Philosophy Now Forum

WanderingLands wrote:Wow, that opening line was definitely not called for

It was, because you insist on making children into craftsmen and craftswomen, when this will mean that a huge amount of doors will lock before them in their lives, they will loose a childhood of play and exploration, and become ignorant fools to the very valuable knowledge they learn in schools. You are making them worthless tools for patriarchal exploitation. You talk about Chinese child labour as if it's a bad thing when you are advocating the exact same thing in those lines. What enables Chinese child labour is ignorance, is locked doors (because of lacking education and singular learning) and how their lives are preset to become farmers, or tailors or fishermen... it's the ultimate curse that all 3rd world children wants to escape and you want to give it to every child... that's outright evil, unless you are just too dumb to understand the consequences of what you are proposing.

WanderingLands wrote:What about Walmart, for example, an American company that uses Chinese labor?

Walmart is not representative for bureaucracies in general or even people in general. Walmart is a disgrace, and should've been put out of business a long time ago. Unfortunately, bad leaders let them exist. The wages of a Walmart employee in the US is between one third and one fourth of the absolute minimum you'd make in Norway for instance, so as a Norwegian I find these facts outrageous, but American people keep voting for bad guys that make bad decisions.

This unfortunately would be even worse in traditional families, because a bad parent you wouldn't be able to escape, you can escape Walmart however if you want to. There's no Walmart in Norway.

WanderingLands wrote:Bureaucracies for one involve hierarchy

Not necessarily. The definition of a bureau does not require any hierarchy, only a staff dedicated to a task. And the practice of hierarchy depends upon organizational culture and countries. Norway is known for an especially flat organizational structure for instance, especially related to business. People have roles in an organization more than they have functions, and this makes sharing of expertise better and provides more informed solutions. Bosses will often ask employees for advice for instance instead of enforcing strategies.

WanderingLands wrote:and so hierarchy is not limited to a traditional family.

No, but a traditional family is limited to a hierarchy.

WanderingLands wrote:And no, it is not irrelevant, because bureaucracies are known to be tyrannical.

Not to my experience. There happens to be bad apples occasionally within bureaus but in a bureau you can just fire them. You can't fire somebody in a traditional family.

WanderingLands wrote:You're remark on guns is not at all fact based.

Because the discussion is not about guns. That's why I just say I hate it, because if I started arguing with you, you would reply and our discussion would have a bad detour.

WanderingLands wrote:You have obviously not looked at the information provided for you, because that would've obviously proved you wrong. It's very comical to see people who claim to be intellectuals, that say things without ever doing research, and then ignores the different points of view from another person who has the research to back it up.

WanderingLands wrote:Globalization, if you looked at my sources (one of them having actual graph charts to back it up), has lead to over consumption, outsourcing jobs, exploitation, war, etc.

1) Is relative. Some people use the term to mean things which I don't consider over-consumption, like I once met a hermit-like guy who ate nearly nothing, when I tried his diet I became weak and my head dizzy. He insisted people eat like him. The man was obviously a fool, but a kind fool though.

2) This is a good thing mostly

3) Was there before, it just changed who receives benefits

4) And stopped wars. Globalization led to the defence of South Korea when they were invaded by North Korea for instance, without globalization, North Korea would've swallowed South Korea. In Africa, without globalization, there would still be tribal wars... don't forget that the slave trade was not because white people took Africans, but because Africans sold each other to the white men, to get advantages in war... globalization does not create wars, the world today is a miraculous place for its lack of wars. You might think there are many wars, but considering the past when people went to war all the time for all sorts of reasons and the wars lasted decades and sometimes even more than 100 years, the world today is very peaceful. The globalized state today means that countries will intervene in other countries to stop wars as well as create them, and alliances enables a climate of balance of power where parties don't attack each other. The 21st century is a peace heaven compared to the 20th. The casualties in war has also drastically dropped, with wars in the 20th century ranging in the millions, while wars in the 21st century is in the hundred thousands and sometimes only a few thousands. Wars in western Europe has effectively been completely absent since the second world war, same with North America. The future is also looking very bright, with the realm of peace moving into Latin America and South America and into Eastern Europe.

The Voice of Time wrote:
It was, because you insist on making children into craftsmen and craftswomen, when this will mean that a huge amount of doors will lock before them in their lives, they will loose a childhood of play and exploration, and become ignorant fools to the very valuable knowledge they learn in schools. You are making them worthless tools for patriarchal exploitation. You talk about Chinese child labour as if it's a bad thing when you are advocating the exact same thing in those lines. What enables Chinese child labour is ignorance, is locked doors (because of lacking education and singular learning) and how their lives are preset to become farmers, or tailors or fishermen... it's the ultimate curse that all 3rd world children wants to escape and you want to give it to every child... that's outright evil, unless you are just too dumb to understand the consequences of what you are proposing.

Alright, now you're just using emotion. Children learn to be independent by being craftsmen and craftswomen. If they were to learn by experience, then they would become sufficient: they would have the knowledge of measurement, the tools to use, and the resources to use. Also, I did not just say that children should work; I also said that they ought to be taught Classical Education, like the Trvium, or the Quadrivium.

You see, what I'm suggesting is very different from the child labor in China. 1) My form of educating and training children doesn't require mass production, as is does in China. 2) With the tools that they've learned, they would actually become more sufficient, and they learn better responsibility than if you were to send your children off to public schools. 3) My ideas for I guess a "society" is a lot more decentralized and less bureaucratized, which makes room for sovereignty of many communities, to live a better life than what they're living like right now.

Public schools do not actually teach children anything, but regurgitate and make them memorize information. Here's why:

1) The many assignments and tests which require you to give the correct (or government-desired answer) answers in order to pass a class. Assignments, tests, and quizzes, do not teach critical thinking. If they did, then children wouldn't get marked down for having the "wrong" answer.
2) Notice how schools today are starting to tell children what kind of sources they should use (ie. gov). If schools allowed critical thinking to children, then they wouldn't worry what kind of websites they're using and let them think on their own (as opposed to suggesting that they use some government or establishment media website or any other source).
3) Notice how schools, with help of government, are saying that "education makes way for the work place". They want you work; not actually use your mind to actually do something, or to think of things like philosophical inquiries. Instead, they tell you that you "have" to work for the system in order to survive. This is wrong, especially when mega corporations (Walmart, K-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, fast food chains, Google) are increasingly buying up all of the resources, specifically in the Western world. Now, would you want to have to waste 12 years of useless schooling, only to have to work at some mega-company, only to get paid minimum wage (which around where I live, in America, is around $7) when there are so many things that you have to pay off (housing, car, income tax, electricity, food)?

Here are some other reasons why public schools (ie. compulsory schools) are bad for children.

1) They are exposed to the detrimental aspects that make up American "culture": the food, the sodas, the TV, the Media, etc.
2) They are being forced (rather subconsciously) into being Americanized, since kids are being fed the Media that molds them into a product of the Corporatist system.
3) The many cliques, stereotypes, and so on that children are being felt that they need to join them (ie. Popular kids: jocks, gangsters, stoners, etc), or else they would be "outcasts".

The Voice of Time wrote: 4) And stopped wars. Globalization led to the defence of South Korea when they were invaded by North Korea for instance, without globalization, North Korea would've swallowed South Korea. In Africa, without globalization, there would still be tribal wars... don't forget that the slave trade was not because white people took Africans, but because Africans sold each other to the white men, to get advantages in war... globalization does not create wars, the world today is a miraculous place for its lack of wars. You might think there are many wars, but considering the past when people went to war all the time for all sorts of reasons and the wars lasted decades and sometimes even more than 100 years, the world today is very peaceful. The globalized state today means that countries will intervene in other countries to stop wars as well as create them, and alliances enables a climate of balance of power where parties don't attack each other. The 21st century is a peace heaven compared to the 20th. The casualties in war has also drastically dropped, with wars in the 20th century ranging in the millions, while wars in the 21st century is in the hundred thousands and sometimes only a few thousands. Wars in western Europe has effectively been completely absent since the second world war, same with North America. The future is also looking very bright, with the realm of peace moving into Latin America and South America and into Eastern Europe.

1) South Korea is merely a puppet of the US Government, and they are no better than North Korea considering the form of government that South Korea has had for a long time (ie. Park Chung Lee), and also the fact that they themselves have nuclear weapons (yet the U.S. attacks North Korea for developing nuclear weapons).
2) Africa is still impoverished, and there is still fighting going on. 19th century Imperialism has caused the splitting of several African tribes, and as well as the belligerent killing of African tribes. The Western World still has continued to exploit Africa, by using up their oil (ie. Uganda, for example, in which the U.S. has been promoting the Joseph Kony propaganda), diamond (the Israeli diamond trade), and other natural resources. And as for slavery, I already know about African leaders selling their own slaves to Europe.
3) The modern era has not been peaceful compared to the last eras in History. You have wars in the Middle East and Africa: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria. You also have U.S. backed terrorism and coups in Iran, South Korea, Chile, and so on. Then, there's the Israeli-Palistinian conflict, in which the United States still continues to support Israel, even when Israel has been killing Palestinians, keeping Africans in jail, and discriminating against Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews.
4) Especially in Iraq, there was about 1,455,590 (AntiWar - Casualties in Iraq: http://antiwar.com/casualties/)
5) You forgot to look at Venezuela, when during when Hugo Chaves was still living, the U.S. was trying to push an invasion against them. You also have protests against government corruption in places like Brazil. Same goes with Eastern Europe, in places like Ukraine. Then of course, you have Greece, a Mediterranean country that we all know is in political turmoil; along with that, there's Cyprus.

The US is a colossal hypocrite, you'll get used to it.

For example the US supplied Iran with their nuclear reactors so that Iran would not use its precious reserves of oil in their power stations. The uranium enrichment technology was give to them by European scientists, German scientists in fact.

Which kind of makes Europe massive hypocrites too. We are all pretty much lying as people, sadly.

The IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) a wing of the UN says that developing nuclear power for peaceful means is beyond the discretion or control by sanctions of UNsec the United Nations security council, the only body on Earth supposedly that has the power to offer lawful sanctions on other countries. America says the UN is a paper tiger, America pretty much created the UN from the remains of the League of Nations along with one or two other powerful nations, but the real groundwork was theirs. And around we go.

Politics it's like a playground only the kids never really grow up.

Blaggard wrote:The US is a colossal hypocrite, you'll get used to it.

For example the US supplied Iran with their nuclear reactors so that Iran would not use its precious reserves of oil in their power stations. The uranium enrichment technology was give to them by European scientists, German scientists in fact.

Which kind of makes Europe massive hypocrites too. We are all pretty much lying as people, sadly.

The IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) a wing of the UN says that developing nuclear power for peaceful means is beyond the discretion or control by sanctions of UNsec the United Nations security council, the only body on Earth supposedly that has the power to offer lawful sanctions on other countries. America says the UN is a paper tiger, America pretty much created the UN from the remains of the League of Nations along with one or two other powerful nations, but the real groundwork was theirs. And around we go.

Politics it's like a playground only the kids never really grow up.

Yep. All too same old politics right there...

WanderingLands wrote:and also the fact that they themselves have nuclear weapons (yet the U.S. attacks North Korea for developing nuclear weapons).

This in fact is a lie, if you'd done your research you'd know there currently are no nuclear weapons in South Korea. South Korea is however protected by US nuclear ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). Which as the name imply can protect pretty much any part of the world.

As for the pressure against North Korea, North Korea is one ugly and hostile country, it's as much a danger to itself as everyone else (except perhaps China, whose only suffering is fleeing North Korean defectors immigration). Nobody really wants a nation like that with nuclear arms, even China is sceptical about that.

The Voice of Time wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:and also the fact that they themselves have nuclear weapons (yet the U.S. attacks North Korea for developing nuclear weapons).

This in fact is a lie, if you'd done your research you'd know there currently are no nuclear weapons in South Korea. South Korea is however protected by US nuclear ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). Which as the name imply can protect pretty much any part of the world.

As for the pressure against North Korea, North Korea is one ugly and hostile country, it's as much a danger to itself as everyone else (except perhaps China, whose only suffering is fleeing North Korean defectors immigration). Nobody really wants a nation like that with nuclear arms, even China is sceptical about that.

It is not a lie, as back in August 2004, South Korea has actually revealed their nuclear weapons research programs to the IAEA. You can even look at it on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia - South Korean nuclear research programs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Kore ... A_Response

I am not saying at all the North Korea is innocent (as it is true that they are tyrannical), but they are no threat to anyone, as they are too economically crippled to even utilize their army, and is thus very doubtful that they can ever really use their nuclear weapons, or any other weapons for that matter. They definitely don't fair enough to the United States, which is pretty much the head of the empire of the world.

P.S.

Oh, and here's some news: in 2012, South Korea got longer-range missiles from the United States, that would be able to, "strike all of North Korea, even from southern areas", as put by South Korea's security minister Chun Yung-woo.

You can read the rest of the article here:

Global Policy Forum - South Korea to Get Longer-Range Missiles under New Deal with US: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-co ... html#41756

are you talkin nazi germany or communist russia here.

WanderingLands wrote:3) The modern era has not been peaceful compared to the last eras in History.

It has.

WanderingLands wrote:You have wars in the Middle East and Africa: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria.

Because we are in such an early stage of this century, and exactly one hundred years ago and down to 1900 there were no wars with millions of death yet, I'm gonna say instead that within three years time, which would mean early 2017, the amount of deaths from wars between 2000 and 2017, is incomparable to the amount of deaths that occurred between 1900 and 1917. Which includes great wars like the Russo-Japanese war, which estimates (purely military losses) of 80-90 000. How many civilians nobody knows because people simply didn't count at that time. The pure military losses in that war alone is probably on par with than all the military losses between 2000 and 2017 all over the world alone. To put things into perspective, the amount of regular soldiers in the Iraqi army that died in the US invasion was 7000-11000, with 21000-26000 insurgents (the total number of deaths is far less than your clearly exaggerated number btw, the highest reliable estimates is about a quarter of a million, the large majority being civilians, like any war). The Russo-Japanese war btw lasted 1 and a half years, so imagine if that war had lasted as long as the Iraq or Afghan war. The first world war, which celebrates its 100 years birthday about four months from now, killed nearly 10 million soldiers alone. That's the combined population of Norway and Denmark today, it's like exterminating those two countries completely. From this article you get even more staggering accounts:

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 37 million. There were over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

And there went the total today population of Poland (a country which btw lost one sixth of its population in that war)... wars today are nothing compared to the great wars of the 20th century. The entire Iraq war is comparable to a skirmish in WW1. For further evidence of the steady decline through history, take this battle from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

The world population at that time was about 400 million, meaning that in a single battle Hulagu Khan of the Mongol Empire killed about 0.5% of the entire world population. And you know how much time he spent to do that? 12 days. Likely the worst battle in history.

WanderingLands wrote:You also have U.S. backed terrorism and coups in Iran, South Korea, Chile, and so on.

Didn't happen in the 21st century.

WanderingLands wrote:Then, there's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States still continues to support Israel, even when Israel has been killing Palestinians, keeping Africans in jail, and discriminating against Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews.

Israel is a bastard criminal state. But the Israel-Palestine conflict is a petty conflict compared to other conflicts around the world. What infuriates people the most about it is the moral nature of it and how allegiances are misplaced and support hypocritical. It's about political and military bad manners more than suffering, I'm sure 80-90% of the wars in Africa that has happened in that same time period has been way more bloody and destructive than the Israel-Palestine conflict. 14,500 casualties over a 61 years period is nothing compared to conflicts all over the world that takes tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands all the time. Giving the Israel-Palestine importance is malplaced priorities.

WanderingLands wrote:Oh, and here's some news: in 2012, South Korea got longer-range missiles from the United States, that would be able to, "strike all of North Korea, even from southern areas", as put by South Korea's security minister Chun Yung-woo.

Missiles are regular weapons of all modern nations. There's a difference between missiles and nuclear missiles. Missiles can be used to attack enemy military targets, nuclear weapons kill everything within its range, they are the ultimate way of creating collateral damage.

jackles wrote:are you talkin nazi germany or communist russia here.

Who are you talking to?

WanderingLands wrote:It is not a lie, as back in August 2004, South Korea has actually revealed their nuclear weapons research programs to the IAEA.

But they do not intend to make weapons, a crucial distinction.