To obtain a true democracy you must have educated citizens. Educated citizens are key because of their ability to solve problems, learn, and be open to new ideas. The democratic system should be set up like this: there are the citizens who elect senators. Then the people, at local community centers and town halls, shall come up with issues and ideas to improve the country or state. The citizens shall then send the ideas and issues to the senators at the capital. The senators shall then pick the most important issues and ideas and put them into place for them to take action. Thus the people choose what goes on in their nation. The tax placed on the people should be relatively high, to ensure enough money for the ideas and issues to get into action. In this state the people shall elect any government official to represent a certain section of the budget. For example the citizens of this ‘country A’ elect a Secretary of Defense for choosing what money, from the military budget, should be spent on; equipment, weapon production, etc. These government officials must be educated for this system to work, for the people would not want a Secretary of Defense spending all of the military money on food for the soldiers when there are no soldiers. This shows the importance of education in this kind of society. Going back to the senators, these men and women must be highly intelligent in the state of the country to know how they should spend the budget. In this kind of society, children in high-school should not be able to drop out, education is key to this country. In some cases poor families would not be able to afford special education, healthcare, college, etc. so a large section of the budget must be spent on plans for the poor and even the middle and high classes. In this nation if people cannot be healthy – or educated – the government will not work. This country now might be called a ‘socialist democracy’ because of its generally high tax rate and large umbrella welfare/health/education programs, but this government could not really take a turn into right-wing politics. The government needs to be taking care of everyone, meaning higher taxes, watching out for the poor, and a little bit of socialism. - THB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
whoops actually BTH

uh, wut?

I wrote this, you are supposed to read it.

It seems like this should be moved to Off-Topic if that is the case.

Ya I guess so.

seconded for a move. that said...

Hadarac wrote:To obtain a true democracy you must have educated citizens. Educated citizens are key because of their ability to solve problems, learn, and be open to new ideas.

define "education". is this through school, colege, life experience etc? "education" comes from a variety of sources. a potato farmer from idaho who can barely read and write might be as fully capable of solving some issues, and dealing with people on a better level than some egghead from a university. also, define how this education is taught. what defines its content, its focus? and to be fair, plenty highly educated scientists stake entire careers on a theory - they're going to be utterly against competing ideas, as much as any two religious zealots.

Hadarac wrote:The democratic system should be set up like this: there are the citizens who elect senators. Then the people, at local community centers and town halls, shall come up with issues and ideas to improve the country or state. The citizens shall then send the ideas and issues to the senators at the capital.

and possibly sending said ideas to places where people wont necessarily get it.

Hadarac wrote: The senators shall then pick the most important issues and ideas and put them into place for them to take action.

so a small number of people make policy? and who defines policy? special interests groups? lobbyists? MONEY? by definition, not democracy. this is a pleutocratic oligarchy - ironically, what most of us do actually call "democracy".

Hadarac wrote:Thus the people choose what goes on in their nation.

no, the people chose a bunch of folks to govern them. those folks then do what they want. you're ignoring a little thing called human nature. your ideas imply a collective.

Hadarac wrote:The tax placed on the people should be relatively high, to ensure enough money for the ideas and issues to get into action.

and those who create wealth will have no incentive to make more, when taxes are high. why should i try and make a million when the gocernment takes half? its nice nice, but capitalism is about the only way of pushing people in a vaguely productive direction. the trick is marrying capitalism to social justice.

Hadarac wrote:These government officials must be educated for this system to work, for the people would not want a Secretary of Defense spending all of the military money on food for the soldiers when there are no soldiers.

again, define education.

Hadarac wrote:This shows the importance of education in this kind of society. Going back to the senators, these men and women must be highly intelligent in the state of the country to know how they should spend the budget. In this kind of society, children in high-school should not be able to drop out, education is key to this country.

define education. just because you did great at school doesnt make you the right person to run a business or a country. plenty of those highly educated fools will be great on theory, and utterly lousy at practicality. as to not being able to drop out - not everyone is cut out for school. what about trades and apprenticeships? saying you must do great at school does nothing but create another strata of haves and have nots.

Hadarac wrote:In some cases poor families would not be able to afford special education, healthcare, college, etc. so a large section of the budget must be spent on plans for the poor and even the middle and high classes. In this nation if people cannot be healthy – or educated – the government will not work. This country now might be called a ‘socialist democracy’ because of its generally high tax rate and large umbrella welfare/health/education programs, but this government could not really take a turn into right-wing politics. The government needs to be taking care of everyone, meaning higher taxes, watching out for the poor, and a little bit of socialism. - THB

to an extent, but i, and many others have issues with the welfare state idea. I have no problem with working hard, or paying taxes, but i am more concerned about my tax sterlings being put to good use. throwing a large segment of money at a large, and a (being s cynical devils advocate) potentially unproductive sector of society does what, exactly?Why the special treatment? if i work hard through school, work hard at my job for a measly wage (since all my money is going to the nanny state) why do they get all the benefits of my labour? I feel that people should be encouraged to go out there, get a job, earn an honest living rather than living on handouts from a nanny state (that said, i do believe in social security, and social justice - people need to be looked after, to an extent as well) . and again, education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Wall of text. Find the enter key, then I'll try reading it.

Did anyone find a point hidden in that wall of text.

If it was there, I missed it.

40k isn't about democracy and fluffy kittens.
It's not about a "long time ago, far far away" place where the bureaucracy gets bogged down in committee discussions so often they only get a chance for wars every 10,000 or so years (The events in ep IV-VI are a mopping up operation AFTER the war).

In the 41st Millennium, there is only war.
NOT:
In the 41st millennium, there are only endless political round-table discussions, focus groups, committees and senatorial inquiries.

Hadarac wrote:In some cases poor families would not be able to afford special education, healthcare, college, etc. so a large section of the budget must be spent on plans for the poor and even the middle and high classes. In this nation if people cannot be healthy – or educated – the government will not work. This country now might be called a ‘socialist democracy’ because of its generally high tax rate and large umbrella welfare/health/education programs, but this government could not really take a turn into right-wing politics. The government needs to be taking care of everyone, meaning higher taxes, watching out for the poor, and a little bit of socialism. - THB

deadnight wrote:to an extent, but i, and many others have issues with the welfare state idea. I have no problem with working hard, or paying taxes, but i am more concerned about my tax sterlings being put to good use. throwing a large segment of money at a large, and a (being s cynical devils advocate) potentially unproductive sector of society does what, exactly?Why the special treatment? if i work hard through school, work hard at my job for a measly wage (since all my money is going to the nanny state) why do they get all the benefits of my labour? I feel that people should be encouraged to go out there, get a job, earn an honest living rather than living on handouts from a nanny state (that said, i do believe in social security, and social justice - people need to be looked after, to an extent as well) . and again, education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Well, what is wont to happen in capitalist societies without strong welfare is that the people who work the hardest are exploited and given low wages by the people with the guile and low morals to rise through society while doing little work themselves at all. This is inevitably going to happen (except in a hardcore communist state, and even then it is still possible), so welfare-free capitalist states are inevitably going to turn into, to quote the immortal words of TBBT's* Amy Farrah-Fowler, "a society of gangs of tattooed motorcycle riders fighting to the death over the last few cans of tuna fish." Okay, slight exaggeration, but you get the point. Also, as a final note, while your point about other people benefiting from your labors is valid, you are also probably benefiting somewhat from other people's. Therefore, there is little reason to fear the welfare system.

*I am aware that a number of people on the Interwebs- Including a number of dakkanaughts- loathe that show, but I'd like to request we not go off on a tangent about how bad or good it is.

You may want to put some sort of introduction on what you are presenting. As its stands it is just a wall of text on political philosophy with no explantation of your point. Were you wearing a monocle and twirling your moustache when you wrote this?

Deadnight wrote:education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Education is absolutely the key. Educated people are not satisfied with a welfare existance, and people who live in these entrenched cultures of welfare dependance are almost universally uneducated.

I will say this.

If the imperium was a democracy and elected its officials


It would be a nightmare of ungodly proportions to do the voting system.....

Indeed. It is impossable to have a democracy at that scale.

Heck, I'd call a planet sized democracy to be nigh-on impossable.

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. It is impossable to have a democracy at that scale.
Heck, I'd call a planet sized democracy to be nigh-on impossable.

I dunno. I found the idea of the Asari Republics in ME pretty convincing. The key was the use of technology to allow widespread citizen discussions and voting, as well as everything being organized in semi-independent city-states cooperating with each other on largely voluntary basis, excepting matters of defence (all local forces can be called upon by a unified High Command) and similar emergencies (like disaster aid) or outside representation (the Asari Councillor acting on majority votes).
I could totally see an entire planet being ruled this way. Or a galactic empire. There's no upper limit to how many city-states you could have, simply because everything is so highly decentralised.

This model of governance has fallen out of favour on Earth, but the Asari Republics were obviously inspired by the Greek city-states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Politics_and_society

Also, e-democracy is already a technological possibility. I just have a feeling that the various governments of the nations of this Earth aren't very keen on letting their citizens vote on even more stuff than they already do.
Sadly, in many cases that might actually be for the better (lack of proper education, again). And for the various influential lobbies, it might actually cheaper to manipulate public perception by clever media campaigns rather than having to buy/bribe/blackmail a number of politicians.
Maybe in another couple decades, huh?

Democracy works if the participants don't botch the system.

The issues with voter fraud will always be a major problem. Its easier to track fraud if it leaves a paper trail, but electronic stuff is easy to erase if you know how. And if you know how to rig the electronic voting, you will know how to cover your tracks.

Not to mention that time can be an issue.


Greek Style democracy is impossable on a scale larger then a single city. Everyone needing to vote on everything is impractical, I don't care how much technology you have. Not to mention all the quibbling and debating that would be needed.

The only reason it probably worked for the Greeks is because Citizenship was so restricted(land owning men pretty much) and it was on a relativly small scale(one city is all there was)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Can you break it up into paragraphs. It is a tad annoying trying to read a huge block of text.

Hadarac wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

What?

Are you suggesting the imperium isn't a democracy? Because you'd be right


Von Chogg

Hadarac wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Read up China. Works for them, similarly the Imperium as well.

Grey Templar wrote:Everyone needing to vote on everything is impractical, I don't care how much technology you have. Not to mention all the quibbling and debating that would be needed.

Not "needing" - just be allowed to. People who do not vote are simply assumed to have a neutral stance to the issue.

The system would require citizens to be somewhat politically engaged and spend some time informing themselves, but I do not think this is impossible, it'd just require a different, more conscious society than most nations currently have. People would then be granted a weekly option to vote on, say, two issues concerning their city and one issue concerning the nation as a whole, unless a crisis needs more attention than usual. Said issues can be suggested to and then brought forward by elected representatives of the various apartment blocks making up the larger city-state. Said representatives do not have any special legislative powers themselves but exist solely to gather feedback from and pass on information to their local community.

I know, I know, utopia.

The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Kaldor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Education is absolutely the key. Educated people are not satisfied with a welfare existance, and people who live in these entrenched cultures of welfare dependance are almost universally uneducated.

Agreed, Kaldor. If education isn't proving to be the key, then it means the government isn't spending enough money on it.

Tadashi wrote:The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there. Just that with this form of government, there's also the vague possibility that the wrong guy/s is/are at the helm. You know what they say - power corrupts.
Increased efficiency is pretty much a given, though. Unless whoever sits on the throne really doesn't care. But even then there'd probably be ministers who would be granted the necessary authority.

Actually, an interesting idea comes from the Star Wars Prequels ... there's a planet which basically democratically elects a dictator who has absolute power, until their term is up. I wonder if that would work in real life (obviously with some sort of safeguard that'd prevent the dictator from simply holding on to power, so basically a "constitutional electorate monarchy" or something).

Methinks someone found a political gobbledeygook generator and is trolling.

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there. Just that with this form of government, there's also the vague possibility that the wrong guy/s is/are at the helm. You know what they say - power corrupts.
Increased efficiency is pretty much a given, though. Unless whoever sits on the throne really doesn't care. But even then there'd probably be ministers who would be granted the necessary authority.

For all its faults, the best government is a meritocratic bureaucracy and an absolute monarchy. Since the former pretty much is self-perpetuating and actually does most of the work, even an incompetent on the throne shouldn't be too bad.

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there. Just that with this form of government, there's also the vague possibility that the wrong guy/s is/are at the helm. You know what they say - power corrupts.
Increased efficiency is pretty much a given, though. Unless whoever sits on the throne really doesn't care. But even then there'd probably be ministers who would be granted the necessary authority.

Actually, an interesting idea comes from the Star Wars Prequels ... there's a planet which basically democratically elects a dictator who has absolute power, until their term is up. I wonder if that would work in real life (obviously with some sort of safeguard that'd prevent the dictator from simply holding on to power, so basically a "constitutional electorate monarchy" or something).

I don't think that the system used by Naboo (the planet you're referring to) would work very well, as any dictator- democratically elected or not- will probably end up abusing their power. Also, if they have control of the military, they basically can do anything they want, as, while Starship Troopers was a terrible movie, they got one thing right: violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The ability to do a thing does not make it the right thing. If I rape a woman, have I done the right thing, just because I was able to?

To begin reform is to begin revolution.

Thought begets Heresy, Heresy begets Retribution.

Educate men without Faith, and you make them but clever devils.

A fine mind is a blessing of the Emperor - It should not be cluttered with trivialities.

Be strong in your ignorance.

A logical argument must be dismissed with absolute conviction!

A questioning servant is more dangerous than an ignorant heretic

A small mind is a tidy mind.

A small mind is easily filled with faith.

An Empty Mind Is A Loyal Mind

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt

Contemplation is the womb of treachery

Faith, Hate and Ignorance

Ignorance is a virtue

Ignorance is bliss

Knowledge is to be feared!

Knowledge is to be feared!

Reason begets doubt; Doubt begets heresy.

Reason is the cloak of Traitors

The difference between heresy and treachery is ignorance

To question is to doubt

Trying to understand weakens the will to act

You are not required to think, only to act

... I miss any? This is why education is worthless in 40K for the unwashed masses of humanity.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The ability to do a thing does not make it the right thing. If I rape a woman, have I done the right thing, just because I was able to?

If you can get away with it, who or what is going to make you pay for it? If someone makes use of 'poetic justice', he'll be convicted as a murderer. Justice is relative...what is just for some is not just for others...even if what you did is 'right' or 'wrong', the law will not always be on your side. And this is a bit philosophical, but terms like 'good', 'evil', 'right and wrong', are but Human terms, meaningless as far as the greater universe is concerned.

Having read through this... though I had fun posting Thoughts for the Day... I'm convinced that this thread is just trollbait.

Psienesis wrote:I'm convinced that this thread is just trollbait.

Good point, why is something like this even in 40k General Discussion?

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

No. But I look to the law for what is right and wrong. Good and evil I can do away with - its too complicated. If the suspect somehow manages to get away on a technicality, or an innocent gets framed, so be it. The law is the law.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The ability to do a thing does not make it the right thing. If I rape a woman, have I done the right thing, just because I was able to?

If you can get away with it, who or what is going to make you pay for it? If someone makes use of 'poetic justice', he'll be convicted as a murderer. Justice is relative...what is just for some is not just for others...even if what you did is 'right' or 'wrong', the law will not always be on your side. And this is a bit philosophical, but terms like 'good', 'evil', 'right and wrong', are but Human terms, meaningless as far as the greater universe is concerned.

In the grim darkness of the 41st millenium there is only Moral Nihilism.

I would have to agree with Kaldor you are spouting nonsense, might is right because you can get away with it? You aren't a space marine IRL, this is not the Horus Heresy.

If good and evil are meaningless then so is your philosophy as it is a human construct along with anything else your brain comes up with. I guess that means if nothing is of consequence or value now we can all neck ourselves.

Hadarac wrote:To obtain a true democracy you must have educated citizens.

The first sentence is wrong, why read the rest?

If twenty cave men pick "Ug" as the leader because he is stronger than the rest of them, isn't that a true democracy as well?

Why do you have to be educated? You just have to have freedom of choice, and a choice!

Asuryan wrote:

If good and evil are meaningless then so is your philosophy as it is a human construct along with anything else your brain comes up with. I guess that means if nothing is of consequence or value now we can all neck ourselves.

And the universe wouldn't shed a tear...I got that from reading H.P. Lovecraft. The universe is vast...to it, we and our planet are less than a grain of sand. Therefore, transhumanism - technological superiority and accelerated evolution via artificial means - is the key...I won't be satisfied until I see Humans are like Eldar - our mere thoughts killing stars and making something from nothing. MAKE THE UNIVERSE ACKNOWLEDGE US...BOW BEFORE US. Only then will right and wrong, even good and evil, become real...because we have transcended the universe itself.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

No. But I look to the law for what is right and wrong. Good and evil I can do away with - its too complicated. If the suspect somehow manages to get away on a technicality, or an innocent gets framed, so be it. The law is the law.

The law is just a tool that might be broken. Getting away with murder or rape is not a slight justification and not getting away is not a punishment - your conscience and moral compass or lack of might be. If you lack a conscience or moral compass, you're an animal for me but that's obviously relative. I would still hurt you accordingly for mentioned crimes, to make sure you're aware of the pain etc.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

No. But I look to the law for what is right and wrong. Good and evil I can do away with - its too complicated. If the suspect somehow manages to get away on a technicality, or an innocent gets framed, so be it. The law is the law.

The law is just a tool that might be broken. Getting away with murder or rape is not a slight justification and not getting away is not a punishment - your conscience and moral compass or lack of might be. If you lack a conscience or moral compass, you're an animal for me but that's obviously relative. I would still hurt you accordingly for mentioned crimes, to make sure you're aware of the pain etc.

And how different would that make you in the eyes of the law and the judicial system? To uphold the law means to be blind, to maintain balance. The conscience and moral compass are useless as far as the law is concerned.

Tadashi wrote:And how different would that make you in the eyes of the law and the judicial system? To uphold the law means to be blind, to maintain balance. The conscience and moral compass are useless as far as the law is concerned.

Look, the things that we call 'right' and 'wrong' are evolved psychological constructs that enable us to live together in communities. While their is fluctuation between them, they hinge on common factors of empathy and sympathy, greed, and a desire to protect what is ours. This manifests in different ways (stoning people to death for adultery in some countries, for example) but the key factors remain the same.

Are you saying you have no concept of right and wrong as moral constructs? That you are totally devoid of empathy, or other human emotions?

Kaldor wrote:Look, the things that we call 'right' and 'wrong' are evolved psychological constructs that enable us to live together in communities. While their is fluctuation between them, they hinge on common factors of empathy and sympathy, greed, and a desire to protect what is ours. This manifests in different ways (stoning people to death for adultery in some countries, for example) but the key factors remain the same.

Your missing a few, but otherwise have the right idea. The ''pillars of morality'' are Empathy, Reciprocity (or fairness), Loyalty, Authority, Purity and Liberty. Each and everyone of them are identifiable in even some of the most basic social lifeforms.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:And how different would that make you in the eyes of the law and the judicial system? To uphold the law means to be blind, to maintain balance. The conscience and moral compass are useless as far as the law is concerned.

Look, the things that we call 'right' and 'wrong' are evolved psychological constructs that enable us to live together in communities. While their is fluctuation between them, they hinge on common factors of empathy and sympathy, greed, and a desire to protect what is ours. This manifests in different ways (stoning people to death for adultery in some countries, for example) but the key factors remain the same.

Are you saying you have no concept of right and wrong as moral constructs? That you are totally devoid of empathy, or other human emotions?

No. But I put aside my personal beliefs and ideals in favor of what the law demands. Everyone knows the guy is a rapist - because of a technicality he gets acquitted. While I would love nothing more than to have him shot in public, I'm not going to act on that because that's what the law decrees. Another example is Syria - I find the West's condemnation of Russia and China defending their middle eastern assets in Syria as tripe. What do you expect them to do? Sacrifice their interests by letting America and its allies further extend its power into the region? Same with the condemnations of the Syria government's ruthlessness. You expect them not to do anything as a rebellion rages?

I have empathy and other Human emotions - I just chain them away. For a variety of reasons.

Tadashi wrote:
No. But I put aside my personal beliefs and ideals in favor of what the law demands. Everyone knows the guy is a rapist - because of a technicality he gets acquitted. While I would love nothing more than to have him shot in public, I'm not going to act on that because that's what the law decrees.

And the fact that you might end up very dead if you decided to act on your impulse has nothing to do with it?

Another example is Syria - I find the West's condemnation of Russia and China defending their middle eastern assets in Syria as tripe. What do you expect them to do? Sacrifice their interests by letting America and its allies further extend its power into the region? Same with the condemnations of the Syria government's ruthlessness. You expect them not to do anything as a rebellion rages?

Beyond political gains, there are numerous reasons why one should promote a moral society. For exemple, you can pretty much correlate social developpment with overall individual trusthwortyness.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
No. But I put aside my personal beliefs and ideals in favor of what the law demands. Everyone knows the guy is a rapist - because of a technicality he gets acquitted. While I would love nothing more than to have him shot in public, I'm not going to act on that because that's what the law decrees.

And the fact that you might end up very dead if you decided to act on your impulse has nothing to do with it?

No. More like if I act on it I'll be the one standing in front of a judge next.

Another example is Syria - I find the West's condemnation of Russia and China defending their middle eastern assets in Syria as tripe. What do you expect them to do? Sacrifice their interests by letting America and its allies further extend its power into the region? Same with the condemnations of the Syria government's ruthlessness. You expect them not to do anything as a rebellion rages?

Beyond political gains, there are numerous reasons why one should promote a moral society. For exemple, you can pretty much correlate social developpment with overall individual trusthwortyness.

My point is that simply because Russia/China/Syria are simply doing what America would do in their place gives America and its allies no right to condemn their actions. And no one in this world is truly qualified to judge what is right and wrong. What is just for some is not for others - the Tokyo War Crime Trials are a perfect example. Japanese war criminals were tried, but the ones who ordered the fire-bombing of Japanese cities and the nuclear attacks were not - what the lone dissenting judge, Radhabinod Pal, described as 'a sword wrapped in the toga of justice'.

The best we can come to true justice is to place the interests of the greater community, in our case, our respective nations, above that of individuals or even other nations.

Tadashi wrote:
No. More like if I act on it I'll be the one standing in front of a judge next.

So you admit acting out of self-preservation... something which could be perceived as an intrinsic good... ?

My point is that simply because Russia/China/Syria are simply doing what America would do in their place gives America and its allies no right to condemn their actions.

Well yeah that's the point of Fairness and Reciprocity as foundations of morals.

And no one in this world is truly qualified to judge what is right and wrong. What is just for some is not for others - the Tokyo War Crime Trials are a perfect example. Japanese war criminals were tried, but the ones who ordered the fire-bombing of Japanese cities and the nuclear attacks were not - what the lone dissenting judge, Radhabinod Pal, described as 'a sword wrapped in the toga of justice'.

Of course we can judge what is right and what is wrong. Saying that something is relative doesn't mean it cannot be judged accuratly, in fact something can only be judged at all if it's in a relative position to it's judge. At an individual level it"s rather easy, in most cases. Culture tends to make us more sensitive to some good and evils, while become less to others, but complete insensitivity usually comes from trauma, or in very rare cases, birth defects (natural psychopaths are very very rare, but exists). That those judgements end up in actions in societies, that's a different thing. Often, judgements will simply fall flat at some institution's feet, like the military, or the government, who has found ways of deresponsibilising itself.

The best we can come to true justice is to place the interests of the greater community, in our case, our respective nations, above that of individuals or even other nations.

Wait. No. Nooooooo. Society isn't a being of which we are the parts and must align ourselves to it's needs. It's a medium that we've created so that we can prosper in it. Society exists for the individual, not the contrary.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Wait. No. Nooooooo. Society isn't a being of which we are the parts and must align ourselves to it's needs. It's a medium that we've created so that we can prosper in it. Society exists for the individual, not the contrary.

Only in the West. Here in Asia, the individual and his/her needs are subordinated to the needs of the greater community. We Asians prefer to think as 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Don't be racist and attempt to impose Western cultural values on Orientals. The cultural difference between our world views is as the difference between Eldar and Human. The greatest examples are the Asian monarchs - like the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King - are absolute in a way that Western Monarchs could never be. They are the people, and the people are they. An attack on the monarch is an attack on the people - hence General Macarthur absolutely refusing to indict the Japanese Emperor and restart WWII with nothing less than the ultimate insult and disrespect to an entire nation and its culture - and an attack on the people is an attack on the monarch. Constitution or not, should the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King make use of their rarely used absolute power, all Japanese/Thais will bow. There will be no questioning. Unlike in the West, our monarchs are ABSOLUTE. We do not question or criticize them. They in turn have complete power over us, but this is rarely (if ever) used except in the most imperative situations.

Tadashi wrote:Only in the West. Here in Asia, the individual and his/her needs are subordinated to the needs of the greater community. We Asians prefer to think as 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Don't be racist and attempt to impose Western cultural values on Orientals.

That wouldn't be racism, even if it was simply western value propaganda. And it isn't. Don't be insulting and devalue the intellectual worth of what I've said with trite attacks. The prevailing analogy in the West is still the organic one (or mechanic). Society is a being, or a machine, in which the individuals are the parts or members, that must align themselves with the intent of the whole. The opposite side which you dismiss as Western-centric is individualism, and simply deny the use of natural analogies to describe society. To individualists, there's each individuals and then there's the mass of said individuals, which must form a social contract to reduce the potential of conflict between each egos.

What I've offered as an analogy is a midway solution : society is the constructed habitat of mankind, like a fish tank or a spider's web. Individuals are required to build this habitat for no other reason that it's in our genetic and cultural makeup, and that if they don't they will perish or end up in a subhuman state. The advantage of this analogy is that it retains the individuals primacy, which cannot be denied for obvious biological reasons : the self is individual, and the society is an agregate, a group formed by simple additionnal numeration. It also allows for an explanation of social reciprocity which goes beyond, ''if you don't do this for me we might end up at war so do this''.

The cultural difference between our world views is as the difference between Eldar and Human. The greatest examples are the Asian monarchs - like the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King - are absolute in a way that Western Monarchs could never be. They are the people, and the people are they. An attack on the monarch is an attack on the people - hence General Macarthur absolutely refusing to indict the Japanese Emperor and restart WWII with nothing less than the ultimate insult and disrespect to an entire nation and its culture - and an attack on the people is an attack on the monarch. Constitution or not, should the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King make use of their rarely used absolute power, all Japanese/Thais will bow. There will be no questioning. Unlike in the West, our monarchs are ABSOLUTE. We do not question or criticize them. They in turn have complete power over us, but this is rarely (if ever) used except in the most imperative situations.

Herm everything you've just described was claimed as much by the European monarchs which subscribed to absolute monarchism? I don't know what to say, except suggest to read the Leviathan? I'm also unsure about what I seem to be reading as pride to be subserviant to an entity which you've probably never met and certainly cannot know well enough to know that he has your best interest at heart.

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Wait. No. Nooooooo. Society isn't a being of which we are the parts and must align ourselves to it's needs. It's a medium that we've created so that we can prosper in it. Society exists for the individual, not the contrary.

Only in the West. Here in Asia, the individual and his/her needs are subordinated to the needs of the greater community. We Asians prefer to think as 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Don't be racist and attempt to impose Western cultural values on Orientals.

What?

No. Society has undergone massive paradigm shifts in the west as well as the east. Unless you think the Japanese Emperor was always the seat of power in Japan, or the Chinese have always been socialists?

Society is a catch-all word for 'the way we all get along' and it can change drastically and quickly no matter where in the world it is located.

Kaldor wrote:
No. Society has undergone massive paradigm shifts in the west as well as the east. Unless you think the Japanese Emperor was always the seat of power in Japan, or the Chinese have always been socialists?

Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Herm everything you've just described was claimed as much by the European monarchs which subscribed to absolute monarchism? I don't know what to say, except suggest to read the Leviathan? I'm also unsure about what I seem to be reading as pride to be subserviant to an entity which you've probably never met and certainly cannot know well enough to know that he has your best interest at heart.

Sorry, but its so ingrained in my people's cultural collective that to remove it would effectively make us cease to exist. Not even the vaunted General Macarthur dared touch that authority - he never met the Showa Emperor, he was granted audiences.

No. Japan is a modern state. Modern states have only one repository of power, the constitutive assembly, and only one foundation to that power, and it's the people. Here, let me quote you your constitution :

government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.

The emperor of Japan is nothing more than a ceremonial Head of the State, in exactly the same capacities as the Queen of England for Canada. On top of things, he is possibly even less powerful than the Queen is, in the sense that it's still debated if the Queen is a constitutional monarch in regards to Canada, and would thus retain reserve powers. It's pretty clear, since the rapatriation of the constitution, that she isn't, but it's still under debate for some. Your constitution clearly states that the emperor doesn't have any reserve power.

Kovnik Obama wrote:No. Japan is a modern state. Modern states have only one repository of power, the constitutive assembly, and only one foundation to that power, and it's the people. Here, let me quote you your constitution :

government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.

The emperor of Japan is nothing more than a ceremonial Head of the State, in exactly the same capacities as the Queen of England for Canada. On top of things, he is possibly even less powerful than the Queen is, in the sense that it's still debated if the Queen is a constitutional monarch in regards to Canada, and would thus retain reserve powers. It's pretty clear, since the rapatriation of the constitution, that she isn't, but it's still under debate for some. Your constitution clearly states that the emperor doesn't have any reserve power.

Wrong again. That constitution was written by foreigners and imposed on us simply because the Showa Emperor accepted it. Culturally, the Emperor is still absolute, constitution or not. Try talking to my grandmother and father, both of whom grew up in Japan, and were the ones who taught me the difference in how Japan appears to the world, and how we really are.

Tadashi wrote:Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Even the most cursory examination of Japanese history puts the lie to your words.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Even the most cursory examination of Japanese history puts the lie to your words.

Then pray tell, why does the same family hold the absolute power of the Crysanthemum Throne for over a thousand years, and why none of the many warlords of our past dared take the throne if they were not the ultimate center of authority within the Japanese Empire?

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Even the most cursory examination of Japanese history puts the lie to your words.

Then pray tell, why does the same family hold the absolute power of the Crysanthemum Throne for over a thousand years, and why none of the many warlords of our past dared take the throne if they were not the ultimate center of authority within the Japanese Empire?

Because they didn't need to. The Shoguns held absolute power without the need to claim themselves Emperor.

Tadashi wrote:
Wrong again. That constitution was written by foreigners and imposed on us simply because the Showa Emperor accepted it. Culturally, the Emperor is still absolute, constitution or not. Try talking to my grandmother and father, both of whom grew up in Japan, and were the ones who taught me the difference in how Japan appears to the world, and how we really are.

First the MacArthur draft was modified by the japanese commission before being accepted. So it wasn't imposed, as let's say, coerced into it's current form, and then accepted. And said coercition was for the benefit of the japanese, unless you think that women should not be allowed to vote. Secondly, an imposed constitution which has been observed and voted upon for over 60 years doesn't quite qualify as imposed anymore. Time and proof of effectivity gives legitimacy. 3 generations of japanese have enacted this constitution, regardless of your grandparent's opinion on it.

Third, grandparents and parents are usually not the best source of information on current cultural trends.

I bet the Philippinos must really love you when you tell them that your country is still sworn to the man who ordered the mass rapes and massacres of their grandparents...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Wrong again. That constitution was written by foreigners and imposed on us simply because the Showa Emperor accepted it. Culturally, the Emperor is still absolute, constitution or not. Try talking to my grandmother and father, both of whom grew up in Japan, and were the ones who taught me the difference in how Japan appears to the world, and how we really are.

First the MacArthur draft was modified by the japanese commission before being accepted. So it wasn't imposed, as let's say, coerced into it's current form, and then accepted. And said coercition was for the benefit of the japanese, unless you think that women should not be allowed to vote. Secondly, an imposed constitution which has been observed and voted upon for over 60 years doesn't quite qualify as imposed anymore. Time and proof of effectivity gives legitimacy. 3 generations of japanese have enacted this constitution, regardless of your grandparent's opinion on it.

Third, grandparents and parents are usually not the best source of information on current cultural trends.

I bet the Philippinos must really love you when you tell them that your country is still sworn to the man who ordered the mass rapes and massacres of their grandparents...

They don't care. I know, because my mother and friends are Filipinos, and unlike Westerners, they know that Japan has always been, and will always be, an autocracy in all but practice. Just as Japan will not act on old grudges (unless you force us to - we have the naval and industrial potential to become the dominant naval power in the West Pacific), neither will the Philippines.

This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne. You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar. In fact, who are you to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition?

Tadashi wrote:This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne. You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar. In fact, who are you to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition?

Don't be ridiculous. Are Japanese brains fundamentally different to Western brains?

Japanese society has undergone massive paradigm shifts throughout it's history because, just like everyone else in the world, Japanese people are humans and will change their 'society' as they see fit.

There's nothing unique or special about the Japanese people. They're just humans like the rest of us.

Tadashi wrote:They don't care.

Hum. Tell that to my first girlfriend, who'se grandmother told me how she was raped by 7 japanese soldiers after they had murdered her husband (yeah that made great supper time conversation).

This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne.

True, I cannot understand why an adult human being would make himself subserviant to a being of equal worth and equal nature. Not because I'm culturally or physically unable to understand, but because the obvious logic gap in such an attitude should appears to anyone with a modicum of education. It's not a cultural thing, or at least not in it's form. It's simply that such an attitude is less than optimal for any remotly evolved living being. We aren't ants. Dogs are only so subserviant because naturally, for hundreds of generations, such an arrangement has been to their advantage. Please point me to obvious advantage, derived from your voluntary slavery, that japanese have over ''gaijin'' ?

You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar.

Okay I didn't reply to the first 'human to eldar as westerner to asians' comparison you made, but this is just stupid. I mean, this is stupid and racist. Japanese, or asians, are in no way a monolithic group. They do not show any particular characteristics, as a group, culturally, that distinguishes them from westerners. Your cultural paradigms are in no was inaccessible to our understanding ; like I showed you, we also had a theory of absolute monarchism. It's been discarded because, as history shows, tyranny isn't an optimal form of social organisation.

In fact, who are you to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition?

A rational, mature human being. More importantly, who are you NOT to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition, when the disastrous consequences of said history and culture led your people in some of the most devastating wars Asia has seen?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:They don't care.

Hum. Tell that to my first girlfriend, who'se grandmother told me how she was raped by 7 japanese soldiers after they had murdered her husband (yeah that made great supper time conversation).

Like how my maternal great-grandfather languished in a hellish prison camp? Let bygone be bygones, at least until someone pushes us.

This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne.

True, I cannot understand why an adult human being would make himself subserviant to a being of equal worth and equal nature. Not because I'm culturally or physically unable to understand, but because the obvious logic gap in such an attitude should appears to anyone with a modicum of education. It's not a cultural thing, or at least not in it's form. It's simply that such an attitude is less than optimal for any remotly evolved living being. We aren't ants. Dogs are only so subserviant because naturally, for hundreds of generations, such an arrangement has been to their advantage. Please point me to obvious advantage, derived from your voluntary slavery, that japanese have over ''gaijin'' ?

Because that is who we are. Its that simple.

You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar.

Okay I didn't reply to the first 'human to eldar as westerner to asians' comparison you made, but this is just stupid. I mean, this is stupid and racist. Japanese, or asians, are in no way a monolithic group. They do not show any particular characteristics, as a group, culturally, that distinguishes them from westerners. Your cultural paradigms are in no was inaccessible to our understanding ; like I showed you, we also had a theory of absolute monarchism. It's been discarded because, as history shows, tyranny isn't an optimal form of social organisation.

Tadashi wrote:Let bygone be bygones, at least until someone pushes us.

Only if that means not forgetting the horrible war crimes your ancestor commited.

Because that is who we are. Its that simple.

No it's not. I asked a question. What does your slavery brings you that makes you so special, beyond being a slave?

I do not question because if I question and reject it, I will cease to be Japanese.

No you won't. A nationality isn't a culture. You are japanese because you were born in japan. Simple as that. Your political affiliation does not define your nationality.

Are you suggesting we should just give up our unique culture and traditions because the West does not agree?

No, I'm suggesting that you should act rationaly. You are the one bringing the western-asian semantics into it.

That line of reasoning, that Western values of individuality and cultural archetypes are something the entire world should subscribe to, is what angers the Chinese and everyone in the Middle East, and what slowly strengthens the nationalists in Japan. Thanks to that reasoning, me and my fellow nationalists are slowly building up our power base in the sacred home islands.

Yes, because extremist usually feels vindicated at the simple mention that their position is extreme. It doesn't make it less crazy. Oh and I fear for the japanese people the day that such 'nationalists' as you take power and enact the changes you seem to wish for. We remember what happened when Germany was granted it's right to re-arm...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Let bygone be bygones, at least until someone pushes us.

Only if that means not forgetting the horrible war crimes your ancestor commited.

That's a laugh, considering a million Japanese died in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and my grandmother still remembers running through the burning streets with her family and looking up and then seeing planes with stars and stripes emblazoned on their wings. And she was a child at the time. Not to mention the 300,000 people who died in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the one million Japanese who suffered from radiation poisoning in the following decades. Think about that when you bring up our past actions.

Because that is who we are. Its that simple.

No it's not. I asked a question. What does your slavery brings you that makes you so special, beyond being a slave?

Nothing. Except that to bow before the Emperor and acknowledge his power is part of what makes us Japanese.

I do not question because if I question and reject it, I will cease to be Japanese.

No you won't. A nationality isn't a culture. You are japanese because you were born in japan. Simple as that. Your political affiliation does not define your nationality.

Wrong. I wasn't born in Japan, so should that mean I shouldn't be Japanese? And yet, look at this - my Japanese passport that makes me a Japanese subject. My culture, nationality, and mentality is Japanese, regardless of whether or not I was born there or not.

That line of reasoning, that Western values of individuality and cultural archetypes are something the entire world should subscribe to, is what angers the Chinese and everyone in the Middle East, and what slowly strengthens the nationalists in Japan. Thanks to that reasoning, me and my fellow nationalists are slowly building up our power base in the sacred home islands.

Yes, because extremist usually feels vindicated at the simple mention that their position is extreme. It doesn't make it less crazy. Oh and I fear for the japanese people the day that such 'nationalists' as you take power and enact the changes you seem to wish for. We remember what happened when Germany was granted it's right to re-arm...

Tadashi wrote:
That's a laugh, considering a million Japanese died in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and my grandmother still remembers running through the burning streets with her family and looking up and then seeing planes with stars and stripes emblazoned on their wings. Not to mention the 300,000 people who died in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the one million Japanese who suffered from radiation poisoning in the following decades. Think about that when you bring up our past actions.

I question the actions of my military. When they do stupid gak (they usually don't, I'm proud of that) I protest. And it's a bit ludicrous to moan about the deaths of thousands of civilians that were too brainwashed to question the decision of invading everything that surrounds them. You have to choose ; if everyone is subserviant to the emperor, then there's no such thing as civilians. Everyone is then part of the warmachine.

Nothing. Except that to bow before the Emperor and acknowledge his power is part of what makes us Japanese.

No it doesn't. The japanese that don't bow before the emperor aren't any less japanese.

Wrong. I wasn't born in Japan, so should that mean I shouldn't be Japanese? And yet, look at this - my Japanese passport that makes me a Japanese subject. My culture, nationality, and mentality is Japanese, regardless of whether or not I was born there or not.

Okay, descent also plays a part in it. Still nothing to do with the ceremonial Head of the State.

Just as Horus said "Let the galaxy burn!!!, we say "Tenno Heika Banzai!!!".

Stop drawing comparisons to 40k. It doesn't help your case. In fact, it makes it poorer, since it draws a comparison between what you say and a fictionnal setting which is a satyre of fascist states.

Only if you stop trying to make people across the world abandon their cultural identity and make them into carbon copies of yourselves will all your enemies disappear.

Again, your the only one bringing this Use vs Them rethoric in the discussion. I'm not asking that you lose your culture. I'm asking you to realize that love for the emperor isn't the entirety of yuor culture, just like love for the fuhrer wasn't the entirety of german culture, although they claimed as much. Did germany loose it's culture once it remounced it's tyranny? Hell no. In fact it opened itself to a larger part of it's own history which had been obfuscated for the State's needs.

Did you know there is a beautiful irony in using the enemy's strength against them? War is good for business...(laughs)

So we're enemies now? Too bad for you, because that means you'll soon get blown out of your sacred islands. Oh and war isn't good for business. That's a trope too often repeated. The aftermath of war is good for the victor's business. Sometimes. Seriously, I'm not the one closed to anyone's culture here. Open a book about political theory. Read it. You'll become a better person...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
That's a laugh, considering a million Japanese died in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and my grandmother still remembers running through the burning streets with her family and looking up and then seeing planes with stars and stripes emblazoned on their wings. Not to mention the 300,000 people who died in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the one million Japanese who suffered from radiation poisoning in the following decades. Think about that when you bring up our past actions.

I question the actions of my military. When they do stupid gak (they usually don't, I'm proud of that) I protest. And it's a bit ludicrous to moan about the deaths of thousands of civilians that were too brainwashed to question the decision of invading everything that surrounds them. You have to choose ; if everyone is subserviant to the emperor, then there's no such thing as civilians. Everyone is then part of the warmachine.

Good. You understand. We are the Emperor, and the Emperor is us.

Nothing. Except that to bow before the Emperor and acknowledge his power is part of what makes us Japanese.

No it doesn't. The japanese that don't bow before the emperor aren't any less japanese.

They'd be considered rude and ill-mannered - I'm sure even you know how politeness is considered in Japan. In war, they'd be considered traitors.

Only if you stop trying to make people across the world abandon their cultural identity and make them into carbon copies of yourselves will all your enemies disappear.

Again, your the only one bringing this Use vs Them rethoric in the discussion. I'm not asking that you lose your culture. I'm asking you to realize that love for the emperor isn't the entirety of yuor culture, just like love for the fuhrer wasn't the entirety of german culture, although they claimed as much. Did germany loose it's culture once it remounced it's tyranny? Hell no. In fact it opened itself to a larger part of it's own history which had been obfuscated for the State's needs.

Then stop calling me irrational for bowing before the Chrysanthemum Throne and placing the Empire above the individual. Our culture places our community -embodied in the Emperor - over a single individual.

Open a book about political theory. Read it. You'll become a better person...

I have. My reaction was - "All these senators and ministers...its a wonder anything gets done!" What the world needs isn't freedom or high-sounding rhetoric about democracy or rights. What it needs is unification and leadership.

Tadashi wrote:
Good. You understand. We are the Emperor, and the Emperor is us.


Then stop calling me irrational for bowing before the Chrysanthemum Throne and placing the Empire above the individual. Our culture places our community -embodied in the Emperor - over a single individual.

No. This is a worst a logical fallacy, or at best a legal fiction. An individual doesn't embody anything else than it's individuality. It's what it means to be an individual. If your culture places more importance in communal values, fine. That doesn't imply at all making yourself a slave to somebody else...

They'd be considered rude and ill-mannered - I'm sure even you know how politeness is considered in Japan.

Still, Ill-mannered and rude japanese.

In war, they'd be considered traitors.

I have. My reaction was - "All these senators and ministers...its a wonder anything gets done!" What the world needs isn't freedom or high-sounding rhetoric about democracy or rights. What it needs is unification and leadership.

Yeah, honestly that makes you a fascist. feth this, you are beyond hope. All I can say is that I'm happy there's not enough of you to make a damned difference. Don't come to Canada. We don't take kindly to fascists.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Good. You understand. We are the Emperor, and the Emperor is us.


Then stop calling me irrational for bowing before the Chrysanthemum Throne and placing the Empire above the individual. Our culture places our community -embodied in the Emperor - over a single individual.

No. This is a worst a logical fallacy, or at best a legal fiction. An individual doesn't embody anything else than it's individuality. It's what it means to be an individual. If your culture places more importance in communal values, fine. That doesn't imply at all making yourself a slave to somebody else...

We prefer the word subjects.

They'd be considered rude and ill-mannered - I'm sure even you know how politeness is considered in Japan.

Still, Ill-mannered and rude japanese.

In other words, low class...heck, even if you're poor but polite, people will respect you. Even if you're rich and powerful, if you're rude and ill-mannered, people will avoid you whenever possible. I got that drilled into me even by my mother.

In war, they'd be considered traitors.

I have. My reaction was - "All these senators and ministers...its a wonder anything gets done!" What the world needs isn't freedom or high-sounding rhetoric about democracy or rights. What it needs is unification and leadership.

Yeah, honestly that makes you a fascist. feth this, you are beyond hope. All I can say is that I'm happy there's not enough of you to make a damned difference. Don't come to Canada. We don't take kindly to fascists.

Kovnik Obama wrote:No. This is a worst a logical fallacy, or at best a legal fiction. An individual doesn't embody anything else than it's individuality. It's what it means to be an individual. If your culture places more importance in communal values, fine. That doesn't imply at all making yourself a slave to somebody else...

I'm far from a royalist, however I'd have to disagree with you here; the Queen is an individual who represents the traditional and historic culture and values of England and a number of other countries in the union and commonwealth. Hell, in the USA the office of president is revered by about half the population at a time (depending what colour team won last).

There is nothing special or different about the Japanese. You are humans, just like the rest of us, and you change the way your society works when you feel the need, just like the rest of us.

I do not care about what you prefer. I have nothing but the upmost contempt for fascist's preferences. And that would be semantically incorrect, as nationalists only imply that you value your nation's over others, and has no implications toward the organisation of said nation.

You use a racist and totalitarian rethoric ; you are a fascist.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:No. This is a worst a logical fallacy, or at best a legal fiction. An individual doesn't embody anything else than it's individuality. It's what it means to be an individual. If your culture places more importance in communal values, fine. That doesn't imply at all making yourself a slave to somebody else...

I'm far from a royalist, however I'd have to disagree with you here; the Queen is an individual who represents the traditional and historic culture and values of England and a number of other countries in the union and commonwealth. Hell, in the USA the office of president is revered by about half the population at a time (depending what colour team won last).

Question from one subject to another: what is the Queen to the British? Is she really just a figurehead, or, like the Emperor, commands absolute power culturally and traditionally?

Kaldor wrote:There is nothing special or different about the Japanese. You are humans, just like the rest of us, and you change the way your society works when you feel the need, just like the rest of us.

Not to the point where we lose our cultural identity.

Kovnik Obama wrote:I do not care about what you prefer. I have nothing but the upmost contempt for fascist's preferences. And that would be semantically incorrect, as nationalists only imply that you value your nation's over others, and has no implications toward the organisation of said nation.

You use a racist and totalitarian rethoric ; you are a fascist.

(smiles like the Cheshire Cat) You mad?

SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm far from a royalist, however I'd have to disagree with you here; the Queen is an individual who represents the traditional and historic culture and values of England and a number of other countries in the union and commonwealth. Hell, in the USA the office of president is revered by about half the population at a time (depending what colour team won last).

Like I said, it's only a legal fiction. No one acts as if their will is embodied in the Queen ; that would imply that you would defer to her for every single actions you take. When we say that the will of the people is embodied in the constitutional assembly, or the Queen, we say nothing else than we gave her power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tadashi wrote:
(smiles like the Cheshire Cat) You mad?

Yes, fascists makes me mad. It's a good thing for you that we didn't have this conversation face to face.

Tadashi wrote:Question from one subject to another: what is the Queen to the British? Is she really just a figurehead, or, like the Emperor, commands absolute power culturally and traditionally?

I'd say that for the majority of people she is little more than a figurehead. For a smaller number of people she is more. I would not say that she commands absolute power in terms of culture and tradition, or anything else when people are living their day to day lives, though I would not see anyone minding too much if she asked to cut in front of them at the post office

I wasn't aware that the Emperor in Japan was still seen as an ultimate cultural and traditional authority by many people and that he was more like the queen (although living on a smaller budget).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Like I said, it's only a legal fiction. No one acts as if their will is embodied in the Queen ; that would imply that you would defer to her for every single actions you take. When we say that the will of the people is embodied in the constitutional assembly, or the Queen, we say nothing else than we gave her power.

That wasn't the point you were making to which I was replying.

Of course it was. I know full well that a lot of people, both in tyrannies and constitutional monarchies in the world claim that their leader 'embodies the will of the people'. When they do so, they actually mean that they are their representant, and the holder of their political power. This is not Tadashi's point, tho. His is semi-mystical. 'we are the Emperor and he is us'. 'we cannot question him without losing what we are'. That's all fallacies based on nothing else but semi-religious fervour, or possibly racist rethoric.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Question from one subject to another: what is the Queen to the British? Is she really just a figurehead, or, like the Emperor, commands absolute power culturally and traditionally?

I'd say that for the majority of people she is little more than a figurehead. For a smaller number of people she is more. I would not say that she commands absolute power in terms of culture and tradition, or anything else when people are living their day to day lives, though I would not see anyone minding too much if she asked to cut in front of them at the post office

I wasn't aware that the Emperor in Japan was still seen as an ultimate cultural and traditional authority by many people and that he was more like the queen (although living on a smaller budget).

No, the Emperor has absolute power culturally and traditionally, constitution or not, BUT, here's the important part: the Emperor traditionally does not rule Japan directly unless in an emergency. Only the Meiji Emperor has ruled the Empire directly in modern times, because at the time Japan needed a strong, singular leader to avoid Western imperialism. Along with King Mongkut and his successor, King Chulalongkorn, they ensured that their respective nations (Japan and Thailand) avoided Western imperialism. The Showa Emperor used that absolute authority once: after the nuclear attack, before the Showa Emperor made his final decision, the Imperial General Headquarters considered fighting to the bitter end, but after the decision was made, they bowed and decided to surrender. Even after that, General Macarthur was only able to gain the cooperation of the Japanese because he didn't dare challenge the Chrysanthemum Throne - he left the Emperor alone and governed under him. The current Emperor also made us of that authority when he 'asked' all of Japan to show solidarity in the wake of the recent tsunami. No one demurred.

Tadashi wrote:Not to the point where we lose our cultural identity.

You need to understand that all cultural identity stems from common human traits. There is nothing special about the Japanese.

You also need to understand that all cultural identity is fleeting and temporary. Japanese cultural identity, if such a thing can be defined, has undergone several significant changes in the last thousand years.

It is certainly not projecting western values to suggest the individuals mold society, nor is it racist.

SilverMK2 wrote:
I wasn't aware that the Emperor in Japan was still seen as an ultimate cultural and traditional authority by many people and that he was more like the queen (although living on a smaller budget).

I don't think he is. None of my japanese friends have ever mentionned any such attachment to his figure when we spoke about politics.

Tadashi wrote:
That's a laugh, considering a million Japanese died in the fire bombing of Tokyo

Good. You understand. We are the Emperor, and the Emperor is us.

Firstly, a million is a little inflated.

Secondly, since the Japanese people are the Emperor apparently, him sanctioning an undeclared act of war against America meant that all of the Japanese people sanctioned that attack, which pretty much means that you can't claim the Japanese people as innocent victims of a war they started.

Okay, SilverMK2, let me rephrase. I might have still been too mad about Tadashi's posts to actually express myself correctly.

When someone say that they put the value of the community before the value of the individual, this doesn't imply that they need a figure head.

Furthermore, if they say they put the value of the community before the value of the individual, but then values the word of an individual above all else, they are lying to themselves. They are putting the value of that individual before the value of the community, and before the value of individuals in general.

There. Damnit.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Furthermore, if they say they put the value of the community before the value of the individual, but then values the word of an individual above all else, they are lying to themselves. They are putting the value of that individual before the value of the community, and before the value of individuals in general.

As I've said before, the Emperor doesn't just rule over Japan, he is Japan.

Bromsy wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
That's a laugh, considering a million Japanese died in the fire bombing of Tokyo

Good. You understand. We are the Emperor, and the Emperor is us.

Firstly, a million is a little inflated.

Secondly, since the Japanese people are the Emperor apparently, him sanctioning an undeclared act of war against America meant that all of the Japanese people sanctioned that attack, which pretty much means that you can't claim the Japanese people as innocent victims of a war they started.

An excellent point. I have never denied any of the atrocities committed by the Empire, seeing as my own maternal great-grandfather spent most of WWII in a hellish prison camp, but it runs both ways. If democratic governments are supposed to govern by the people, for the people, and through the people, then all the atrocities committed by Western powers, in Vietnam, in Korea, in the Middle East, in South America, and other places, then they have no right to claim terrorist attacks on civilians as attacks on innocent people.

Tadashi wrote:As I've said before, the Emperor doesn't just rule over Japan, he is Japan.

...

Are your daily earthquake an embodiement of his Most Sacred bowel movements?

Kovnik Obama wrote:Furthermore, if they say they put the value of the community before the value of the individual, but then values the word of an individual above all else, they are lying to themselves. They are putting the value of that individual before the value of the community, and before the value of individuals in general.

An individual can represent the values of the community while still commanding that community with near absolute power. One does not have to lie to oneself to adhere to what could be described as a dynastic cult of personality, however Japanese culture does have (or certainly had) a much stricter integration with the Imperial person and family than many western cultures ever had.

Although as I mentioned above, I thought that bond had been seriously weakened in the last hundred years or so, and certainly in the last couple of generations, to the point where to most people the Emperor is little more than a traditional figurehead. I certainly am not aware of him having much official power and believe his office to be almost purely ceremonial.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:As I've said before, the Emperor doesn't just rule over Japan, he is Japan.

...

Are your daily earthquake an embodiement of his Most Sacred bowel movements?

(laughs) of course not. Perhaps I should have been clearer? He is the embodiment of our Empire's culture, traditions, and sovereignty, even if he does not rule directly. And he does not, except in the most dire need, for that is what our traditions dictate.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Although as I mentioned above, I thought that bond had been seriously weakened in the last hundred years or so, and certainly in the last couple of generations, to the point where to most people the Emperor is little more than a traditional figurehead. I certainly am not aware of him having much official power and believe his office to be almost purely ceremonial.

As I've said before, tradition dictates the Emperor not to rule directly except in the most dire need. His power is absolute, but he traditionally takes the role of a figurehead, with political power in the hands of others entrusted to govern, not rule, in his name and under his authority.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Furthermore, if they say they put the value of the community before the value of the individual, but then values the word of an individual above all else, they are lying to themselves. They are putting the value of that individual before the value of the community, and before the value of individuals in general.

An individual can represent the values of the community while still commanding that community with near absolute power. One does not have to lie to oneself to adhere to what could be described as a dynastic cult of personality

Well, yes. If you adhere to a cult of personality, it's that personality that you worship. You can well say that that personality represents the entire culture, but, factually, that's simply impossible. Not a single individual will be a perfect representation of what would be described as the total sum of a community's value. On top of things, it's much more likely that people will simply look at the figurehead they worship and then change their values in accordance with his.

Tadashi wrote:He is the embodiment of our Empire's culture

But he wasn't always, and he won't always be in the future.

That's the point. That society is made up of individuals, who change that society as time goes on. Because 'society' is only the name for the group of conventions that we, as humans, use to live together peacefully in groups.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, yes. If you adhere to a cult of personality, it's that personality that you worship. You can well say that that personality represents the entire culture, but, factually, that's simply impossible. Not a single individual will be a perfect representation of a what would be described as the total sum of a community's value. On top of things, it's much more likely that people will simply look at the figurehead they worship and then change their values in accordance with his.

Cultures change and adapt based on internal and external forces. Traditionalist cultures like that which existed in Japan have a lot of inertia - even with a leader who is bat gak crazy, the overall culture will keep on going more or less the same until the next leader who appears who more closely reflects the ideals. Cultures which are less traditional are likely to fall apart with a change in leadership (especially when someone takes over who does not fit in with the established culture) - just look at the endless warfare in Africa where warlord X rises to power, rules with an iron fist for a decade or so before the next guy comes along and unseats him, making his own faction and "community" the top dogs until someone unseats him, etc.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Furthermore, if they say they put the value of the community before the value of the individual, but then values the word of an individual above all else, they are lying to themselves. They are putting the value of that individual before the value of the community, and before the value of individuals in general.

An individual can represent the values of the community while still commanding that community with near absolute power. One does not have to lie to oneself to adhere to what could be described as a dynastic cult of personality

Well, yes. If you adhere to a cult of personality, it's that personality that you worship. You can well say that that personality represents the entire culture, but, factually, that's simply impossible. Not a single individual will be a perfect representation of a what would be described as the total sum of a community's value. On top of things, it's much more likely that people will simply look at the figurehead they worship and then change their values in accordance with his.

And that's what makes such a system so ideal. Look at the mighty names of Human history: Gilgamesh, Rameses the Great, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Justinian I, Charlemagne, Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan, Nobunaga Oda, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Elizabeth I, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Meiji Emperor, King Mongkut, King Chulalongkorn, Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, and so many others...they were all tyrants and dictators, and yet it was they who made their nations and empires great.

Tadashi wrote:
And that's what makes such a system so ideal. Look at the mighty names of Human history: Gilgamesh, Rameses the Great, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Justinian I, Charlemagne, Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan, Nobunaga Oda, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Elizabeth I, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Meiji Emperor, King Mongkut, King Chulalongkorn, Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, and so many others...they were all tyrants and dictators, and yet it was they who made their nations and empires great.

You've pretty much invalidated your point. Each and every one of those did what they did at a horrible cost for their people. And about half of the empires they founded didn't last longer than their own lives, or that of one or two descendants. All the while nations founded on democratical values have flourished and thrived for what, over 400 years, now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
Cultures change and adapt based on internal and external forces. Traditionalist cultures like that which existed in Japan have a lot of inertia - even with a leader who is bat gak crazy, the overall culture will keep on going more or less the same until the next leader who appears who more closely reflects the ideals. Cultures which are less traditional are likely to fall apart with a change in leadership (especially when someone takes over who does not fit in with the established culture) - just look at the endless warfare in Africa where warlord X rises to power, rules with an iron fist for a decade or so before the next guy comes along and unseats him, making his own faction and "community" the top dogs until someone unseats him, etc.

In that exemple I would say that such cultures are reduced to it's bare minimum. And you can hardly get more traditionnal than ''enter generic african culture''. In those case it's a clash between a personnality with means beyond what the traditionnal culture can cope.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
And that's what makes such a system so ideal. Look at the mighty names of Human history: Gilgamesh, Rameses the Great, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Justinian I, Charlemagne, Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan, Nobunaga Oda, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Elizabeth I, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Meiji Emperor, King Mongkut, King Chulalongkorn, Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, and so many others...they were all tyrants and dictators, and yet it was they who made their nations and empires great.

You've pretty much invalidated your point. Each and every one of those did what they did at a horrible cost for their people. And about half of the empires they founded didn't last londer than their own lives. All the while nations founded on democratical values have flourished and thrived for what, over 400 years, now?

(snorts) As opposed to what, slow stagnation and decay? And last I looked, those nations and empires have achieved dizzying heights of glory and power democratic nations could never hope to achieve. And nothing of great value can be achieved without great sacrifices. Not to mention that while the nations and empires of the noble fallen have crumbled, their names and achievements continue to echo down the ages...the Epic of Gilgamesh, the mighty monoliths and hieroglyphs of Egypt, the ruins and cultural influences of Rome, the Code of Justinian, China and Japan as unified nations, Russia as the great giant empire/nation of the north, France's proud glories and monuments, Japan and Thailand as the only nations not to fall under the hand of Western imperialism, Russia industrialized, Cuba's defiance of the American Empire, and so many other things democracies could never hope to equal.

Tadashi wrote: Fascist rant

Yeah, I care more about the wellbeing of my neighbours than about some statue. This makes me Pro-Decay and Stagnation. For feth sakes... How about writing an interesting book, if you want to go down in the annals. Aristotle did more for the world then Alexander ... And his name is still mentionned 2300 years later.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote: Fascist rant

Yeah, I care more about the wellbeing of my neighbours than about some statue. This makes me Pro-Decay and Stagnation. For feth sakes... How about writing an interesting book, if you want to go down in the annals. Aristotle did more for the world then Alexander ... And his name is still mentionned 2300 years later.

Yeah, and so is the name of Alexander the Great, aka Iskander, Maharajah, the Father of Many Dynasties, the King of Conquerors, and many other titles beside.

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote: Fascist rant

Yeah, I care more about the wellbeing of my neighbours than about some statue. This makes me Pro-Decay and Stagnation. For feth sakes... How about writing an interesting book, if you want to go down in the annals. Aristotle did more for the world then Alexander ... And his name is still mentionned 2300 years later.

Yeah, and so is the name of Alexander the Great, aka Iskander, Maharajah, the Father of Many Dynasties, the King of Conquerors, and many other titles beside.

A whole lot of titles that mean nothing today. On the other side, Aristotle discovered the basis of syllogism, which, as the foundation of logic, enabled the entirety of the scientific endeavour. All the while not costing the lives of anyone


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tadashi wrote: And last I looked, those nations and empires have achieved dizzying heights of glory and power democratic nations could never hope to achieve.

How about ''we democratic nations beat the crap out of your empire last time we fought'' for glory...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote: Fascist rant

Yeah, I care more about the wellbeing of my neighbours than about some statue. This makes me Pro-Decay and Stagnation. For feth sakes... How about writing an interesting book, if you want to go down in the annals. Aristotle did more for the world then Alexander ... And his name is still mentionned 2300 years later.

Yeah, and so is the name of Alexander the Great, aka Iskander, Maharajah, the Father of Many Dynasties, the King of Conquerors, and many other titles beside.

A whole lot of titles that mean nothing today. On the other side, Aristotle discovered the basis of syllogism, which, as the foundation of logic, enabled the entirety of the scientific endeavour. All the while not costing the lives of anyone

BOOORING...

Tadashi wrote: And last I looked, those nations and empires have achieved dizzying heights of glory and power democratic nations could never hope to achieve.

How about ''we democratic nations beat the crap out of your empire last time we fought'' for glory...

Tadashi wrote:
BOOORING...

We are talking about historical relevence, not entertainment.

And even in defeat, the Japanese Empire's goal of breaking Western power in Asia was successful - within a decade of the end of WWII, most Western colonies in the region had been granted independence. Though it would seem that the West is stretching forth its hand once more...I believe we can let China handle this for now, until the Sun rises once again.

What? Oh for feth sake's, I won't do this anymore, it's just too hard to fight such ignorance. Eastern colonies were abandonned because colonialism was over. All over the world. We no longer needed to own you, since we could simply arrange prefered economical deals and let you feth each other's up. Way more simple.

Lol. Japanese getting owned by the Americans was the cause for British and French colonies to withdraw... Simply hilarious...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
BOOORING...

We are talking about historical relevence, not entertainment.

Right now I'm studying Material Science...if I succeed in my dream, the result would probably unleash a wave of carnage over the Earth as Transhumans and Humans fight each other over the definition of the word "Human". Mankind united in war achieves more than Mankind united in peace.

And even in defeat, the Japanese Empire's goal of breaking Western power in Asia was successful - within a decade of the end of WWII, most Western colonies in the region had been granted independence. Though it would seem that the West is stretching forth its hand once more...I believe we can let China handle this for now, until the Sun rises once again.

What? Oh for feth sake's, I won't do this anymore, it's just too hard to fight such ignorance. Eastern colonies were abandonned because colonialism was over. All over the world. We no longer needed to own you, since we could simply arrange prefered economical deals and let you feth each other's up. Way more simple.

Lol. Japanese getting owned by the Americans was the cause for British and French colonies to withdraw... Simply hilarious...

Tadashi wrote:(snorts) Not even close. More like they didn't have the manpower or resources to restore colonial rule after the Japanese had given the colonies a taste (even with imposed pro-Japanese leaders) of self-rule.

I think it was more to do with the two fricking huge wars in Europe than the war in the Far East.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Tadashi wrote:(snorts) Not even close. More like they didn't have the manpower or resources to restore colonial rule after the Japanese had given the colonies a taste (even with imposed pro-Japanese leaders) of self-rule.

I think it was more to do with the two fricking huge wars in Europe than the war in the Far East.

Correct, but Britain and France were so exhausted that they could not restore control over their colonies who had already tasted self-rule (even if it was an imposed pro-Japanese self-rule). America was busy trying to find a way to contain Japan without antagonizing its people that it (America) could not or would not assist its allies.

Tadashi wrote:BOOORING...

As opposed to what? A few statues and some names written in books?

So totalitarian states are better than democracies because, why exactly?

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:BOOORING...

As opposed to what? A few statues and some names written in books?

So totalitarian states are better than democracies because, why exactly?

Because our names, legends, and achievements echo down the ages.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:BOOORING...

As opposed to what? A few statues and some names written in books?

So totalitarian states are better than democracies because, why exactly?

Because our names, legends, and achievements echo down the ages.

So what? Who cares?

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:BOOORING...

As opposed to what? A few statues and some names written in books?

So totalitarian states are better than democracies because, why exactly?

Because our names, legends, and achievements echo down the ages.

So what? Who cares?

Does it matter? That brief flare of a life filled with glorious achievement is more brilliant than long but unfulfilled life with no glory or achievement to remember you by. I certainly do not intend to end like that. I will see transhumanism achieved in my lifetime. I will see my work beginning a a great Human Empire across the stars built on xenocide. 40k has given purpose to my old dreams of transhumanism, and it is glorious!

Tadashi wrote:Does it matter? That brief flare of a life filled with glorious achievement is more brilliant than long but unfulfilled life with no glory or achievement to remember you by.

Again, so what?

What makes a 'memorable' nation better than a boring one?

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Does it matter? That brief flare of a life filled with glorious achievement is more brilliant than long but unfulfilled life with no glory or achievement to remember you by.

Again, so what?

What makes a 'memorable' nation better than a boring one?

There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Tadashi wrote:
Right now I'm studying Material Science...if I succeed in my dream, the result would probably unleash a wave of carnage over the Earth as Transhumans and Humans fight each other over the definition of the word "Human". Mankind united in war achieves more than Mankind united in peace.

Well, looks like someone's destined for the loony bin.

Tadashi wrote:There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Why?

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Why?

I would rather live in a nation that was peaceful and forgotten than one constantly at war and remembered.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Why?

I would rather live in a nation that was peaceful and forgotten than one constantly at war and remembered.

And on top of things, it's not as if democratical nations will not go down as glorious nations ; killing fascists give plenty of opportunity for glory hounds. Our grand parents are known as 'the Greatest Generation', their grand parents are known as 'the generation with the highest percentage of suicide by grenade to head'...

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Why?

I would rather live in a nation that was peaceful and forgotten than one constantly at war and remembered.

The furnace of war drives evolution, change, and development, in order to maintain a lead on the enemy or to attain one. In peace, civilization will seek to maintain that peace, which ultimately leads to stagnation and decay, as any change could lead to conflict and an end to said peace. Conflict is the crucible of evolution - to prevent Mankind's extinction, we must embrace our nature, unite as one, and destroy everything that stands in our way. Let us wash our hands white in blood.

Tadashi wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Why?

I would rather live in a nation that was peaceful and forgotten than one constantly at war and remembered.

The furnace of war drives evolution, change, and development, in order to maintain a lead on the enemy or to attain one. In peace, civilization will seek to maintain that peace, which ultimately leads to stagnation and decay, as any change could lead to conflict and an end to said peace. Conflict is the crucible of evolution - to prevent Mankind's extinction, we must embrace our nature, unite as one, and destroy everything that stands in our way. Let us wash our hands white in blood.

You're a total nut! Your posts read like bad 40k fanfic, I hope you realize that.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:There's your answer. A memorable nation is greater than a boring one.

Why?

I would rather live in a nation that was peaceful and forgotten than one constantly at war and remembered.

The furnace of war drives evolution, change, and development, in order to maintain a lead on the enemy or to attain one. In peace, civilization will seek to maintain that peace, which ultimately leads to stagnation and decay, as any change could lead to conflict and an end to said peace. Conflict is the crucible of evolution - to prevent Mankind's extinction, we must embrace our nature, unite as one, and destroy everything that stands in our way. Let us wash our hands white in blood.

You're a total nut! Your posts read like bad 40k fanfic, I hope you realize that.

Perhaps. But then again, so is Darwinian Trans-Humanism. And sometimes, there is no difference between insanity and brilliance.

Tadashi wrote:
The furnace of war drives evolution, change, and development, in order to maintain a lead on the enemy or to attain one. In peace, civilization will seek to maintain that peace, which ultimately leads to stagnation and decay, as any change could lead to conflict and an end to said peace. Conflict is the crucible of evolution - to prevent Mankind's extinction, we must embrace our nature, unite as one, and destroy everything that stands in our way. Let us wash our hands white in blood.

You haven't studied 'Material Science' very well then, at least not the part on evolution. Conflictual relationships are in no way the prefered mean of evolution. Hell, we could evolve beyond single cell organisms only because the cooperative synthesis of larger cells with mitochondria allowed for a larger energy output. Altruistic relationships are also noted at the cellular level (best exemple being where one cell amongst a colony starve itself to allow for the others to mount it's corpse so that the colony survives lower temperatures by rising above the colder surface). Moral qualities, not warlike qualities are the main reason why social animals prosper so well on Earth.

And while there's a lot of credit to be given to competition, that's not the same as war. War, or selection based on violence, is actually one of the worst form of evolutionary drive, because life-forms that thrive on conflict always risks more than those relying on a more balanced fight or flee approach. Basically, even if the lion is succesful in his hunt, he might still get injured to the point where his genes will no longer be passed over, meaning his successful engagement in a conflict will still see him losing on the evolutionary scale.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tadashi wrote:Perhaps. But then again, so is Darwinian Trans-Humanism. And sometimes, there is no difference between insanity and brilliance.

No it doesn't. H+ has nothing to do with Ubermensch fighting for planetary control. Stop making gak up.

Tadashi wrote:
Perhaps. But then again, so is Darwinian Trans-Humanism. And sometimes, there is no difference between insanity and brilliance.

Hmmm. I detect small differences here and there. But that aside, how does transhumanism figure into your plans for catastrophic world domination?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

You haven't studied 'Material Science' very well then, at least not the part on evolution. Conflictual relationships are in no way the prefered mean of evolution. Hell, we could evolve beyond single cell organisms only because the cooperative synthesis of larger cells with mitochondria allowed for a larger energy output. Altruistic relationships are also noted at the cellular level (best exemple being where one cell amongst a colony starve itself to allow for the others to mount it's corpse so that the colony survives lower temperatures by rising above the colder surface). Moral qualities, not warlike qualities are the main reason why social animals prosper so well on Earth.

And while there's a lot of credit to be given to competition, that's not the same as war. War, or selection based on violence, is actually one of the worst form of evolutionary drive, because life-forms that thrive on conflict always risks more than those relying on a more balanced fight or flee approach. Basically, even if the lion is succesful in his hunt, he might still get injured to the point where his genes will no longer be passed over, meaning his successful engagement in a conflict will still see him losing on the evolutionary scale.

Strong species endure, weak species are destroyed. I would rather not see my species supplanted by another - if that were to happen, we should just reduce Earth to a radioactive waste than let someone else have it. My dream is to combine genetic engineering with nanotechnology to allow us to control our evolution and genetic potential at will. No longer will 'Law of Nature' guide our biological development, but rather the the 'Law of Man'.

Complete freedom brings about the abandonment of morals. It will bring about destruction. In an orderly society, people fully enjoy limited freedom. They're happier that way, protected in a cage.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

No it doesn't. H+ has nothing to do with Ubermensch fighting for planetary control. Stop making gak up.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Perhaps. But then again, so is Darwinian Trans-Humanism. And sometimes, there is no difference between insanity and brilliance.

Hmmm. I detect small differences here and there. But that aside, how does transhumanism figure into your plans for catastrophic world domination?

Those who 'have' cannot understand those that 'do not have', and vice-versa. It is inevitable that many Humans will oppose Trans-Humans out of jealousy and fear. I will probably be denounced by religious groups...even my mother says Trans-Humans are monsters and tries to talk me out of the concept. But...what defines a 'Human'? Is a Trans-Human 'inhuman' because of his/her enhanced abilities? Humanity must choose, destruction or rebirth, to accept the call of destiny or to languish in fear of the future and stagnate into impotence.

Tadashi wrote:Strong species endure, weak species are destroyed.

No, species adapted to respond well to particular change of environmental forces thrive, while those that aren't slowly die, or become niched. As evidenced by human beings descending from social, mid-level omnivorous primates rather than apex predator, nature seem to deem that social 'jacks of all trades' are much better than predatory specialists.

No longer will 'Law of Nature' guide our biological development, but rather the the 'Law of Man'.

It already doesn't. Again, go fething read a book on evolution, because you seem to lack the simplest understanding of it. We no longer biologically evolve because we have set ourself into a calcified state where the environmental influences of nature doesn't reach us. It's called civilisation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tadashi wrote: But...what defines a 'Human'?

A rational animal. See, Aristotle could' ve taught you that.

Tadashi wrote:

Those who 'have' cannot understand those that 'do not have', and vice-versa. It is inevitable that many Humans will oppose Trans-Humans out of jealousy and fear. I will probably be denounced by religious groups...even my mother says Trans-Humans are monsters and tries to talk me out of the concept. But...what defines a 'Human'? Is a Trans-Human 'inhuman' because of his/her enhanced abilities? Humanity must choose, destruction or rebirth, to accept the call of destiny or to languish in fear of the future and stagnate into impotence.

Because in the dark future of the 41st millenium. . . there is only war! You are a laugh and a half, man. I think you'd do better writing for the Black Library than with all this World War 4, Tranny Edition nonsense. Listen to your mother. Don't you japanese dudes revere your elders?

Tadashi wrote:Those who 'have' cannot understand those that 'do not have', and vice-versa. It is inevitable that many Humans will oppose Trans-Humans out of jealousy and fear.

I'm a transhumanist. You aren't. Transhumanism isn't about making Ubermensch to face evolutionary challenges, it's about integrating technology in the most complete synthesis possible with human life. Here, Nick Bostrom will tell you about H+...

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nick_bostrom_on_our_biggest_problems.html

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Strong species endure, weak species are destroyed.

No, species adapted to respond well to particular change of environmental forces thrive, while those that aren't slowly die, or become niched. As evidenced by human beings descending from social, mid-level omnivorous primates rather than apex predator, nature seem to deem that social 'jacks of all trades' are much better than predatory specialists.

Homo sapiens neanderthalis disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...the first of many, both non-sentient and sentient alike. We would be shaming ourselves and all we have destroyed if we do not deliver equal treatment to any other threats to not just our survival, but also domination.

No longer will 'Law of Nature' guide our biological development, but rather the the 'Law of Man'.

It already doesn't. Again, go fething read a book on evolution, because you seem to lack the simplest understanding of it. We no longer biologically evolve because we have set ourself into a calcified state where the environmental influences of nature doesn't reach us. It's called civilisation.

My point exactly. We have begun to stagnate already...if nature cannot or will not favor us, we must take hold of our destiny and create it, even if it means soaking our hands in the blood of other species.

Tadashi wrote: But...what defines a 'Human'?

Tadashi wrote:Homo sapiens neanderthalis[/i] disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...

Except we probably didn't. Its only one of several hypothesis, and one that isn't supported by any facts. Other theories, such has assimilation, have factual evidence to back them up.

Nietzsche's Ubermensch is a moral concept, it has nothing to do with transhumanism. I bet your prime source on Nieztsche is Andromeda... It also helps understanding that Nietzsche had the maturity of a angsty 14 years old. A great philologue/author, but his actual concepts were laughable... Pretty much just like yours, except he didn't rely mostly on bad science fiction...

Also, in about 11 years of reading on transhumanism, I've never heard it being refered as Darwinian Transhumanism. Transhumanism is post-darwinian, by logic...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Homo sapiens neanderthalis[/i] disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...

Except we probably didn't. Its only one of several hypothesis, and one that isn't supported by any facts. Other theories, such has assimilation, have factual evidence to back them up.

I prefer the former. Its cleaner. The fact that no real conclusion has been made yet, means the hypothesis can still be considered valid.

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Homo sapiens neanderthalis[/i] disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...

Except we probably didn't. Its only one of several hypothesis, and one that isn't supported by any facts. Other theories, such has assimilation, have factual evidence to back them up.

I prefer the former. Its cleaner. The fact that no real conclusion has been made yet, means the hypothesis can still be considered valid.

Your preference doesn't have anything to do with it. For feth sake's, do you have to barest understanding of what science is??? Homo Sapiens cohabited for 12 000 years with Homo Neanderthalis, we have not a single mass grave to indicate violent conflict on a racial scale, and as of 2010, we have DNA evidence that Eurasians have Neanderthal genetic baggage in them....

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Homo sapiens neanderthalis[/i] disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...

Except we probably didn't. Its only one of several hypothesis, and one that isn't supported by any facts. Other theories, such has assimilation, have factual evidence to back them up.

I prefer the former. Its cleaner. The fact that no real conclusion has been made yet, means the hypothesis can still be considered valid.

Why do you think you are so violent, Tadashi? Are you suppressing emotions rooted in your childhood experiences?


I'm listening.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Homo sapiens neanderthalis[/i] disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...

Except we probably didn't. Its only one of several hypothesis, and one that isn't supported by any facts. Other theories, such has assimilation, have factual evidence to back them up.

I prefer the former. Its cleaner. The fact that no real conclusion has been made yet, means the hypothesis can still be considered valid.

Why do you think you are so violent, Tadashi? Are you suppressing emotions rooted in your childhood experiences?


I'm listening.

LMAO

If you really want to know, I simply despise the person I was. I went to a parochial school in elementary, and I was like most of you guys, idealistic, altruistic, in other words a 'bright and sunny' boy. And then came secular high school...the real world is ugly. The more one follows an ideal, the more conflict you have with reality. The strong and powerful in society endure, while the weak and powerless submit and suffer. At first I just wanted to be one of the former, but something in me told me that was meaningless, and I would become what I despised. So instead of aggrandizing myself, I set my sights on something grander, a glorious vision equal to the grand dream of Alexander the Great. Mankind ascendant, evolution at our beck and call, the stars themselves bent to our will, but the problem was how...then comes 40k, and the Space Marines...and the answer came: Trans-Humans.

Tadashi wrote:
The more one follows an ideal, the more conflict you have with reality. The strong and powerful in society endure, while the weak and powerless submit and suffer.

That's an ideal. It's called naturalism in the French philosophical tradition, and immoralism in the Anglo-saxon one. Thrasymachus is it's figure-head.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
The more one follows an ideal, the more conflict you have with reality. The strong and powerful in society endure, while the weak and powerless submit and suffer.

That's an ideal. It's called naturalism in the French philosophical tradition, and immoralism in the Anglo-saxon one. Thrasymachus is it's figure-head.

Its the reality. Otherwise, why else would mewling maggots who have millions of currency at their disposal be at the top posts of the government as opposed to the common man as should be the case in democracy? Our 'democracy' is false, a facade of gold and silver over an ugly oligarchy/plutocracy. That system must be broken and be replaced by one where the truly strong and deserving rule as opposed to cursed filth with money, noble-blood, etc.

Tadashi wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Homo sapiens neanderthalis[/i] disagree, seeing as our species drove them into extinction...

Except we probably didn't. Its only one of several hypothesis, and one that isn't supported by any facts. Other theories, such has assimilation, have factual evidence to back them up.

I prefer the former. Its cleaner. The fact that no real conclusion has been made yet, means the hypothesis can still be considered valid.

Why do you think you are so violent, Tadashi? Are you suppressing emotions rooted in your childhood experiences?


I'm listening.

LMAO

If you really want to know, I simply despise the person I was. I went to a parochial school in elementary, and I was like most of you guys, idealistic, altruistic, in other words a 'bright and sunny' boy. And then came secular high school...the real world is ugly. The more one follows an ideal, the more conflict you have with reality. The strong and powerful in society endure, while the weak and powerless submit and suffer. At first I just wanted to be one of the former, but something in me told me that was meaningless, and I would become what I despised. So instead of aggrandizing myself, I set my sights on something grander, a glorious vision equal to the grand dream of Alexander the Great. Mankind ascendant, evolution at our beck and call, the stars themselves bent to our will, but the problem was how...then comes 40k, and the Space Marines...and the answer came: Trans-Humans.

Well, you're crazy, but I wish you the best of luck. I'm sure you'll outgrow this phase of yours.

Either I'm crazy or I'm brilliant. Going by the rules of our filthy society, if I succeed, it will be the latter.

Tadashi wrote:if I succeed

You won't.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:if I succeed

You won't.

That's why he's harmless.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:if I succeed

You won't.

I just might. They said the same to Alexander, and behold the achievements of the King of Conquerors.

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:if I succeed

You won't.

I just might. They said the same to Alexander, and behold the achievements of the King of Conquerors.

Oh for feth's sake, anime and science fiction novels aren't historical or scientific sources.

Alexander is only 'King of Conquerors' in Fate-0. You have no credibility at all.

Tadashi wrote:The furnace of war drives evolution, change, and development

And this is important because....?

Tadashi wrote:[I prefer the former. Its cleaner. The fact that no real conclusion has been made yet, means the hypothesis can still be considered valid.

That's not how science works.

Tadashi wrote:That system must be broken and be replaced by one where the truly strong and deserving rule as opposed to cursed filth with money, noble-blood, etc.

Those with wealth and the will to use it are truly strong.

Look, you're only 19. Read a few books, get out and live life a little. We'll revisit this conversation in ten years or so, when you've done a bit of growing up.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:if I succeed

You won't.

I just might. They said the same to Alexander, and behold the achievements of the King of Conquerors.

Oh for feth's sake, anime and science fiction novels aren't historical or scientific sources.

Alexander is only 'King of Conquerors' in Fate-0. You have no credibility at all.

He's still Alexander, for all that.

Tadashi wrote:He's still Alexander, for all that.

And you are still wrong on all other accounts. Your understanding of Transhumanism is derived from mediocre anime and even worse science fiction novels. Your political stance are abhorrent. Overall, you handled this conversation with the intellectual maturity of a 12 years old. I would happily flunk any students who argued so poorly in my classes.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:He's still Alexander, for all that.

And you are still wrong on all other accounts. Your understanding of Transhumanism is derived from mediocre anime and even worse science fiction novels. Your political stance are abhorrent. Overall, you handled this conversation with the intellectual maturity of a 12 years old. I would happily flunk any students who argued so poorly in my classes.

But I'm certainly not your student, am I now? And for someone who values individualism, you seem awfully determined to make me conform to your views. I have nothing left to say but you are a hypocrite.

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:He's still Alexander, for all that.

And you are still wrong on all other accounts. Your understanding of Transhumanism is derived from mediocre anime and even worse science fiction novels. Your political stance are abhorrent. Overall, you handled this conversation with the intellectual maturity of a 12 years old. I would happily flunk any students who argued so poorly in my classes.

But I'm certainly not your student, am I now? And for someone who values individualism, you seem awfully determined to make me conform to your views. I have nothing left to say but you are a hypocrite.

You ascribded to me individualism. I've tried to explain that I don't care that much for individualism, as in it's a perfectly valid stance while not being the only one. Humanist values, on the other hand, are not negociable. Their recognitions is what make a modern nation-state a modern nation-state.

Tadashi wrote:
But I'm certainly not your student, am I now? And for someone who values individualism, you seem awfully determined to make me conform to your views. I have nothing left to say but you are a hypocrite.

There is nothing hypocritical about failing someone if their logic is faulty, based on incorrect or poor interpretations of demonstratably incorrect, poor or misleading source data, regardless of what you think of their conclusions or your own beliefs.

If you said the earth was flat based on book 'X', would you argue I am a hypocrite for doing so, even though your position is demonstratably wrong and based on an interpretation of data that can be proven to be incorrect?

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:BOOORING...

As opposed to what? A few statues and some names written in books?

So totalitarian states are better than democracies because, why exactly?

Because our names, legends, and achievements echo down the ages.

So what? Who cares?

Does it matter? That brief flare of a life filled with glorious achievement is more brilliant than long but unfulfilled life with no glory or achievement to remember you by. I certainly do not intend to end like that. I will see transhumanism achieved in my lifetime. I will see my work beginning a a great Human Empire across the stars built on xenocide. 40k has given purpose to my old dreams of transhumanism, and it is glorious!

Okay, I honestly have to ask:
Is this a troll?

DOOMBREAD wrote:Okay, I honestly have to ask:
Is this a troll?

It's either a troll trolling us, or a troll trolling itself.
So the answer's yes.