woodchip wrote:You keep talking about well thought out threads but I've yet to see either you or Fern start one. Perhaps you could show us how it is done.
I did. Once. Here it is again. You abstained from the discussion, as did most others. Tunnelcat jumped in before reading or thinking and flip's only contribution was an unoriginal copy/paste. The only serious thoughts were given by roid. So yeah, that was a pretty good sign to me that this place is an intellectual sinkhole. It is why I treat E&C as entertainment since this forum is a small corner of a video game website.
Feel free to visit that old topic I started and dish out 1000 words* for me to chew on.
* That's the equivalent of a twitter post in academia.
Lol! roid pointed out what should be obvious to you. There is no benefit from consolidating power into some 'new form' of government because A) the mechanism already exists and with it comes the problems of divergent cultures at the helm of the authority. Ie no consensus.
And B) with no consensus just wrapping it together under a label of "new" doesn't magically alter the reality that the widely differing cultures prevent you from creating something new.
Humans do what humans do and as long as there are diametrically opposed cultures there will be no world government.
Ecological disaster is the only possible common enemy and even that isn't enough to cause solidarity.
We don't need a thousand words to elaborate on roids observation. You shouldn't have even needed the hundred or so I just wrote to realize your 'deep thought ' was at best an average stoners day dream....
Aaaaaand these last few responses prove my point that most of you are a bunch of vapid, unimaginative dullards. Thanks! Who doesn't love being right?
That fact that woodchip thinks my world governance post had lots of "big words" embarrassingly reveals a small vocabulary. Will's argument about no-consensus fails to account for the fact that government can still function effectively without consensus on certain matters, just like the United States functions without clear consensus on certain issues. World governance could work at least that good, but the thread I started posed the possibility of forms of governance untried or undiscovered and challenged the reader to think of them. No one here was really up to the challenge because, you know, Thanks Obama. Not that I had a lot of expectations for you anyway, haha.
That fact that woodchip thinks my world governance post had lots of "big words" embarrassingly reveals a small vocabulary.
I suggest you re-read my reply as your ability to read seems to enter a state of fuge and adds words were none existed. I suggest you stop speed reading and get your money back from who ever taught you how to.
vision wrote: Will's argument about no-consensus fails to account for the fact that government can still function effectively without consensus on certain matters, just like the United States functions without clear consensus on certain issues. World governance could work at least that good, but the thread I started posed the possibility of forms of governance untried or undiscovered and challenged the reader to think of them. No one here was really up to the challenge because, you know, Thanks Obama. Not that I had a lot of expectations for you anyway, haha.
Perhaps the real problem is your topic was one no one really cared about as none of us here wants a one world government. Next time try and pick a topic or phrase it so we can be interested. Otherwise you remind me of some of the professor I had that were droning and didactic when speaking and put most of the class to sleep.
I wanna talk about the few dominant men that Wilson handed our country over too that built the huge military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about, who Kennedy says exists as a shadow government through secret societies and secret pacts dang it!
EDIT: Or not, it's not like I really care or fear them, I won't be dismayed or unaware and I like crickets, their symphony puts me to sleep.
woodchip wrote:You keep talking about well thought out threads but I've yet to see either you or Fern start one. Perhaps you could show us how it is done.
I offered to go half way. you on the other hand, refused to even try, and your counter-offer required me to drop my entire life to satisfy your whims.
woodchip wrote:Perhaps the real problem is your topic was one no one really cared about as none of us here wants a one world government. Next time try and pick a topic or phrase it so we can be interested.
Sure, you guys can keep talking about the same few topics over and over again. And it is easy too because you can just reiterate what you read other places instead of having original thoughts of your own.
woodchip wrote:Otherwise you remind me of some of the professor I had that were droning and didactic when speaking and put most of the class to sleep.
Judging from your posts you could have spent less time sleeping in class.
woodchip wrote:You keep talking about well thought out threads but I've yet to see either you or Fern start one. Perhaps you could show us how it is done.
I offered to go half way. you on the other hand, refused to even try, and your counter-offer required me to drop my entire life to satisfy your whims.
So you have no one to blame on this but yourself.
what a brillantly convoluted reply trying to blame your inadequacies to start a thread on me. That's like me blaming you for all the anti Obama threads I started. You'd think you would have enough self respect to do so without any bartering with me. Quite frankly fern, I don't give a dam whether you start a thread or not. Just don't keep blaming me for not doing so.
, because if your not one of them they at least have your heart.
