what is destined?

[Athena]

I don't think the New Age, a time of high tech and peace, is a change from destination, but is the fulfilment of destination. Cambodia is now taking past war criminals to court. Many pf them are dying before the trails begin, and this is sad because there will be no examination of the details once people die. However, when in history have we treated the extermination of people as a crime, and assumed we could put these people on trail? This came with the WWII extermination of Jews, and is spreading to Bosnia, Africa and Cambodia. I think only the US is dragging its feet on this phenomenia of International Law.

We are jumping up and down about democracy with International agreement that it is a good idea! My gosh, at the beginning of the US democracy only 200 years ago, less than 4 life spans, the rest of the world thought a handful of radicals were leading us down the path of destruction. I think Britian stopped warring with us, because they assumed our democracy would soon callapse, and they could walk back in and clean up the mess. Now people around the world talk about democracy as a legitimate choice.

Racism and sexism were assumed natural and based in the laws of nature. Now both are assumed wrong. There is resistance to this change around the world, but I think it is distained that we become as one, respecting individual differences while at the same time assuming our individual rights and dignity.

I don't think I am opposing distiny, but am aware of it. All of humanity is like a teenage learning how to join society.

[Epistemologist]

I think you mean destiny. Distain is a different word.

But yeah, the general world order is constantly changing, and for each order, more people seem to approach that quasi-universal standard over time. Resistive elements and other significant determinants will change the order.

A good example is in scientific development. Over time, humanity has experienced many paradigm shifts, which are changes of basic assumptions and ways of looking at the world. For instance, with Copernicus the West has changed from its geocentric view to a more heliocentric view. This scientific change brought many other changes as well, such as in the way humans view themselves; for instance, they stopped thinking of themselves as the center of the universe. They also began to more actively challenge the Catholic Church, which vehemently supported the geocentric model.

Of course, I think the changes you are alluding to the most are political and social in nature. In my opinion, humans have an infinite potential so there is always a possibility for change; if we had only finite potential, I guess we would have to stop somewhere.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Athena We are jumping up and down about democracy with International agreement that it is a good idea! My gosh, at the beginning of the US democracy only 200 years ago, less than 4 life spans, the rest of the world thought a handful of radicals were leading us down the path of destruction. I think Britian stopped warring with us, because they assumed our democracy would soon callapse, and they could walk back in and clean up the mess. Now people around the world talk about democracy as a legitimate choice.

The United States is not, and has never been, a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Racism and sexism were assumed natural and based in the laws of nature.

No, a bunch of so-called "scientists" decided to come up with theories to explain the differences in various groups of humans in order to classify them according to superiority/inferiority. Now we have anthropology, sociology and psychology. As for "sexism," that depends on how you're defining it. Throughout human history there have been clearly defined roles for men and women. It is an idiot (or a feminist, which is really the same thing) that believes there are no inherent differences between men and women (though different does not mean unequal).

Now both are assumed wrong. There is resistance to this change around the world, but I think it is distained that we become as one, respecting individual differences while at the same time assuming our individual rights and dignity.

Who assumes both are wrong? Clearly the racist sees nothing wrong with racism. Clearly the "sexist" (whatever that means) doesn't see it as wrong.

Your attempt to make it sound like this stupid notion of diversity is a good thing and somehow humanity's destiny is just a bunch of fluff.

The day may come when we humans finally decide to be human instead of being "American" or "European" or "African" or "Asian" or this or that nationality or any combination thereof. Then again, those groups who insist on their unique identity may fight to retain their separate group identity.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ack....

I am so tired of people calling the U.S. system, as designed a democracy.

It wasn't, never was, never will be.

We are supposed to be a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic.

All this talk in the media of democracy, is shaping minds.

At least lets shape them correctly.

[Specusci]

Quote by: Chancellor No, a bunch of so-called "scientists" decided to come up with theories to explain the differences in various groups of humans in order to classify them according to superiority/inferiority. Now we have anthropology, sociology and psychology. As for "sexism," that depends on how you're defining it. Throughout human history there have been clearly defined roles for men and women. It is an idiot (or a feminist, which is really the same thing) that believes there are no inherent differences between men and women (though different does not mean unequal).

Feminists are actually the female version of a Chauvanist. A feminist doesn't believe that we are 100% the same, a feminist believes that men are so useless in comparison to women that the only reason they exist is so that they can help produce children. A feminist is basically an angry lesbian, but doesn't know it.

Also, racism has probably existed before there where any scientists to make any studies about race. I think you are referring to alot of studies made in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries. Well, racism and slavery has existed long before that time period, and probably before the scientific revolution even began for these studies to even be possible.

Quote by: Chancellor Who assumes both are wrong? Clearly the racist sees nothing wrong with racism. Clearly the "sexist" (whatever that means) doesn't see it as wrong.

The racist may not see anything wrong with racism, but the mentally unstable also may not see anything wrong with murder. It is the greater of society that believes both are wrong, and even racists recognize it as being wrong. If anyone has seen the comedy, "Borat", they'll realize that most racists try to keep their mindsets silent from everyone else.

Quote by: Chancellor The day may come when we humans finally decide to be human instead of being "American" or "European" or "African" or "Asian" or this or that nationality or any combination thereof. Then again, those groups who insist on their unique identity may fight to retain their separate group identity.

The sooner, the better. Personally, while I observe such distinctions, I like to think of humanity as being human rather then a conglomerate of distinct cultures and beliefs. I hope that by the time we come into contact with another intelligent species, we can present ourselves as a united group rather then representives of several hundred different ones.

I have been told that my thinking is a few decades ahead of everyone else, though. It's nice to dream.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Specusci Feminists are actually the female version of a Chauvanist. A feminist doesn't believe that we are 100% the same, a feminist believes that men are so useless in comparison to women that the only reason they exist is so that they can help produce children. A feminist is basically an angry lesbian, but doesn't know it.

No, feminists are people who adhere to the philosophy of feminism.

Also, racism has probably existed before there where any scientists to make any studies about race. I think you are referring to alot of studies made in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries. Well, racism and slavery has existed long before that time period, and probably before the scientific revolution even began for these studies to even be possible.

There is no racism where there are no races. Slavery certainly existed but slavery is not racism.

The racist may not see anything wrong with racism, but the mentally unstable also may not see anything wrong with murder. It is the greater of society that believes both are wrong, and even racists recognize it as being wrong. If anyone has seen the comedy, "Borat", they'll realize that most racists try to keep their mindsets silent from everyone else.

"Mentally unstable" is a subjective opinion made by people who insist that certain thought and behavior patterns are abnormal.

The sooner, the better. Personally, while I observe such distinctions, I like to think of humanity as being human rather then a conglomerate of distinct cultures and beliefs. I hope that by the time we come into contact with another intelligent species, we can present ourselves as a united group rather then representives of several hundred different ones.

The sooner, the better to which one of my two completely different proposed outcomes?

I have been told that my thinking is a few decades ahead of everyone else, though. It's nice to dream.

But ahead in which direction? Who says that your line of thinking is necessarily a good thing?

[Athena]

Quote by: Chancellor The United States is not, and has never been, a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. No, a bunch of so-called "scientists" decided to come up with theories to explain the differences in various groups of humans in order to classify them according to superiority/inferiority. Now we have anthropology, sociology and psychology. As for "sexism," that depends on how you're defining it. Throughout human history there have been clearly defined roles for men and women. It is an idiot (or a feminist, which is really the same thing) that believes there are no inherent differences between men and women (though different does not mean unequal). Who assumes both are wrong? Clearly the racist sees nothing wrong with racism. Clearly the "sexist" (whatever that means) doesn't see it as wrong. Your attempt to make it sound like this stupid notion of diversity is a good thing and somehow humanity's destiny is just a bunch of fluff. The day may come when we humans finally decide to be human instead of being "American" or "European" or "African" or "Asian" or this or that nationality or any combination thereof. Then again, those groups who insist on their unique identity may fight to retain their separate group identity.

The United States would be totally different if it had not been founded on the principles of democracy. Unfortunately, without literacy in Greek and Roman classics, people do not understand democracy and its importance to having a republican form of government. Since we stopped educating for democracy, we have fought every war for nothing. The US democracy could become as forgotten as Athens democracy in the same approximately 200 year life spanned of short lived civilizations. Now this direction of possible evolution is something I seriously hope does not happen, but with people insisting the US is not a democracy, and because they lack understanding of what democracy is, the US could return to governing authority over a supressed mass, worse than any history because of it is not technologically capable of being the worst tyranny that ever was. With the prepared young to be subserviant products for industry since 1958, the worst could happen.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ack.... I am so tired of people calling the U.S. system, as designed a democracy. It wasn't, never was, never will be. We are supposed to be a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic. All this talk in the media of democracy, is shaping minds. At least lets shape them correctly.

Better check what democratic principles have to do with being an American.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Athena Better check what democratic principles have to do with being an American.

Exactly, we shouldn't get too technical here. When people say American interests represent democracy, in a sense all they're referring to are democratic principles and Westernization in general. Political scientists' terms aren't always universal.

[Gods_Mercenary]

A true democracy is actually a bad form of government, it's called mob rule. See "French Revolution".

The founding fathers were intelligent enough to know that the Romans were on to something, the mob must be contained.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary A true democracy is actually a bad form of government, it's called mob rule. See "French Revolution". The founding fathers were intelligent enough to know that the Romans were on to something, the mob must be contained.

I know, but like I said before, we're not talking about a true democracy as a political scientist would say. We're talking more along the lines of the impression of a democracy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Epistimologist said: I know, but like I said before, we're not talking about a true democracy as a political scientist would say. We're talking more along the lines of the impression of a democracy.

Its the vague subjectivity that often leads to a large expenditure of wind, with little understanding of the topic.

Perhaps, we should stick to definitions, so we can all understand what is being said?

"impression of a democracy"?

It is, or it isn't.

We ain't.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its the vague subjectivity that often leads to a large expenditure of wind, with little understanding of the topic. Perhaps, we should stick to definitions, so we can all understand what is being said? "impression of a democracy"? It is, or it isn't. We ain't.

Well, not everyone in the world thinks like a political scientist. What I'm basically saying is that democracy in the conventional context is synonymous with Western government in general. Not many people really care about the specifics. It's like a frog murderer saying "Naw, I only killed tadpoles!"

Indeed, specifically speaking, your government is not a democracy per se, but that wasn't even a subject of the debate. I guess we should assume that we're speaking in the conventional sense unless we say otherwise. The same thing happened to me when I was talking about "agnosticism" in the epistemological sense rather than the conventional sense, since there are two different meanings. I solved it by saying "agnosticism in the epistemological sense" or something like that because the natural default to the audience is the conventional sense.