Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

In a global govt, how would ppl communicate?

rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:24:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language?
If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages?
We would not invent a new language, we would just adopt the most widely spoken language; English.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Each local region may still keep their native language, but it would be highly beneficial if there was a common language.

A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

I hear the term "fair" and "unfair" thrown around so much that is has lost all meaning. Fair does not mean equal, fair simply means without bias or favoritism. If the common language was chosen objectively, rather than subjectively, than it was fair regardless of whether or not some people have to learn and new language while others don't.

Furthermore, no-one said the common language would have to be immediately adopted. If all schools were required to teach English to the next generation, it would only take a decade at most to adopt a global language.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 12:40:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Suppose that aliens land and start trading with us and humans need to unite as one government in order to compete and defend ourselves in a universe with all kinds of other intelligent species.

So humans need a common mode of communication so we can have integrate economically and politically.

Given colonial history, imposing English, French, Spanish, etc, on the world seems unfair and would always face large opposition.

I think maybe English could be used as an unofficial lingual Franca, especially with spelling and grammar reforms to make it easier to learn.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people. Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to. History always repeats itself, always. And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 8:02:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to.

I believe you mean "too", but it is nice that you can admit to your bias.

History always repeats itself, always.
I'm sorry, but when in history did we ever have a world government?

And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.

Please define corruption? I have a feeling your definition is very loose, and I would like to avoid any semantic disputes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 4:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 8:02:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to.

I believe you mean "too", but it is nice that you can admit to your bias.

History always repeats itself, always.
I'm sorry, but when in history did we ever have a world government?

And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.

Please define corruption? I have a feeling your definition is very loose, and I would like to avoid any semantic disputes.

Please define corruption? The whole purpose of asking me to define corruption is to engage in semantics. If you are for a one world govt, fine be for one. If a time comes and I am asked to vote for a one world govt I will vote against it for the reason stated. That is if I have a vote as a one world govt would most likely suspend that. History shows absolute power always turns into a dictatorship.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 7:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 4:40:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:02:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to.

I believe you mean "too", but it is nice that you can admit to your bias.

History always repeats itself, always.
I'm sorry, but when in history did we ever have a world government?

And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.

Please define corruption? I have a feeling your definition is very loose, and I would like to avoid any semantic disputes.

Please define corruption? The whole purpose of asking me to define corruption is to engage in semantics.
No it is to avoid semantics. If you make the claim "All X is Y" than proving or disproving the statement depends on the definition of Y.
For example; In Hamlet told Ophelia "If thou dost marry, I"ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell. "

The meaning of this would change if you take the word "Nunnery" to mean a convent rather than a whore house (as originally intended). The meaning of the words are important to the argument. One engages in semantics when one changes the meaning of words in order to make an argument.

Another example, If Person A claims a stick is 2 feet long because it is 24 inches, person B would be engaging in semantics if he claimed that it was 3 feet long because his foot is only 8 inches long.

If you are for a one world govt, fine be for one. If a time comes and I am asked to vote for a one world govt I will vote against it for the reason stated.
That reason being; all governments are corrupt, therefore a one world government would be corrupt, so we must instead keep the hundreds of existing corrupt governments separate so they can continue to wage war with each other and wreck havoc on each others economies.

That is if I have a vote as a one world govt would most likely suspend that.
Why do you assume that? You have provided no reason to assume this, other than the absurd claim that all governments are corrupt. Is your definition of corrupt the suspension of the people's right to vote? If so not all governments are "corrupt" by that definition.

History shows absolute power always turns into a dictatorship.

Again, no-one said that the world government would have absolute power. In fact quite the opposite; the OP specifically mentioned a Federation, where the world government would share sovereignty with the member states.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 9:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 7:28:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/19/2014 4:40:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:02:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to.

I believe you mean "too", but it is nice that you can admit to your bias.

History always repeats itself, always.
I'm sorry, but when in history did we ever have a world government?

And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.

Please define corruption? I have a feeling your definition is very loose, and I would like to avoid any semantic disputes.

Please define corruption? The whole purpose of asking me to define corruption is to engage in semantics.
No it is to avoid semantics. If you make the claim "All X is Y" than proving or disproving the statement depends on the definition of Y.
For example; In Hamlet told Ophelia "If thou dost marry, I"ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell. "

The meaning of this would change if you take the word "Nunnery" to mean a convent rather than a whore house (as originally intended). The meaning of the words are important to the argument. One engages in semantics when one changes the meaning of words in order to make an argument.

Another example, If Person A claims a stick is 2 feet long because it is 24 inches, person B would be engaging in semantics if he claimed that it was 3 feet long because his foot is only 8 inches long.

If you are for a one world govt, fine be for one. If a time comes and I am asked to vote for a one world govt I will vote against it for the reason stated.
That reason being; all governments are corrupt, therefore a one world government would be corrupt, so we must instead keep the hundreds of existing corrupt governments separate so they can continue to wage war with each other and wreck havoc on each others economies.

That is if I have a vote as a one world govt would most likely suspend that.
Why do you assume that? You have provided no reason to assume this, other than the absurd claim that all governments are corrupt. Is your definition of corrupt the suspension of the people's right to vote? If so not all governments are "corrupt" by that definition.

History shows absolute power always turns into a dictatorship.

Again, no-one said that the world government would have absolute power. In fact quite the opposite; the OP specifically mentioned a Federation, where the world government would share sovereignty with the member states.

I will vote against any attempt to sell out the country I live in. Screw the UN or anything like it of any kind. I will only recognize the President of the United States and the President of the United States will only recognize that he or she is the leader of only one nation The United States. That is, if I have any say in it what so ever.

Wars are better than genocide. at least you have a chance.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 7:05:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 9:01:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/19/2014 7:28:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/19/2014 4:40:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:02:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to.

I believe you mean "too", but it is nice that you can admit to your bias.

History always repeats itself, always.
I'm sorry, but when in history did we ever have a world government?

And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.

Please define corruption? I have a feeling your definition is very loose, and I would like to avoid any semantic disputes.

Please define corruption? The whole purpose of asking me to define corruption is to engage in semantics.
No it is to avoid semantics. If you make the claim "All X is Y" than proving or disproving the statement depends on the definition of Y.
For example; In Hamlet told Ophelia "If thou dost marry, I"ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell. "

The meaning of this would change if you take the word "Nunnery" to mean a convent rather than a whore house (as originally intended). The meaning of the words are important to the argument. One engages in semantics when one changes the meaning of words in order to make an argument.

Another example, If Person A claims a stick is 2 feet long because it is 24 inches, person B would be engaging in semantics if he claimed that it was 3 feet long because his foot is only 8 inches long.

If you are for a one world govt, fine be for one. If a time comes and I am asked to vote for a one world govt I will vote against it for the reason stated.
That reason being; all governments are corrupt, therefore a one world government would be corrupt, so we must instead keep the hundreds of existing corrupt governments separate so they can continue to wage war with each other and wreck havoc on each others economies.

That is if I have a vote as a one world govt would most likely suspend that.
Why do you assume that? You have provided no reason to assume this, other than the absurd claim that all governments are corrupt. Is your definition of corrupt the suspension of the people's right to vote? If so not all governments are "corrupt" by that definition.

History shows absolute power always turns into a dictatorship.

Again, no-one said that the world government would have absolute power. In fact quite the opposite; the OP specifically mentioned a Federation, where the world government would share sovereignty with the member states.

I will vote against any attempt to sell out the country I live in. Screw the UN or anything like it of any kind. I will only recognize the President of the United States and the President of the United States will only recognize that he or she is the leader of only one nation The United States. That is, if I have any say in it what so ever.

You still don't understand what a federation is... If there was a global Federation, you would not be selling out the US. The US government would not lose power, and the US government would not gain power over other countries.

I would also like to point out that you equated the president with the US government, as if supporting a dictator. The President should be, according to the constitution, constrained by congress. Our government was designed with legislative dominance, as opposed to executive dominance, which you seem to prefer.

Wars are better than genocide. at least you have a chance.

Again with the fallacious assumptions.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 4:06:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 7:05:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 2/19/2014 9:01:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/19/2014 7:28:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/19/2014 4:40:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:02:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:47:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:41:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 11:24:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:53:32 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2014 2:25:22 PM, rockwater wrote:
Most people think a global federal government, or even a federal government for all Europe, would be a bad idea. Let's just assume that such a government already exists and needs to figure out how people will be able to communicate with each other. Would there need to be a global language that everyone would learn in addition to their local language? If so, should it be an existing language or an invented language that might take pieces from real languages? A lot of people feel that making English the global language would be unfair, even if it is the most practical thing at the moment. Any global language would probably be easier for people from some regions to learn than other, which would also seem unfair. Esperanto is only based on European languages and also seems weird to most people regardless of their native language, which is not a good thing. A language designed to be unlike any human language, like a science fiction or fantasy language, would not be easy to learn so that does not seem lien a good idea either. Is there any possibility as a basis for global communication in global governing institutions that is both fair and practical?

The last thing a global govt would want is people communicating with each other.

Why is that?

So the people can't coordinate and create plans to overthrow the tyranny that a world govt would bestow on the people.
You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical.
Really, one govt for the whole world? That is just insane. No f- ing thank you, I read history books and know what happens when absolute power is established.

Who said anything about absolute power? No-one is talking about the form of government or the extent of its power, only that it would be a global government. Are local governments any less corrupt simply because their geographical jurisdictions are smaller?

What makes a world government dangerous is not that they are inherently tyrannical, it is that the world population is heterogeneous. Centralization is most efficient when the population is homogenous, and decentralization is most efficient when the population is heterogeneous. If a world government was to be created it should have to have authority limited to subjects where there is little to no diversity. For example; establishing a common currency, and establishing common units of measurement and/or a common language for communication.

"You are assuming a world government would be tyrannical." Yes, absolutely I am and I would bet my life on it to.

I believe you mean "too", but it is nice that you can admit to your bias.

History always repeats itself, always.
I'm sorry, but when in history did we ever have a world government?

And yes, what makes a world govt dangerous is that it is the only govt. Any govt, no matter the size, is by it's very nature, corrupt. There has never been a non corrupt govt in the entire history of man kind ever. But it would be different this time.

Please define corruption? I have a feeling your definition is very loose, and I would like to avoid any semantic disputes.

Please define corruption? The whole purpose of asking me to define corruption is to engage in semantics.
No it is to avoid semantics. If you make the claim "All X is Y" than proving or disproving the statement depends on the definition of Y.
For example; In Hamlet told Ophelia "If thou dost marry, I"ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell. "

The meaning of this would change if you take the word "Nunnery" to mean a convent rather than a whore house (as originally intended). The meaning of the words are important to the argument. One engages in semantics when one changes the meaning of words in order to make an argument.

Another example, If Person A claims a stick is 2 feet long because it is 24 inches, person B would be engaging in semantics if he claimed that it was 3 feet long because his foot is only 8 inches long.

If you are for a one world govt, fine be for one. If a time comes and I am asked to vote for a one world govt I will vote against it for the reason stated.
That reason being; all governments are corrupt, therefore a one world government would be corrupt, so we must instead keep the hundreds of existing corrupt governments separate so they can continue to wage war with each other and wreck havoc on each others economies.

That is if I have a vote as a one world govt would most likely suspend that.
Why do you assume that? You have provided no reason to assume this, other than the absurd claim that all governments are corrupt. Is your definition of corrupt the suspension of the people's right to vote? If so not all governments are "corrupt" by that definition.

History shows absolute power always turns into a dictatorship.

Again, no-one said that the world government would have absolute power. In fact quite the opposite; the OP specifically mentioned a Federation, where the world government would share sovereignty with the member states.

I will vote against any attempt to sell out the country I live in. Screw the UN or anything like it of any kind. I will only recognize the President of the United States and the President of the United States will only recognize that he or she is the leader of only one nation The United States. That is, if I have any say in it what so ever.

You still don't understand what a federation is... If there was a global Federation, you would not be selling out the US. The US government would not lose power, and the US government would not gain power over other countries.

I would also like to point out that you equated the president with the US government, as if supporting a dictator. The President should be, according to the constitution, constrained by congress. Our government was designed with legislative dominance, as opposed to executive dominance, which you seem to prefer.

Wars are better than genocide. at least you have a chance.

Again with the fallacious assumptions.

Why is your assumption that it would not lead to genocide fallacious? I have history on my side. I have the actions of the UN on my side. Their hands are dripping with genocide on their watch. The UN is essentially a federation. It is rife with corruption and back door dealing. I need look no further than the UN to see how a federation would work. Each according to their needs each according to their ability to pay. What good would a federation be if it didn't have absolute power? We already have that, it's called the UN.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 6:23:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 4:06:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:05:23 AM, DanT wrote:

Again with the fallacious assumptions.

Why is your assumption that it would not lead to genocide fallacious?
I never said it "would not lead to genocide"; the outcome is determined by the structure of the government as well as external social factors. There is no way we can say with absolute certainty whether or not genocide would occur. If it did occur, it would have nothing to do with it being a "world government".
I have history on my side.
There is no history to draw upon. You live in a fantasy land if you think there was a historical world government.

I have the actions of the UN on my side. Their hands are dripping with genocide on their watch. The UN is essentially a federation.

The UN is not a Federation. Also you cannot claim any actions by the UN to be reflective of any and all world governments.

It is rife with corruption and back door dealing. I need look no further than the UN to see how a federation would work. Each according to their needs each according to their ability to pay. What good would a federation be if it didn't have absolute power? We already have that, it's called the UN.

A Federation by definition does not have absolute power; that would be a unitary state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 7:28:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 6:23:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/20/2014 4:06:18 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/20/2014 7:05:23 AM, DanT wrote:

Again with the fallacious assumptions.

Why is your assumption that it would not lead to genocide fallacious?
I never said it "would not lead to genocide"; the outcome is determined by the structure of the government as well as external social factors. There is no way we can say with absolute certainty whether or not genocide would occur. If it did occur, it would have nothing to do with it being a "world government".
I have history on my side.
There is no history to draw upon. You live in a fantasy land if you think there was a historical world government.

I have the actions of the UN on my side. Their hands are dripping with genocide on their watch. The UN is essentially a federation.

The UN is not a Federation. Also you cannot claim any actions by the UN to be reflective of any and all world governments.

It is rife with corruption and back door dealing. I need look no further than the UN to see how a federation would work. Each according to their needs each according to their ability to pay. What good would a federation be if it didn't have absolute power? We already have that, it's called the UN.

A Federation by definition does not have absolute power; that would be a unitary state.

Then what is the point of a federation if it does not have the power to make all nations do the same thing and act the same way? The UN does not have absolute power and it is a collection of nations supposedly on the same page. What is the UN if not a federation of countries. If a federation of countries prevents a single country from unilaterally acting in an impending case of genocide, who's fault is it that the genocide occurred?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%