ChatterBank0 min ago
Is He On The Sauce Again Or Is He For Real ?
44 Answers
either way, hes extremely dangerous and mixed with adolf merkel an extremely toxic combo.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I mentioned this in an answer to 3Ts question this morning:
http://
http://
I prefer to think of it as something to aim for. As a wise man once said, the real world sucks. It doesn't have to, does it? Why couldn't we hope to improve it, rather than accept how much it sucks as if it always has to be that way?
Realistically, it will never be perfect, obviously. But I don't see why it's so unreasonable to want the world to be better, more open, and less divided.
Realistically, it will never be perfect, obviously. But I don't see why it's so unreasonable to want the world to be better, more open, and less divided.
OG: "I think we already have strains with Scots, Welsh, Irish, and English..."
Quite aside from the question of how severe or widespread those strains really are (I think you are massively exaggerating them), surely this is a very circular argument? National borders, you say, are necessary and welcome to separate cultures and nations. But then the separation of those cultures was, in part, a consequence of insisting upon those borders in the first place.
Nor is a large empire by its nature necessarily fatal, or at least one also has to remember that empires tend to expand by conquest, rather than by some sort of mutually acceptable arrangement, which skews the statistics rather. Their collapses often have to do with other factors too (eg, a bigger more bullying Empire, or some frustrating political struggles coupled with economic stresses) rather than necessarily some culture divides. Indeed, the evidence tends to suggest that given the opportunity apparently radically different cultures can coexist peacefully (not always, but sometimes).
Besides which, the World was rather a lot bigger in those days. In terms of border-to-border communication, the Roman Empire at its height was probably a good couple of weeks across. And it still lasted for about three hundred years at that extent. The British Empire was similar.
I just don't see the idea that we've reached our upper size limit for nations, and so the lower limit for number of viable borders, as holding any water. Quite the opposite, in fact, although as I say I don't expect to see this validated in my lifetime. But that's sort of the point. These changes happen too slowly for people to see in their own experience, but they still happen. And, even if it doesn't, I still don't understand why exactly it's not even something to strive for. The world is not at all well served if we insist on dividing it up so arbitrarily.
And, again, just to be clear, this has nothing at all to do with "house" borders. Drawing the flawed comparison is just a cynical attempt to avoid a discussion, nothing more.
Quite aside from the question of how severe or widespread those strains really are (I think you are massively exaggerating them), surely this is a very circular argument? National borders, you say, are necessary and welcome to separate cultures and nations. But then the separation of those cultures was, in part, a consequence of insisting upon those borders in the first place.
Nor is a large empire by its nature necessarily fatal, or at least one also has to remember that empires tend to expand by conquest, rather than by some sort of mutually acceptable arrangement, which skews the statistics rather. Their collapses often have to do with other factors too (eg, a bigger more bullying Empire, or some frustrating political struggles coupled with economic stresses) rather than necessarily some culture divides. Indeed, the evidence tends to suggest that given the opportunity apparently radically different cultures can coexist peacefully (not always, but sometimes).
Besides which, the World was rather a lot bigger in those days. In terms of border-to-border communication, the Roman Empire at its height was probably a good couple of weeks across. And it still lasted for about three hundred years at that extent. The British Empire was similar.
I just don't see the idea that we've reached our upper size limit for nations, and so the lower limit for number of viable borders, as holding any water. Quite the opposite, in fact, although as I say I don't expect to see this validated in my lifetime. But that's sort of the point. These changes happen too slowly for people to see in their own experience, but they still happen. And, even if it doesn't, I still don't understand why exactly it's not even something to strive for. The world is not at all well served if we insist on dividing it up so arbitrarily.
And, again, just to be clear, this has nothing at all to do with "house" borders. Drawing the flawed comparison is just a cynical attempt to avoid a discussion, nothing more.
It occurred to me that people may be mistaking the situation *now* for the situation as I expect it to be at some undefined point in the future. Right now, such borders that exist are important and deserve proper monitoring. My hope is that, in time, these borders will become equivalent to borders between counties (as in, not borders at all, as far as the average man is concerned). I don't want to force the issue, but I do expect it to happen.
jim360
/// And, again, just to be clear, this has nothing at all to do with "house" borders. Drawing the flawed comparison is just a cynical attempt to avoid a discussion, nothing more. ///
It is perfectly valid comparison, albeit on a very much smaller scale. Just because it has been put forward as an argument of strangers wandering back and forward over your land, doesn't make it a cynical attempt to avoid a discussion (as you so wrongly claim), on the contrary it heightens discussion.
So please address the counter argument Jim, why do we still create borders around our properties, why do we not say to passing strangers "come on in, and take advantage of the amenities that I have struggled to acquire all my life"?
/// And, again, just to be clear, this has nothing at all to do with "house" borders. Drawing the flawed comparison is just a cynical attempt to avoid a discussion, nothing more. ///
It is perfectly valid comparison, albeit on a very much smaller scale. Just because it has been put forward as an argument of strangers wandering back and forward over your land, doesn't make it a cynical attempt to avoid a discussion (as you so wrongly claim), on the contrary it heightens discussion.
So please address the counter argument Jim, why do we still create borders around our properties, why do we not say to passing strangers "come on in, and take advantage of the amenities that I have struggled to acquire all my life"?
I am reminded of a nice song ...
Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
Rather like "Brexit means Brexit", saying that things "are what they are" is basically meaningless (take note, Exodus). And anyway, human nature being what it is also allows for cooperation, on potentially huge scales too.
Thanks for the song lyrics, ellipsis.
* * *
Now, to AOG. No, it's not valid at all. Firstly, the "borders" of my house don't extend very far; secondly, on a purely geographical issue, the question of who is welcome and how many people can physically stay in the place puts a limit on how open it can really be anyway; thirdly, literally right outside the door is something called a "street", where people from all "countries" are free to roam as they like, subject to some international laws (highway code) of course; in essence, I am comparing the hoped-for lack of borders to the situation *outside* the house.
I could add, too, that since I don't own the place I stay, the owner instead has done exactly what you are trying to imply people don't do. Subject to certain conditions, though, he has invited four strangers into a place he owns to use the resources and property that is his, as if it were their own.
Further, the concept of borders around a house is as much related to practical considerations such as shelter from the elements, long-term storage of food and personal resources, etc. Yes, and security too, there's no getting around that, but it's security of a very, very different nature. And, again, there's the problem of viewing the situation *now* as eternal, despite trends generally pointing in the other direction. Public perception being what it is, this rarely gets the attention it deserves, but it's true all the same.
Maybe there is a limit to how far the trends can go, and maybe it is, after all, far short of the future I hope for. Still, I guess what I'm mainly trying to say is that we have yet to reach that limit. After all, it would be fairly depressing to think that the world as it is today is as good as it gets, as united as humanity can be.
Thanks for the song lyrics, ellipsis.
* * *
Now, to AOG. No, it's not valid at all. Firstly, the "borders" of my house don't extend very far; secondly, on a purely geographical issue, the question of who is welcome and how many people can physically stay in the place puts a limit on how open it can really be anyway; thirdly, literally right outside the door is something called a "street", where people from all "countries" are free to roam as they like, subject to some international laws (highway code) of course; in essence, I am comparing the hoped-for lack of borders to the situation *outside* the house.
I could add, too, that since I don't own the place I stay, the owner instead has done exactly what you are trying to imply people don't do. Subject to certain conditions, though, he has invited four strangers into a place he owns to use the resources and property that is his, as if it were their own.
Further, the concept of borders around a house is as much related to practical considerations such as shelter from the elements, long-term storage of food and personal resources, etc. Yes, and security too, there's no getting around that, but it's security of a very, very different nature. And, again, there's the problem of viewing the situation *now* as eternal, despite trends generally pointing in the other direction. Public perception being what it is, this rarely gets the attention it deserves, but it's true all the same.
Maybe there is a limit to how far the trends can go, and maybe it is, after all, far short of the future I hope for. Still, I guess what I'm mainly trying to say is that we have yet to reach that limit. After all, it would be fairly depressing to think that the world as it is today is as good as it gets, as united as humanity can be.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.