What is a bigger threat to Western civilization?

Page 3 of 6 [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


What poses a bigger threat to us?
Our own global elite 88%  88%  [ 22 ]
Radical Islam 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 25

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

04 Dec 2011, 1:35 am

Seeing as I've never read those texts for myself, I'll refrain from formulating an opinion. Although from the snippets that I've been fed, it obviously doesn't look very rosy.



Abgal64
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

04 Dec 2011, 2:23 am

Tequila wrote:
Abgal64 wrote:
Note that just because someone dislikes Western civilization does not make them some sort of idiotic Totalitarian.


It does if you want to bring it down by force or wish to change our way of life, yes, or if you demand special privileges for your bile.

My advice to you would be the same as to our South Asian-born Islamists: find a country that is more to your liking. If you don't like the West, don't live here.
No, disliking a particular civilization is unrelated to one's ideology with regards to statecraft. What you just said makes as much sense as saying that someone who dislikes Ethiopia is an anti-monarchist because, until the abolition of the monarchy in 1974, Ethiopia was the oldest continuous monarchistic political system on Earth; furthermore, you did not even give justifications for your position.

And, I will remind you that, since you talk of wanting to bring peoples down by force or change their ways of life, your beloved Britain did just that to the Desi with the British Raj by controlling the courts of most of the Desi Subcontinent, destroying the economy of the Subcontinent and forcing changing the Desi's way of life. So, if you wish to talk about bringing civilizations down by force, just like the British did with the Mughal Empire, the Mysore Kingdom and the Sikh Empire, forcing a change in people's ways of life, as clearly must have happened on the Desi Subcontinent with the effective collapse of it's economy, then look to Britain for among the best examples in human history.

I am, by the way, strictly against special privileges for anyone's beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, and so do not assume that I want them for what you so eloquently term my "bile."


_________________
Learn the patterns of the past; consider what is not now; help what is not the past; plan for the future.
-Myself


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

04 Dec 2011, 7:15 am

Abgal64 wrote:
Note that just because someone dislikes Western civilization does not make them some sort of idiotic Totalitarian. Can someone not dislike Middle Eastern Civilizations, from the Persians and the Moors to the Ancient Egyptians and the Turks, Mesoamerican civilization, or its modern descendants, or, what appears to be quite common on this board from my experiences at least, ALL Subsaharan African Civilizations, from the Yoruba and the Shona to the Amhara and the Swahili, and have intelligent reasons why? Does preferring Malayali culture to English culture, as I do, make me a lover of Kim Il-Sung?

Perhaps instead of the DPRK you would prefer Botswana, Turkey or Singapore, Vexcalibur?
It is BS all along. I just stated that the biggest threat to western civilization is its own people. That does not imply any dislike of me against western civilization. It is, however, true.

Historically, The biggest threats to all civilizations were from the inside. Our current lovely civilization has topped every other in technology, but in the process we have raised a bunch of idiots. I'd like anyone to try to argue with this fact instead of saying OMG move to NK (Although I appreciate Tequila and Inuyasha for helping my point by showing exactly what sort of people the western civilization has created)

The Romans ended Rome. Civilizations like ours are doomed to implosion.


_________________
.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Dec 2011, 8:20 am

Abgal64 wrote:
No, disliking a particular civilization is unrelated to one's ideology with regards to statecraft. What you just said makes as much sense as saying that someone who dislikes Ethiopia is an anti-monarchist because, until the abolition of the monarchy in 1974, Ethiopia was the oldest continuous monarchistic political system on Earth.


In the case of radical Islam (and Irish republicanism for that matter) the two often go hand-in-hand and are closely related. Not many people would know your point about Ethiopia being a monarchy - I certainly didn't! - and I would submit that almost everyone confronted with that fact would consider it a bizarre point to bring up (more likely their beef with Ethiopia would be to do with mass immigration from there but I digress).

A dislike of a certain political position often leads to an overall dislike of the person or entity pushing it.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Dec 2011, 10:07 am

Walt Kelly said it: We have met The Enemy and he is us.

ruveyn



petitesouris
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 371

04 Dec 2011, 1:57 pm

This question is difficult to answer because you are not specific about which elites you refer to. If you are referring to those in charge of the UN and the EU (who are more about control then any concern for human rights) or Barack Hussein Obama, then I will have to choose the first answer. Right wing "elites" like Cheney may prove to be equally harmful if islam influences capitalism and they sacrifice the West for profit. Otherwise why is it that globalist "elites" such as our last president wanted Turkey to join the EU?

Islam and the fringe left and other "elites" are competitors for domination. Even if they appear to oppose each other at times, they do not care about freedom if theirs is not impinged. The leftists will force us to tolerate the intolerable while dismantling law and order, which will make islam flourish. Social, economic, and ecological destruction will perpetuate each other.



Last edited by petitesouris on 05 Dec 2011, 12:09 am, edited 4 times in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Dec 2011, 3:35 pm

Probably something more like a collapse in resources. Radical islam and our elites aren't that threatening.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Dec 2011, 3:48 pm

petitesouris wrote:
Otherwise why is it that globalist "elites" such as our last president wanted Turkey to join the EU?


Put it this way: outside the political elite in Britain that idea is seen as about as desirable as a cup of cold sick. Even more so on the continent where national politicians stand on a platform of opposing Turkish entry into the EU. Countries like Austria are especially vociferously against the idea.



NorwichAspie
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

10 Dec 2011, 6:02 am

Lefties are the biggest threat to the western world.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,506
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

10 Dec 2011, 9:51 am

NorwichAspie wrote:
Lefties are the biggest threat to the western world.

Well, I'd say at least in the US Lefties and Neoliberals/Neoconservatives. They're book-ends really.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Dec 2011, 10:38 am

The State is the enemy. The bigger and more powerful it is, the greater is the harm it does to its subjects.

ruveynb



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

10 Dec 2011, 10:53 am

ruveyn wrote:
The State is the enemy. The bigger and more powerful it is, the greater is the harm it does to its subjects.

ruveynb


The state is the weapon the elite uses against the populous.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

10 Dec 2011, 11:01 am

ruveyn wrote:
The State is the enemy. The bigger and more powerful it is, the greater is the harm it does to its subjects.

ruveynb



I agree completely, I think we just disagree on what the appropriate scope of minimal governance is.

The way i see it, one of the few legitimate purposes of a national government is to pool the resources of the many to provide universal access to services that we are otherwise too greedy or shortsighted to provide.

Interstate highways with no tolls are one example of appropriate socialism. I just happen to think that universal health care is too.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

10 Dec 2011, 11:06 am

blauSamstag wrote:
I just happen to think that universal health care is too.


You rather misguidedly seem to think the UK system is a panacea. It isn't. In fact, the French system (which is more expensive than the UK one) - which is a public healthcare system using private companies and gives much more choice - delivers much better service in many cases and probably doesn't suffer from the never-ending lifestyle hectoring that our one does. The UK system is inflexible, bureaucratic and often autocratic in nature.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,506
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

10 Dec 2011, 11:14 am

I think the trouble with socialized medicine is if it doesn't have a mock-capitalistic structure within. From what I've heard, from some of the doctors and nurses in the UK when interviewed, was to that effect. Understandably a rural hospital won't have all the all-star players that a famous university hospital likely would hence the hospitals would be given the minimum of what they need plus performance bonus for growth. Overall though something is needed in the works to spur best practices and best performance, otherwise - yes - you run into the old Soviet problem.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

10 Dec 2011, 11:17 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I think the trouble with socialized medicine is if it doesn't have a mock-capitalistic structure within.


That's exactly it. There's no competition in the UK NHS so a lot of everything is second-rate at best. Sometimes the service is very good, mostly it's mediocre and sometimes it's appalling. Also, the advice to UK residents regarding the NHS is to never go into hospital if you can possibly avoid it because you could end up dying in there through infections on the wards.