Should Scotland become an independent country?

Your entire argument is discredited right there. Right at the beginning of your post. People are fighting because they refuse to look past the differences, they refuse to treat others as human beings. They want to remain segregated and that is why they are killing each other.

There are some who do want to mix, people who come to other countries seeking a better life and do partake in our society, bringing their culture and they enhance it.

That doesn't happen in your segregated lifestyle. There are no chinese restaurants, or italian pizza places. Because those people should be segregated from us, that is what you have said this entire time.

You said it's like putting a cat and dog in the same room and expecting them to get along. Are you seriously retarded? I own a cat and a dog. They don't go around all day trying to murder each other, they play and sleep together. They aren't at war constantly.

I'm glad before that you told me when you are born because it proves the saying "young and stupid" true.

Maybe you just need to get out more and live with people of other cultures and races because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Maybe try being the only white guy living in a house with arabs, blacks and asians for a few years. Complete and utter strangers when you first meet them. It might open your eyes up a bit since you refuse to open them yourself.

For one thing, opening a history book that's not written by a white man can prove a lot. Things like how it was barely 40 years ago that black rights became a thing. And you still try to argue that they are the reason there is crime when they only just got their rights while those of us who are white have had those rights for hundreds of years.

Black people in africa had culture, had education, had wealth, and guess what we did. The romans and greeks went down there and killed a whole bunch of them, burned thier temples and libraries, and slaved them. And we expect them to not be a violent culture? White people go to war in the middle east since the cold war leaving guns and munitions everywhere, and expect them to be civilized?

You really need a reality check.

Edit:

I must ask since it only seems logical that you want to segregate races. You must hate gay people as well? Cause they are also different to who you are, so we should segregate them as well? Might as well segregate women too since they are different. Wouldn't want any of those women being equal to men in any aspects of life. Oh and children too, take them away since they obviously can't do what adults can. And the cripples too, and people with diseases, and deformities. And old people as well.

Where is the line drawn? You'd rather pick and choose who you want around and that just makes you a sad individual.

Unlike your last post, I'm not going to quote this one(The only thing the new features are lacking is the "Quick Reply" button which I'd much rather use for your post. But let me make a few things clear:

-Your opinions do not overrule mine(nor do mine overrules yours, except for the fact that I'm coming from a Humanist viewpoint and I've brought up statistics, links, etc to prove my point. To simply put it, I'm better able to back my own argument.

I'm happy for your cat and dog, who clearly have been trained to learn how to co-exist. But here's something that's weak about the fabric of the animal: They had been trained to do so, they did not concur out of their own free will. Here's an experiment: Take your dog and isolate it for a few days, same with the cat.

Your years of training have just been proven to be obsolete. In reality, the dog and cat never conceded to coexistence. They just recognized that for better or worse, they were together and couldn't do anything about it.

However, you cannot train a Human Being to think a certain way, to act a certain way. On this basis alone, multiculturalism falls on its heels. The basis for it, is on the basis of tragedy.

Whether it be the Holocaust, or Slavery, etc. Tragedy is then used for political gain and political propaganda, to subdue the masses in whatever directions governments would like. And they chose Multiculturalism.

But the further away we got from the eras of these tragedies, the less of an emotional impact this propaganda had on the masses. Combined with the systematic destruction of Individuality, people are starting to wake up to the grand delusion that they were ever "together".


Only in the sense that their individuality was violated. To put it in perspective for you: I like spaghetti, I like Pizza. I'm sure Italians are pretty chum people to hang around with, same for a few Mexicans. They can't all support a gang-ho lifestyle(or at least, I hope not).

But that doesn't necessarily mean their lifestyle as a whole, whether it be Mexican or Italian or Japanese or even European, fits with the American lifestyle. But here's something especially interesting: The same applies vice-versa

The only way the multicultural crowd could ever "win" this argument is to justify it via tragedies, or an attempt to psychologically frame the masses. You, once again are the greatest evidence: As you keep calling me a racist, etc. You'd love for this charge to stick.

Only, it can't stick. Because I've said before and again and I'll repeat it to you until you can comprehend it: I view things from an Intellectual, Humanist standpoint. If I were to judge African-Americans and Mexicans, I do so from the basis of their merit, of their accomplishments(or lack thereof), violent crime, etc.

I recognize the merit of the individual(hell, I'm the one arguing for it) but in the end if an individual is separate from the social class with which he belongs, then judging the social class doesn't render judgment on the individual.

As an individual, I'm not responsible for a member of the Anglo-Saxon family of Americans. But I am responsible for upholding my image as a member of that family, even if I were to disavow myself from it.

I'm able to look at highly successful African-Americans and emulate them. But I look at the vast majority of the group, lifestyle that they left behind and I'm sorry but I will always sneer at just how pitifully sad it is.

Not that they're in economic misfortune, I sneer at the fact that it's mostly of their own doing and they still complain(as you've done time and time again) of some social injustice that's no longer even remotely a reality.

You state 40 years, that's at least two decades of adults. Surely by now, things must have changed. And we see Oprah Winfrey as the most powerful African-American female on the planet. We see Barack Obama and what he's achieved, we see various minority leaders across the planet and in America.

Hell, I cited for you how Caucasian-Americans are losing their majority. Yet, there's this big slum. Minorities as a whole, haven't necessarily created anything but rather inherited it.

Unfortunately, they were never qualified to inherit it. I've always believed and always will believe that those who aren't qualified to hold a position, shouldn't hold that position.

The grave misfortune that comes with minorities inheriting America is that America no longer has a culture. Instead, it has an African 'sub culture' over here, a asian 'sub culture' over here, etc al.

This situation happened once before, it's called Rome. The fall of Rome as various indignant people held a position of power, Christianity overthrew Paganism and the rest is history.

Greece fell the same way, as it became a "democracy". Minorities aren't the only danger to a civilization, it's a majority of peasants who quite frankly don't know as much as they need to know about the issues.

So, my solution? Is that individuals, in their individual countries should cultivate those nation states. And form alliances with those other individuals who
best represent what they believe their cultures to be.

As an example, I as an American believe that European culture as well as the
Japanese culture fit extremely well with an English sense of nobility, honor and self respect.

As we speak about the African-Americans and Mexicans, could they be a better pair?
And so the world will build friendships around common interests, rather than some pretentious ideologically of banishing individual will for a collective, Marxist nightmare.

Eventually the world will unite, through individual will. But Multiculturalism, will destroy all cultures and eventually all peoples as they forcefully try to reclaim their individuality.

That 40 years that I mentioned is to get "equal" rights. That doesn't mean that all of a sudden everything is super happy go lucky good times.

People like Oprah and Obama has to fight every day to get where they were, they didn't get their because of equal opportunity, they had to prove more than anything that they could succeed in a white mans america. Have you ever read Oprah's autobiography or her interviews? They are very interesting about how she was refused jobs as tv anchor and as news reporter because she was black. White people telling her every day that she wasn't fit for tv because black people don't belong in entertainment. They did this even after the black rights movement.

The reason they believe that what they inherited is not for them is because for generations, that is what we told them. They saw with thier own eyes as many blacks tried and failed because the white people dominated all aspects of soceity, how is that their fault?

Times are shifting now, it still isn't perfect but it's slowly getting there. It's not as difficult for minorities anymore because they aren't becoming the minority.

And I'll keep repeating myself until you get it through your thick head, you aren't an intellectual, you're an idiot and a racist. You can keep calling yourself a humanist but there's nothing human about wanting to divide people. You can keep this up as long as you want but it's not working.

Just give it up already. You won't get anywhere with your half wit idiology, and you most definately will not get any form of political power through that.

Penn and Teller couldn't have said it better themselves:

Actually, it's more like I won't get anywhere talking with you. Jimmy Carter's quote for example, actually fits more aligned to what I was saying.

These different pieces come together from an Individual Perspective. In recognition of their Individual Value, they are able to respect each other and their different opinions. However, in a collective society like the one you want to espouse and dream of, individual value is nonexistent.

And without Individualism, there is no Humanity. If you wish to continue insulting me, then why not look at Ayn Rand's literature? Though I disagree with her views on welfare and such her Atlas's shrugs is still a socio-political classic.

The only coherent group is a group of individuals, but if you round a group of people together and call that a 'group', you're sadly mistaken.

It's a herd and there's a complete difference. This is the last time I'll talk to you, your indignant insults have become far too disrespectful. It's up to you if you want to learn something.

A Fascist decrying collectivist ideals? Oh this is just delightful.








You have a poor grasp of what Fascism actually means beyond the rhetoric. Libertarians (A.k.A classical Liberalism) and Fascists hate each other because Libertarians favor the individual and believe the state is an evil (with varying degrees of how evil they view the state) while Fascism favors collectivism and believes the individual must be subservient to the state and that the individual must concede if their interests do not coincide with the stats. The fact, you even say you agree with Ayn Rand's Objectivist manifesto implies you either didn't understand the book or you're ignorant of what Fascism stands for.



Singular + Singular = Plural. Singular + Plural = Plural. Plural + Plural = Plural.

Individual + Individual = a Couple (group). Individual + Group = Group. Group + Group = Larger group.

Why do you have difficulty with elementary concepts? Do you do it intentionally so we make fun of you?

If you want to espouse Fascist ideology I disagree but, ultimately support your right to free speech but goddamn it, actually put some effort into it rather than wasting our time with boring, tedious metaphors, politically oriented half-thoughts and general "I have no bloody idea what I'm talking about" political banner waving.

I'll even sit down with you one of these days and help you understand Fascist rhetoric, policies, economics, etc. Please, for the love of God make absolutely sure you know what the bloody hell you are talking about.

If you admire Atlas Shrugged but, also support collectivist notions of "solidarity" and "unity" try Libertarian Socialism as something to start some research on.

Firstly, let me thank you for interjecting. If I had to deal with another one of Jacob's irrational attacks on my character without proof I would have gone batshit insane. However, I'll defend my interpretation of Fascism below.





There's nothing wrong with this quote, haven't we ourselves seen the kind of division, strife, confusion that the various powers within a wide-ranging government can cause? Consolidating and solidifying the base of a government so as to fulfill certain tasks, that's what Fascism is in a nutshell.

I myself said it, I believe in Guided Freedom but not Universal Freedom. I believe in Individualism, but I also believe that there's a need for a community, there's a need for leadership and there's a need for people to have direction in their lives. Universal Freedom has just led to humanity's discord and chaos over history.

Universal Freedom is what allowed for humanity's worst slaughters and crimes. Guided Freedom based on principle, is the balance for Humanity's existence and thereby our evolution.






I didn't agree with the manifesto as a whole(nor did I even read it) but I do recall a quote or two about Individualism, since Jacob discredits me as a whole(and attacks my character repeatedly) I decided to give him someone that even if our ideals didn't match, he'd learn about Humanism.

As I said, I'm opposed to welfare as a whole. Mostly because welfare is a trap that keeps people impoverished. It's no safety net, it's a spider web designed to keep dependents as dependents.

Secondly, you have a gross misinterpretation of "State", "Individual" and even "Evil" so let's start with the State.(Which, of course means the Government)

What exactly is Parliament? What is Capitol Hill? What is the Senate and the House? What's the White House? These are all buildings, abstract buildings with no soul, no conscious, no bleeding heart, no brain or mind. Nothing.

For that matter, what is this country? It's a piece of land(a really big one, but still a piece of land). Everything that people calls a "State" or a "Government" or a "Regime" is a non-living entity.

-The State cannot exist without people
-People are the state
-Mussolini just used awful terminology which cannot be read at face value, but rather it is the ideal you must read.

The ideal of Fascism is that Individualism, taken to it's logical extremes equals to violent Anarchy. Even democracies are nothing more than organized chaos.(As proof, you yourself said that taxes are extorted through the use of threat or force)

A Fascist Regime on the other hand, views the "State" and "People" finally, correctly as one and the same. Any Regime cripples when it loses it's broad base of support, and at the same time without a "State"(or Government) stability itself cripples and people are victims of crime, chaos, of their own weakness.

Now, "Individual", I referred to this earlier when I outlined what is true and what is not true about a person's connections with a Social Group:

It's true that an Individual is his Own Person, it's true that he has his own thoughts and acts of them on his own will.

But it's not true that the Individual is separate from his Social Group. Whether it be his teachers, friends, co-workers, family or people in general that he sees similar to himself.

An Individual needs to have a fertile environment to grow, to survive in and to succeed. In a Fascist ideology, the Individual is a part of the State. He is a part of the family of teachers, co-workers and friends that help him to grow.

In our nation today, while this is the ideal way we'd like our youth to grow under. Not only is it not a requirement, it's not even held up as an ideal or praised! As such, many individuals end up wandering through life incomplete and its those individuals who end up perpetrating the next Sandy Hook.

An Individual is an encompass of everything, without the State, without family, bonds, etc a person is merely confused.

Finally, your terminology of "Evil". We just confirmed that a Government, a State, this very country is inanimate without people in it. Leading this to it's logical conclusion, to call Government "evil" is to inherently call every public official that's ever lived "evil". Including the Founders themselves.

Government isn't evil, government isn't anything at all. It's just a building, it is the intentions of people within government that dictates whether or not government is evil or good, benevolent or malevolent.







No, it just so happens I'm not really all that tedious with the specific rules of the English language and I'll be honest and say I think a vast majority of Americans themselves don't even know the "rules" per say but it just so happens to be an easy language to grasp and therefore, it rolls off our tongues.

Also, in your case you seem to have a bit of difficulty reading into the meaning of a message but instead you read it quite literally. Which is natural everyone reads into things literally. But, sometimes a message is either hidden deeper.

In this case, it happens to be wrong terminology on my part(but I suspect you knew full well what I was saying and just took this opportunity to attack me.)

So I'll rephrase in the honor of my dignity: A team is made up of several people who either have agreed to join together, or someone built a team with each individual in mind and how to best utilize their collective skill sets.

If you were to match that team against a bunch of dependent slaves, no matter how much the master cracks the whip, the team of slaves can never beat the cohesive, individual yet collective team.

The old saying goes "All for one, one for all." That's basically how Individual Theory creates a society, a community. It values the individual, while seeing collective value.

Collectivism, or Socialism as an ideology however cannot work. Marx attempted to "unify" the people without recognizing their individual value. Without being recognized as individuals, Human Beings don't want to do anything.

Fascism recognizes your individuality, the only caveat being that individual expression cannot harm the greater community. Fascism, in all honesty is no different from Liberalism at all.

The only difference, the crucial difference is that Liberalism doesn't see
the "State" or the "Government" as an engine for positive influence for the community in question. As you say, you view "Government" as "Evil" which is wholly and entirely illogical.

Equally illogical, would be to put one's entire faith and trust in government(or that is to say, the leading governmental officials). Which is why Rebellions have occurred throughout history, and it is the will of the people bonded together which acts to both unify the Nation and as a weapon against the government.

However, if we were to look at political philosophy as philosophical and not necessarily representative of an era or of politicians, one can say that a Fascist philosophy is the greatest form of government. Because, as Mussolini said it is the representative of both collective and individual will. As long as the people maintain a government in that fashion, a state will stand the test of time no matter what may cross its path.






Isn't this just another way of insulting me like Jacob did? I don't necessarily care if you find my metaphors "tedious" or "boring", how long could it possibly take you to read a message? It's not like its a physical book you have to read or a newspaper.

And what do you mean by politically oriented half-thoughts? If you want to say that I don't completely understand then that by itself is acceptable(and you already said that). But this seems to imply that my thoughts weren't congruent
or consistent. I can assure you they were, even if they didn't make sense to you that doesn't make them any less congruent.

Your last insult ties into your second one, confirming what I suspected. It's not "Political banner waving" in which I have no idea of what I'm talking about.

I read the general theory, understood the effects of what took place in pre-war Germany, Italy(but more so Germany and the Economic Miracle) and I understood Fascist political ideology to truly be correct in its mechanism, approach and reasoning.

Perhaps there'll be more yet to read. As controversial as it is, I'd like to know personally what kind of books Hitler and Mussolini read, what spurred them on. Because I saw their accomplishments and it's much greater than the world we have now.

Of course, we'll all cite the war. And I'll state that war itself is criminal, I have no interest in repeating genocide. I have interest in repeating a self-sufficient system that solved the problems of both Individualism and Collectivism. The two ideologies had formerly clashed, Fascism or National Socialism had united both ideas into one.

I'll even read on Liberal Socialism, I'll undertake this political study that you've inspired me to do. Not because I concur with your insult that I know nothing, but because I want to expand my knowledge so much that even you'll have no choice but to withdraw your insults.

Tell that to the persian empire, or the mongolian empire, or the roman empire, or the spartans, or american (remember your own civil war was fought with slaves on both sides), or the soviet union, or anyone for that fact that fought under order of draft.

All of these that I've listed have used human slaves to some degree or another under punishment of fear and death to fight battles, and all of these people listed have won battles, expanded their empires and eventually fallen for different reasons.

You simply look for a solution to all problems without understanding the problem itself and that is why we make fun of you. Promoting individualism, fine, but promoting segregation, that is one of the core tenents of racism. And if fascism was so damn bloody good, how come not a single fascist country has survived to become a first world nation? If it's that good, it should be able to survive on it's own, but it hasn't.

I don't blame you though, I do see that I was wrong. You aren't an idiot or really that racist. What you are is a coward. You're afraid, which is perfectly fine. You are afraid of difference so you want to keep it away, you still believe in the fear that you live in every day, in the statistics your news puts out. Living that life of fear of multiculturalism. You're afraid of meeting better people than yourself. Fear that what you believe isn't true, so you cling so desprately to it, trying to keep yourself afloat. It's only natural I suppose.

A great counter quote to what you believe:

Guys this discussion has drifted really far from the original topic to the point where it's devolved into a slagging match.

This is par for the course when it comes to LustfulAngel, as sad as it sounds.

Don't blame me, blame the others. Have they not perpetuated the discussion? Or is blaming someone other than me something inexcusable to the rest of you? Why must I be the one attacked? It's ironic that Jacob states a quote that believes freedom isn't about the uniformity of opinions.

But that's precisely what we have here, common amongst my opponents. I'd also state that the original topic has already pretty much been decided(as the poll itself shows). It'd make no sense for an immediate movement to secede from the British Crown but getting more political say and political capital will make for a more successful transition.

But since I'm everyone's public enemy #1 no matter what I post(and Jacob continues to sling insults. I'm "scared", of what? You? Don't make me laugh, the group here is but little more than characters on the internet with an avatar. I have no reason to be scared of you, or of your differing "opinions". Scared of Multiculturalism? "Scared" isn't the right word, I'm "aware". Aware of the Anti-Humanist effects it has on the collective Humanity, aware that it's a delusion that rips at the thread of whatever commonality we do have in the first place.)

I'll stop posting, if one is going to be disrespected then why should I put up with it? I've done so in the hopes of ironically seeking approval, but the futility of that exercise is something that should have become quite clear to me.

Have at it, declare your "victory" if you will. But to me, this is no longer intellectualism. This is making mockery of me.

Speaking as a Welshman, Sure why not!... As long as you don't turn traitor on us and side with those goddamned French!

The Welsh are pretty much tied to the English for better or worse like an old married couple but id like to see a Celtic Union happen but theres no chance of that happening. (Mores to pity)

Then you're not a Fascist. Fascism rejects individualism entirely. It doesn't cherry pick what it likes, or he-haws around, it flat out rejects the concept.

To call yourself a Fascist who believes in individualism is waving a flag of "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about".



Governments are actually what has perpetrated humanities worst slaughters. Here are the top 5 largest genocides in history

Mao Zedong (Responsible for 34,300,000-63,784,000 deaths)
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin ( Responsible for 23,000,000-60,000,000 deaths)
Adolf Hitler ( Responsible for 6,000,000 deaths)
Hideki Tojo (Responsible for 5,000,000 deaths)
Pol Pot (Responsible for 2,500,000 deaths)

All 5 of these men used their government forces to commit these atrocities, not "freedom".




Fascism supports social welfare programs like Mussolini and his Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND)"National After-work Program".



Correct. I see my lectures are starting to sink in.





Apparently, you're not paying attention because I keep having to do remedial lectures to cover things you should already know.






That's an impressive shunt but, a poor excuse for your ideological inconsistencies.




Nobody views individuals as atomistic. The fact you even bring up this straw man is showing that you're really digging to justify your own ideology at this point.



In Fascism (if you actually read the literature available) there is no individual. The concept is rejected outright. I've quoted Mussolinni and other Fascists who have ALL said Fascism REJECTS individualism. A true fascist mindset doesn't even acknowledge that individuals exist as anything but, members of their collective as much as a single atom makes up the beer sitting on my desk.



Did you just seriously imply that individuals are mass murderers? Your already a laughingstock, now you're just putting on funny hats and making animal noises.






You can make up your own definitions all day but, you're still dead wrong. I mean, I'm not even putting effort into this. Almost everything you say can be countered by a 2 minute Google search.




If you haven't read any Fascist material. I'd stay away from Stirner for the time being. You shouldn't enter the deep end unless you can swim without the water wings.



I've already posted several quotes where Fascist reject the concept of individualism.




A "political half-thought" is where you begin working on explaining a concept and then fail to finish it. You're posts are disjointed, so half the time, you come across to the rest of us like an gibbering homeless person outside of a gas station rather than a learned person.



Go back and get a refresher, then because as someone whose hobby is to study political/economic theories/philosophies I can say that you're way off with some (potentially most) aspects of Fascism.

I don't judge you for being a Fascist, in fact, I enjoy it because Serious Discussion has turned into an echo chamber of left wing thought. So political diversity would liven up the place. I am just critical of you because I feel you don't thoroughly understand the ideology you support because I keep seeing inconsistencies between the authors of Fascist memoirs and your rhetoric.



Libertarian Socialism

Is not the same as

Liberal Socialism

He doesn't even understand what Humanism is either, because humanism goes hand in hand with secularism. Which has very specific tenents. such as:




I think what is important here is that humanism can not operate with humanism and especially with LustfulAngels views. He wants segregation and fascism which completely goes against pretty much every point on this list. This list pretty much speaks for itself, and counters all of his points despite him being a "humanist".

To which the only thing he can argue is that he is aligned with the older humanist movements, which would make him a religious nut.

I have no problem being called an anti-humanist because it means only one thing, I believe that science is the key to all of society.

So Ireland, Scotland and Wales in a union while England takes care of itself? That... would be hilarious.

... also what's the beef with the French?

Jacob, I'm not sure how clear I can be about how the extent of discontent that I have with you but I'll phrase it so clearly as for even you to understand:

I don't care what you think, nor can you state what I can or cannot argue. Of course, you can decide whether you want to believe something or not in that head of yours but I neither care for that as well.

I can disagree with your overeaching statement regarding Humanism and I can give a counter-definition and argument. But when I do give the argument, know that this'll be the last time. Never post regarding our discussion again, your an eyesore to me.

1. False, there is no such thing as a "Society" and a non commitment to it. A society is an organization of some kind for Human Beings. To say that a Secular society doesn't commit to an organization is a gross misstatement. To not commit is the same as Anarchy.

A secular society establishes guidelines to permit co-existence among the various members. As we see in Syria however, Secularism while ideal generally doesn't last. These guidelines, are "tolerated" by the various class sects inside the continent or heck even a city in question.

Remember what I said about tolerating? It would eventually result in spreading conflict. I've just given you a physical example that even Fiery would agree with.

2.This is also another misstatement, for humanism not to be homogenous, that would imply that there's another species of Human besides Humans(of course, there's animals) but Animal Law doesn't apply to Humanity.

This misstatement, of course refers to the various Nations and those who hold Nationalities. However, a Japanese person all of a sudden isn't going to learn some "Universal language" to speak with all of Humanity. The same can be said for the Vietnamese, the German, the Indian all the way to the freaking Hindu.

To be a Humanist, IS to recognize Nationalities. It is to recognize individual value, respect individual value and to align with those values which match our own.

A world that's "united" without respecting differences is impossible, what the multicultural "crowd" doesn't recognize is that their idea is the Humanized version of the Black Hole. Sucking up virtually every culture and every idea Humanity has ever had.

The Multicultural world will be "Humanized", but it will no longer consist of individual values, because there's no where to trace those values. No Tribes, no countries, no communities. Perhaps, at best your family which is as fractured and divided as you are.

3. Tolerance doesn't last, by it's very nature it cannot last. Tolerance is putting up a front between every person on the planet. By forcibly conscripting people to "tolerate" one another, perhaps there may be begrudging agreements and for a time "peace" but this peace is so fragile that one pebble of disagreement will cause a ripple that will destroy the very "fabric" of that "peace"

I do not "tolerate" Humanity, and I can't say I "love" Humanity either(because there's some 7 billion people on the planet). But I do respect Humanity. If a person were to present me with something and it's positive, I'll listen. I'll share their hopes, dreams and ideals and if we click, we click.

If we don't, we'll just go our separate ways. You call that a "sad person", I call it avoiding domestic violence or even some kind of murder scene.

Those are extremes, on the moderate spectrum I don't feel like dealing with petty spats over petty issues that I could otherwise avoid by having more people that correspond to my way of thinking.

Of course, there's no guarantee I won't avoid an argument, but at least I'll have an understanding where the other person is coming from(and he/she will have an understanding of my position).


4. Which is why they're usually fractured, the divide is widened and *whoops* just like that a civil war happens. Let me simplify it: Why did the Revolutionary War happen? Because the British Crown unfairly taxed the Colonies(among several other reasons)

Why did the South secede from the North? Because the South didn't concur with the North! And as I mentioned earlier, Abe knew he needed to bring the South and the North together after the war was concluded.

The difference between a secular and a Humanist society. A society that crumbles and one that can stand the test of time.

5. And this is the reason a Secular Society fails. X demands something, Y demands something different, their positions threaten the other and they quarrel.
Individual needs have to take a longer term picture into account.

When Individual and "collective" needs overlap, they effectively become one and the same in mutual benefit of the other's desire.

But in naivety, allowing for individual will without any guidance, any preference or any direction is simply leaving things to chance. Disarray, chaos, confusion, etc.

We've seen this movie play out far too many times in Humanity and yet "intellectuals"(such as yourself, though I strain to call you one) still haven't been able to figure out the solution.

Or rather, they reject the solution because it's much easier(if less stable) to proclaim one's privileges over the other. Such is Secularism.


6. Hence why it fails, it even fails from the perspective of creating the "unified" idea. How can you unify people without an image, or a common bond between people?

Because there isn't an ideal or a direction, there's no stability. Without stability, there's no prosperity, without prosperity there isn't a country.

Congratulations! We have just deciphered the current state of Affairs and the many flaws of Multiculturalism, perhaps now you'll withdraw your insults? Acknowledge my intellectualism?

Because of these flaws, none of the "benefits" of Secularism exists:

How can respect be held for individuals when in a state of tolerance? How can respect be had for "small groups" when in fact Secularism doesn't tolerate these "small groups" let alone have respect for them?

First point defeated.

Equality? How so? Their individuality is stripped away, and in a society that "stresses" equality, it tries to distribute or rule over this "equality". Equality can only be had in a natural state of affairs.

I already told you, prosperity is equality. You cannot establish an "equality of rights"(Hell, here I'm agreeing with Lundi). If a person is naturally superior to another, you cannot smooth over that fact no matter how much you wish to try.

There's a reason people say "treat fairly" and "equally" in two different sentences. It's because people, subconsciously understand that equality cannot be established by law, or by goodwill or by understanding.

But we can treat others fairly, as we ourselves would like to be treated.

In a Secular society that denies Individualism, or even the small groups. Or even a common "interest" among members of the Secular, it's impossible to treat others "fairly".

"Plainly", might be the better word in that case. Hence, equality in any form doesn't exist.

Second point defeated.

Laughable, how can each person be helped to realize his individual potential if you deny his individual existence in the first place? A Secular society places emphasis on no individuals, and ironically in my view no unity or anything at all. It's just a random grouping of individuals, who've lost individual rights(or meekly represents them).

For a secular society to exist in the way it proclaims, it'll have to appropriate value to individuals, unify them somehow and allow them to express that individuality.

But then, the forcible grouping losses all meaning, multiculturalism cannot allow for cultures to develop and grow on their own. Individual "Social Groups" outside of the herd is seen(logically speaking) as a threat.


So, we've pinned Secularism to a corner. If it wants to fulfill individual desires in a way to accomplish a secular society, then to a certain extent it'll have to allow individualism.

But if individualism outgrows, secularism will dissipate. Secularism, tolerance cannot exist as a long-term state of affairs.

Third point defeated.


This brings us to the last point. Are you prepared?

Secularism certainly has broken down "class and caste" but not in a manner that makes people equal. But rather, they're uncertain of their own individuality. Their family has no special meaning(or at least, it can't be pronounced), nor can they be held up individually as unique or "special" talents. A Secular society denies all of that.

Secularism, is a black hole(as I said earlier) it sucks up everything and leaves... nothing.

In this sense, secularism didn't accomplish any goals. It just destroyed everything in its wake.(Syria)

Since I never actually said that, color me confused.



And which parts of the government are specifically trying to further disenfranchise public schools? Well...that'd be the local governments.

Creationism in textbooks? Local governments.

Removal of school nurses? Local government.

Textbooks in general and their accuracy? Local government.\

The federal government provides about 20-30% of the funding public schools recieve, and that's only if the schools follow a policy of at least teaching basic things to students and providing adequate resources for them to complete their goals. Otherwise, public school stupidity is a local government issue. :D

Also...private schools don't really do much better...



Actually the majority of the country DOES accept it. It's opnly about 17% of people that don't accept it, the majority of people just don't believe it was godless evolution.



Nah, it's a democracy all the same with everyone having a voice. It's just not a democracy in the treaditional sense of the word. It's a democratic Republic.



As previously explained the federal government actually has much less to do with the public schools than you seem to think. I do agree that the wealthier need to pay more in taxes though, if the country is to prosper any time soon. Which most people on this forum will happiy disagree with.



The nation as a whole doesn't agree on much of anything. There is no such thing in any worldview as a government that could EVER realistically represent the whole nation. It doesn't exist. Anarchists exist in this country. People who want more federal government than state government exist, and people who want more state than federal government exist. How are all of those supposed to be equally represented? Go ahead and give it a try, because it's impossible to figure out that little puzzle.

Have more than two parties, maybe four of five, in the country representing the country and allow them to pass bills through consensus? in my country most majority govts suck. Plus one cannot deny that there is practically no link between constituents an their representatives. Practically only th rich and the affluent can actually lobby congressmen and senators with any ease.

Uh oh, you've inspired another debate. Me and Lundi already had this particular one, where he glosses over the corruption inside Lobbying and how it destroys the fabric of a democracy, let alone a Republic.

So let's try to stir it away from a debate we formally had and begin a new one:
Lundi, you proclaimed that a universal government is impossible because of the various positions inside a country.

But I have to disagree. All people hold a certain position for a reason, do you know what it is? In Umineko, the "Single Element" is called Love. In real life, shall we call it "money"? Or better yet: "Prosperity"?

If the people of the world, the people in America were prosperous then politics would receive as much attention as a fly amongst us. No one enters politics because it's a suitable career or a life long dream of theirs, but they enter to create the prosperity they feel is lacking.

The only reason the "form" of government is different from person to person, is the individual belief on prosperity. Indeed, "politics" has no political thought, there's no such thing as a political movement. It is but a tool, to reach an ideal end that humanity has yet to reach.

I believe in a centralized form of government, I believe if we create prosperity for Americans in general we would have reached the Single Element of Human Existence.

It's not about how big or small government is, it's about how efficient it is and how proactive government is. Government doesn't "necessarily" have to be in people's lives, but it's the traffic director of humanity. The universal traffic light. If we fail in this responsibility, only mutual destruction will result.


But no matter what form "government" takes, the form is utterly irrelevant. As I said before, politics is akin to a fly. No one cares if a fly exists, unless it flies into your soup(or in your face) in which case you want to swat it.

So what's the political equivalent to flying in the soup or in your face? Obviously: Failure. When Government fails, it loses its standing and the people finally take care to notice something they'd rather look away from.

As long as prosperity doesn't exist, politics will exist.
But if prosperity exists, politics also won't exist. Except, of course with the casual approval of the regime that has so sufficiently brought prosperity to the people.

The best government, is the government with as so little fanfare as possible.

I think the winner-take-all system of government elections does have a bit of an issue when it comes to letting people think they have more of a voice in the government, and I wouldn't mind adopting a system akin to France, where the winner of the presidency must then appoint a cabinet consisting of the other parties, I think that would help.

However I think you underestimate the amount of connection you have to your representative. Have you ever tried emailing or calling your district representative in congress? They'll answer you. And not just an automated "Thank you for your concern we will review this issue" response either. They'l discuss the issues with you and explain what they're doing to fix whatever problems one might have.

Of course I'm not sure if you live in the U.S. but I can tell you that the connection between the citizen and the representative is not cut off in any way. There are multiple ways to get your ideas heard and considered. Lobbying, petitioning, direct calling to representatives, all of these work to make the average citizen have power in the government.

And contrary to popular opinion on this forum, lobbying isn't just for the rich. You don't need a bunch of money to lobby, all you need is organization, and time. You start an organization of people who are concerned about a particular issue, and you have one of the people in the organization be your representative in D.C. Their funds will come from the rest of the people in the organization, and the only thing that representative need to is schedule meetings and talk with those in power. That's all it takes. No 'billions' or 'millions' of dollars needed.

There's a problem with your statement, the said "group" in question needs to have some connection inevitably with D.C. Now, who do you think D.C. will pay more attention to? The Oligarch class in America or Middle America? Congress currently has a 10% approval rating in spite of how open you believe our "democracy" to be.

That clearly speaks to how dissatisfied the vast majority of the American Public is with our political system.

Surely, they can't ALL be low information voters can they?

Despite all of these methods being exercised, the American Public doesn't feel it has a voice.

In fact, the opposite

It isn't necessarily more or less political parties that makes the difference, but whether Americans feel as though political opportunities in America are open, whether they truly do have a voice.

They can petition, they can gather and they can do it until they drop dead but if it results in no policy changes, how can you possibly call it open?

Actions speak louder than words, and the government's lack of action speaks very loudly.