the dynamite politics thread
- Thread starter Malaclypse
- Start date
FrostGiant said:
Yes and there begins the problems.
No offence DJ, but the world would be better off without lawyers
rahvin
keeper of the flame
let's see...
- politicians are unfit to rule the world: they are corrupted, greedy individuals who work for personal advantage, exploiting the poor and hopeless.
- lawyers are unfit to rule the world: they are double-tongued smooth-talkers who bend the rules to fit their needs and run circles around honest people with their subtle ways, framing the commoners for what they haven't done and working as henchmen for the powers-that-be, with a feeling for the preservation of the status quo.
- members of the clergy are unfit to rule the world: they superimpose a system of arbitrary codes of conduct based on morals that cannot be shared since they derive from a subjective perception of metaphysical issues, that they exploit freely and lasciviously by feeding lies to the population in order to further their schemes of mind control and sexual exploitation of the young.
- the military is unfit to rule the world: they offer an outdated model of constant conflict and operate to the detriment and annihilation of human rights, dividing the world in friends and enemies based on the decisions of moneymakers pulling their strings from behind, actually creating a threat to human life on the planet through their lack of hesitation in using potentially world-destructive weapons.
so who is fit to rule to world? are those who propagate the stereotypes above the only ones exempted?
- politicians are unfit to rule the world: they are corrupted, greedy individuals who work for personal advantage, exploiting the poor and hopeless.
- lawyers are unfit to rule the world: they are double-tongued smooth-talkers who bend the rules to fit their needs and run circles around honest people with their subtle ways, framing the commoners for what they haven't done and working as henchmen for the powers-that-be, with a feeling for the preservation of the status quo.
- members of the clergy are unfit to rule the world: they superimpose a system of arbitrary codes of conduct based on morals that cannot be shared since they derive from a subjective perception of metaphysical issues, that they exploit freely and lasciviously by feeding lies to the population in order to further their schemes of mind control and sexual exploitation of the young.
- the military is unfit to rule the world: they offer an outdated model of constant conflict and operate to the detriment and annihilation of human rights, dividing the world in friends and enemies based on the decisions of moneymakers pulling their strings from behind, actually creating a threat to human life on the planet through their lack of hesitation in using potentially world-destructive weapons.
so who is fit to rule to world? are those who propagate the stereotypes above the only ones exempted?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
the former are too ruthless and evil, sorry.hyena said:obviously, it has to be economists and black metal musicians.
wildfyr
unus spiritus est
Dark_Jester said:
A very successful lawyer parked his brand new Lexus in front of his office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck came along and completely tore off the driver's door. The lawyer immediately picked up his cell phone and dialed 911. Less than 3 minutes later a policeman pulled up.
Before the police officer had a chance to say a word, the lawyer starts screaming hysterically. His Lexus, which he had just picked up that morning, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how good a job the body shop did in repairs. After the lawyer finally wound down a little, the policeman remarked "I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are. You are so focused on yur possessions that you neglect the most important things in life...." "How can you say that?" asked the lawyer. "My god, don't you even realize that your left arm is missing?" said the policeman. "It got ripped when the truck hit you!" "Oh MY God!", screamed the lawyer. "my Rolex!!"
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
Oh really? You can't just come along and say you should rule the world without offering any good reasons why, you know 
So, lets hear 'em!
So, lets hear 'em! 
fireangel
Member
Child of Time
Voice of reason
Well, you have 25 countries to look forward to now. Probably more for when we will be fit to the task.
Tebus
An abode of few.
wildfyr
unus spiritus est
it's probably unfair to only villify greedy lawyers. please feel free to substitute the greedy professionals of your choice in the joke. =)
as far as who should rule the world... maybe it's time a WOMAN had a shot at the title? let's face it, men have a really shitty track record!!
whaddya think, NL?
as far as who should rule the world... maybe it's time a WOMAN had a shot at the title? let's face it, men have a really shitty track record!!
whaddya think, NL?
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
I think that it should be man and woman, ruling in complete equal authority, ensuring balance. I think its this lack of balance that has had the word so completely screwed up over the past 2000-3000 years. Let me explain.
Not seeking to piss anyone off, but the major three religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism are religions which women were relegated to a second-class system, where they were seen as inferior. The christian religion was created by Peter, a reknowned chauvinist, woman-hater and suspected homosexual as something of an 'all-boys club'. To this day, in hardline Catholicism, women are still not allowed to enter the priesthood, and are probably seen as inferior by the priest. The same with Islam, with veils and perda, and with orthodox Judaism. This notion spread to politics, and to every facet of life. Now, as these religions spread, so too did the notion of female inferiority. Before the arrival of Christianity to what is now the United Kingdom, pagan life was such that balance was the key to life; balance with nature, and balance between the sexes. Man and woman were completely equal, and each tribe would be ruled jointly by male and female, and the high druid priest would be countered by a high druid priestess. It is shown in ancient documents and other forms of archaeology that by the time the pagan religion was firmly established, the ancient Celts were relatively peaceful, and that if either sex made a decision unliked by the opposite, the opposite could counter it, and try to bring around the other party to see reason, and thus balance was ensured. This was also reflected in the fact that the old pre-Christian Irish laws allowed women equal status in property rights, rights of leadership etc etc. When Christianity came to Ireland, the Irish lost these rights. Funny that since this, Ireland has been a continual hot-bed of strife, as it is too male dominated - male aggression is not countered by any real female logic or deterrence.
This is also reflected in the state of the world today - most politicians, and most heads of state are male. Even those females who do become heads of state do not rule as women, but try to rule as men. Look at Margaret Thatcher, or Elizabeth I of 'I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the mind and heart of a true man and king' (or an approximation of this).
I think what we need is not a patriachal or matriachal system of governance in the world, but a system of joint governance, in which male and female both co-rule a state. That way, we could see that if each balances the other off, whether there is a greater chance of balance and logic in world diplomacy and leadership. But first, the old religiously based notions of male superiority need to be removed.
Not seeking to piss anyone off, but the major three religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism are religions which women were relegated to a second-class system, where they were seen as inferior. The christian religion was created by Peter, a reknowned chauvinist, woman-hater and suspected homosexual as something of an 'all-boys club'. To this day, in hardline Catholicism, women are still not allowed to enter the priesthood, and are probably seen as inferior by the priest. The same with Islam, with veils and perda, and with orthodox Judaism. This notion spread to politics, and to every facet of life. Now, as these religions spread, so too did the notion of female inferiority. Before the arrival of Christianity to what is now the United Kingdom, pagan life was such that balance was the key to life; balance with nature, and balance between the sexes. Man and woman were completely equal, and each tribe would be ruled jointly by male and female, and the high druid priest would be countered by a high druid priestess. It is shown in ancient documents and other forms of archaeology that by the time the pagan religion was firmly established, the ancient Celts were relatively peaceful, and that if either sex made a decision unliked by the opposite, the opposite could counter it, and try to bring around the other party to see reason, and thus balance was ensured. This was also reflected in the fact that the old pre-Christian Irish laws allowed women equal status in property rights, rights of leadership etc etc. When Christianity came to Ireland, the Irish lost these rights. Funny that since this, Ireland has been a continual hot-bed of strife, as it is too male dominated - male aggression is not countered by any real female logic or deterrence.
This is also reflected in the state of the world today - most politicians, and most heads of state are male. Even those females who do become heads of state do not rule as women, but try to rule as men. Look at Margaret Thatcher, or Elizabeth I of 'I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the mind and heart of a true man and king' (or an approximation of this).
I think what we need is not a patriachal or matriachal system of governance in the world, but a system of joint governance, in which male and female both co-rule a state. That way, we could see that if each balances the other off, whether there is a greater chance of balance and logic in world diplomacy and leadership. But first, the old religiously based notions of male superiority need to be removed.
I agree with DJ totally and once again we find religion fucking everything up,
pretty huge friggin surprise.
pretty huge friggin surprise.
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
Well, not EVERY religion, just the big three currently. Hmmm, they all originated out of the middle east too...wonder if the heat there bakes peoples brains...
wildfyr
unus spiritus est
good arguments! where does that leave the gays and lesbians though? 
??
i'm up for a female president of the US (but not Clinton!), and more female representation around the world. yes.
??i'm up for a female president of the US (but not Clinton!), and more female representation around the world. yes.
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
Well, I think even gays and lesbians need some of the opposing force around them; good female or male friends who can help guide them with another point of view. It's all about balance
Similar threads
