This is my philosophy - agree with it or no?

[Nietzsche]

You're responsible for 60 million deaths in WW2. Agreed.

You're being mean. National Socialism is a pretty Utopian lifestyle, ideology, religion, etc.

You're a nazi? An actual dyed in the wool nazi?

Excuse me, I must go take a bath in hydrochloric acid to get the complete & utter feeling of revulsion and filth removed from by being after having agreed with you on anything.

 

[Slaedi7324]

You stated in context, facts support the legend of Moses. I asked for sources to substantiate your position, you claim has substantiated proof.

So provide them.

In context; "Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha." I didn't say facts support legends. Claim dismissed.

Can you provide sources that substantiate this?

If Jews didn't exist, Hitler wouldn't have done what he did. They were responsible for a large part of his ideology. Look it up.

 

[Nietzsche]

In context; "Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha." I didn't say facts support legends. Claim dismissed. If Jews didn't exist, Hitler wouldn't have done what he did. They were responsible for a large part of his ideology. Look it up.

If Jews didn't exist world history would be so utterly, radically different that literally nothing we know of that has happened in the past 3-4 thousand years would have happened.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe that we should "reboot the world."

Every single human should unite to a One World Government, even force every human to one big landmass, one country.

And let them live in that one and only country, a new life.

A place where misconceptions, misinformations, false statements, lies, bigotry and racism aren't available.

Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha.

One impartial education system for everyone, not some, but everyone. Not just a few knows and the rest are stupid idiots, but we all know.

Religions that teach inaccurate things such as Earth is flat or 6,000 years old should be eradicated. Religions are only allowed as philosophies or religions that are not incompatible to the scientific world.

Just imagine, no Young Creationists, no evolution-deniers, no Holocaust-deniers, no white supremacists, no ignoramuses.

This is because there would be no parents that will teach the children. but teachers teaching children. And we aren't speaking about public-school level of a teacher, I believe that if we go by this New World Order, we can eventually be extremely intelligent at only the age of 8! What is usually known as a 9th grade, usually achieved at 16 years of age, could be achieved at a much younger age, probably at 8!

In order to make this happen, the child would be forced out of the family after 5 years old. He will live in one big state-owned institution with a new "family" (basically a boarding school with no possibility to ever meet your family again, and basically learn to live with your new family that will be with you until you're 25 and fully graduated).

University-level of teachers will teach children about various topics, without simplify it, at a relatively young age.

This will be because the children are not products of the culture and environment they are from, as well as parents. But instead, the products of schools, government teachings.

They won't hate, say, homosexuals because a book tell them to hate them, they will not resort to the same fallaciously, laughable, petty arguments that has been debunked countless of times.

If they hate it, they would be writing scientific documents on why they believe it is wrong, as neutral and scientific as possible. If it is accepted as fact, he's correct. If not, he should change his opinion to the correct one, if he refuses and secretly keep teaching this, he will get to jail, we don't need more believers of misinformation.

There will be no pathetic protests that are against something good.

Internet would most likely decay too, because taking a look at the YouTube comments makes me doubt my philosophy. People wouldn't learn, orally [I've heard that...]. But through credible sources [According to.., therefore...].

If a person wants to learn something, he shouldn't quote RationalWiki, Wikipedia or a YouTube video. But from something credible, such as a book by a renowned author, perhaps a scientist or a historian that accurately documents these, say, scientific or historic facts (the government will determine true educational books and partial propaganda).

Russia wouldn't teach one perspective and no other, America one, but no other and China from a third perspective, while ignoring the rest of the perspectives.

What is historical, thus subjective, will capture all of the perspectives, but strongly suggests to rely on what the book calls for the most plausible and substantiated perspective.

What is scientific, thus objectively impartial, shall capture only the true perspective and ignore the others that are false that some countries might be teaching.

It's basically eugenics of many kinds; no stupid people, no intellectually disabled people, no propaganda and no evil people (Theft? Execution. Rape? Execution, as well as the victim. Murder? Torture for 10 years until the last day where you will be executed, there will be no "lesser" punishment, if you violate the rules, you will face capital punishment. Even though, this seems too harsh, that's the effective way of a peaceful place where people are too scarred of doing crimes, because if they aren't caught, great for them, but they eventually will and then they will be executed.)

Things that can be achieved by observational breeding. If someone seems to be a danger for the civilized world, it will be executed. There will also be a children restriction, only 2 children. If more, all the children will be executed and the parents would be sterilized.

That is my philosophy. Every human living by one and same Government, with one perspective of the facts, not all the rest of the lies. Some would call it for a dictatorship, but I suppose, this would be a true utopia. A pacifist world.

Do you agree with my worldview? I know that the leaders of the country could eventually become corrupt, but if we imagine a theoretical leader that will never become corrupt nor his successors. What do you think then?

Good way to start a war.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please read this OP listed below. Then read the OP of this thread, and see if the contradictions become more clear for you.
Some of my ideas on various topics... | ReligiousForums.com
If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me.

I was speaking about accusations towards me, not the OP. Regarding the OP, I have doubts about POE status.

 

[outhouse]

I have doubts about POE status

I would agree, but having followed his post, there are to many contradictions from his muslim post, to take any of this serious.

I don't see the normal POE from entertainment value, but I do see a rhetorical methodology.

 

[outhouse]

If Jews didn't exist, Hitler wouldn't have done what he did.

So you blame Hitler for Japan invading the USA starting the war? and all those deaths can be held accountable to the Jewish religion?


And you see Hitler as being innocent because he had a credible job to do!!!!! WOW!

I don't think you represent the word philosophy very well.

 

[Levite]

I believe that we should "reboot the world."

Every single human should unite to a One World Government, even force every human to one big landmass, one country.

And let them live in that one and only country, a new life.

A place where misconceptions, misinformations, false statements, lies, bigotry and racism aren't available.

Only facts, historical facts, scientific facts and anything that is factual or substantiated proof supporting a legend, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha.

One impartial education system for everyone, not some, but everyone. Not just a few knows and the rest are stupid idiots, but we all know.

Religions that teach inaccurate things such as Earth is flat or 6,000 years old should be eradicated. Religions are only allowed as philosophies or religions that are not incompatible to the scientific world.

Just imagine, no Young Creationists, no evolution-deniers, no Holocaust-deniers, no white supremacists, no ignoramuses.

This is because there would be no parents that will teach the children. but teachers teaching children. And we aren't speaking about public-school level of a teacher, I believe that if we go by this New World Order, we can eventually be extremely intelligent at only the age of 8! What is usually known as a 9th grade, usually achieved at 16 years of age, could be achieved at a much younger age, probably at 8!

In order to make this happen, the child would be forced out of the family after 5 years old. He will live in one big state-owned institution with a new "family" (basically a boarding school with no possibility to ever meet your family again, and basically learn to live with your new family that will be with you until you're 25 and fully graduated).

University-level of teachers will teach children about various topics, without simplify it, at a relatively young age.

This will be because the children are not products of the culture and environment they are from, as well as parents. But instead, the products of schools, government teachings.

They won't hate, say, homosexuals because a book tell them to hate them, they will not resort to the same fallaciously, laughable, petty arguments that has been debunked countless of times.

If they hate it, they would be writing scientific documents on why they believe it is wrong, as neutral and scientific as possible. If it is accepted as fact, he's correct. If not, he should change his opinion to the correct one, if he refuses and secretly keep teaching this, he will get to jail, we don't need more believers of misinformation.

There will be no pathetic protests that are against something good.

Internet would most likely decay too, because taking a look at the YouTube comments makes me doubt my philosophy. People wouldn't learn, orally [I've heard that...]. But through credible sources [According to.., therefore...].

If a person wants to learn something, he shouldn't quote RationalWiki, Wikipedia or a YouTube video. But from something credible, such as a book by a renowned author, perhaps a scientist or a historian that accurately documents these, say, scientific or historic facts (the government will determine true educational books and partial propaganda).

Russia wouldn't teach one perspective and no other, America one, but no other and China from a third perspective, while ignoring the rest of the perspectives.

What is historical, thus subjective, will capture all of the perspectives, but strongly suggests to rely on what the book calls for the most plausible and substantiated perspective.

What is scientific, thus objectively impartial, shall capture only the true perspective and ignore the others that are false that some countries might be teaching.

It's basically eugenics of many kinds; no stupid people, no intellectually disabled people, no propaganda and no evil people (Theft? Execution. Rape? Execution, as well as the victim. Murder? Torture for 10 years until the last day where you will be executed, there will be no "lesser" punishment, if you violate the rules, you will face capital punishment. Even though, this seems too harsh, that's the effective way of a peaceful place where people are too scarred of doing crimes, because if they aren't caught, great for them, but they eventually will and then they will be executed.)

Things that can be achieved by observational breeding. If someone seems to be a danger for the civilized world, it will be executed. There will also be a children restriction, only 2 children. If more, all the children will be executed and the parents would be sterilized.

That is my philosophy. Every human living by one and same Government, with one perspective of the facts, not all the rest of the lies. Some would call it for a dictatorship, but I suppose, this would be a true utopia. A pacifist world.

Do you agree with my worldview? I know that the leaders of the country could eventually become corrupt, but if we imagine a theoretical leader that will never become corrupt nor his successors. What do you think then?

So, in place of the various and sundry ills of our world, you propose a massive, oppressive dictatorship.

That's not a utopia, that's a space station....

 

[Quintessence]

No. Because we lose wisdom that way. If all the great scientists just had shut up and never shared their opinions and knowledge, we would never progress to this point we are now.

Er... what? It seems that you did not understand what I said and need clarification, because this response doesn't follow from what I said. However, I'm really not sure how to make it any clearer that any attempt to homogenize human culture inevitably produces the very things you claim to dislike. Or is bigotry, intolerance, war, and oppression okay so long as it's you doing it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I believe that we should "reboot the world."

Every single human should unite to a One World Government, even force every human to one big landmass, one country.

Modern societies/nations tend to be situated along a continuum, with one end being those nations which value (and reflect this value in their laws) individual freedoms and limited government power, and those that value cooperation and a government that is more involved in more facets of life. There are problems with both sides. The extreme of one is anarchism. The extreme of the other seeks the kind of society you describe and ends up being totalitarian.

A place where misconceptions, misinformations, false statements, lies, bigotry and racism aren't available.

So...no humans?


If one believes that one is correct and one's worldview superior/accurate/best, it is natural to wish it shared by as many others in the world as is possible. I don't think anybody knows nearly enough for it to be a good thing that their belief-systems (whether religious, a science-based epistemology, moral, ethical, or what have you) be shared by all.

I believe that if we go by this New World Order, we can eventually be extremely intelligent at only the age of 8!

Aside from the research in developmental cognition that suggests this is impossible, every time any "New World Order" notion has gained any good amount of momentum the end result has been mostly tragedy. Even a socialist like Orwell recognized this and famously popularized two visions of the outcomes of such revolutions: 1984 and Animal Farm.

University-level of teachers will teach children about various topics, without simplify it, at a relatively young age.

University-level teachers are often bad teachers. They aren't trained to teach, they are trained to be experts. More importantly, a large part of education requires building on a foundation. The language of the sciences, mathematics, is not a bunch of topics that can simply be taught at some age. First because abstract mathematics (formal/symbolic logic, set theory, analysis, abstract algebra, etc.) and indeed formal reasoning itself is counter-intuitive for humans, but especially difficult for children. Second, because one can't learn multivariable calculus, probability, statistics, etc., without a firm foundation that requires years to impart.

But instead, the products of schools, government teachings.

I was never fond of the "Nazi youth" idea, regardless of whatever doctrine replaces "Nazi" in this government-sponsored indoctrination scenerio.

If a person wants to learn something, he shouldn't quote RationalWiki, Wikipedia or a YouTube video. But from something credible, such as a book by a renowned author, perhaps a scientist or a historian that accurately documents these, say, scientific or historic facts (the government will determine true educational books and partial propaganda).

That's not the best way to go about finding "credible sources" :
Tips & Tricks: How to find the science hiding behind sensationalism

Also, originally Wikipedia was going to have a kind of layer of "expert" overseers. It didn't work. However, once that was scrapped we obtained an easy, free source of massive amounts of information that is almost always as least as good as what would have been found in encyclopedias written by experts.

What is scientific, thus objectively impartial, shall capture only the true perspective and ignore the others that are false that some countries might be teaching.

"Science" is not objective nor impartial, because it is the work of scientists who are neither. Everybody has biases, and much research is about competition.

It's basically eugenics of many kinds; no stupid people, no intellectually disabled people, no propaganda and no evil people (Theft? Execution. Rape? Execution, as well as the victim. Murder? Torture for 10 years until the last day where you will be executed, there will be no "lesser" punishment, if you violate the rules, you will face capital punishment. Even though, this seems too harsh, that's the effective way of a peaceful place where people are too scarred of doing crimes, because if they aren't caught, great for them, but they eventually will and then they will be executed.)

So basically Nazi ideology but with some changes to who gets to live?

 

[Levite]

Modern societies/nations tend to be situated along a continuum, with one end being those nations which value (and reflect this value in their laws) individual freedoms and limited government power, and those that value cooperation and a government that is more involved in more facets of life. There are problems with both sides. The extreme of one is anarchism. The extreme of the other seeks the kind of society you describe and ends up being totalitarian.



So...no humans?


If one believes that one is correct and one's worldview superior/accurate/best, it is natural to wish it shared by as many others in the world as is possible. I don't think anybody knows nearly enough for it to be a good thing that their belief-systems (whether religious, a science-based epistemology, moral, ethical, or what have you) be shared by all.


Aside from the research in developmental cognition that suggests this is impossible, every time any "New World Order" notion has gained any good amount of momentum the end result has been mostly tragedy. Even a socialist like Orwell recognized this and famously popularized two visions of the outcomes of such revolutions: 1984 and Animal Farm.



University-level teachers are often bad teachers. They aren't trained to teach, they are trained to be experts. More importantly, a large part of education requires building on a foundation. The language of the sciences, mathematics, is not a bunch of topics that can simply be taught at some age. First because abstract mathematics (formal/symbolic logic, set theory, analysis, abstract algebra, etc.) and indeed formal reasoning itself is counter-intuitive for humans, but especially difficult for children. Second, because one can't learn multivariable calculus, probability, statistics, etc., without a firm foundation that requires years to impart.



I was never fond of the "Nazi youth" idea, regardless of whatever doctrine replaces "Nazi" in this government-sponsored indoctrination scenerio.



That's not the best way to go about finding "credible sources" :
Tips & Tricks: How to find the science hiding behind sensationalism

Also, originally Wikipedia was going to have a kind of layer of "expert" overseers. It didn't work. However, once that was scrapped we obtained an easy, free source of massive amounts of information that is almost always as least as good as what would have been found in encyclopedias written by experts.



"Science" is not objective nor impartial, because it is the work of scientists who are neither. Everybody has biases, and much research is about competition.



So basically Nazi ideology but with some changes to who gets to live?

I would like this several times, if I could.

 

[Augustus]

Modern societies/nations tend to be situated along a continuum, with one end being those nations which value (and reflect this value in their laws) individual freedoms and limited government power, and those that value cooperation and a government that is more involved in more facets of life. There are problems with both sides. The extreme of one is anarchism. The extreme of the other seeks the kind of society you describe and ends up being totalitarian.

There are (at least) 2 independent variables at play here 1) level of government involvement in society 2) whether rights are ultimately individual rights or collective/societal rights. So it is really a matrix rather than single continuum.

To illustrate, try to place Sweden and Dubai on a single line.

Makes a single world government even less plausible.

Aside from the research in developmental cognition that suggests this is impossible, every time any "New World Order" notion has gained any good amount of momentum the end result has been mostly tragedy. Even a socialist like Orwell recognized this and famously popularized two visions of the outcomes of such revolutions: 1984 and Animal Farm.

It's like trying to force people to have fun. If you try to force people to have fun you end up annoying them, if you try to force people to utopia you end up oppressing them to increasingly greater levels.

I was never fond of the "Nazi youth" idea, regardless of whatever doctrine replaces "Nazi" in this government-sponsored indoctrination scenario.

This exactly. What % of the world's population have a positive view of governments and politicians? Even if done in the most benevolent fashion possible, you can't trust governments a) to know what is best for people in the long run; and b) even if they did (which they don't), to be able to implement any programme effectively and in a way which benefits society.

"Science" is not objective nor impartial, because it is the work of scientists who are neither. Everybody has biases, and much research is about competition.

Also much of published 'science' is just plain wrong. Just look at 'scientific' views on race 100 years ago.

I actually hate the way the word science is used in discussions/debates (especially phrases like I'm pro-science or you're anti-science). Like there is any kind of parity between certain laws of physics, and 'scientific' trials of GMOs or medicines.

Scientific methods are very reliable in certain areas, and pretty unreliable in others, lumping everything together as 'science' helps obscure this vital distinction.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are (at least) 2 independent variables at play here 1) level of government involvement in society 2) whether rights are ultimately individual rights or collective/societal rights. So it is really a matrix rather than single continuum.

To illustrate, try to place Sweden and Dubai on a single line.

1) It isn't a matrix. To illustrate, use a coefficient matrix as a linear projection for points that are off a single line in some n-dimensional space and realize that if countries don't fall along a line or hyperplane we use matrices to place them there (or just learn basic matrix/linear algebra).
2) There are all kinds of parameters related to personal freedom and autonomy and the ways in which various different types and levels of government relate to both personal freedom and government involvement. One country can make it legal for any citizen to own firearms but forbid abortion and require businesses to be essentially state run while another can ban any ownership of firearms but legalize all drugs and while giving parents nearly absolute sovereignty over their children. The point is not that these factors are collinear or even that they are factors rather than clusters of variables that relate, but that rather the correlation between the tendencies/trends.

Scientific methods are very reliable in certain areas, and pretty unreliable in others, lumping everything together as 'science' helps obscure this vital distinction.

Very true. Like most of your post, IMO (and you present succinctly but poignantly a number of important issues).