TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Europe vs. USA
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Juhu, Yoepus. Welcome home!

thank you, remind me what we were arguing about again?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus thank you, remind me what we were arguing about again?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=3 ffs

Looking at that GDP figure for DC what strikes me as odd is that nobody has brought up the rampant homlessness and crime that occurs in DC every day its not a very nice place at all. The GDP means shit when the average american dies with a shitload of debt and there is no free health care. F*ck my fellow Americans for not paying attention to what the f*ck is really going on. I think our military should crawl on our knees backwards and apologize to every Iraqi citizen for the atrocities we've committed ala Braveheart. F*ck corporate America, f*ck big brother, i know i'm gettin the hell out as soon as possible or maybe I'll be lucky and get to watch it all burn down. Lets stop having this EU dicks are bigger than American dicks and vice versa pissing contest. More money doesn't equate to happiness its only chains to bind us into slavery to the machine.


oops didn't mean to swear so many times i'm just one pissed off human

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Thank god for Mississippi! [[[smoke]]]

Go ape!!!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=3 ffs

Yeah, that's basically it, Yoepus. But for your convenience, I have compiled a small list of what I would like you to comment on:

* You said gays are not treated badly in the US - have you come to your senses?

* You claimed the European social program is corrupt. Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as *a* program (each country has its own), please document your claim.

* How does "America has no nobility", logically entail that American society is not less tolerant than the European one? I'm very curious about this one

That would be it I guess, although from the look of it, other posters might have more issues for you to deal with.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Yeah, that's basically it, Yoepus. But for your convenience, I have compiled a small list of what I would like you to comment on:

Excellent! A summation, this will make my life just so much easier(proof to you we have a better life in the USA )

quote:

* You said gays are not treated badly in the US - have you come to your senses?

I've always had my senses.. well aside form the mustard thing.
Anyway I stand by gays aren't any worse or better treated in Europe than the USA. Surely Southern USA is no worse than Eastern Europe in this regard.

I'm suprised you haven't heard of a place called "California" - apparently Americans are very, very tolerant.

If by intolerant you mean that Americans when they say you're a "homo" do so to insult you, well then by golly I will have to agree with you that Americnas are intolerant to gays. However, I recall in Europe "homo" is also an insult. Get off your pedestal.

Your link :
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_lgbt

Applauds the USA for allowing Gays to marry (something many European countries do not allow!). It further applauds the Lawerence v. Texas case which through out sodomy as a crime on the Texas state law book.

The only valid concerns HRW raises are two:
Fist: Gays, Lesbians, and Transgender are made fun of in American schools.

Aside from the fact that there should be no transgender youths (sex change operations are illegal if you are under 18), from my own personal experience kids at school will make just as much fun of you for being gay as being stupid, fat, or in the band. I honestly believe they are making an issue out of nothing here.
However, you don't have to believe what I do as HRW clearly states the USA is doing something about this regardless in the article entitled "California Governor Appoints Deputy to Protect Gay and Lesbian Students"

Second: Gays can't serve in the military.

They can - they just can't say they are gay. Although admittedly funny ruling. It protects their right to privacy (the military can't ask them about sexual orientation) yet mantains age-old battle-proven techniques of a disciplined fighting force. Gays don't serve in the military for the same reason women don't serve with men. Its as simple as that. Again another non-issue IMHO.

But perhaps you can clarify to me what European army (I know its an oxymorong ) has gays in its military.

quote:

* You claimed the European social program is corrupt. Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as *a* program (each country has its own), please document your claim.

Sure did. And am I right in assuming you have claimed that they aren't corrupt ?

In all seriousness it is not the most corrupt system in the world (alla latin america) yet their are always new issues raised in it. I recall a London islamo-facist shiek was getting payed by the state to the tune of a good few a month despite the fact he should't have been getting any money because he had a well paying job.

Of course this differs from Country to Country in Europe just as it does from State to State in the USA.

I can claim the USA social program as being less corrupt simply because the size of the social program is not as large, therefore relatively assuming all else is equal the USA program will have less corruption in it.

quote:

* How does "America has no nobility", logically entail that American society is not less tolerant than the European one? I'm very curious about this one

Think about it for a second.
All men are created equal. Americans beleive in this right?

Then how come you have a certain title. Sir, Knight, Duke, von, Lord, these all place you from creation as unequal. These entitlements are herditary most often.

Therefore the framers of the constitution decided to do away with it - in the spirit of equality/'tolerance', accepting one man as an equal to another. Basing his 'title' on merit, not heridity.

This is a philosophical point - a debated and important point that helped to create and mold the USA into a tolerant accepting society by its dismisal of static titles. I believe it provided the USA with that engrained philosophy which provides it with the dynamics to adapt and accept all.


Its a philosophical argument - its bearing is only as much as you believe in ideas and cultures ability to shape a mind.

The point I was trying to make about nobility is that due to the fact that USA culture/society has placed a ban on titles it provided it with a dynamic structure to accept things on merit, not because how they are. It was in complete disagreement with the norms of Europe at the time - and even today.

quote:

That would be it I guess, although from the look of it, other posters might have more issues for you to deal with.

Lemme know if I missed something.

Well, let's see all these points...

1) Gays in the military

If I'm not mistaken, there was some ancient country who sent gay couples into battle. The logic behind it was that if one guy died, the other guy would get totally pissed and agressive, thus killing more enemies. So it might kinda be a good idea. Plus we get rid of all those gays

2) Corruption

By saying that a system is more corrupt because it is larger is partially correct, but that's totally irrelevant. The least corrupt system would then be the one that doesn't exist at all, and you can't tell me it's good not to have any social security whatsoever.

3) Nobility

The nobility is largely outdated and their titles are pretty much meaningless, so it's not really a relevant issue. Their duties and priviledges are nonexistant, except for serving the state protocol. Still, I'd abolish royal families if you ask me.

i still don't get it, how is the social security system of europe corrupt?

at least in sweden i don't know about any corruptation whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, let's see all these points... 1) Gays in the military If I'm not mistaken, there was some ancient country who sent gay couples into battle. The logic behind it was that if one guy died, the other guy would get totally pissed and agressive, thus killing more enemies. So it might kinda be a good idea. Plus we get rid of all those gays

Good idea, if the Spartans did it, hell why not the rest of the world?

I can already see you enjoying the showers in such an army Tito

quote:

2) Corruption By saying that a system is more corrupt because it is larger is partially correct, but that's totally irrelevant. The least corrupt system would then be the one that doesn't exist at all, and you can't tell me it's good not to have any social security whatsoever.

My inital corruption argument was a cheapshot/insult/joke on the Europeans. But thanks for bringing it into serious discussion

Anyhoo. I don't know how much the European system is or isn't corrupt. Guess we can go by that 'country is most corrupt' list that came out a few months ago. Then average the sum of all European nations and find out the diff.

But communisim - which was a complete social system - was quiet corrupt, and we have no argument with that. When we take the Eastern block into consideration and Italy - corruption is still rampant in government.

quote:

3) Nobility The nobility is largely outdated and their titles are pretty much meaningless, so it's not really a relevant issue. Their duties and priviledges are nonexistant, except for serving the state protocol. Still, I'd abolish royal families if you ask me.

You don't have to believe in it. I am sure that the nobility in Europe take a different view than you. Although Europe has been taught via the American example that a meritocracy is superior to an aristocracy, they still are tied down by the traditional ideals of aristocracy ingrained in their cultural psyche to some extent.

This point might help to explain each European nation's racial hegemony aspiration.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Good idea, if the Spartans did it, hell why not the rest of the world? I can already see you enjoying the showers in such an army Tito

Only if you'll be there to pick up my soap, dear

quote:

My inital corruption argument was a cheapshot/insult/joke on the Europeans. But thanks for bringing it into serious discussion Anyhoo. I don't know how much the European system is or isn't corrupt. Guess we can go by that 'country is most corrupt' list that came out a few months ago. Then average the sum of all European nations and find out the diff. But communisim - which was a complete social system - was quiet corrupt, and we have no argument with that. When we take the Eastern block into consideration and Italy - corruption is still rampant in government.

Such a shame that the greatest social system ever was brought down by corruption of its leaders

quote:

You don't have to believe in it. I am sure that the nobility in Europe take a different view than you. Although Europe has been taught via the American example that a meritocracy is superior to an aristocracy, they still are tied down by the traditional ideals of aristocracy ingrained in their cultural psyche to some extent. This point might help to explain each European nation's racial hegemony aspiration.

I guess you do have a point here. But as I've said, if there'll be a revolution destined to topple all those kings and nobles, I'll be joining right away.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I guess you do have a point here. But as I've said, if there'll be a revolution destined to topple all those kings and nobles, I'll be joining right away.

proof once more to the validity of my point

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I've always had my senses.. well aside form the mustard thing. Anyway I stand by gays aren't any worse or better treated in Europe than the USA. Surely Southern USA is no worse than Eastern Europe in this regard. ... If by intolerant you mean that Americans when they say you're a "homo" do so to insult you, well then by golly I will have to agree with you that Americnas are intolerant to gays. However, I recall in Europe "homo" is also an insult. Get off your pedestal.

You have missed the context: You claimed the US to "believe in the individual" - unlike Europe, whereas I have never claimed Europe to be a haven of liberty. You are the one who should defend that the US is *better* than Europe in this regard - and not its equal. For me, I can live with the two being percieved as being equal as I have not stated otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I'm suprised you haven't heard of a place called "California" - apparently Americans are very, very tolerant.

Yes, you can pick out a confined area and come to all manner of conclusions. In Denmark gays can marry as they please and pronography is legal - but that really doesn't allow me to state the same thing about the rest of Europe.
[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Aside from the fact that there should be no transgender youths (sex change operations are illegal if you are under 18)...

Side note: Transgendered people are not confined to transsexuals, but include crossdressers, transvestites, hermaphrodites etc. Even if you meant transsexual, that's also the term for someone who hasn't gone through operation yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Second: Gays can't serve in the military. They can - they just can't say they are gay. Although admittedly funny ruling. It protects their right to privacy (the military can't ask them about sexual orientation) yet mantains age-old battle-proven techniques of a disciplined fighting force. Gays don't serve in the military for the same reason women don't serve with men. Its as simple as that. Again another non-issue IMHO.

One wonders why they don't just throw the gay men in with the women and vice-versa

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus My inital corruption argument was a cheapshot/insult/joke on the Europeans.

Thanks for admitting it. It wasn't that hard was it

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I recall a London islamo-facist shiek was getting payed by the state to the tune of a good few a month despite the fact he should't have been getting any money because he had a well paying job.

This is not really the system being corrupted, is it? It's more of a case of it being exploited by leeches.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Think about it for a second. All men are created equal. Americans beleive in this right? Then how come you have a certain title. Sir, Knight, Duke, von, Lord, these all place you from creation as unequal. These entitlements are herditary most often. Therefore the framers of the constitution decided to do away with it - in the spirit of equality/'tolerance', accepting one man as an equal to another. Basing his 'title' on merit, not heridity. This is a philosophical point - a debated and important point that helped to create and mold the USA into a tolerant accepting society by its dismisal of static titles. I believe it provided the USA with that engrained philosophy which provides it with the dynamics to adapt and accept all. Its a philosophical argument - its bearing is only as much as you believe in ideas and cultures ability to shape a mind. The point I was trying to make about nobility is that due to the fact that USA culture/society has placed a ban on titles it provided it with a dynamic structure to accept things on merit, not because how they are. It was in complete disagreement with the norms of Europe at the time - and even today.

There are two worldly goods that can be inherited - status and property. In the US you have done away with aristocracy, as we have in Europe. In Europe we still have the titles, though, which as you say give some an a priori advantage over others.
On the other hand, in Europe we tax you to death when you inherit money or property in general, and thus prevent some from gaining an unfair advantage in life. Therefore, we can claim to be more "no less tolerant" than the US - following your own logic. Viva taxes!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic One wonders why they don't just throw the gay men in with the women and vice-versa

Probably because as soon as you'd throw in 2 gays in the same female regiment, they'd start screwing each other. I guess you could make small divisions consisting of 2 individuals (1 gay man and 1 lesbian woman) and insure they don't have contact with the others. Who knows, they might eventually switch back to being straight

^^^ LOL, I totally overlooked that aspect. So my idea wasn't that good after all. Maybe homosexuals can be used as spies? I hear spies work alone. They could move to other countries with the excuse that the US persecutes them

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.