User Tag List

View Poll Results: Your opinion about this

25. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am European and I am for it

    6 24.00%
  • I am European and I am against

    6 24.00%
  • I am not European and I am for it

    1 4.00%
  • I am not European and I am against it

    12 48.00%
First 345

Results 41 to 44 of 44

  1. #41
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    583 so/sp


    There is a problem, but I was facetiously exaggerating the magnitude. I thought that was obvious, but whatever.
    I took my chances with options that you are not joking.
    As I have said I don't think that this project/process is ment to succeed for sure.

    I just shake my head at the statement in bold. You do realize that economies scale, right? Europe's problem is a demographic problem (brought on by culture), not a population problem. Because there are so many social programs in Europe, workers are required to support the oldies. As the number of workers falls, and the number oldies rises, the burden on the workers increases. That's the problem. How much burden can they take? How much will they take?
    I don't think you thought this through.
    I know what I have said and it is linked to part about thinking outsde the box. My point is that there will be huge problem with this and that will push things thoward society that is highly mechanized to support the population.

    Define problem.
    I could say Global warming but then you would say that I have rich imagination.

    Some of the problems
    1. Global overpopulation
    2. Oil peak (this one can be solved)
    3. Collapse of marine eco-systems
    4. Deficit of infrastucture

    I disagree with your premises, since they are not proven. I also disagree with your conclusions based on those premises. Part of the problem for Europe is that people live so long.
    See above.

    Another premise that I don't believe to be true (there are lots of stupid people everywhere). However, I don't think either of us can prove our point, either way.
    True but I think that people don't understand some of the most basic facts they are good at doing their job but they have problems with the things that are out side of it and problems with the big picture.

    You're correct that there's a prison culture, but you're wrong on the source of the problem. The War on Drugs is a huge problem related to this issue.
    This means that USA has large problems with drugs?

    What are you talking about? Where do you get this information?
    You are doing fine when it comes to tehnology but you have problems when it comes to pure science.

    You're going to have to give specific here, because I don't think this is the case.
    The most known case was the case is with Cell reasrch. I don't know the english word for that kind if cells.
    On the other hand I ahve watched documentary how in the EU they ahve managed to grow healthy humans organs in cows.
    If needed we can go to greater depth here.

    Where do you get your information on the US?
    See above. If I have the right information US has much problems with health care and hoe to get it.
    Where I live when I get seriously sick I go to doctors and they "fix" for free.

    LOL, I think the information you have on the US is very flawed.
    This could come as a suprise to you.
    How many people on the south of the US and Mid-west are for the evolution.

    Without evolution you can not understand modern geology, without evolution and things that are linked to evolution you don't understand anything.

    Many mountains/places in the world are direct byproduct of biological evolution.
    I can defend my statement to greater degree if needed.

    Sorry Peguy I don't have the time for your arguments but you will get reply with time.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    That doesn't mean everyone can't default to their ethnic language. I think there's a difference between "one tongue" and a "common tongue".
    (I was speaking figuratively; You are correct of course)

  3. #43
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    583 so/sp


    Sorry for waiting so long but I simply did not have the time to give you any meaningful reply.

    Antisocial, I've been meaning to get back to this thread for some time, because there are more than enough issues raised that need a proper response.

    I will tell you right now that most of your case for the EU is rather weak when you scratch the surface. Concerning birth-rates and economics: you assume that technology will help off-set the imbalance between Europe and America. Of course you fail to take into account that older people are generally more resistant to newer technologies than younger people.

    Almost everything depends on how they are raised. Also this will not be debatable because that will not be a wish of the people it will be their need.
    My argument is that situation in Europe will be hard and that will drive society toward technology because that will be only way to do things right.
    Plus see above.

    So if Europe's population becomes more older, then chances are it's lead in technology will suffer a bit. Already there's more skepticism towards technology in Europe than in America.
    I don't agree with this there will be more then enough people to be scientists.
    EU today has a population of 480 million in the future it will probably have even more people. Plus education is more science friendly in Europe.

    Your understandings of post-industrial economics is rather flawed too. Hopefully I'll be able to get into more details about this.
    I will gladly see what you have to offer.

    Wrong! - Europe's growing waistline - Jun. 23, 2003

    Many parts of Europe have higher obesity rates than America. Already the average European is overweight and this is causing much concern among health officials throughout the EU.
    Well as your link says you have posted old information.
    First, I am not saying that there are not overweight Europeans.

    It is also important how much overweight are you. For example: where I live if you are 50% above your body mass people see you as fat pig.
    The fatest people that you can come upon are about 120kg=260IBS while in USA this people are far more common. There are even people that have 2 times that mass.

    Please explain this, especially since America still has one of the top university education systems in the world.
    This is true, universities but that universities do not protect you from advertising that is brainwashing population all the time.
    On the other hand Europe is trying to limit advertising on some ways.
    If I have the right information one of measures was to create day when TV will be without commercials.(that is actually the law in some countries)
    But European universities are not crap also.

    You seem to adhere to a general Malthusian perspective.

    Again, what exactly are you talking about?
    Prove me wrong.
    Everything suggests that some highly influential people in politics are against evolution so they have lunched the "intelligent design" thing.
    And in some parts of USA evolution is taboo topic.

    And then Europe would suffer a nuclear retaliation from the US, not least of which because Europe depends considerably upon American weapons systems for defense.
    Well my example was drastic. But my point was that USA must continue its scientific progress at all costs and yet there are forces that want to stop scientific progress because they think that some parts are amoral.
    Things you say about weapons were true but Europe is starting its own weapon production and as I have said it is in the process of forming forces that are not directly part of NATO.
    There are a lot of things that can be said here so I will leave it at this.

    No it isn't. I would like to see you demonstrate this.
    When it comes to modern geology I think that it is not compatible with the Bible. I could write an essay about this but I don't see the point in writing all of this. Please tell me why you think that they are compatible (if you really think this).

    The US is certainly going to face serious problems in the future. However, the EU problems are just as bad if not worse in many cases. So I would advise the EU to get off its high horse.
    I think that EU is not going to get off its high horse because project so far is too successful. The fact that EU can spread itself is one of the main reasons why it could be a succss in the end. Plus entire project is actually a plan of small countries but developed countries to become global superpower. The plan of those same countries that are uniting.

    Moving along. Antisocial I would sincerely like to hear your take on this:

    "The historical record also makes clear that even when states are comfortable enough with each other to allow high levels of economic interdependence to emerge, the resulting ties are no guarantor of lasting harmony. International communities knit together by their intergrated economies can unravel with surprising speed. Consider Europe during the decade prior to World War I. Trade and investment inside Europe were, in relation to the size of national economies, greater one hundred years ago than they are today. Germant was Britain's second-most-important trading partner (after the United States), and Britain was the top market for German exports. Lloyds of London was a leading insurer of the German ships that the Royal Navy would seek to sink if the two countries were to find themselves at war. Borders in the early 1900s were permeable. Europeans moved freely from country to country, without passports and without having to bother with border controls.

    Such intense levels of interdependence, however, did not avert Europe's rapid descent into World War I.
    Germany's bid for primacy and the geopolitical competition that followed had little trouble overwhelming the mutual interests resulting from economic integration. If economic interdependence could not save Europe from war in 1914, there is no compelling reason to be confident that globalization would do any better at preserving a stable peace today."
    --Charles Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-first Century pg.103

    So in other words, the situation we're seeing now in Europe is not new. If anything, it's a back to the future situation.

    According to your argument, the only real significant difference now is that the EU has a common currency, parliament, language supposedly(English). Do you really think that will all matter?
    Well have you been in Europe lately? Today there is almost no way that Germany will attack France or Poland because no one on this continent is really interested in war. They are far more interested in making continent very strong in economic sense. There are some radical groups and some politicians that live in the past but this is far from main stream.(on the big picture)
    As I see it, it is globalization that is actually the main force that is pushing idea of EU.
    That is because we are too weak as independent states.

    A common currency, parliament, and even language did not stop the Soviet Union from imploding. Nor did it help Yugoslavia. Nor did it stop the Austro-Hungarian Empire from breaking apart. Nor did it stop the American Civil War from occuring.
    This is true but all those states were created by "sword" while EU was created without a single shot. No one is conquered in the process so there are big chances that entire thing will stay stabile on the long run.

    And so instead they're ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels, not a fair trade.
    There are only three options: Washington, Moscow or Brussels.
    To tell you the truth I would choose Brussels any day.

    Only 1945-1990 history does. Before then(1870-1945) the major threat was Europe dominated by Germany. There's still concerns about that today, of an EU dominated by Germany.

    Although Russia has reasserted herself as a major power, it's nowhere near capable of dominating Europe completely. The only time Russia ever achieved that was after the Napoleonic Wars. That lasted until its defeat by England and France in the Crimean War(1850s).
    Only thing that matters here is recent history. The only thing that can cause real military threat to Europe is USA invasion (what is unlikely) and Russian nukes (what is unlikely).

    For starters, the EU is not a nation. At best it's a multinational association or federation.
    True, but I am arguing that it will not stay this way if current course continues. (That is the whole point of the thread)

    Not really. There's already much concern about how larger members will essentially dominate the agenda for the EU, leaving smaller members at their mercy. This will certainly play a role in causing deep divisions within the EU.
    I have said that the plan on the long run is to erase all those countries from the map. In the case you don't start to create one super state it is unavoidable that you will have problems like this one, unless you can find common enemy. So, this means that only realistic scenarios are Super state or total collapse.

    History saids otherwise. The Irish didn't loose their identity when they started speaking English. Nor did this happen with Ukrainians speaking Russian. Nor did African nations loose their sense of identity by speaking English, French, Dutch, etc. Nor did India by speaking English also(and English remained the official language of India untill the 1960s).

    If anything, it just means people express their identities in the new language. Yet throughout Europe there's been a considerable resurgence in the study of local languages and dialects as a way of expressing ones identity. Gaelic is making a comeback in Ireland for example.

    The irony of course being that the more different peoples become alike, there's often a greater obsession with what are called "small differences". This has been especially true with Europe when we look at the historical record.
    Again that is true. But in that time there was no globalization or computers.
    What means that situation is totally different today. Many European linguists are claiming that all languages are becoming so "polluted" with new words that they don't actually exist any more. Since new technology and new ways of doing things are more and more present the old language does not have the time to adept.

    Nationalism as we know it began in Europe at a time when European civilization was becoming more uniform. Just listen to these words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau from 1772:

    "Today, no matter what people may say, there are no longer any Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards, or even Englishmen; there are only Europeans. All have the same tastes, the same passions, the same manners, for no one has been shaped along national lines by peculiar institutions. All, in the same circumstances, will do the same things; all will call themselves unselfish, and be rascals; all will talk of the public welfare, and think only of themselves; all will praise moderation, and wish to be as rich as Croesus. They have no ambition but for luxury, they have no passion but for gold; sure that money will buy them all their hearts desire, they all are ready to sell themselves to the first bidder. What do they care what master they obey, under the laws of what state they live? Provided they can find money to steal and women to corrupt, they feel at home in any country."
    - Considerations on the Government of Poland

    Those words could easily have been written today, as is proven by your own posts in this thread.

    Once again you are too obsessed with the past.
    Let's take this way of looking at things.
    Look at the USA. How was USA created? It was created by Europeans from different countries who came to N. America.
    They didn't have the same language or culture plus there was no globalization and computers and yet they have merged into a nation that become the most powerful nation on Earth.
    So if that happened then and there I don't see the reason too think that it can't happen once again.

    The more uniform European civilization became, the more assertive(and sadly violent) nationalism became. As my one citation above showed, around the time of WWI there were no significant cultural differences between the European nations that would war with each other. This is even true with the recent conflicts in the Balkans, considering that Serbs and Croats both speak the same language.
    It is not true that Croats and Serbs speak the same language.
    Both languages have few versions of it. And some versions of both of them sound similar because of cultural influence and small territory in geographic sense.

    Nationalism is on the rise in much of Europe, largely as a reaction to the EU. Not just nationalism, but even subnationalism. There's been a growth in what many have termed "Ethnoregionalist" sentiments in many parts of Europe. The recent granting of Catalonia autonomy is just one example of this. We're also seeing this in Italy and Belgium.
    So if some region comes out of its country will that also mean that it will come out of EU as well? If they do their economy will collapse quite fast because they will need to change currency and they will lose many economic connections. Plus they will be surrounded by dominant neighbour that will in the end buy their entire industry once it bankrupts.
    You need to "destroy" few European countries at the same time to cause some real damage, what is unlikely.
    If the region doesn't come out of EU there is no actual problem on the long run.

    In the case you don't notice it, I am arguing that Europeans will cooperate or there will be no Europeans. We must cooperate because that is the only way to solve many problems.

    So the basic argument you've presented here doesn't really hold up when one examines the facts.
    Are you sure?

    The Constitution has been defeated in referendum after referendum; which is a sign that Europeans are having discontented feelings towards the EU.
    Just because some county refuses constitution that does not mean that idea is dead. Also EU is already working (more or less) as constitution says it should. Now the point is to put all of that on the paper.

    I'm against it because yes I'm against the destruction of particular cultural identities and the fact that the EU is built upon extremely flawed and unstable foundations, even in regards to Socio-political philosophy.
    I am for it because it looks like that is the only way to insure the progress of the continent.
    Which are those flawed Socio-political philosophies you speak of?

  4. #44


    Well Anti-Social, I appreciate your response. When I have time and energy I will give a proper response.

Similar Threads

  1. The United States... of Europe?
    By UniqueMixture in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 07:47 AM
  2. United States of America, 2012 Political Positions of Two Major Parties
    By Beargryllz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 08:16 PM
  3. Ideological Makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States
    By Jonny in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 01:11 AM
  4. United States of Tara
    By MrRandom in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-14-2010, 08:14 PM
  5. What Is The Future Of The United States?
    By highlander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 04:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO