Author of Shiva's Messenger

[beer good]

Nazi Germany fit the definition of your 'modern western democracy'. Look how that turned out.

Today's Questionable Content strip was eerily spot-on.

- Whoever has the thumbs makes the rules.
- Well... you know who else had thumbs? HITLER!

 

[nyse]

Okay, I didn't understand that part at first. Sounds better now, but you'd still have an organization, that has basically limitless power as there are no laws working as guidelines or barriers. And even while the police / court are independent from the government, there would eventually be lobbying and persons in power making favours for each others, accross different institutions within the governing elements of the country. This would result in corruption and unfair distribution of power, and most likely wealth.

There's too much that's been misunderstood in this thread. I'll have to go back to my drawing board to figure out a better way to explain.

 

[Litany]

I suggest the internationally recognised language of mime.

 

[nyse]

I suggest the internationally recognised language of mime.

I doubt if you could understand any concepts deeper than a wading pool.

 

[sparkchaser]

I'll have to go back to my drawing board to figure out a better way to explain.

That's a good idea. Be sure to lay off the bud while doing it.

 

[Litany]

I doubt if you could understand any concepts deeper than a wading pool.

I can tell you're warming to me.

 

[Zolipara]

Another example of Goodwin's Law.

 

[nyse]

Sorry, I couldn't find anything in a reply post worth quoting.

Often at boards, I find a few open-minded people. Here unfortunately, all I've seen are those who have their opinions etched in stone--before even understanding the other side. Banal quips just show that you haven't understood the material.

I didn't say there should be no public defence system, I've only suggested that 'law' is not the optimum way of accomplishing what we all wish law could do.

You can all skitter brainlessly as squirrels off to your safe little slave topics. I'll look elsewhere for some with intellect to converse with.

 

[Tasku]

I'm open minded. I just don't think what you suggested would work in the real world. It sounds like a good science fiction novel, though.

Calling other people brainless squirrels, simply because they disagree with your viewpoint, is not the best way to go if an open-minded discussion is what you want, I might also point out.

Before the above comment, I had respect for your intellect, not so much after such a childish remark. I've said that it's a good theory, but I just couldn't agree with it's potential in the real world.

In the real world you have to convince other people, if you want to make a change, not call them names, if they disagree. You didn't convince us, get over it, it's not the end of the world, only end of discussion.

 

[sparkchaser]

You can all skitter brainlessly as squirrels off to your safe little slave topics. I'll look elsewhere for some with intellect to converse with.

When you find that place, I want to see the ensuing discussion.

 

[VTChEwbecca]

Banal quips just show that you haven't understood the material.

Or, perhaps, they show that you have failed to fully explain your beliefs.

 

[nyse]

I haven't read the full thread, being that I've just registered here, but I did read the first couple of pages, and understand the basic concept of this little debate that has errupted here in the Introductions forum.



Anyways, the above statement - and excuse me, if this issue has already been discussed, like I said, I didn't read it all - to me sounds like dictatorship, or atleast the possible seed to dictatorship. Without guidelines - "laws", we have anarchy, and in times of anarchy, the strong will rule as they please.

Like I said, I'll stop my rant here, running the risk that I have missed something here...

First you told me you didn't even read the thread.

I'm sorry, but I just can't help but point out once again, that this would most definately turn into a tyrannical dictatorship.

What you're basically saying is that, the police / court, or who ever it is that has the throne of power, can pretty much kill off anyone they so desire, because they decide who is a threat to society.

How do you expect any progress being made in a society, where the opposition will always be cut down by a courtsystem, that has ruled that they are a threat to society by some wierd logic that will suit their own goals?

I understand that what you're proposing is not meant as a dictatorship, but having no guidelines by which to rule the population, and giving the power to make those guidelines as we go along, to those who are holding this position in the society, is a dead end, which will lead to the same result that we've seen with pretty much every revolution in history, except for modern western democracy. Good example of this is communism, which also started off as a society for the people, and ended up society for one person.



No, the reason innocent people are convicted, is because the evidence are pointing that way and those interpeting the evidence are only people just as you and me, and we all make mistakes. What I'm also having a hard time understanding in your above comment, is this "Arson-Theory". I've seen (or atleast heard of) numerous suicides, traffic accidents and other fatal incidents, where no one was convicted, because no one was to blame.

Then you felt you understood the concepts so fully that you could envison fatal flaws.

Okay, I didn't understand that part at first. Sounds better now, but you'd still have an organization, that has basically limitless power as there are no laws working as guidelines or barriers. And even while the police / court are independent from the government, there would eventually be lobbying and persons in power making favours for each others, accross different institutions within the governing elements of the country. This would result in corruption and unfair distribution of power, and most likely wealth.



Yes, I'm not trying to defend democracy as the perfect system. Power corrupts, and there is no such a leader, who wouldn't take advantage of his / her position if they have the opportunity to do so.

My point, however was about revolutions (meaning series of events, that lead to change in the doctrine by which a country is ruled) often turn out something else than what was promised to the people, or even what was first planned by those stepping into power. In another words: your system is undobtetly meant as a step forward, but the fact that you set no boundaries (also known as "laws") for your governing elements, would in my mind, and as shown by history, most likely turn into something different. Not necesseary immediately, but by time it would slip from it's original purpose into something else.



{omitting part about police investigative theory}

All in all, it's a good theory, utopia if you like, but I would most definately oppose such a system, if for some reason they decided to change our current system into that. And by reading the posts in this thread, you can see, so would most rest of us.

You aren't defending the admittedly flawed current system--but yet you are because you've discounted an alternative without reading into it, asking questions to fully enlighten yourself on it, or even questioning why the problems exist in the serf system of rules and punishments.

I'm open minded. I just don't think what you suggested would work in the real world. It sounds like a good science fiction novel, though.

Calling other people brainless squirrels, simply because they disagree with your viewpoint, is not the best way to go if an open-minded discussion is what you want, I might also point out.

Before the above comment, I had respect for your intellect, not so much after such a childish remark. I've said that it's a good theory, but I just couldn't agree with it's potential in the real world.

In the real world you have to convince other people, if you want to make a change, not call them names, if they disagree. You didn't convince us, get over it, it's not the end of the world, only end of discussion.

I hope it is the beginning of the end of the slave system. Regardless of what you think (without thinking) of my views, I have them strongly. If charged with some rediculous crime of jaywalking, where nobody was endangered, I will stand up in court and avow that I'm not a slave and that I don't acknowledge laws or the intrinsic authority of those who passed them. I may be chastised but if I am free, as you (blindly) say that you are, then I have a right to hold my opinions.

My thoughts on law, which your religious conviction to won't let you look critically at, are fully defensible. Whereas, your 'rule-of-law' and sophist adversarial orators court system is patently ludecras.

I suppose that I'm sorry about calling you brainless squirrels. Squirrels are free but until you dare to look at your chains, you're more like donkeys tied to a wheel and trodding to run a master's grist mill.

 

[BeerWench13]

When you propose this "system" to save humanity from slavery, are you going to simply insult anyone who questions your theory or asks you to expound on your beliefs? If so, I'd say that you're not only going to have a hard time convincing others that your theory is sound, but will put off many that may have backed you if you kept a cool head and answered the questions/criticisms in a calm, collected and intellectual way.

You will notice that many of us simply asked hypothetical questions regarding your theory. Your first response was to say that we are all closed-minded and that we're "brainless squirrels" followed by a retraction and then another very polite and uplifiting "you're more like donkeys tied to a wheel and trodding to run a master's grist mill."

Welcome to reality, my friend. Very few will open their minds to any idea that you have (or read your books, for that matter) if you choose this type of reactionary insulting of mind and wit instead of a true discussion.

It seems that your idea of a "discussion" is for everyone to blindly follow what you say and not question your theory because you are right and any who do not see that are wrong and they are bobble-headed idiots for not seeing your obviously flawless perception.

I tried to keep an open mind to your point of view, but you did not do well to convince me that your way would be a better way. In fact, you got extremely defensive when others poked holes in your idea. So, perhaps you should start another thread with a clean slate and a better introduction to your theory than "you are all slaves" followed by the "brainless squirrels" statement. I find you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[Tasku]

I concur to the above.

I admit, like I said, I didn't read all of it. I'm only human. I read the beginning one and a half pages, after which it seemed to loop into same arguments being repeated without any answers being provided to the questions. So I didn't think there'd be any answers in the next two pages either, just same old I think-you think game of ping-pong. So I jumped to the end to see, if the tone had changed, and grabbed to something that caught my eye: the obvious fault in the system, with no guidelines or consequences for misuse of power to those in charge.

But there's no point going back to this. It has been gone over and over and over again, without any clear answer from you, and I have no obligation to try to squeeze it out of you, because frankly, I'm loosing interest.

If you were holding a speech on market square to gather troops for your big demonstration against this so called "system of slavery", and this thread would be your big speech, and we would be your audience, you can see what would've been the result. First there would've been an uncomfortable silence, people mumbling to each other: "This doesn't sound good. What is he talking about? That's crazy!" And then, as no one would agree with you, you start the name calling, after which rotten tomatoes would be flying in the air, while you'd be cussing and swearing at us: "You mindless donkeys, brainless squirrells, I'm telling you, this is how it goes, I know, I can see the light! OUCH! ... cut it out! OUCH!"

You may call us what you want, but you failed to put your idea thru here, no matter how hard you believe in it yourself.

 

[Landslide]

I suppose that I'm sorry about calling you brainless squirrels. Squirrels are free but until you dare to look at your chains, you're more like donkeys tied to a wheel and trodding to run a master's grist mill.

So what's next? Por qué no te callas?

 

[beer good]

I suppose that I'm sorry about calling you brainless squirrels. Squirrels are free but until you dare to look at your chains, you're more like donkeys tied to a wheel and trodding to run a master's grist mill.

Oh YEAH? Well... uh... your mother was a hamster!

 

[Zolipara]

Oh YEAH? Well... uh... your mother was a hamster!

And your father smelt of elderberries!

 

[beer good]

And your father smelt of elderberries!

I fart in your general direction! Fetchez la vache!

Or, perhaps more on topic, this old skit out of Blackadder, with a French aristocrat and a revolutionary arguing:

Soldier: ...and you, aristo-pig, are trapped!!!
Aristocrat: Pig? Hah! You will regret your insolence, revolutionary dog!
Soldier: Dog? Hah! You will regret your arrogance, royalist snake!
Aristocrat: Snake? Hah! How dare you, you filthy weasel!
Soldier: Weasel? Hah! You're one to talk, aristo-warthog!
Aristocrat: Warthog? Hah!
Soldier: Hah! I think I will torture you, aristo-mongrel!
Aristocrat: Mongrel? Hah! I look forward to it, proletarian skunk!
Soldier: Skunk? Hah! We'll see about that, aristocratic happypotamus!
Aristocrat: Happypotamus? Hah!...

...and so on and so forth.

 

[BeerWench13]

Or quite possibly...

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

 

[sparkchaser]

At least the logic is consistent.