Real progress!

[Rhizomorph13]

Hey,

Another hot topic. I bet you're not surprised, but I will fight to the death against the world government they are offering us/working towards now. World government, in theory is necessary. But a world government led by American, or Globalist (if that's more about mind than citizenship) interests seems like it would necessarily have the same problems those governments create now. May be on a much larger scale.

It is not that some of us hate the NWO or World Government, or NA union because it is "the devil". It (for myself) is not based on fear of change, or lack of understanding of the situation. It is a logical and rational reaction when the flaws of the people and systems already in charge are understood. The system must work a LOT better than it does before it's viable as a legitimate world government.

I hope I can show you that it isn't based on whatever mentality you think all Christians have. That for some of us, it is a opinion and choice based on logic and reality. I somehow doubt it will be gotten though. I am just a crazy person who is against modernity! We don't need tress and clean water, we need more people in a greater level of control over ourselves! Yes! I sleep better already.
I think the greatest threat is form people who think other people (for whatever reason) are less human than themselves. The lack of compassion does much more damage than any theology, or lack of theology.

I am afraid to even try anymore,
We'll see,
thanks,
-Pip

Pippy,

I have bolded the parts of your post that show a built in defense. They are obviously aimed at YOUR perception of what "us atheists" (as hominem fallacy) might think of your viewpoint and not an answer to anything that has been said. They also appear to be a manifestation of your victim complex. You are speaking for all Christians too which is kinda coo coo if you think about it. It is easy to lose a point within a bunch of defensive pap and grandstanding in the form of speaking for a group instead of for yourself.

I'm very opinionated about how people should approach reality, most times I bite my tongue because speaking up just makes me look like an asshole and rarely modifies people's behavior. In this case I felt it would be more productive than just calling your post 'sketti.

I hope you see what I mean now.
Rhizo

[LEDO]

I think the world is too large and a world government would be too complex to exist and be effective. Can you imagine the cost and operation of an election? A democracy would be out. It would be easier to control the world by setting up puppet governments in key nations with vital resources.

[Pippy]

Hey,

I do see what you mean, but i have to disagree about what I am saying with the 'defenses' and that they are what you say they are. If I may.

I thought that is what you meant, as those are self disqualifying statements... I use statements like those very much on purpose, and I am a little surprised to see you explain them as you did.

They are obviously aimed at YOUR perception of what "us atheists" (as hominem fallacy) might think of your viewpoint and not an answer to anything that has been said. They also appear to be a manifestation of your victim complex.

I would hope they are not "obviously aimed" at my perception of what 'you atheists' might think of my viewpoint. When I said "It is not that some of us hate the NWO or World Government, or NA union because it is "the devil". It (for myself) is not based on fear of change, or lack of understanding of the situation," I am trying to be concise, precise and fair. I wrote those sentences from the point of view of offering my own opinion (the use of 'some of us' and 'for myself') to contradict the statement. It is not that I am only talking about my opinion because then you can't argue back, but that I can only talk about my opinion, and to pretend like I know all the answers is wrong. It is not in defense of attack from you guys, but in defense of the ability for me to support my claims. I try to make only claims I can fully support, and the only claims I can fully support are my thoughts on things...

The post we are referencing was in response to Dotards statement. Why he thought "all Christians" fear the WG or NWO. He did not qualify the statement as his opinion, and just threw it out there like a fact. I responded because I know that as an atheist, he are in a very bad position to tell me or anyone what "all" Christians think. I assume that he himself is not even Christian. So he was making a statement of fact about something in total (the opinion of all Christians) when he can not possibly be able to support that he knows what "all" Christians think, and also that he is correct in that knowledge.

I'm very opinionated about how people should approach reality, most times I bite my tongue because speaking up just makes me look like an asshole and rarely modifies people's behavior.

I also like this statement very much. I am also very opinionated about how people approach reality, may be it is something we have in common. I began this argument to chastise Dotard for making untrue and impossible claims about something he likely doesn't know about, because it seems too easy, and necessary. If he is gonna say what all Christians think, I feel the need to correct him that all Christians cannot literally think one thing.

So I put the self disqualifies in so that I am not falling in the same pit he was. I always try to be clear about the point I can prove. In the 9/11 thread, I can only stand by the point that we were lied to in some manner and degree. It doesn't say much ion the way of specifics, but I feel it is a accurate as possible. So when I make a statement of my opinion, I am not trying to look forward and thwart your ability to argue with me. I am trying to only make arguments that I believe as irrefutable. The "I am just a crazy person who is against modernity" thing is closer to what you're describing. I did that to have a laugh and try to avoid someone responding with that non-point. That is kind of a defense mech, but it is defense against fallacious and untrue argument more than against "losing".

They also appear to be a manifestation of your victim complex.

I forward that I don't (think I) have a victim complex, but instead a martyr archetype (similar in some ways). I hear that you think I do have a victim complex. I really can't tell you who could be right. You only know me in a very limited way, and I could be delusional... But I feel that need to politely disagree.

You are speaking for all Christians too which is kinda coo coo if you think about it. It is easy to lose a point within a bunch of defensive pap and grandstanding in the form of speaking for a group instead of for yourself.

and finally, this is the part that leads me to shake my head (also very politely) and disagree. I feel we are not seeing eye to eye... I made the statements I made, which did not speak for all Christians. The statements I made spoke only of my personal example, and opinion of Dotards post. The only time I referenced all Christians was to try to show that it is impossible for anyone, myself or Dotard, or you, to make a claim of such all encompassing totality. So I hear what you are saying, but I see that I was clearly doing the opposite of what you purport. That I know it is 'coo coo' to speak for all Christians (neither I or Dotard are Christan), and so I tried to call him on it. Now you have called me on the same thing. So one of us is a little confused... It might be myself, and I am happy to discuss this with you.

Please allow me to apologize for the length of this post, but I feel it is a very important argument. That was another self disqualifying statement, also in the name of accuracy with reality. Thank you kindly for posting your answer, and if you were able to read all of this, thank you for your time as well.

Take care all,
-Pip

[Rhizomorph13]

Pippy,

Wow, um, I totally missed Dotard's post which made your post make much more sense. But this part, "
I am afraid to even try anymore," makes me think of you curled up in a corner weeping your eyes out.

I think we get it enough, I respect you a little more now you coo coo bird you

Rhizo

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thanks Rhizo, I appreciated that you took the time to listen to my long winded post and try to understand. I enjoyed this chat, and think it was carried out with a level of respect and courtesy as to have value to us both.

I can see how my first post would have appeared, had it come out of left field. The 'I am afraid to try' comment was fickle, and the weakest moment of the post, yes. But I assert that I am rolling my eyes and smiling when I say it. It is so hard to include any nuance of speech here, and I maintain that I almost always smile, and the things I say are almost always in the nicest way possible...

I make no claim to not being crazy. Like I said, it is important for me to only say things I can support/defend.

Thanks again,
-Pip

[LEDO]

The Montana Freeman claimed they would fight to death against a world government, but when tanks showed up at their door, they didn't have the stomach for a fight.

[Pippy]

Could you explain that more?

Are you joking? Did that event happen? Since when did the world government exist enough to have tanks, in Montana? I will fight to the death against this world government... <waiting> <waiting> <looking out the window> Nothing.

-Pip

[Rhizomorph13]

I think the world is too large and a world government would be too complex to exist and be effective. Can you imagine the cost and operation of an election? A democracy would be out. It would be easier to control the world by setting up puppet governments in key nations with vital resources.

Ledo,

The world government would just be one more level above national governments. National unions are already forming, the EU is an example, and I imagine that they will unify to the point of being one world government. So at some point in the future (Pure speculaiton) there would be states, provinces, whatever at the lowest level, then nations that would feed their input into the world government which would handle world affairs like what weapons to allow.

Elections would be handled like they are here in the USA where each state is won or lost based on popular vote and each state is aloted electoral college votes according to size. Whomever gets the most electoral votes wins the presidency. Just shift everything up one level and you get national votes that feed into the world government.

Another possibility would be absolute democracy through subdermal implants. Think Borg collective without the control vinculums. The implants would be for data collection only.

Rhizo

[LEDO]

Could you explain that more?

Are you joking? Did that event happen? Since when did the world government exist enough to have tanks, in Montana? I will fight to the death against this world government... <waiting> <waiting> <looking out the window> Nothing.

-Pip

It was the US governement, but the Freeman were one of those conspiracy wack-o groups preaching against one world governments run by the Jews etc.

[Pippy]

Kind of like those Adventists in Texas? Since they accuse that Koresh of being a pedorast it makes it OK to send the tanks after them and kill the children. Murder is less a crime.