CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't. I'm trying to encourage discussion and engagement with the idea. Frankly I don't support it, but I want to know why people do (and don't) from them directly.
I would guess it's thought that an amalgamised identity with centralised resources and power leads to less to fight over. The government is the government and nothing can challenge them, holds a monopoly of force with which it polices violence between members at all scales, and either assigns resources or plays the game of capitalism. I suppose it is expected that there are then no aliens as everyone becomes 'Earthling', and more co-operation given that the interest of the state becomes synonymous with the interest of 'humanity'.
Back to what you said at the beginning though, doesn't the visage of unity serve well enough for nations, cities, towns, etc.? Nationalism has at times and places been cohesive and compelling for example. Every military defense I would think proves that, where some will sacrifice their life to defend their country rather than live under foreign rule. Moreso in offense, where one risks ones life just to expand ones nation. There are less riskier ways to earn a living that they might have otherwise chosen, for those that choose.
my original point was not that the visage of unity serves well enough for nations, cities, and towns. my point was that unity is a visage and does not exist. also nations, cities, and towns do not exist.
your misidentification of philosophical positions and disinterest in engaging those who disagree with you is not at all convincing to anyone other than people who share in your misinformed disinterest.
In addition to being in your profile picture, "Nihilism" is the outlook you have previously claimed as your own. The kind of deconstruction you presented here is similar enough to your previous positions that a nihilism appears to continue to be an appropriate identification.
that deconstructionism is compatible with my nihilistic perspective does not entail that they are the same. there are deconstructionists who are not nihilists, for whom my deconstructionist position on globalism could be of interest. moreover, not everyone is so closed-minded to suppose that perspectives are uninteresting merely because they are different.
Deconstructionists are nihilistic, even when it's practitioners do not explicitly subscribe to nihilism. Even so, the rest of us know that words have meaning and information, though not physical, is real. Given that premise, the notion that categorized groupings and constructs are not real is merely a denial of the obvious. Such denials warrant little attention.
There could be no legitimate world government any time soon. The people of the world perceive too little in common to share a single form of government. The best we can do at this point is improve the standards and practices of the WTO. Commerce tends to foster peace between otherwise hostile people. It would all be different upon meeting an extraterrestrial species though. We would not see our differences as so different.
The people of the world perceive too little in common to share a single form of government.
Oh shut up with your irritating circular reasoning. They perceive too little in common precisely because of the nation-state system. The nation-state system and the perpetual class struggle created by capitalism. If you want to change people's attitudes and behaviours you need to change the environment they live in.
People's environments are shaped by their attitudes and behaviors. Their attitudes and behaviors are not solely a function of their environment, only partly. The class struggle narrative is not only overly narrow, it's wrong. But it works well to fire up ignorant rabble so there ya go.
People's environments are shaped by their attitudes and behaviors.
You are just absolutely retarded. One of the most fundamental rules of Darwinism is that life adapts to its environment. The environment doesn't adapt to life. Life adapts to the environment. Is that simple enough for you to grasp you impossibly stupid idiot?
In your world, Darwinism proves that humans don't alter their environment. Cool. I guess you can give up on altering the environment to change behavior, as you proposed a couple posts up.
You've just tried to turn Darwinism upside down, so don't pretend I'm the one of us that doesn't understand Darwinism you ridiculously stupid idiot.
humans don't alter their environment.
The word was not "alter". The word was "adapt" you utterly dishonest, thoroughly pointless waste of time. The environment does not adapt to life.
It is absolutely amazing how I can write something in the simplest possible terms, yet regardless of how easy it is to understand, you will always try to distort it into something completely different.
I don't comprehend why you use this site because you are not interested in debate. You just want to tell lies and misrepresent what other people say. Are you maybe just lonely?
What would you characterise as the environment 'adapting' to life?
Take: O2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise as a result of the introduction of plant life, which in turn starve plants but also give rise to animals that lower the levels down again to a new equilibrium. It's obviously a feedback loop, the environment changes to life and vice versa.
So what added nuance does 'adapt' have over 'alter', or more fundamentally, 'change', that fills in the gap here? It seems to be doing the heavy lifting in your argument.
And in the case of humans which have literally manufactured their own environment, all of physical, social, and ideological, that you espouse as opressive, how can you claim that humans are merely a product of their environment and unable to create their environment? The conclusion seems to disagree with its premise.
I would consider the differences between nations a positive aspect. When nations persecute their own, or more mundanely if you just disagree with your nations ideas, people can flee to other countries and seek better lives as according to their beliefs and principles.
You identify here that these differences are the source, the very reason why it's so difficult to create a unified globalist state. So, it would follow that the creation and maintainence of such a state may require enforced homogeneity. What do you do with those that reject it? Where do those people go to escape their opression? The current global system allows for this in part, either by revolution of escape. A unified state gives more power to the state with which to opress, and nowhere for the oppressed to go.
