GG Kerry, but you're a f**king wimp

[nemafakei]

"What Hitler did was simply convince President von Hindenburg to invoke an emergency clause in the Weimar Constitution. The German parliament then passed a Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the Nation and State. (Reichstage Fire Decree). The decree suspended the civil rights in the German constitution of Nazi opponents. These rights included: freedom of speech, assembly, press and formed the basis for not letting Nazi opponets have  judicial procceedings.  And it was the Nazi party who prevailed over the Social Democrats. I really see anything remotely similar in comparison."

Is the last sentence (assuming 'don't' is inserted) sarcasm?

I mean...

What Bush did was simply convince parliament to invoke partial suspension of the US Constitution. The US parliament passed an act for the president called the Patriot Act. (Post-September-the-11th act). The act suspended the civil rights in the US constitution. These rights included: freedom of speech, assembly, press and formed the basis for not letting opponents have judicial procceedings.  And it was the Republican party who prevailed over the Democrats.

(I'm not so opposed to the Patriot Act per se, I just think that the parallels are so obvious it's humorous. The name's even a pretty good translation).

Wolfwiz...

"but this is really all about power. Right now, the Americans have it. Europe can't stand it "

Oh, I agree completely (though money is still a part of that power), but I think your justification misses the point. It's not that we're annoyed or ashamed about US assistance of previous decades. That has nothing to do with power. We're annoyed that the US unashamedly uses its power for its own ends, just as Europe had done up to about WWII. We're annoyed that nothing has been learnt, and that rather than acting in a spirit of cooperation and constructivity, a lot of power is being abused by an individual county.

I'm perfectly ready to accept the US having as much power as it does - insofar as it accepts the responsibility that entails, and acts accordingly.

Gunwounds...

"Criticizing me for being selfish is like criticizing me for urinating"

It all depends where you urinate. Over here, there is a general agreement to do it in toilets, in a way that doesn't harm anyone.

"I pay my United States Federal Income tax, I pay  for United States Social Security that will support our elderly in the future.  I have my United States Citizenship.  I am registered for the draft which means i can be drafted to fight for my country."

I pay into US companies' profit margins, I help pay for your economy. I could also be called upon to fight for your country, if Blair was really desperate. Difference is, I'm not a US citizen, I have no influence on US policies, which affect me and everyone else.

"And i never said that I myself have the right to be selfish... i said my country does... and guess what? A country IS its population... so i guess technically i am a part of that."

... so you DO have the right to be selfish?

"it doesnt change that i am stating a fact"

Correct.

Spectral Paladin, calling Gunwounds selfish or arrogant because he states his country has an inordinate amount of power is as bad as Gunwounds calling Europeans jealous because we state that his country has an inordinate amount of power.

[Wolf]

I pretty much agree with you, too, Nema. I think the United States wields its power bluntly and wastefully. I think that there are many far better applications of power that the United States could be pursuing. I think that, right now, all the power the United States has is being used more or less to just maintain that existing power, and not much else. You say that Europeans are annoyed with how Americans unashamedly use power for obviously selfish ends. Trust me, there are many Americans who are annoyed with the exact same thing.

[Megashrap]

  Thanks for the typo spot Nema,  :-[  and no it was not sarcasm.  All I was trying to say was, using those events as a comparison, and by that I mean comparing Hitler, his manipulations in order to become Dictator and in his mind ruler of the entire world, by means of trying to eradicate entire races for nothing more than falling into the category of somehow being sub-human. The list could go on and on, but the  point I was getting at is, comparing the 2 (Bush to Hitler) and their REASONS for what they did (Nazi's) or what Bush is doing now, or trying to accomplish as being similar is rather Idiotic.

[Dude_Doc]

I think that, right now, all the power the United States has is being used more or less to just maintain that existing power, and not much else.

Or, the power they have now is used to increase their power, just like any other "empires" throughout history.

[Dante]

Simply put, if your not prepared to recieve any type of "attitude" then why dish it out so freely?  My posts were not even directed at or near you until you yourself blatently used a smartass response. I think I'll stick to observing this forum since I really don't have the time to play tit for tat on such childish crap as this.

You do that. That wasn

[Megashrap]

Or, the power they have now is used to increase their power, just like any other "empires" throughout history.

True, but how many of the empires throughout history not only tried to increase thier power for the sake of a somewhat safer and more stable nation, yet at the same time also spent billions and gave so much aid to other countries?

[Acriku]

An interesting article has come across my eyes, I doubt it's been mentioned in this monstrous thread so let me put it out there:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/122888.htm

Bush Wanted to Invade Iraq... in 1999?

Apparently George W. Bush began thinking about invading Iraq as far back as 1999. Why? Because he thought a tidy little war would produce enough political capital for him to do anything he wanted back home - and give him a nice reputation as president. Is that appropriate for the President? Should he put his reputation over the lives of others?

Read the article for the exact quoting of the Bush family friend who provided this information.

Is this guy credible? If so, then we have a serious problem.

[GUNWOUNDS]

United states this , United states that....

I think people are missing the core argument here.... and its that the main issue here isnt the USA.... it about the "Big Dog"

[Megashrap]

United states this , United states that....

I think people are missing the core argument here.... and its that the main issue here isnt the USA.... it about the "Big Dog"  whoever it may be.

We are simply arguing about how a superpower (whoever it maybe) should act.  What we arent realizing is that all superpowers/empires  have acted in their own self-interests.

  Which is why I tend to believe it leans more toward a basic element of human nature that can be applied to a single person, to an empire, or the world altogether -"Envy".  And before the flame gets here (and i'm sure it will) most likely saying that somehow i'm simply bragging, then let me piss on that campfire now.  I'm not bragging, but simply pointing out the obvious.

E.g.,  It's really not much different than say if I make 600k a year and my neighbor is on welfare, (for whatever reason not that there is anything wrong with that).  Now, lets say I decide to be generous, helpfull what have you. My neighbor of course will most likely be grateful and thank me, and at anytime gladly accept, nevertheless he will also by the same token carry some resentment and envy towards me and would consider me "Big Dog" as gun put it. The same can be applied on a much larger scale.

[mordusxxx]

so plz explain what you guys are talking about, I would really like to converse on this topic but there seems to be nothing to talk about, only bickering and arguing about America and how dominant it is towards the other nations. So if anybody could tell why you think my country is so damn bad then plz tell me because i dont see it that bad, I mean I dont have to worry about going to war because my leader is a pyscho and wants to rule the world, or that I cant feed my family because there arn't any jobs for me to do because my nation is in poverty. All i have to worry about is paying my bills on time, making sure I dont do something that I really wouldn't want to do if i was straight minded, and love my country then fine with me beacuse im a red blooded american who likes my way of life, unlike all these hipocritical, jeleous, commis that want to be like the U S  of motha f**kin A then so be it,

sorry to get off topic but can we plz just all get along, same world u know :P

[nemafakei]

"We are simply arguing about how a superpower (whoever it maybe) should act.  What we arent realizing is that all superpowers/empires  have acted in their own self-interests"

I accept that all superpowers hitherto have acted in the same vein of self interest as the US does. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm saying that the British Empire was immoral and wrong, I'm saying that the Delian League (Athenian empire) was wrong. Just because something happens, doesn't mean it's right. It's just that it's rather difficult to do anything about the past, on account of it having already happened: A hundred years ago, I'd've been campaigning for resources being spent to help the colonies become independant, I'd be criticising the British Government whenever it was negligent in its duties. Point of fact, I regularly criticise the British government today.

"Why doesnt anyone compare the spanish conquistadors with hitler? "

The spanish conquistadors were about as bad as Hitler. Unfortunately, noone can do a thing about it, since they're all long dead. There's no point debating it, because no-one's likely to argue (or will you say 'they were serving their own interests, so it didn't matter'?), whereas there are people who believe American imperialsim is morally acceptable.

"There is nothing inherently evil or wrong with americans"

Correct. There is something very wrong with certain US policies, just as with certain British, Fench, German, Spanish, Roman, Athenian policies.

Mordus, punctuation is your friend. Treat it properly.

Most of what you say doesn't relate to anything I've actually said (I'm not repeating my explanations if you can't be bothered to read my other posts). Oh, and...

"I mean I dont have to worry about going to war because my leader is a pyscho and wants to rule the world"

Insert one of a million captions here.

[mordusxxx]

i dont think i should have to puncuate simply because u cant understand what i say, dont read it if u cant understand it

[nemafakei]

*I* can understand what you're saying. It's just incredibly rude to expect everyone else (especially on a forum with a large contingent of people whose native language is not english) to work out what you're trying to say because you're too lazy to think of other people. Especially given that most of the non-native speakers make the effort to write a damn sight better than you.

[mordusxxx]

like i have said to your gay counterpart, you can take those proper sentences, and stick them up your ass, to lazy, i dont think so just to inconcerned about joe shmoe being able to understand what i am saying, is that my fault he is not able to read simple english, and as far as the last sentence you said, i didnt even understand that, what sight are they writing and i thought sight was seeing and using your eyes.? i guess u are the real english speaker here ROFLMAO

[Dunenewt]

like i have said to your gay counterpart,

What makes anyone Nema's gay counterpart? If you are using the term 'gay' in a derogatory way, you could be treading steps towards being banned

you can take those proper sentences, and stick them up your ass,

Insulting people in this way isn't tolerated, especially when you are insulting a moderator.

to lazy, i dont think so just to inconcerned about joe shmoe being able to understand what i am saying, is that my fault he is not able to read simple english, and as far as the last sentence you said, i didnt even understand that, what sight are they writing and i thought sight was seeing and using your eyes.? i guess u are the real english speaker here ROFLMAO

Simple english includes punctuation, so the fact that you struggle to write simple english makes you look worse.

[mordusxxx]

so by not writing my words in proper sentence structure puts me in the wrong huh? are u guys all fucking insane, what makes my words derogitory when they say the same damn things but in diffrent manner? I think all of you guys are just trying to insult me and pick on me so lay off, i cant say one fucking word without one of you braniacs insulting me or criticizing me one what i say, so if u want to ban me i dont care do it because u can keep your simple minded conversations to those who actually believe what the hell you are talking about, and if u read this gobalopper then maybe u can see why i get so pissed off towards people who try to degrade me

[Dante]

like i have said to your gay counterpart, you can take those proper sentences, and stick them up your ass, to lazy, i dont think so just to inconcerned about joe shmoe being able to understand what i am saying, is that my fault he is not able to read simple english, and as far as the last sentence you said, i didnt even understand that, what sight are they writing and i thought sight was seeing and using your eyes.? i guess u are the real english speaker here ROFLMAO

Am I the only one who finds the irony of mordus not understanding Nema truly hilarious?

He was refering to me, I'm the gay counterpart. I've attempted to correct him before...

You must remember that 'joe schmoe' may not be a native speaker of English, as Nema said. Most of the people here who speak English as a second language are actually very good at it (far better than I ever was at German...), but that doesn't mean to say that you can just ignore correct punctuation.

"is that my fault he is not able to read simple english"

No. But it's not simple English; it's bad English. And we wouldn't complain if you wrote correctly; did you think of that?

Forget the USA for a moment.  What if England was the superpower? .. what if Germany was the superpower?  Was if France was the one?  They would all act the same way.. and at the times they were in power... they have.  There is nothing inherently evil or wrong with americans (despite what the nazi = bush critics say)... many  races and nations on this earth have been the #1 power at one time or another and each has  strong-armed the others and each has served its own self interests.  Why doesnt anyone compare the spanish conquistadors with hitler? Hell we could compare every superpower past, present, and future with hitler if we wanted too.. but its foolish.

When Britain was the superpower there were always other countries that she remained on friendly relations with. Sometimes Spain; but usually Holland and the German states. The British Empire worked not only for its own ends, but also the ends of its protectorates, for the most part. The East India company being a good example. Net result of the British world supremacy: countries that are still part of the commonwealth. Canada, India, Australia... Net result of American weight-throwing: everyone hates you.

And I've never said there is anything inherantly evil or wrong with Americans. Just Bush. And to a slightly lesser degree, everyone who voted for him.

Nema said that europeans are upset that nothing has been learned throughout the years.  I disagree... Much has been learned... just not what you wanted to be learned.  We learned how to fly missiles through a window right down your throat, we learned how to fly unmanned predator drones, we are learning how to make a missile defense system, we are learning what the max capabilities of our armed forces are, we are learning how to topple regimes more efficiently, ....And we are learning how to better serve our interests. And they are getting damn good at it.  Which is why i reject the doomsayer's chants.

You can say all that about weapons and in the same paragraph deny doomsayers? What on Earth is wrong with you?

[Megashrap]

"There is nothing inherently evil or wrong with americans"

Correct. There is something very wrong with certain US policies, just as with certain British, Fench, German, Spanish, Roman, Athenian policies.

  Ok, but how does not agreeing with certain US policies equal Americans in general, and if they voted for Bush somehow evil?  And this is not just directed at you, but the atmosphere in here in general from what i've been reading lately.  I still say that envy plays a much, much larger part than most would care to openly admit.

[VigilVirus]

and I fully think that if Bush had declared war on Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or the Sudan, or any of the other dozens of countries that sort of deserve an asskicking

You deserve an asskicking for saying that. Who are you or the US to decide who needs an "asskicking"? This is why americans are so hated, because they get into shit they have no business getting into.

[DRFsimmsy]

Pentti Linkola

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be such an incompetent dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economic growth.

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and as a result, will sink it. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.

The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economic growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity brings enjoyment and happiness - even though all the historical evidence shows that only need and attempts to achieve cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn't bring anything but despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.

That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.

Nature Cannot Sustain Democracy

A fundamental, devastating error is political system based on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for nature.

Just as only one out of 100, 000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or the mankind.

In this time and this part of the world we are mindlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system. Even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of humankind.

In democratic coutries destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most.

Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen.

Population

If the present number of Earth's population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth control, then:

- Birthgiving will be licensed. To enhance the quality of the population, genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring so that several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.

- Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications.

- Food: Hunting is made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals. Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer.

- Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.

- Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.

- Business will mostly end. Manufacture is allowed only for well argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations.

- Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.

In the history of mankind we witness Nature's desperate struggle against an error of her own evolution. An old and previously efficacious method of curtailment, hunger, began to increasingly lose its effectiveness as man's engineering abilities progressed. Man had wrenched himself loose from his niche and started to grab more and more resources, displacing other forms of life. Then Nature took stock of the situation, found out that she had lost the first round, and changed strategy. She brandished a weapon she hadn't been able to employ when the enemy had been scattered in numbers, but one which was all the more effective now against the densely proliferating enemy troops. With the aid of microbes - or "infectious diseases" as man calls them, in the parlance of his war propaganda - Nature fought stubbornly for two thousand years against mankind and achieved many brilliant victories. But these triumphs remained localised, and more and more ineluctably took on the flavour of rear-guard actions. Nature wasn't capable of destroying the echelon of humanity in which scientists and researchers toiled away, and in the meantime they managed to disarm Nature of her arsenal.

At this point, Nature - no longer possessed of the weapons for attaining victory, yet utterly embittered and still retaining her sense of self-esteem - decided to concede a Pyrrhic victory to man, but only in the most absolute sense of the term. During the entire war, Nature had maintained her peculiar connection to the enemy: they had both shared the same supply sources, they drank from the same springs and ate from the same fields. Regardless of the course of the war, a permanent position of constraint prevailed at this point; for just as much as the enemy had not succeeded in conquering the supply targets for himself, Nature likewise did not possess the capability to take these same targets out of the clutches of humanity. The only option left was the scorched earth policy, which Nature had already tested on a small scale during the microbe-phase of the war, and which she decided to carry through to the bitter end. Nature did not submit to defeat - she called it a draw, but at the price of self-immolation. Man wasn't, after all, an external, autonomous enemy, but rather her very own tumour. And the fate of a tumour ordains that it must always die along with its host. (Pentti Linkola)

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/thefallofbecause/articles/humanflood.html

This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. (Jacques Cousteau)

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/cause/cousteau.htm

[Edric O]

What's this, some sort of eco-maniac and/or modern-day luddite? Now don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist myself, but people like this Pentti Linkola give serious environmentalists a bad reputation. Allow me to tear his idiocy to shreds:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy.

Go spend a few months in North Korea and then we'll see if you still believe that. As Winston Churchill once said, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". Quite simply, both history and logical deduction prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that dictatorship - ANY dictatorship - is always WORSE for the people than democracy.

There cannot be such an incompetent dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people.

I guess logic isn't your best subject, is it? If the majority of people are stupid, then the majority of potential dictators are stupid. After all, a dictator is part of the people too. If, for example, there is a country where 60% of people are "stupid" (whatever that is supposed to mean), then if you pick a random dictator, there is a 60% chance that he will be stupid.

The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economic growth.

So if you really want heads to roll, why don't you begin with yours? It wouldn't be much of a loss, that's for sure...

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and as a result, will sink it. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.

No, those who love and respect life will get out of the boat and help the children among the ship's passengers to get on it.

The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economic growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity brings enjoyment and happiness - even though all the historical evidence shows that only need and attempts to achieve cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn't bring anything but despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 5000 years? Not only do you have trouble comprehending simple logic, but you also seem to lack a basic knowledge of history. There's nothing "irrational" about technology - quite the contrary, technology is made possible by the two things that separate human beings from animals: Our minds and our hands. Our capacity to reason and our ability to manufacture tools.

Material prosperity HAS brought us enjoyment and happiness - unless you think people were happier when they had to constantly be on the lookout to avoid being eaten by wild animals and died of exhaustion and disease at the age of 30. Hell, the ultimate irony is the fact that you're using our oh-so-evil technology - the internet - to get your message across. I might actually have some respect for you if you weren't such a hypocrite.

That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.

First of all they're millions, not billions. Second of all, it's true that you do have a point - we are horribly misallocating our resources. Over a billion people (1/6 of the world's population) suffer from hunger, when we have the capability to grow more than enough food for everyone. But that's another story.

Nature Cannot Sustain Democracy

I wasn't aware that "nature" could tell the difference between our various systems of government.

A fundamental, devastating error is political system based on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for nature.

What is good for Humanity is good for Nature, and vice versa. Nature needs Humanity because human beings are the only species capable of space travel - thus the only species capable of saving Nature from the inevitable demise of our planet. And Humanity needs Nature because we are part of nature.

Just as only one out of 100, 000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or the mankind.

Actually, NO ONE is capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind. These matters are simply too complex for any single human being to grasp. So, right from the beginning, you need to think of an entire system of government, not a single leader.

And democracy is the best possible system of government because democracy is the only way to ensure that the government follows the wishes of the people. Every non-democratic system suffers from one fundamental flaw: Who keeps the leaders in check? If you want them to follow certain principles, how can you make sure that they actually follow those principles if they don't have to answer before anyone?

In democratic coutries destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most.

Uh, no. Actually, by far the worst destruction of the environment has (and is) taking place in dictatorship countries. The most solid democracies (Europe, North America and Australia) have the most advanced environmental protection laws, the greatest public awareness for environmental issues, and the strongest Green movements.

Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen.

I'd love to see your face when your beloved dictator says "Now that I have absolute power... screw the environment, I can do whatever I want!"

See, that's the problem with dictatorship: If absolute power is invested in one man (or a small group of people), how can you make sure that the man or group of people in question will follow the principles they're supposed to follow?

In the history of mankind we witness Nature's desperate struggle against an error of her own evolution.

News flash: WE, Homo Sapiens, are the only hope for "Nature" to get off this rock we call Earth and spread throughout the Galaxy. Without us, all of nature is going to get exterminated when the Sun turns into a red giant star.

Nature took stock of the situation... [...] changed strategy... [...] brandished a weapon... [...]

Excuse me, but NATURE IS NOT A SENTIENT ENTITY. If you're talking about nature as if "she" could actually think and consciously act, then you've got a serious psychological problem, my friend.

This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. (Jacques Cousteau)

Ever heard of birth control? (it is quite possible that things like the contraceptive pill did not exist when Cousteau made that statement, so he can be excused - but we, as 21st century humans, should know better)

Oh, and by the way: In all Western democracies (which you seem to hate so much), population has already stabilized. In fact, in some of those democracies (such as Germany, for example) it's actually decreasing.

[Megashrap]

You deserve an asskicking for saying that. Who are you or the US to decide who needs an "asskicking"? This is why americans are so hated, because they get into shit they have no business getting into.

 

  Oh Please, one persons view or opinion  right, wrong or indifferent does not some how create the illusion that ALL Americans think the same way. 

And btw, did you even bother to read the last paragraph of what he wrote,

Now, I'm fairly certain that this post won't be well-received. That's pretty much okay, you don't have to take it as truth, and if it really bothers you so much, I am at least glad that I am in some way challenging you or encouraging you to think about what's really going on.

Or just meander through it randomly to yank out a quote to make such a statment?

[DRFsimmsy]

First you need to understand that not everyone is equal. Then you can understand that a dictator could be intelligent (IE not everyone is of the same intelligence). Also some people are better than others in EVERYWAY and really are just superiour.

Edric most of your response was ad hominem. Things like "serious advocates of depopulation should start with themselves". If I could suicide bomb 5.5 billion people in 1 go then believe me i would.

Population is only decreasing for the white race in european countries. People of non-european heritage are, generally breeding way way faster (especially muslims). Read into that what you will.

Your main line of argument is that technology is important because we can stop the sun from dying out. The solution I propose is that technology be only handled by an elite group, and not the general public. (penti linkolas is totally anti-technology i believe - i disagree with this).

Also he's only using the internet as an easy way to distribute his ideas. The line about me (or him) being a hypocrite is just designed to make me (or him) look stupid instead of actually arguing against a point.

Edric I think you (like many people) only post on message boards to inflate your own ego.

[Edric O]

First you need to understand that not everyone is equal.

Define "equal". If you mean that people are not identical, then you are correct. But there's a difference between diversity and inequality: Diversity means that people are not the same. Inequality means that you can actually measure and quantify the differences between people in order to determine who is "superior" and who is "inferior". That is not the case. People are different, but you can't put < or > signs between them, because a human being is too complex to fit on such a one-dimensional scale.

Then you can understand that a dictator could be intelligent (IE not everyone is of the same intelligence).

Of course he could be. But like I've shown you, if we start from the assumption that most people are stupid, then most potential dictators are also stupid. And by the way, who gets to measure the dictator's intelligence? And who gets to measure the intelligence of the guy who measures the dictator's intelligence?

On another note, an intelligent leader is not necessarily a good leader. People can be very intelligent and very evil at the same time, you know... And intelligence isn't unidimensional either. For example: Who was the bigger genius, Einstein or Mozart?

Also some people are better than others in EVERYWAY and really are just superiour.

Really? And how exactly do you measure "better-ness"? Or, for that matter, how do you even DEFINE "better-ness"? People have a number of qualities. Who gets to decide which qualities are more important than others, or which ones are good and which ones are bad?

Edric most of your response was ad hominem.

No, I just added a lot of personal attacks in between my arguments to express my disgust with the idiot who wrote that essay.

Things like "serious advocates of depopulation should start with themselves". If I could suicide bomb 5.5 billion people in 1 go then believe me i would.

If you were in a position to do that, and if I were in a position to kill you before you could do it, believe me I would.

Population is only decreasing for the white race in european countries. People of non-european heritage are, generally breeding way way faster (especially muslims). Read into that what you will.

Actually, there is no correlation between race and "breeding speed". Latin Americans are of mostly European descent, yet their population numbers are growing extremely fast. On the other hand, the Japanese, Chinese and other East Asians are about as non-European as you can possibly get, and their population numbers have stabilized in much the same way as Europe's. Also, the world's fastest-growing nation, India, is part of the Indo-European family.

Your main line of argument is that technology is important because we can stop the sun from dying out.

My argument was that human technology is important for nature because we can use it to spread life through the Galaxy and thus save nature from extinction when the sun dies out.

That's why technology is important for nature. But technology is also important for human beings, for a million other reasons.

The solution I propose is that technology be only handled by an elite group, and not the general public. (penti linkolas is totally anti-technology i believe - i disagree with this).

You mean going back to the Dark Ages? No thank you! And by the way, before you propose a solution, you have to define the problem. Then you have to show that your solution actually solves that problem, and that its side effects aren't worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.

Also he's only using the internet as an easy way to distribute his ideas. The line about me (or him) being a hypocrite is just designed to make me (or him) look stupid instead of actually arguing against a point.

Notice that I have argued against his point. And, well, he is a hypocrite. Unless he believes that he should "fight fire with fire" (i.e. use technology against technology), which is a valid strategy - except that he doesn't mention it anywhere.

Edric I think you (like many people) only post on message boards to inflate your own ego.

I post for many reasons, but "inflating my ego" is certainly not among them (as you will undoubtebly find out in the course of time). Right now, I am posting because I wish to combat stupidity.

[DRFsimmsy]

Sorry it was all the ad hominem and 'smart' responses that made me thing you were an egomaniac. Anyway, I'll post more later (tommorow).