Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.
I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.OhJohnNo said:Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.OhJohnNo said:Why not?Volf99 said:hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.AndyFromMonday said:Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.
Seriously, what are the downsides?
The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.EvilPicnic said:Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.
Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?
The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...
Yeah, so I imagine we'd have to be veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful when coding said computers. I'm still convinced it would work better than the current best (Democracy).Volf99 said:I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.OhJohnNo said:Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.OhJohnNo said:Why not?Volf99 said:hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.AndyFromMonday said:Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.
Seriously, what are the downsides?
Ask that to the people who live there.Volf99 said:The issue with the Falkland Islands, England has no right being there anymore than they did being in Hong Kong.EvilPicnic said:Not disputing your argument (which I mostly agree with), but what exactly did England do to Argentina?Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.
Be among the first to recognise their sovereignty as a nation? Invest heavily in their economy when they most needed it? Lose to their football team due to an illegal handball (and constantly thereafter)? Or defend themselves in the Falkland Islands when the Argentines invaded?
The British Empire did not have a great Human Rights record, but I don't think Argentina is generally included on the list of abuses...
lol, yes we would have to be "veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful" when build and coding the computer. Also it would be good if it didn't have absolute power and if we had a self destruct switch built in as well.OhJohnNo said:Yeah, so I imagine we'd have to be veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful when coding said computers. I'm still convinced it would work better than the current best (Democracy).Volf99 said:I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.OhJohnNo said:Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.OhJohnNo said:Why not?Volf99 said:hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.AndyFromMonday said:Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.
Seriously, what are the downsides?
But at the same time just about anyone can put anything on wikipedia so its authenticity is under constant scrutiny. That and the fact most people (employers) expect you to do your own work not take short cuts which is often what people are doing when using wikipedia. Also the college I graduated from considered it an ethics violation. Sources cited for wikipedia articles can work but not the condensed and sometimes flat out wrong interpretation people often see in wiki articles.Fagotto said:Try considering the reasons instead of just mimicking them. Life is not an academic paper where people should be using more direct sources.Kopikatsu said:Try telling that to a college professor.Fagotto said:That's just a silly thing to say. Wikipedia works as a source.Kopikatsu said:Never use wikipedia as a source. Never.
Well yes... but if you include a self-destruct button, the laws of fiction dictate that the computer will render it useless and take over the world out of spite and disrespect for humans.Volf99 said:lol, yes we would have to be "veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful" when build and coding the computer. Also it would be good if it didn't have absolute power and if we had a self destruct switch built in as well.OhJohnNo said:Yeah, so I imagine we'd have to be veeeeeeeeeery specific and veeeeeeeeery careful when coding said computers. I'm still convinced it would work better than the current best (Democracy).Volf99 said:I don't know the name, but there was some book in the 1980's about two super computers, one in Russia and one in America. They were to protect their countries and ended up enslaving the population to do so. So...... I rather have people run governments, because at least their rule isn't forever, which I can't say the same about computers. Also I have some irrational fear that the computer might turn into the computer from the story, I have no mouth and I must scream.OhJohnNo said:Hmm... yes, I can definitely see that downside. This is why we must get to work on benevolent (and we'd better make really motherfucking sure they are completely benevolent) computers to govern this theoretical all-encompassing country as quickly as possible. I imagine they'd work better than all the other forms of governance that have been tried...Volf99 said:To quote John Dalberg-Acton, "Power corrupts, and absoulte power corrupts absolutely". Think about if this government gave to ok to do something like what (PRC)China is doing to Tibet, America is doing at Guantanamo Bay, what England did to Ireland/India/China/Africa/Argentina. Who could oppose them? They would be the most powerful organized body in the entire world. It would be to risky to have.OhJohnNo said:Why not?Volf99 said:hhmmm...no. I rather not because that sounds like a gateway to have a single monolith government/country that spans the globe and I don't want that.AndyFromMonday said:Patriotism only serves to breed distrust between different cultures. We should attempt to unite under one banner and relinquish our imaginary differences rather than enforce and encourage them. Patriotism is dangerous, plain and simple.
Seriously, what are the downsides?
Sorry, but its NOT the vocal minority. The vocal minority are actually the ones who are NOT patriotic.The Human Torch said:It's just the vocal minority. Which unfortunately (as always) are far more in the spotlight than most Americans, who plainly don't give a crap.
Do any Americans still do that? I heard that was something that happened during the Vietnam war but I don't know if it was something that was continued.castlewise said:Unfair stereotype. And contradictory to the stereotype that all Americans pretend to be Canadians when they are abroad.
Damn you are crafty.C2Ultima said:Why do all non-americans question Amaerica's patriotism?
See what I did there? That's a generalization, which is exactly what you did in the title of this thread
Pretty much this. As an American i dont really like America, I feel the country is going in the wrong direction very quickly for numerous reasons. The freedoms we get are all well and good but they are rapidly vanishing with idiotic laws that just take away more and more of what made this a fairly decent country.The Human Torch said:It's just the vocal minority. Which unfortunately (as always) are far more in the spotlight than most Americans, who plainly don't give a crap.
The reason is that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Giving people the freedom to do whatever rarely ends well.Fagotto said:Try considering the reasons instead of just mimicking them. Life is not an academic paper where people should be using more direct sources.Kopikatsu said:Try telling that to a college professor.Fagotto said:That's just a silly thing to say. Wikipedia works as a source.Kopikatsu said:Never use wikipedia as a source. Never.