me believe in absurd concepts.



I mean more along the lines of stamping out that impact on government. Sorry for being unclear

I mean more along the lines of stamping out that impact on government. Sorry for being unclear

Sure, if you help me to become absolute dictator; I would love to do some stamping.

Having the CoE has not created a less theocratic and more tolerant nation than the US. That would be fact that nowhere in the UK is more than a hundred or so miles from the coast, and hence immigrants, and a long history of being skeptical about religion in general, as seen by the fact that our only real religious dictator had to enforce his power by the use of the military. And they banned Christmas and footie, which is never a good plan when it comes to the British public :tongue:

There is the argument that the state backed churches ultimately led to the stagnation of said churches. In the US churches had to compete for members while in Europe the state churches had guaranteed tax revenue.

There is the argument that the state backed churches ultimately led to the stagnation of said churches. In the US churches had to compete for members while in Europe the state churches had guaranteed tax revenue.

I'm not sure how relevent that is to the Church of England, to be honest. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the CoE is 'endorsed' by the government, but isn't 'supported' by the government.

This is a perfect system. The ruling class try to change policy to serve themselves, but the general public get riled by it and put a stop to it while the middle-class.. watches and complains, I suppose.
The general public very rarely does anything because its capacity for forgetting and apathy is so high. The middle classes want to be UC from time to time, that's true, but 'class warfare' between the lower and upper classes is an artificial construct of the middle classes who wish to use and abuse the stupid and get away with it. Which sometimes works. But mostly doesn't.
I'm not saying that having an official state religion is the ONLY causative factor, but I'm not ruling it out, either. My experience with the Church of England has always been that it's kind of easygoing, when compared to some other interpretations of Abrahamic faith, and I think that having a 'cool uncle' religion as your state religion goes a long way to explaining why the UK is the way it is. If The Church of England was 'fire and brimstone', maybe things would be different.
Oh absolutely. The Church of England is chillaxed. Mostly.
But the irony still stands, in this case, that the official state religion in the UK corresponds to a more progressive interaction between church and state, less conflict, and arguable greater tolerance... as opposed to the claimed 'separation of church and state' in the US.
Eh I would suppose so, although I would still hold to the notion that it's more a real lack of Being Into Extremism which is pretty key to British society.

I'm not sure how relevent that is to the Church of England, to be honest. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the CoE is 'endorsed' by the government, but isn't 'supported' by the government.

It may not be any more, but there were compulsory tithes in the past to the degree that the in Ireland there were violent protests by Catholics who were forced to pay tithes to the Irish branch of the Anglican Church: Tithe War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe_War)

Does this all come back to "White Man's Burden" again? How exactly do first world countries exist in a more morally acceptable manner than everyone else? Do you look at freedom, life expectancy, or the shit that you own? Indeed, what is does morally acceptable mean at all. The only universal truth out there is that we live and we die. Not freedom or quality of life or any of that bullshit we try to hold onto to make our short miserable lives easier. Fuck morality, just live and let suffer.

Today we live in an age where life is valued, the hocus pocus beliefs of the past have no impact on our lives because of science, where disputes are settled via court rather than vigilante justice. Oh, oops that's only in the modern first world nations. Everywhere else it's either totalitarianism or a third world nation where all the hocus pocus beliefs are still prevalent, where life is barely valued and where scientific knowledge is limited.
If you had the power would you actively stamp out all those things I listed? How would you make such an attempt.

In my opinion such an attempt would be pointless.

Anyway...discuss!
I don't believe you. I fail to see how entire societies can function without valuing life.

I'm not saying that having an official state religion is the ONLY causative factor, but I'm not ruling it out, either. My experience with the Church of England has always been that it's kind of easygoing, when compared to some other interpretations of Abrahamic faith, and I think that having a 'cool uncle' religion as your state religion goes a long way to explaining why the UK is the way it is. If The Church of England was 'fire and brimstone', maybe things would be different.
I don't think the actual beliefs matters that much. If you say religion=Anglicanism=state, than it becomes at least partially a civil religion. It takes something that's already pretty easy to pay lip service to and makes paying lip service mandatory. (I'm talking about the earlier Church, of course. The modern one is, as you say, easy-going.) And there's no better way to make people indifferent towards a set of beliefs by forcing them to acknowledge those beliefs as true.

This is confusing. By saying "if you had the power" you're setting up a hypothetical situation where we have the power to stamp this out. However, you then go on to say that you think such an attempt would be pointless. How could it be pointless if, in this situation, we are given whatever de facto power (be it political office or magic wand) needed to correct things?

In any case, were it *possible*, then yes, I would. But you can't send a bunch of soldiers into a region torn by thousands of years of violence and staunch fanaticism; it's like trying to make a child grow by stretching him on a rack. The only thing that can bring a country out of the mire of religious brutality is time.

Human nature will make it a pointless fight. Even if I had the initial victory time would prove to be human nature's strongest ally. As time goes on either the dark side of human nature will arise in a different form or the old form will somehow survive and fight a social guerrilla war which will consequently result in wasted funds, supplies and manpower. The dark side of human nature is the cause of past mistakes, the cause of uncivilized and barbaric behavior. Fighting it would be like fighting a phoenix, after "killing" it it would just rise up again and again.

I don't believe you. I fail to see how entire societies can function without valuing life.

The only reason societies of the dark ages and middle ages functioned was because of a few common interests and the ability most people back then had to defend themselves. Back in those days city life was worse than the slums today. Every night the windows and doors would be barred to prevent a gang of random thugs from breaking in. Also people would kill each other back them more often than today and for the most mundane reasons.

Also people would kill each other back them more often than today...

No... once was still pretty much it.