WTF is wrong with America?

[fritzthecat]

Poor to no education, religious sects like the catholics and protestants, all those acts "protecting" but in fact striping you of your rights without one even noticing, spying on their own citizens = 90% not giving a fuck, spying on other countries = 100% not giving a fuck, more wars in the last 60 years than the world combined in over 200, bombing countries back to the stone age, manipulating countries, overthrowing governments, no choice in elections, no boobies on tv etc. etc.
NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not.
Its like frogs and boiling water, if you put them into boiled water they will immediately jump out, but if you increase the temperature gradually with the frog in it, it will be cooked.

[1715004506]

1715004506

[1715004506]

1715004506

[1715004506]

1715004506

[bernard75]

And dont forget Wall Street and the military industrial complex essentially running the country.

no boobies on tv

This is actually the most important point and will lead to the downfall of the system.

[Mike Christ]

I'm gonna make a wild guess and say, it's the fluoride they're pumping into the water supply.  There must be a reason why a nation would enforce something on a national level, even when many of its citizens do not want it to happen; even when entire cities do not want it to happen and are forced anyway.  What's so absolutely vital about cleaner teeth that we must be forced to drink a toxin to obtain it?  It's one thing if businesses are just that lazy and want to save on costs, but why does the government feel the need to force-feed this stuff to us?  And why, then, is this so, when so many other nations have outlawed fluoride due to its toxic nature?

If it's not the fluoride, I'm at wits end as to why Americans are so laid back about all this.



Here's a map of how widespread fluoridation is per country.  If anyone living in the red countries, and anyone living in the no-fluoride countries, can attest this hypothesis--that is, if the Australians and New Zealanders here can tell us if their government is more corrupt, and the others if theirs is less so--then we might have something to go off with.

Of what little comparisons I can draw between America and New Zealand (from a time I was researching what it's like to live in different places), they both have a high amount of citizens who despise foreigners and have a tendency to blame their problems on them.  Just as well, both America and New Zealand have corrupt politicians, based off what I've heard various ex-pats and natives say.  All I know about Australia is that their borders aren't open to anyone who doesn't have a work visa or isn't married to a native (but I'm not too sure on this so don't take my word for it.)  I wouldn't doubt that Australia also has many corrupt politicians.

[Kluge]

Almost every country in the world with a population of >100,000 has a better collection of musicians than the US.

The French have great musicians, but then they have that ultra-queer anti-gay faction embarrassing the nation on the scale of the US Westboro Baptist Church.



Britain has some fine musicians, but then you have the totally apathetic street reaction to the recent public beheading. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0f_1369235265 (gore, beware) - and ofc, British spies used PRISM data for domestic espionage, but nobody gives half a shit. Oh... and they still have a fucking taxpayer-funded monarchy which sits around doing fuck-all... in 2013.

[bernard75]

and ofc, British spies used PRISM data for domestic espionage, but nobody gives half a shit.

They hardly need the amateurish Prism system, when they can directly peak into more than 50% of the transatlantic communication.

[Vandroiy]

no boobies on tv

This is actually the most important point and will lead to the downfall of the system.

National comparisons aside, I think it is a very important point simply because it is so insane.

I've not managed to get any coherent rationale as a response when asking about this "law". Many Americans feel outright panic when their children see a nipple, genitals, certain poses etc. Apparently they believe it conjures Satan or something. Their children can be exposed to excessive violence, scares, immoral context and a multitude of other uncivilized influences without much hindrance, while viewing the human body is forcefully prevented. Anyone opposing this is labeled as a "pervert" and implicitly linked to rapists and whatnot. Children's bodies are considered so vile that they get filtered from information flow on the internet. Note that this is not the case if they've been blown to pieces by a grenade or so -- unless of course the result exposes their genitals.

I find it hard to expect rational behavior from people who accept such nonsense without question. This is a symptom of a real issue -- susceptibility to brainwashing -- and most certainly is relevant for system stability.

[Schleicher]

I've not managed to get any coherent rationale as a response when asking about this "law". Many Americans feel outright panic when their children see a nipple, genitals, certain poses etc. Apparently they believe it conjures Satan or something

I think it goes like this:
If you see a nipple you will think of sex.
If you think of sex you will want to have sex.
Having sex before marriage is really bad. Sex is not for fun.
Seeing blood and violence doesn't make you think of sex.
That's good.

[Moneymaker1990]

It's the damn fluoride.

[TECSHARE]

Don't forget there are also enough pharmaceuticals in some places from waste run off to be PSYCHOACTIVE in humans even after treatment. Your tap water might include a free dose of zoloft with it.

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water

[p2pbucks]

 :)there's nothing wrong with US . US is still the most competitive country in the world . All you see are small stones on the glory road.

[vokain]

[Mike Christ]

The French have great musicians, but then they have that ultra-queer anti-gay faction embarrassing the nation on the scale of the US Westboro Baptist Church.

Wait, they're both queer and anti-gay?  Is this even possible?

[crumbs]

We hear oppressed voices crying out for justice & 15 laser-guided megatons of pure democracy. 
To those who will be available to greet your liberators: We will be semi-formally dressed, in sandstorm-yellow with matching earth tone & charcoal accessories.  Make sure to color-coordinate the wellcome parade accordingly.

We can't even wait we're so psyched,

-The Americans

[TheButterZone]

Who is John Galt?

[hawkeye]

The French have great musicians, but then they have that ultra-queer anti-gay faction embarrassing the nation on the scale of the US Westboro Baptist Church.

Wait, they're both queer and anti-gay?  Is this even possible?

I would even say it's quite common.   It's usually the biggest critics of gay people who turn out to be gay themselves.

But that's probably not what the poster was referring to (I'm not sure what he is talking about).

[bernard75]

The poster was trying to ridicule the topic, unfortunately that doesnt work with people who know whats going on(90% of the world by now) in "The land of the free"(ROFL already). The constitution has been violated so much, that it can be moved to the rare books section. But hey, the only thing important and worth fighting for is the 2nd.

[TheButterZone]

Pathetic liar.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593990-38/gun-rights-groups-join-new-challenge-to-nsa-surveillance/

[Rassah]

Its like frogs and boiling water, if you put them into boiled water they will immediately jump out, but if you increase the temperature gradually with the frog in it, it will be cooked.

We had a fucking dumbass of a news commentator demonstrate on live TV that that's, in fact, not true, when he tossed a live frog into a boiling pot of water, and it instantly died from being boiled alive. He later on tried to claim that it was a rubber frog, which if was true, and he knew the frog wouldn't have jumped out, would have made his prior speech make no sense.

[herzmeister]

Of what little comparisons I can draw between America and New Zealand (from a time I was researching what it's like to live in different places), they both have a high amount of citizens who despise foreigners and have a tendency to blame their problems on them.

foreigners? u mean all those Englishmen, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Italians etc that have been immigrating into both countries for the last couple of centuries? 

[crumbs]

Of what little comparisons I can draw between America and New Zealand (from a time I was researching what it's like to live in different places), they both have a high amount of citizens who despise foreigners and have a tendency to blame their problems on them.

foreigners? u mean all those Englishmen, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Italians etc that have been immigrating into both countries for the last couple of centuries?  

Those sneaky bastards who pretend to be working shit low-paying jobs, but in reality...

[nobbynobbynoob]

Of what little comparisons I can draw between America and New Zealand (from a time I was researching what it's like to live in different places), they both have a high amount of citizens who despise foreigners and have a tendency to blame their problems on them.

foreigners? u mean all those Englishmen, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Italians etc that have been immigrating into both countries for the last couple of centuries? 

Great point, LOL. But in this day and age, the "new world" imposes very stiff visa blocks.

[TheGovernedSelf]

Who is John Galt?

A man who gets paid a salary which is 10% of his administrator overlords, yet he is 1000% more productive.

[Nik1ab]

Poor to no education, religious sects like the catholics and protestants, all those acts "protecting" but in fact striping you of your rights without one even noticing, spying on their own citizens = 90% not giving a fuck, spying on other countries = 100% not giving a fuck, more wars in the last 60 years than the world combined in over 200, bombing countries back to the stone age, manipulating countries, overthrowing governments, no choice in elections, no boobies on tv etc. etc.
NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not.
Its like frogs and boiling water, if you put them into boiled water they will immediately jump out, but if you increase the temperature gradually with the frog in it, it will be cooked.

You forgot scientology

[J603]

Poor to no education, religious sects like the catholics and protestants, all those acts "protecting" but in fact striping you of your rights without one even noticing, spying on their own citizens = 90% not giving a fuck, spying on other countries = 100% not giving a fuck, more wars in the last 60 years than the world combined in over 200, bombing countries back to the stone age, manipulating countries, overthrowing governments, no choice in elections, no boobies on tv etc. etc.
NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not.
Its like frogs and boiling water, if you put them into boiled water they will immediately jump out, but if you increase the temperature gradually with the frog in it, it will be cooked.

Cry more about living in one of the nicest countries on Earth.

Poor to no education

The US has the 17th best education system in the world, according to Pearson.
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/

religious sects like the catholics and protestants

What country doesn't have religion?  Also, you can see that there's really no correlation between atheism and quality of life. Plenty of low quality of life countries are at the top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

all those acts "protecting" but in fact striping you of your rights without one even noticing

Well, I might want to eat my words on the education, but...
Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Not as good, but it's hard to measure political freedom: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world
Of course, in a country where gays can't even get married I wouldn't call our country "free", but we're certainly up there.

spying on their own citizens = 90% not giving a fuck

spying on other countries = 100% not giving a fuck

Name a country who doesn't.

more wars in the last 60 years than the world combined in over 200

First off, that's impossible. Second, the US has been involved in 106 conflicts since its inception (conflicts include any military action; read the link to see what I mean). GB (and the UK) has had 121 conflicts (since 1700). Russia has had 54 conflicts (since 1700).  PRChina has had a wopping 9 (since 1907).

USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
GB/UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain
Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia
PR China (note that this article sucks): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

I'm sick of counting wars, but I'd recommend looking up Spain and France. They've more than likely beat the US.

bombing countries back to the stone age, manipulating countries, overthrowing governments

Look up any imperialist country...

no choice in elections

Actually, you do have a choice. Don't like either candidate? Vote independent or run yourself.

no boobies on tv

That's why you have a computer 
Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornography_laws_by_country

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?  National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

[Nik1ab]

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?   National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

But not to give untrained people guns. That's the stupidest idea ever! A few year old kids already killed each other! And psychopaths have the easiest opportunity to kill people.
Normal people don't need ANY guns.

[J603]

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?   National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

But not to give untrained people guns. That's the stupidest idea ever! A few year old kids already killed each other! And psychopaths have the easiest opportunity to kill people.
Normal people don't need ANY guns.

I don't support guns, but a lot of people do, especially in the US. You can't lump in an independent organization promoting a right (whether you agree with it or not) with the likes of the NSA.

[BitCoiner2012]

Of what little comparisons I can draw between America and New Zealand (from a time I was researching what it's like to live in different places), they both have a high amount of citizens who despise foreigners and have a tendency to blame their problems on them.

foreigners? u mean all those Englishmen, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Italians etc that have been immigrating into both countries for the last couple of centuries?  

Those sneaky bastards who pretend to be working shit low-paying jobs, but in reality...

Awesome. "Foreigners" work and provide for their families just as you do, immigrants built this country and continue to bring work ethic and intellectual capital.

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?   National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

But not to give untrained people guns. That's the stupidest idea ever! A few year old kids already killed each other! And psychopaths have the easiest opportunity to kill people.
Normal people don't need ANY guns.

Normal people are the ones who need guns.. this is crazy to think Americans should be unarmed in the face of a threat domestic or foreign.

[Damnsammit]

The US has the 17th best education system in the world, according to Pearson.
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/

So sad...

You'd think we could at least crack the top 10, but for some reason we just don't seem to give a shit about education.

Tuition prices skyrocketting in the last decade, while the economy tanks.  Rich get richer, poor get pooer, yadayada... congratulations, you graduated college!  Time to repay $30k of student loans!

[crumbs]

@BitCoiner2012:  I was being silly.  I'm an evol furn'er myself.

[J603]

The US has the 17th best education system in the world, according to Pearson.
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/

So sad...

You'd think we could at least crack the top 10, but for some reason we just don't seem to give a shit about education.

Tuition prices skyrocketting in the last decade, while the economy tanks.  Rich get richer, poor get pooer, yadayada... congratulations, you graduated college!  Time to repay $30k of student loans!

Is it sad? We have one of the largest populations with a wide range of languages and cultures. It's hard to educate that many people. Compare it to Finland, which has a measly 5 million people, but has the "best" educational system. Finland is able to have a more in depth educational system because there's so few people. They also have 91% of the people speaking the same language, versus the US' english speaking population of 80%.

Also, 17th out of 196 countries is not bad... That means that the US is doing better than most of Europe.

[Damnsammit]

I'm obviously just bitter about tuition costs and my student loans...

The public school system in Texas blows ass, too.  I'll thank 43 for that one!

[J603]

I'm obviously just bitter about tuition costs and my student loans...

The public school system in Texas blows ass, too.  I'll thank 43 for that one!

Well, I only have to pay 16k a year for the 51st ranked University in the US.

Live free or die. 

[Mike Christ]

foreigners? u mean all those Englishmen, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Italians etc that have been immigrating into both countries for the last couple of centuries? 

Yeah, pretty much If you're not born there, they don't want you takin' their jerbs.

[Rassah]

foreigners? u mean all those Englishmen, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Italians etc that have been immigrating into both countries for the last couple of centuries? 

Yeah, pretty much If you're not born there, they don't want you takin' their jerbs.

Since I was not born here, and they don't want me takin' their jerbs, would it be fair for me to not give them any jerbs in my business, too?

[Nik1ab]

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?   National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

But not to give untrained people guns. That's the stupidest idea ever! A few year old kids already killed each other! And psychopaths have the easiest opportunity to kill people.
Normal people don't need ANY guns.

Normal people are the ones who need guns.. this is crazy to think Americans should be unarmed in the face of a threat domestic or foreign.

*Facepalm*

[Mike Christ]

Since I was not born here, and they don't want me takin' their jerbs, would it be fair for me to not give them any jerbs in my business, too?

Might as well, all other businesses are fleeing   Where are you from initially?

[KingGoon]

i hate the US government soooooooooooooooooooo much by far the biggest terrorist ever on earth    i rather support terrorist than those a-holes

[Rassah]

Since I was not born here, and they don't want me takin' their jerbs, would it be fair for me to not give them any jerbs in my business, too?

Might as well, all other businesses are fleeing   Where are you from initially?

I am a Soviet   

[Minor Miner]

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?   National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

But not to give untrained people guns. That's the stupidest idea ever! A few year old kids already killed each other! And psychopaths have the easiest opportunity to kill people.
Normal people don't need ANY guns.

To take over a country you must have a land based operation conquer and take ground.   Who has an army large enough to invade a country where the citizens have 300 million guns?

[KingGoon]

NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, IRS and what have you not

Every country has these sorts of organizations. Also, NRA?   National Rifle Association? I thought you wanted freedoms?

But not to give untrained people guns. That's the stupidest idea ever! A few year old kids already killed each other! And psychopaths have the easiest opportunity to kill people.
Normal people don't need ANY guns.

To take over a country you must have a land based operation conquer and take ground.   Who has an army large enough to invade a country where the citizens have 300 million guns?

China 

[Minor Miner]

funny but not even close.    Citizens yes, but not an army.    The entire world does not have enough soldiers to mount a successful land based invasion of the USA.   Snipers are a real pain in the ass to an organized military.   105 Million heavily armed citizens would be a REAL pain in the butt.

[TheButterZone]

"China’s coastline covers approximately 14,500 km from the Bohai gulf on the north to the Gulf of Tonkin on the south."

What's the intel on the number of Chinese ships that could carry enough of their army over here without being sunk?

[Damnsammit]

Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...

[KingGoon]

The entire world does not have enough soldiers to mount a successful land based invasion of the USA. 

You must be joking LOL do you actualy believe that?

[Minor Miner]

Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

[Damnsammit]

It would be very hard unless you could manage to stage a massive amount of troops in Canada and/or Mexico without the US knowing.

Being sandwiched between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and having the largest naval and air power in the world has it's advantages.  Namely, a ground invasion would be pretty damn hard to accomplish...

[Damnsammit]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.

Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.

If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

[Rassah]

OK, admit it, how many of you have your entire knowledge of armies, invasion, and defense based entirely on the 1980's version of Red Dawn?

[Damnsammit]

All of my knowledge comes from 6 years in the USAF, and numerous hours of Sid Meier's Civilization.  

[TheButterZone]

Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...

They work perfectly well; they're the weapon with which the tank rampager in San Diego, Shawn Nelson, was killed, and are capable of killing missile commanders too. Tanks and missiles don't operate themselves, and F-16 pilots have to land sometimes.

[Minor Miner]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.
Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.
If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

What country was successfully invaded and taken over by an airforce?   none.
troops have to take and hold ground.   Not easy to do with 105 Million armed civilians.   You need to take all the 300 Million guns back first.  I do not think you understand this point.   One could argue that the 2nd is MORE about protecting the country from FOREIGN invaders than its own government.   Read it.   

[Minor Miner]

The entire world does not have enough soldiers to mount a successful land based invasion of the USA.  

You must be joking LOL do you actualy believe that?

No I am not.   Name the army and its size.   Sum them if you want.    How many troops do you think it would take to invade and hold the US?
Why has no one ever invaded the swiss?  There is not that many of them, the terrain is defensible AND they have a shitload of gold.   Now, why would no one invade them in one of the great wars?

[Minor Miner]

OK, admit it, how many of you have your entire knowledge of armies, invasion, and defense based entirely on the 1980's version of Red Dawn?

Yes, Russia and you should have learned a good lesson from that documentary.   Whose butt did we kick out of here...   LOL.
I think Risk has more educational value than West Point though.

[Damnsammit]

What country was successfully invaded and taken over by an airforce?   none.
troops have to take and hold ground.   Not easy to do with 105 Million armed civilians.   You need to take all the 300 Million guns back first.  I do not think you understand this point.   One could argue that the 2nd is MORE about protecting the country from FOREIGN invaders than its own government.   Read it.   

Invaded and taken over?  None.

I'd say that Japan could give you two reasons why an Air Force is quite helpful in winning a war without the need to invade.

As for the text, I think it's pretty clear that it was intended for securing a free state regardless of whether those infringing on those rights were foreign or domestic.  I agree to your points, and I kind of think we are saying the same thing, but thinking about different scenarios.  I don't think anyone could occupy the USA, except the US Military.  I don't believe that our country doesn't have enough people with the stones to actually overthrow the government.

[tvbcof]

@BitCoiner2012:  I was being silly.  I'm an evol furn'er myself.

The graphic was hilarious to me.

Unfortunately is is almost NOT a joke that the fact that Hispanic janitorial staff show no signs of terrorist activity is sort of proof of guilt.  If they were innocent then they would not be so careful to hide their evil activity with great success from our highly trained analysts with the most technically sophisticated systems that (my) money can buy.

[phelix]

no boobies on tv

This is actually the most important point and will lead to the downfall of the system.

National comparisons aside, I think it is a very important point simply because it is so insane.

I've not managed to get any coherent rationale as a response when asking about this "law". Many Americans feel outright panic when their children see a nipple, genitals, certain poses etc. Apparently they believe it conjures Satan or something. Their children can be exposed to excessive violence, scares, immoral context and a multitude of other uncivilized influences without much hindrance, while viewing the human body is forcefully prevented. Anyone opposing this is labeled as a "pervert" and implicitly linked to rapists and whatnot. Children's bodies are considered so vile that they get filtered from information flow on the internet. Note that this is not the case if they've been blown to pieces by a grenade or so -- unless of course the result exposes their genitals.

I find it hard to expect rational behavior from people who accept such nonsense without question. This is a symptom of a real issue -- susceptibility to brainwashing -- and most certainly is relevant for system stability.

+1 also the beeps... ridiculous & hypocritical

[BitCoiner2012]

@BitCoiner2012:  I was being silly.  I'm an evol furn'er myself.

I know you were, the awesome was for you, the rest was for the other fellow.

[luv2drnkbr]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.

Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.

If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

BINGO!  I can't believe this is never part of the debate.  Guns are not at all a means of protection against an oppressive government in this day and age.  Nobody seems to want to point that out.  If you really care about the necessity of protecting yourself from oppressive governments, the argument you should be making is that everybody ought to be able to buy nukes, big bombs or at the very least anti-tank rocket launchers!  The whole argument about firearms simply is unrelated to the ability to protect one's self from oppression.  It honestly doesn't even matter whether or not that was the intention of the 2nd Amendment because very few people think everybody ought to have nukes or rocket launchers, so that point is moot to begin with.

[Nik1ab]

+1

[CasinoBit]

Americans are pretty horrible IMO, but then again, among all the countries America is like the alcoholic who took it upon himself to become the designated driver while all the other countries are alcoholics as well.

I point out the flaws in the U.S. not because I hate the U.S. but because I love the U.S.

[TheButterZone]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.

Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.

If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

BINGO!  I can't believe this is never part of the debate.  Guns are not at all a means of protection against an oppressive government in this day and age.  Nobody seems to want to point that out.  If you really care about the necessity of protecting yourself from oppressive governments, the argument you should be making is that everybody ought to be able to buy nukes, big bombs or at the very least anti-tank rocket launchers!  The whole argument about firearms simply is unrelated to the ability to protect one's self from oppression.  It honestly doesn't even matter whether or not that was the intention of the 2nd Amendment because very few people think everybody ought to have nukes or rocket launchers, so that point is moot to begin with.

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

[luv2drnkbr]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

[chmod755]

no boobies on tv

This is actually the most important point and will lead to the downfall of the system.

Indeed. No boobs on TV, but people are allowed to have guns = civil war!

[TheButterZone]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

[Badonkadonk]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

did you get dropped on you`re head when u where a child?

[TheButterZone]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

did you get dropped on you`re head when u where a child?

If that's the only way you can appreciate sarcasm and irony, sure I was.

[J603]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

You are not shooting down an ICBM with small arms. You are not shooting down a cruise missile with small arms. You cannot destroy an M1 Abrams with small arms. In fact, good luck destroying an Abrams with anything but another Abrams. And yes, you could kill the operators... If they open up the door and let you in. Otherwise they'll just laugh at your second amendment and tear you apart.

The only heavy weapon you could take would be a rocket launcher. But that's useless against any of the other things listed.

[alephi]

I think we'd all be better off if the USA was simply fenced off from the rest of the world so they couldn't fuck up other countries any more.  No need to invade, I don't see anything I particularly want there.

[tvbcof]

You are not shooting down an ICBM with small arms. You are not shooting down a cruise missile with small arms. You cannot destroy an M1 Abrams with small arms. In fact, good luck destroying an Abrams with anything but another Abrams. And yes, you could kill the operators... If they open up the door and let you in. Otherwise they'll just laugh at your second amendment and tear you apart.

The only heavy weapon you could take would be a rocket launcher. But that's useless against any of the other things listed.

In a scenario where there was hot citizen/government combat, most of the citizens would fall victim to some video game player operating a drone from half way across the country.  The poor guy with the peashooter would be just poof.  gone.  No idea or warning about what hit them.

The main strength that the 2nd provides in terms of a policy at this point is the alienation it would cause to attempt to take it away.  It would be very messy.  A lot of people are really attached to their guns.  I am, though not nearly so much as a lot of my friends and neighbors.  I see the high rates of gun ownership in my area as a key element in keeping confrontational crime to a surprisingly low level in a part of the country where we have 2 or 3 law enforcement personnel covering 1500 square miles and much poverty.

We have a relatively strong contingent of tweakers and various 'white trash' who occasionally use firearms in their tussles among themselves, but absent guns (which a lot of them cannot legally own anyway) they would just use some other utensil.  Usually they do anyway.  The vast majority of citizens are 'normals' and taking firearms from them would create very legitimate psychological and quality of life issues since they would feel much more vulnerable to threats, and not without good reason.

Probably the only way to get firearms out of the hands of the citizenry of the US at this point would be to implement a forced urbanization campaign as was attempted in Vietnam.  At that point a computer program could do the drone strikes with simple logic, and it would be safer doe to 'friend or foe' decisions which humans often fuck up.  I mean 'authorized' personnel would be in the non-urban zones from time to time working on resource exploitation, infrastructure maintenance, etc.

[TheButterZone]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

You are not shooting down an ICBM with small arms. You are not shooting down a cruise missile with small arms. You cannot destroy an M1 Abrams with small arms. In fact, good luck destroying an Abrams with anything but another Abrams. And yes, you could kill the operators... If they open up the door and let you in. Otherwise they'll just laugh at your second amendment and tear you apart.

The only heavy weapon you could take would be a rocket launcher. But that's useless against any of the other things listed.

Many seem to be implying all military and government and private contractors are traitors who will commit genocide without question, and that you can't get inside things (ETA: like tanks, and also "secure" facilities) from the outside.

Wrong, and wrong.

[luv2drnkbr]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

Ok well since you ARE that stupid, let me lay it out for you.  The more effective a weapon is, the less people required to use it and the less time it takes to use it in order to inflict damage.  The number of people and amount of time it takes to destroy a city with rocks is significantly higher than the manpower and effort required to do so with a nuke.  Thus, when the people have inferior weapons, the government can still exert control with far less effort and manpower, which negates the entire point of the people being able to resist tyranny with weaponry.

[tvbcof]

Many seem to be implying all military and government and private contractors are traitors who will commit genocide without question, and that you can't get inside things from the outside.

Wrong, and wrong.

Some people are capable and some are not.  We employ armies of mercenaries from all over the world and they have no qualms about murder for sport.  And we have a lot of people with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan who's brains are scrambled (literally and figuratively) to form a pool.

Ultimately no nation has ever had trouble finding manpower to commit atrocities domestically and the US would be no exception.  Even with appropriate indoctrination only a minority of citizen (and foreign-born mercenaries) would be capable so there needs to be a force multiplication factor but modern hardware and systems make that more possible now than probably at any time in the past.

Even though an armed citizenry is not an insurmountable problem for the imposition of martial law and what-not, it is still a nuisance and a complication.  Of the multitude of things I fool around with (cars, tractors, ladders, falling trees, etc) firearms are one of the least dangerous.  Simply put, they are simply not as big a problem as they are pumped up to be, and it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that one of the reasons for the anti-2nd amendment campaign is in anticipation of finding it desirable to control the population through more authoritarian means at some point on the horizon.

[TheButterZone]

What is referred to as "friendly fire" is not always just "oops, I hit a friendly", or "fuck yeah, I hit a 'friendly', because I am a traitor who loves betraying/killing people". It is quite possible that some incidents of "friendly fire" are committed by people who felt morally compelled to shoot friendlies to save innocents, but as the victor writes the history books, it is unlikely to learn of any who were justified in using violence when "the U.S. is always right" and anyone who disagrees is a "traitor" - if they even get any exposure at all and not just a rug-shuffling.

It's one thing to keep drone striking the fuck out of women, children, non-coms in the middle east, Pakistan, Yemen, but if I were a commander in the U.S., I'd be scared shitless that my subordinates would turn on me if I gave the order to do that in the U.S., because nationalism trumps "foreigners" and the "collateral damage" thereof. But, I guess that's why the CiC is trying to purge the ranks of anyone who would defy genocide orders, starting from the joint chiefs on down.

Think of the case of August Landmesser, albeit non-violent: http://twentytwowords.com/2012/02/13/a-lone-dockworker-refuses-to-raise-his-hand-in-the-nazi-salute-1936/ or stateside, KKK members who may have pointed arms against their own brothers in government, after coming to a place where they could not stand idly by the murder of non-whites.

[J603]

Utter tosh fallacy.

1) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers do not operate themselves, and the humans operating them are vulnerable to small arms, so they carry their own small arms 2) Nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are crew-served and nearly always collateral damage-causing weapons, which means they are not covered by the 2A for individual keep and bear. However, when the government takes the cold civil war hot, the 2A will no longer matter as a legal defense against categorical infringements against the right to self-defense. People will either use whatever weapon they have or can loot to defend innocent lives (regardless of whether it is crew-served or not), or evil will win.

Please please tell me that's a joke and that you really do understand the blaring fallacy with that argument.

Oh, you're right, nukes, big bombs, tanks, and rocket launchers are all fucking controlled by Skynet, not humans. Nevermind! /ignore

You are not shooting down an ICBM with small arms. You are not shooting down a cruise missile with small arms. You cannot destroy an M1 Abrams with small arms. In fact, good luck destroying an Abrams with anything but another Abrams. And yes, you could kill the operators... If they open up the door and let you in. Otherwise they'll just laugh at your second amendment and tear you apart.

The only heavy weapon you could take would be a rocket launcher. But that's useless against any of the other things listed.

Many seem to be implying all military and government and private contractors are traitors who will commit genocide without question, and that you can't get inside things from the outside.

Wrong, and wrong.

When did I imply that there would be a genocide? If there was a revolution, of course the government is going to fight back... It wouldn't be genocide, but they aren't going to send the rebels flowers and cookies.

And I assume that by the "inside things from the outside" you're talking about buying from contractors? Because contractors don't have access to the plans of the weapons they build most of the time. Instead each section of the factory has access to a small piece, and together they build the weapons or vehicles without knowing the entire blueprint.

[Rassah]

All you guys completely forgot one extremely important point: military stuff costs a shitton of money.

Even if it's just one guy who is able to operate a drone or a war machine, that drone/machine and the muscles and amp they fire cost a lot. That money has to come from somewhere.

A war requires the following cycle:

People have money > Government collects money through taxes > Money is given to soldiers and manufacturers of weapons/ammo > Repeat

If the government collecting money step is broken because people have small arms and shoot money collectors, the military will only be able to wage a war of vastly superior fire power until they run out of missiles and money to pay their soldiers. And no amount of tanks, drones, or nukes will be able to extract or create the wealth to fund them. All those things can do is destroy.

[jasinlee]

[crumbs]

All you guys completely forgot one extremely important point: military stuff costs a shitton of money.

Even if it's just one guy who is able to operate a drone or a war machine, that drone/machine and the muscles and amp they fire cost a lot. That money has to come from somewhere.

A war requires the following cycle:

People have money > Government collects money through taxes > Money is given to soldiers and manufacturers of weapons/ammo > Repeat

If the government collecting money step is broken because people have small arms and shoot money collectors, the military will only be able to wage a war of vastly superior fire power until they run out of missiles and money to pay their soldiers. And no amount of tanks, drones, or nukes will be able to extract or create the wealth to fund them. All those things can do is destroy.

There's a magical place where people do own small arms.   
It's called USA.
The lucky folks who live there don't shoot their tax men. 
Why not?
Because they mostly aren't batshit crazy is why.
Not even Walla Walla Washingtonians shoot their tax men.
Go figure.

[Rassah]

There's a magical place where people do own small arms.    
It's called USA.
The lucky folks who live there don't shoot their tax men.  
Why not?
Because they mostly aren't batshit crazy is why.

Huh... and here I thought it was because the folks who live there are not at war with their government. Silly me.

[tvbcof]

There's a magical place where people do own small arms.   
It's called USA.
The lucky folks who live there don't shoot their tax men. 
Why not?
Because they mostly aren't batshit crazy is why.
Not even Walla Walla Washingtonians shoot their tax men.
Go figure.

Humptulips Washington on the other hand...not so sure about those guys.

[Rassah]

There's a magical place where people do own small arms.   
It's called USA.
The lucky folks who live there don't shoot their tax men. 
Why not?
Because they mostly aren't batshit crazy is why.
Not even Walla Walla Washingtonians shoot their tax men.
Go figure.

Humptulips Washington on the other hand...not so sure about those guys.

I feel stupid, because I forgot that the magical place called USA only came into existence because batshit crazy folk started shooting their tax men.

[tvbcof]

I feel stupid, because I forgot that the magical place called USA only came into existence because batshit crazy folk started shooting their tax men.

Technically speaking, I think it was the king of England's tax men who were the target of irritated citizens ire.

But ascribing ownership where it does not fit is a common rhetorical trick which is fairly effective.  Like why is Snowden 'giving away our secrets' for instance.  I commonly hear that from people who I know with complete certainty are not the connected insiders who held the secret that there existed a truly extraordinary amount of domestic surveillance.

[Spendulus]

no boobies on tv

This is actually the most important point and will lead to the downfall of the system.

Indeed. No boobs on TV, but people are allowed to have guns = civil war!

You must not be watching the right TV.  Please fix this Very Important Problem and then return to this sick fuck of a conversation.

[Kyle91]

the only thing you hear about now in America is legalize weed, gay rights, and news about celebrities and how they got their new haircut today.

Sad

[J603]

the only thing you hear about now in America is legalize weed, gay rights, and news about celebrities and how they got their new haircut today.

Sad

Yeah why would civil rights be in the news? Who cares about such an insignificant thing as equality?

It's like when MLK was in the news. Why's he so famous?

[bernard75]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism

Blue stands for the most dangerous ones.

[J603]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism

Blue stands for the most dangerous ones.

Explain to me how Cuba (who supports FARC), Iran (who supports Hamas among others), and Syria (who murders its own people) are not sponsors of terrorism.

What terrorist group does the US sponsor?

[Damnsammit]

What terrorist group does the US sponsor?

The Republican Party

[Lethn]

What terrorist group does the US sponsor?

The Republican Party

. FBI

. NSA

. CIA

. IRS

. Airport Security

By the way, government intelligence agencies are essentially legalised terrorist organisations and if you really believe they aren't after all the leaks lately you've got to get help.

[DumbFruit]

Hi American here I just wanted to clear some stuff up,

1.) Most people here are not religious fundamentalists. Most people claim to believe in "a god", but their god's traits and personality conveniently happen to form fit to the bearer of said beliefs.
This is how it goes down pretty much; One person argues his bible says this and such, the other disagrees, takes a black pen, and blacks out that line from the bible, and the other one does likewise until they both have a bible they're comfortable with. Which ends up being a few lines like,
"“You shall not commit adultery [if your marriage isn't working out. I mean, who are we to judge?]." Exodus 20:14
 
"You shall not [can] lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination [no big deal]." Leviticus 18:22

“'Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?'” -Pharisee's

 “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. [And what's wrong with eating with tax collectors? They're totally cool with me.]” -Jesus
Mark 2:13-17

2.) I didn't have any fluoride in my water, and I'm... An anarcho-capitalist... on bitcointalk... Totally unrelated, SHUT YOUR FACE HOLE.

3.) No one can stop anyone from marrying anybody or anything anywhere for whatever reason. The real debate, though nobody realizes it, is whether or not people should get tax breaks for their personal relationships.
On the one hand less taxes for the government is awesome, on the other hand, is it really ok for the government to sanction certain relationships over others?

I say either let everybody put their spouse down whether it's a man(s), woman(s), or goat, or else get rid of government endorsed marriage altogether. (Against straight marriage!!!)

4.) Your government sucks too. You're seriously delusional if you think you're government has all of your best interests at heart and isn't intrinsically a morally bankrupt institution like every other government (including the US government.)

5.) Education is totally overrated. For the most part it's not necessary. Get rid of all publicly funded education and let the free market market decide what kind of education is needed. Could be more, could be less. I don't particularly care if we're #1, or #543.

6.) Attrition is the best way to beat any larger force. When you have a gigantic army that you move into a hostile environment you have to maintain supply lines. Fuel, ammunition, tanks, helicopters, jets, and bombs. That's expensive! A cleverly run guerrilla warfare at home can make it so economically costly and demoralizing that an invading army just can't keep it going for more than a few years unless they just want to out and out commit genocide on the entire United States.
Look at how Che Guevara took Cuba, or the Vietnam war, or the revolutionary war.

That said, having an armed populace is very very important. People always say civilian weapon's are useless against an army, but it's just. not. true. There's a reason why Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all favored a disarmed general population (Particularly targeting political opponents.), and it's not hard to see why!


http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

[J603]

Hi American here I just wanted to clear some stuff up,

5.) Education is totally overrated. For the most part it's not necessary. Get rid of all publicly funded education and let the free market market decide what kind of education is needed. Could be more, could be less. I don't particularly care if we're #1, or #543.

Other American here, most of us do believe in education. I do care if we're #1 or #543, because there are only 196 countries.

[DumbFruit]

Holy crap, he's on to me, I just made up that number. Welp, it's time go into hiding.

[xanto]

Oh wow, no boobies on TV?! I will never visit America!

[DumbFruit]

Oh wow, no boobies on TV?! I will never visit America!

I just draw boobies on the screen...

[jasinlee]

Hi American here I just wanted to clear some stuff up,

5.) Education is totally overrated. For the most part it's not necessary. Get rid of all publicly funded education and let the free market market decide what kind of education is needed. Could be more, could be less. I don't particularly care if we're #1, or #543.

Other American here, most of us do believe in education. I do care if we're #1 or #543, because there are only 196 countries.

Lmao awesome.

I would just have my wife stand behind the tv stand and put them on top of it. Does that count?

[PrintMule]

4.) Your government sucks too. You're seriously delusional if you think you're government has all of your best interests at heart and isn't intrinsically a morally bankrupt institution like every other government (including the US government.)

The only difference being, that any action US government takes kinda affects every other government in the world.

Hi American here I just wanted to clear some stuff up,
5.) Education is totally overrated. For the most part it's not necessary. Get rid of all publicly funded education and let the free market market decide what kind of education is needed. Could be more, could be less. I don't particularly care if we're #1, or #543.

Other American here, most of us do believe in education. I do care if we're #1 or #543, because there are only 196 countries.

There are 3 kinds of people: ones that can count and ones that cannot.

[xanto]

Oh wow, no boobies on TV?! I will never visit America!

I just draw boobies on the screen...

Isn't that illegal?

[J603]

Holy crap, he's on to me, I just made up that number. Welp, it's time go into hiding.

Well, you proved your point that you don't care about education, that's for sure. But maybe you should care, since I didn't have to make up that number or look it up.

[DumbFruit]

Isn't that illegal?

Only when I do it at the TV store.

But maybe you should care, since I didn't have to make up that number or look it up.

Wow!
I bet when you put that on your resumé, your employer was very impressed.

[J603]

Isn't that illegal?

Only when I do it at the TV store.

But maybe you should care, since I didn't have to make up that number or look it up.

Wow!
I bet when you put that on your resume, your employer was very impressed.

DumbFruit's Resume

Name: DumbFruit
Education: Doesn't matter

Don't say what Americans believe when you aren't even right. Most Americans do believe in education, and it is a minority that don't.

http://www.publicagenda.org/press-releases/index.php?qid=27
http://pdkintl.org/programs-resources/poll/

[DumbFruit]

DumbFruit's Resume
Name: DumbFruit
Education: Doesn't matter

Yep, word for word.

Don't say what Americans believe when you aren't even right. Most Americans do believe in education, and it is a minority that don't.

http://www.publicagenda.org/press-releases/index.php?qid=27
http://pdkintl.org/programs-resources/poll/

With the public education system shoving "education is important" down your throat year after year for a decade, and public school teachers showing us how much more money people make with degree's, and telling us how high school is just to prepare us for college, it's a wonder that anyone in the United States has enough critical thinking skills to say that maybe "education" isn't the most important thing in the world. I mean, those kind of people must be like the top of the top, the one's with the biggest brains and dongs, and get all the girls. They must be intellectual giants, raining down brilliant insights and critiques upon their inferior peers. Just out and out pretty cool guys.

But ya. If you want to see a subject in the United States that has propaganda, look at education.
Ever increasing subsidies, increasing attendance, increasing diplomas, and increasing salaries for college professors all because "education" is important.
Meanwhile we have increasing numbers of dropouts, increasing college debt, increasing tuition costs, and overall a less educated society for our efforts.
Why? So people can have pretty pieces of paper from fancy insitutions? (Much like discharge papers from an insane asylum.)

Why don't we just cut out the middle men and give everyone a Ph. D at birth?

See, the point is that diploma's and ancient centralized structures of learning are antiquated ideas that don't make adequate use of the technology we have available to us today. Getting information out to people isn't hard anymore. Lecture's aren't valuable when you have video camera's. Books aren't useful when you have the internet.

If you want to learn something, don't get an "education". Get a skill. Learn something you can actually improve the world with. You don't need a balding leftist troll in an ancient building telling you bullshit and charging you an arm and a leg to do that.

[PrintMule]

If you want to learn something, don't get an "education". Get a skill. Learn something you can actually improve the world with. You don't need a balding leftist troll in an ancient building telling you bullshit and charging you an arm and a leg to do that.

I agree that education system worldwide is rotten to the core: bribery, favorism, elitism, people paying for their degrees, horrendous pricing, crazy rules, bias all around, using students in any possible way imaginable. I have avoided going to any university because of that, and I am somewhat self-taught in the result of it.

BUT - you will never become a good (let's say)doctor without a balding leftist troll's help for example. Not all skills can be acquired that easy. There are good teachers and professors, whose job is to increase your learning process to the max.

I only wish there was a process like this: you learn (let's say) japanese on your own, at home. You go to the nearest university - pass a very complicated series of tests, pay ~200$, and if score is good enough - you get a diploma.

[J603]

If you want to learn something, don't get an "education". Get a skill. Learn something you can actually improve the world with. You don't need a balding leftist troll in an ancient building telling you bullshit and charging you an arm and a leg to do that.

Like what? What skill does not require education? Even hookers have to know how to count their money.

And by the way, there are specialized schools for almost any kind of job.

[DumbFruit]

Ya, but when people make those lists, they're doing it based off of "years in school", or do you know xyz (which could be totally irrelevant to their work.) which is why I don't care if we're #1 or #4,384.

Real jobs in the real world don't fit into a neat educational hierarchy.

You go to the nearest university - pass a very complicated series of tests, pay ~200$, and if score is good enough - you get a diploma.

Tests that actually show that somebody knows some skill in particular are fantastic. We don't have enough of that.

[xanto]

Isn't that illegal?

Only when I do it at the TV store.

But maybe you should care, since I didn't have to make up that number or look it up.

Wow!
I bet when you put that on your resumé, your employer was very impressed.

Hmm... But what about the NSA? Will they allow it, I don't want to go to prison.

[J603]

I only wish there was a process like this: you learn (let's say) japanese on your own, at home. You go to the nearest university - pass a very complicated series of tests, pay ~200$, and if score is good enough - you get a diploma.

How would this process work with doctors? You can't learn medicine at home.

[PrintMule]

I only wish there was a process like this: you learn (let's say) japanese on your own, at home. You go to the nearest university - pass a very complicated series of tests, pay ~200$, and if score is good enough - you get a diploma.

How would this process work with doctors? You can't learn medicine at home.

It would not. There are certain skills that can and cannot be self taught at home.

[Rassah]

You can't learn a lot of things at home. One thing I learned from getting my "education" is that there are a whole lot of things that we simply don't know about without someone actually telling us that they exist and are relevant in the first place. You can't Google something if you don't even know what it's called. (Example, "markowitz efficient frontier." I wouldn't have even been able to begin to search for such a thing, let alone learn what goes into it, before a professor told us about it and why it was relevant to investments)

Uneducated people trying to convince themselves they don't need what they don't have?

[J603]

I only wish there was a process like this: you learn (let's say) japanese on your own, at home. You go to the nearest university - pass a very complicated series of tests, pay ~200$, and if score is good enough - you get a diploma.

How would this process work with doctors? You can't learn medicine at home.

It would not. There are certain skills that can and cannot be self taught at home.

So then isn't a formal education necessary? Even your Japanese example can't be learned solely from home. You can fire up the Rosetta Stone and "learn" the language but until you've actually been there you are not truly qualified to have a diploma based on the language.

[DumbFruit]

Hmm... But what about the NSA? Will they allow it, I don't want to go to prison.

Ask 'em.
Last time my conversation went like this;
-Call random middle east guy.
-"Hey Mr.NSA guy, may I draw boobies on my TV here?"
-"Haha, ya."
- I whip out my whiteout. (Not my penis, you're so immature.)
-"Ahright... And nipple there... Round that like so. Awesome."
(It was so good that every man, and some women, instantly got an erection. The headline in the paper the next week said, "Men get boners." to which Miley Cyrus remarked, "I already knew that.")
Anyway...
-*snickering on the other line* "Did  you do it?"
-"Ya."
-"Take a picture."
- I send the picture to Mr. Random Middle East guy.
- Mr.NSA Guy is laughing, says,"Hey Steve come see this.". Middle eastern guy is yelling some weird stuff on the other end. (They don't speak English in the Middle East right? If they do, their accent is HORRIBLE.)

Anywho, that's how that works here in 'Merica.


As for the whole education thing, maybe I can do a thought experiment. (SCIENCE!)

So we have two societies, in the one society no one is allowed to teach anyone anything. No instruction manuals, anywhere. People might get jobs based on their aptitude for learning, but that's it.

In the other society, everyone has to get a PHD in every job they do regardless of what it is. PHD's in burger flipping, PHD's in hotel room cleaning, etc.

In the first society, we have problems. Whenever someone dies or is replaced either someone that's already worked at that job (or a similar job) needs to be found, or else a total noobie needs to be hired.
Needless to say expanding a business is very difficult, and alot of the same mistakes tend to happen over and over again unless the process is made "stupid proof". (Idiot lights, red tape, auto-shutoff etc.)

In the second society everyone that wants to get into any job needs to have about 16 years of education. By the time a person is hired at the local Hotel, the employee has done an Electron spectroscopy on 20 different types of soap, knows several different ways to wipe off a table (and their scientific name), and at least several dozen ways to fold a towel.
Obviously, this society also has problems that they would have to overcome. The sheer amount of teachers and schools needed would be staggering. Every person from fetus to 24 would be removed from the workforce, and at least 1 more person per 20 would have to be allocated for their upraising and education. Much of the debt on many of these students would never be able to be paid off because the education they got does not translate into an equivalent increase to their productivity. (Lawn mowing, dishwashing, etc.)
There is also a huge lack of flexibility in the workforce. If a business wants to restructure it's virtually impossible.
Everything has to be planned essentially 6 years or so from completion to actually get workers for the relevant job.


While this thought experiment is gloriously silly it demonstrates one very important thing;
Somewhere between that first society and that second society is a line you cross, where more education translates into worse living conditions for the society as a whole.

Notice that in the second society everyone with a PHD gets a higher salary than those that don't have a PHD (Since people without a PHD can't get hired at all.) And that even when the educational system in this society is crushing it, teachers could still tell their students that getting a PHD benefits them.

So we can't just dumbly stand around chanting, "More education. More education. More education." because we always have to be cognizant of that line I demonstrated to you.

How do you "fix this"? You don't. The first society clearly demonstrates that there's a place for educational sources, but the free market can handle it. Cut out all the stupid subsidies, and let people decide what's best for them given the career choice they make. Not be suckered into thinking that everyone needs to get a Bachelors degree in some field or they're not hireable.

And when you look at the "rankings" of educations by country, it's not necessarily the case that the more educated society is better off. They very well could have crossed that line into "too educated".

EDIT:
TLDR:
Knock knock
Who's there
Door says, "NSA"

No education stops technological progress, too much education stops capital accumulation. Somewhere there is a line YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
Free people acting in a free market can decide where that line is.
Don't worry about the stupid "education rankings".

Edit 2: Also, boners were mentioned.

[Damnsammit]

How would this process work with doctors? You can't learn medicine at home.

You can learn biology, A&P, and medical skills (IE: how to draw blood, insert a catheter, indicators, contraindicators, dx, rx, etc) at home.

You don't get the actual hands-on until medical school.  Good luck getting into one of those without a fancy degree from a University.

I learned more at my job than I ever did at the University where I got my degree... but my work said they wanted to pay me more if I got one of those pieces of papers that says I am smarter than the average bear.

[J603]

How would this process work with doctors? You can't learn medicine at home.

You can learn biology, A&P, and medical skills (IE: how to draw blood, insert a catheter, indicators, contraindicators, dx, rx, etc) at home.

You don't get the actual hands-on until medical school.  Good luck getting into one of those fancy degrees from a University.

I learned more in my job than I ever did at the University where I got my degree... but my work said they wanted to pay me more if I got one of those pieces of papers that says I am smarter than the average bear.

I would not allow a doctor who learned from home to operate on me. I work for a medical credentialing company, so I can say that formal education is actually very important. You'd never visit a doctor again if you knew how many have made up educations, or haven't even got their license. There have been people that have applied who are about as good a doctor as you or I.

[Mike Christ]

You can't learn a lot of things at home. One thing I learned from getting my "education" is that there are a whole lot of things that we simply don't know about without someone actually telling us that they exist and are relevant in the first place. You can't Google something if you don't even know what it's called. (Example, "markowitz efficient frontier." I wouldn't have even been able to begin to search for such a thing, let alone learn what goes into it, before a professor told us about it and why it was relevant to investments)

Uneducated people trying to convince themselves they don't need what they don't have?

But this is one example of how people learn about things they previously did not know about; I don't know, nor have I ever heard of, a markowitz efficient frontier, but through a method outside of education, this time through discourse, I have learned what it is so that I may then research it (and I don't understand it, since I don't have any knowledge of finance )  Another example of learning without formal education; I know what a function is, though I'd never heard of it used this way outside of School House Rock, because I first decided I wanted to know how to program (and consequently found a book on C++ at my city library); I learned what programming was by reading on Wikipedia how software was created; I knew what software was through general knowledge of computers.  I never needed a school to tell me what a function was before I could know it existed (and I wouldn't have cared before I even understood what an IDE or a variable was, at that); likewise, if people are interested in finance, they'll stumble upon such concepts as you mentioned the more they learn about them.  If someone invented it, they likely, or someone else, wrote about it, for the professors themselves to ever know to teach it; school is not absolutely necessary to learn such things.  All people really need is a start, and there is never a short supply of knowledge from there, otherwise nobody would know of the concepts which did not exist in books or on the Internet, anywhere.  As proof this is not the case, I found this thing, showing us that the knowledge is freely available to anyone who cares to know about it.  To begin the road to this, I suppose someone would want to begin with an introduction to financing, else they'll stumble upon such a thing and not have any idea what it means, as was my case

[Damnsammit]

I would not allow a doctor who learned from home to operate on me. I work for a medical credentialing company, so I can say that formal education is actually very important. You'd never visit a doctor again if you knew how many have made up educations, or haven't even got their license. There have been people that have applied who are about as good a doctor as you or I.

Who cares where they learned?  All doctors start somewhere.  There are either doctors with experience (let's call them "residents") and doctors with zero experience (let's call them "interns").   

I doubt most people would want an intern to operate on them.  However, if the doctor has experience and earned his residency, why would you care if he was a graduate from Harvard, University of Phoenix, or Basement Community College?  The experience earned during the actual internship is going to be much more important than which school they paid to read books at...

[DumbFruit]

My grandpa is a doctor. He owned his own clinic and practiced medicine for 30 years or something before going into psychiatry. He saved countless lives and did everything from consultation to surgery. (There wasn't alot of specialization when he was in the business.)
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is he told me when he first got into medicine he had no idea what he was doing. He went to medical school and was the top of his class, but he said that when he first started practicing he relied on the older nurses there for almost everything.
So experience is definitely irreplaceable.

But the other point is, doctors don't need to be perfect, and they don't even need to be the top of their class. Imagine if the government outlawed everything but Porsches. Sure, more people would get a Porsche, but most people just wouldn't have a car.
It's the same with doctors.

[Rassah]

if people are interested in finance, they'll stumble upon such concepts as you mentioned the more they learn about them.

I guess in essence, you can either stumble for years to learn on your own, or get a professional education and learn it all in two or four. Which reminds me of one of the most important lessons from Robert Kiosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" - you will always save money and time by hiring a professional than by doing it yourself.

[fritzthecat]

You guys strayed wide off topic again, the question remains: Why is the US raping the rest of the world and how long are they gonna take it.

[tvbcof]

My grandpa is a doctor. He owned his own clinic and practiced medicine for 30 years or something before going into psychiatry. He saved countless lives and did everything from consultation to surgery. (There wasn't alot of specialization when he was in the business.)
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is he told me when he first got into medicine he had no idea what he was doing. He went to medical school and was the top of his class, but he said that when he first started practicing he relied on the older nurses there for almost everything.
So experience is definitely irreplaceable.

But the other point is, doctors don't need to be perfect, and they don't even need to be the top of their class. Imagine if the government outlawed everything but Porsches. Sure, more people would get a Porsche, but most people just wouldn't have a car.
It's the same with doctors.

I was dog sick for weeks one time (in the military) and saw several doctors who prescribed some IVs to re-hydrate.  Eventually no doctor was around, but an LPN (or some such) was seeing patients.  They guy touched the back of my head and said "Mono.  Test him."  It took him less than 5 seconds to correctly diagnose the condition.  By that time I was just about over it so on my month of sick leave I was fine and had a great time.  I also lost 20 lbs and was able to max out the next PT test on the 2-mile run for that reason.

All else equal, I'd prefer an MD to someone without the formal education, and would prefer an engineer with a PhD to one without for software development, but experience is highly important which would weigh heavily.  Almost everyone I've ever worked with and undergrad from MIT or IIT have been outstanding engineers.  I would favor people from top rated institutions over probably any other factor for work that the institution specialized in.

Some of the best engineers I've worked with have had no degree at all or one in Anthropology or some such.  These people are often more creative and effective, but also often lack commitment and have short attention spans.  I think that possibly the biggest positive in having a degree is that it demonstrates that an individual has commitment and can be a reliable work-horse for the long haul.

[DumbFruit]

All else equal, I'd prefer an MD to someone without the formal education,

Me too! My point about education is that despite popular belief there can be "too much". People treat education like houses during the bubble, "Shovel as much money in as you want into this thing and you'll always get more out than you put in." Which is a fallacy. You may call it the "DumbFruit Fallacy" if you like.

A problem with enforcing some standard onto doctors is that we end up with a system where people can't get a doctor at all. So certify the heck out of them, and be judgemental and prudent, as long as it's in private hands I'm all for it.

I definitely agree that formal education can show serious persistence and dedication, but I'm critical of the... Wait a minute... That awkward moment when...

You guys strayed wide off topic again, the question remains: Why is the US raping the rest of the world and how long are they gonna take it.

The US is the biggest bully out here. As long as they're the biggest bully, they will bully the rest. As soon as they're not the biggest bully, the next biggest bully will be annoying.

People will put up with it as long as they're not hungry.

[Mike Christ]

if people are interested in finance, they'll stumble upon such concepts as you mentioned the more they learn about them.

I guess in essence, you can either stumble for years to learn on your own, or get a professional education and learn it all in two or four. Which reminds me of one of the most important lessons from Robert Kiosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" - you will always save money and time by hiring a professional than by doing it yourself.

Yes, this is true; a paid education will typically trump a non-paid education; the payment is mostly for having someone spend the time to ensure you're learning your skill properly, and it's much more likely you'll be successful in your studies than without.  Lets say, if you're going through 20 years of education, you would spend quite a lot of money hiring professionals to ensure you're learning properly.  However, if you spend one year learning how to teach yourself (perhaps with the help of a professional), you could then be a professional self-learner and would no longer have to spend money on educators.  In the case of the plumber, you may save money by hiring him than trying to solve the problem yourself; however, if you are consistently facing the problem of plumbing, more so than the average person, it would be wiser to spend the time to become the plumber, even an amateur, and solve the problem yourself; I believe this is a case of, selling a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish, for educators would be out of business if this was taught.  We know we'll spend most of our lives learning; should we not, instead of paying for the fish over the course of twenty years, simply learn how to fish in the first place and pocket the cash?  In the case of plumbing, I would much rather hire a professional, because I never have this problem often enough to bother trying to understand plumbing myself.  On the other hand, we spend nearly every day (some of us, anyway) learning new things; it seems, learning how to self-educate is the single skill that would be worth learning before all others, as it is the precursor of any skill we would like to learn.

You guys strayed wide off topic again, the question remains: Why is the US raping the rest of the world and how long are they gonna take it.

Why?  Because they have the power to, and they didn't accrue that power by being ethical and genuine; in the case of government, the end always justifies the means.  How long?  For as long as we, the people, allow it, or until other governments get tired of it.

[PrintMule]

US has too much troops and war machines too simply sit idle. Where would you put all those guys? And even if US would reduce army size by 50%, those troops will turn mercenaries/contractors and wage their own wars with the help of government lobbying. You do not simply say "ok guys, go home and be unemployed, cause only thing you can - is to run around with full equipment and shoot people, we do not need you anymore, ktnxbye".

[J603]

You guys strayed wide off topic again, the question remains: Why is the US raping the rest of the world and how long are they gonna take it.

The US is top-dog in the Anarchic hierarchy, of course. They are the world police, the biggest bully on the block, they have the biggest military and the most guns. Therefore, when negotiations and other formal niceties break down, they can just say "do what we say, or else!" The world is going to keep taking it until someone else becomes top-dog. The only other contenders I can think of right now are China, Russia, maybe some kind of revitalised British empire if they can get all those Commonwealth countries obediently onside. A couple of other possibilities: Spanish, French, Portuguese, or Japanese empires. As Germany demonstrated in the last century, they're all sleeping giants with no apparent interest in dominating the world, therefore anything can happen

Alternatively, instead of thinking about the world along country lines, we can focus on language and other aspects of culture. How do cultures develop and spread? People participate in them. They go there, live there, work there, speak the language, and make babies.In the XX century the US culture spread around the world for a variety of reasons, not just because of force. It has been running out of steam for a while so it'll change eventually.

New British Empire? I don't think so. The Commonwealth is a joke. It's more of a formality than an alliance. Maybe Canada and Australia would hop on board but I could never see India or Pakistan following the UK. Going against the US would also destroy its economy, as the US is its largest trading partner.

China will not go against the US because it would be economic suicide for both countries. The majority of their economy which has allowed them to become a relevant power is based on trade with the US. The US is the only trading partner with a bigger economy than China, so China would have a tough time finding a partner who can keep up with an economy of 1.3 billion people. Meanwhile the US will need to find another source of cheap labor, which may be fairly easy (India, perhaps?), but will certainly lead to a depression in the interim.

Russia simply is not powerful enough. It is a shadow of the USSR. If they couldn't keep their territories like Georgia and Chechnya under check how can they be expected to defeat the most powerful country on Earth?

Spain has one of the worst economies in Europe, so they have no chance whatsover.

France is doing well economy-wise but has not been a strong military power since WWI.

Portugal is irrelevant on the world stage.

Japan has no offensive military, so good luck to them.

Germany does control the EU, however they're too busy babysitting Greece, Spain, Italy and Cyprus to do anything. If they could turn the EU into something actually representing a "Union" they might be able to contend with the US. The EU is the largest economy, so were it to unify into one body it is possible for it to go against the US. The EU is also fairly self-sufficient, however until it shows that it can act as a unified body and not a bunch of squabbling second-rate nations it will never be able to contest US dominance.
Portugal

[PrintMule]

To me it seems that language is a huge factor here. It serves to bond people together, they share knowledge, and it also limits contact between different languages. Part of the US' dominance seems attributable to the fact that their main language is English (sort-of ) which allowed them to piggyback on the strength of Britain's earlier imperialism. All they really had to do was promise a nice environment to attract foreign scientists and entrepreneurs (freedom, New World, lack of world wars, etc) and they were all set.

Language and the fact that oil is traded for dollar, and dollar is the "world's currency", not bitcoin

But I must say,that I hope someday we all will speak one language. There are better and worse languages, technically speaking, I would choose between english as it's dominant already, or japanese, as it's very "practical and economical". If the whole world except USA would suddenly use some other language (russian, mandarin, you name it) it would certainly be fun to see how it has to keep up with the rest.

[Rassah]

To me it seems that language is a huge factor here. It serves to bond people together, they share knowledge, and it also limits contact between different languages. Part of the US' dominance seems attributable to the fact that their main language is English (sort-of ) which allowed them to piggyback on the strength of Britain's earlier imperialism. All they really had to do was promise a nice environment to attract foreign scientists and entrepreneurs (freedom, New World, lack of world wars, etc) and they were all set.

Language and the fact that oil is traded for dollar, and dollar is the "world's currency", not bitcoin

But I must say,that I hope someday we all will speak one language. There are better and worse languages, technically speaking, I would choose between english as it's dominant already, or japanese, as it's very "practical and economical". If the whole world except USA would suddenly use some other language (russian, mandarin, you name it) it would certainly be fun to see how it has to keep up with the rest.

I wonder what a programming language written in Japanese would look like?

[DumbFruit]

Ithkuil.

[Zaih]

It was fluoride all along... well fuck me

[J603]

To me it seems that language is a huge factor here. It serves to bond people together, they share knowledge, and it also limits contact between different languages. Part of the US' dominance seems attributable to the fact that their main language is English (sort-of ) which allowed them to piggyback on the strength of Britain's earlier imperialism. All they really had to do was promise a nice environment to attract foreign scientists and entrepreneurs (freedom, New World, lack of world wars, etc) and they were all set.

Language and the fact that oil is traded for dollar, and dollar is the "world's currency", not bitcoin

But I must say,that I hope someday we all will speak one language. There are better and worse languages, technically speaking, I would choose between english as it's dominant already, or japanese, as it's very "practical and economical". If the whole world except USA would suddenly use some other language (russian, mandarin, you name it) it would certainly be fun to see how it has to keep up with the rest.

I think it would make more sense to use a Cyrillic or Latin alphabet with arabic numerals than Japanese. Most Asian languages are hard to learn to write for non-natives.

My personal vote would go for Spanish, since it's easy to speak and is more orderly than English.

[bernard75]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

[J603]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887.

[bernard75]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887.

What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then.

[PrintMule]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887.

What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then.

In my school years, Esperanto was treated like a game of sorts, amongst nerds.

[J603]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887.

What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then.

I think it was most serious during WWII, when Stalin and Hitler thought it was such a threat that they sent Esperantists to the gulags or concentration camps.

And also, that other post I quoted inspired me starti lernas la lingvo.

[Mike Christ]

I wonder what a programming language written in Japanese would look like?

I know what it would be like in Chinese:

[domob]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887.

What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then.

I think it was most serious during WWII, when Stalin and Hitler thought it was such a threat that they sent Esperantists to the gulags or concentration camps.

And also, that other post I quoted inspired me starti lernas la lingvo.

I'm also all in favour of Esperanto, although I see it more as an interesting experiment than something that really has a chance to win (at least not any longer).  The grammar is quite nice, though.   (And shouldn't it be "starti lerni la lingvon"?  But I've never really spoken any Esperanto, just read a bit.)

[J603]

The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.

Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887.

What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then.

I think it was most serious during WWII, when Stalin and Hitler thought it was such a threat that they sent Esperantists to the gulags or concentration camps.

And also, that other post I quoted inspired me starti lernas la lingvo.

I'm also all in favour of Esperanto, although I see it more as an interesting experiment than something that really has a chance to win (at least not any longer).  The grammar is quite nice, though.   (And shouldn't it be "starti lerni la lingvon"?  But I've never really spoken any Esperanto, just read a bit.)

At the time of that post, I had just started. I tried to say "inspired me to start learning the language", so I think that lernas could be correct. But the lack of n was definitely wrong, so thanks.

While I don't see it ever becoming a major language, I do think it's cool because it follows set rules. However, I think the language is ugly as hell. It looks like a mixture of Hungarian, Spanish, and Russian written phonetically.