• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Restoring The Republic

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
The truth is the truth whether we like it or not.

There are no universal truths known to man. However, we all have our personal truths, which may - or may not - be accepted by anybody else... and they don't have to be accepted by anybody else. They can be uniquely our truth, and still be "right" for the individual believer. Or, it can be a shared truth (mainstream religions are based upon that principle - but that may just be MY personal truth). Pax...
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There are no universal truths known to man.

You're joking, right? 1+1=2 is a universal truth. Put H2 and O2 in a chamber under standard day conditions with twice the molality of H2 as O2 and give it a spark, and you WILL witness an explosion. That, too, is a universal truth.

There are many more universal truths, but one thing does appear to be certain: The more complex the conditions, the less likely is the outcome. For example, one cannot say "if you commit a crime you will go to jail," and thus, that's not a universal truth. However, one can say "there's a good chance you will be caught."

Another universal truth is that given two otherwise identical and sizable U.S. populations, one armed and one disarmed, the disarmed population will have a higher crime rate.
 
Last edited:

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
so, is it truth, or not for the following; "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" ?

Okay, listening to this guy ... wow ... im sorry guys but this guy ... is a nut case, an opinionated nut case. and thats just from 8 minutes into the video ...

So because a book says that a one world government is a bad thing, that MAKES IT a bad thing, yes? Sigh...
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
The simple truth is that a one world government would be a good thing.....if it were a one world government in Ron Paul's world.

It isn't a good idea for us to have one government among the States, having such for the world would be catastrophic no matter who was in charge.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
It isn't a good idea for us to have one government among the States, having such for the world would be catastrophic no matter who was in charge.

How about United Earth? or the Federation? Those worked well in the books, movies, and shows of star trek.

Why, even in the Enterprise series, the first episode, Broken Bow part 1, a corn farmer shot a Klingon with a phaser shotgun, which suggests gun rights prevailed into the 23rd century. And that was during United Earth's government under the strict guidance of the Vulcans who can be seen as anti-gun.

<3
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
How about United Earth? or the Federation? Those worked well in the books, movies, and shows of star trek.

Why, even in the Enterprise series, the first episode, Broken Bow part 1, a corn farmer shot a Klingon with a phaser shotgun, which suggests gun rights prevailed into the 23rd century. And that was during United Earth's government under the strict guidance of the Vulcans who can be seen as anti-gun.

<3

No thanks, that is fiction. Even having a federal government has been detrimental to liberty, anything larger will be worse. Why do you want dictators or sheep of another land to have power over your liberty?
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
No thanks, that is fiction. Even having a federal government has been detrimental to liberty, anything larger will be worse. Why do you want dictators or sheep of another land to have power over your liberty?

Because no man is an island. If a city walls itself in from the outside world, it may turn out good for a decade or to, but eventually, things tear apart at the seems, strife, disputes, it becomes a cesspool. That arguement is the same that kept City-states going for hundreds of years in ancient times. But then a string of historic events brought them all together, under one uniform system, which prevailed and worked.

So, it's a bad thing to even consider letting someone with new ideas, with a different opinion, with a different view, to come in and share those, and help give life to an old idea, right?

Ya know, just because the star trek franchise is purely an act of fiction, it does bring good morales and a more keen idea into human thinking. When people isolate themselves from another, the group of people, mentally and genetically become stagnant, with little or no growth.

I'm all for the constitution, but im not extreme in those ideals, i welcome new ideas for a stronger future.

Look at the European Union, seperately, Euopes economy was stagnating, striffed with war and rivalries between each other, each country had the same line of thought, germans didnt want to be ruled by french, brittish didnt want to be ruled by italians. But each country, and their people worked past prejudice, and all united for the betterment of humanity. Now their laws are not perfect, no law is perfect, our own constitution isnt perfect. But the point is, the PEOPLE are united and stand hand and hand with each other, no matter the region, province, or country, their all europeans, their technology excells beyond that of Russia, China, or the USA. Because they share everything, rewards, and even poverty.

A united government isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Its the people behind it that can hurt the whole picture. Our federal government isn't a bad thing, its the people BEHIND it, that gives it a bad name. And states' governments are the same.

If someone argues for non-federalist government, to give powers back to the states, then what is keeping people form saying that power should rest amongst the various counties and cities, and try and dissolve the state government? Then what after that? a return to 13th century fuedal politics? Would you really want to have 50 individual countries? What of land locked states? at the mercy of the states of trade along oceans.

Christ, all it takes is a little thought into what you stand for, dont just go off saying something is bad without considering the entire picture.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The simple truth is that a one world government would be a good thing.....if it were a one world government in Ron Paul's world.

Not. Even the best of governments grow corrupt over time. The corruption leads to weakness, before strong governments overtake them. If we had just one government, purging the Earth of the corrupt government would be very difficult if the only option was from the inside out with no help from others.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Because no man is an island. If a city walls itself in from the outside world, it may turn out good for a decade or to, but eventually, things tear apart at the seems, strife, disputes, it becomes a cesspool. That arguement is the same that kept City-states going for hundreds of years in ancient times. But then a string of historic events brought them all together, under one uniform system, which prevailed and worked.

So, it's a bad thing to even consider letting someone with new ideas, with a different opinion, with a different view, to come in and share those, and help give life to an old idea, right?

Ya know, just because the star trek franchise is purely an act of fiction, it does bring good morales and a more keen idea into human thinking. When people isolate themselves from another, the group of people, mentally and genetically become stagnant, with little or no growth.

I'm all for the constitution, but im not extreme in those ideals, i welcome new ideas for a stronger future.

Look at the European Union, seperately, Euopes economy was stagnating, striffed with war and rivalries between each other, each country had the same line of thought, germans didnt want to be ruled by french, brittish didnt want to be ruled by italians. But each country, and their people worked past prejudice, and all united for the betterment of humanity. Now their laws are not perfect, no law is perfect, our own constitution isnt perfect. But the point is, the PEOPLE are united and stand hand and hand with each other, no matter the region, province, or country, their all europeans, their technology excells beyond that of Russia, China, or the USA. Because they share everything, rewards, and even poverty.

A united government isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Its the people behind it that can hurt the whole picture. Our federal government isn't a bad thing, its the people BEHIND it, that gives it a bad name. And states' governments are the same.

If someone argues for non-federalist government, to give powers back to the states, then what is keeping people form saying that power should rest amongst the various counties and cities, and try and dissolve the state government? Then what after that? a return to 13th century fuedal politics? Would you really want to have 50 individual countries? What of land locked states? at the mercy of the states of trade along oceans.

Christ, all it takes is a little thought into what you stand for, dont just go off saying something is bad without considering the entire picture.

I consider everything. I reject communism and socialism as I won't share in poverty, if it is from my own fault then it is my burden, if someone else is in poverty they should be productive and not be a parasite. The main problem with a single government is the same, but larger, problem we have with the federal government, it is hard to escape. With one world government there is no way to vote with ones feet against oppressive laws; or anything else. There is no economic, political or other lifeboat for when corruption brings the system down. A lack of competition with governments is as bad as a lack of competition in any other human endeavor. It would be like having the UAW in charge, expect massive unemployment.

Don't assume because I don't want an all powerful national or world government that I want the states to be completely individual. I like the constitutional system the founders set up with a federal republic, not a national top down democracy. Under the former the states could be different yet had just the right economic and political ties. Under the latter we have almost lost the ability to vote with our feet and every other right. This national system isn't working, therefore it won't work when made larger.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
You're joking, right? 1+1=2 is a universal truth. Put H2 and O2 in a chamber under standard day conditions with twice the molality of H2 as O2 and give it a spark, and you WILL witness an explosion. That, too, is a universal truth.

There are many more universal truths, but one thing does appear to be certain: The more complex the conditions, the less likely is the outcome. For example, one cannot say "if you commit a crime you will go to jail," and thus, that's not a universal truth. However, one can say "there's a good chance you will be caught."

Another universal truth is that given two otherwise identical and sizable U.S. populations, one armed and one disarmed, the disarmed population will have a higher crime rate.

There are those propositions which are generally and widely accepted as being true, but given time they may be disproven. Or perhaps they, like Einstein's "Theory of Relativity", are accepted as truth only because they cannot (yet) be disproven.

As for your 1+1 example... 1+1 does not always equal 2. What most people assume to be self-evident rules of arithmetic -- valid at all times and for all purposes -- actually depend on what we define a number to be. In Boolean algebra 1+1=0 (carry the 1). Our only reference for the measurement or "truth" of anything in the universe is the value which we assign to it. A "statute mile" consists of 5,280 feet only because that is the value we have given to it. The freezing point of fresh water at sea level is 32ºF/0ºC - only because Daniel Fahrenheit gave it that value in the early-18th century, and we accept it as such. There is no universality in measurement.

Don't Bogart that doobie! ;) Pax...
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
There are those propositions which are generally and widely accepted as being true, but given time they may be disproven. Or perhaps they, like Einstein's "Theory of Relativity", are accepted as truth only because they cannot (yet) be disproven.

As for your 1+1 example... 1+1 does not always equal 2. What most people assume to be self-evident rules of arithmetic -- valid at all times and for all purposes -- actually depend on what we define a number to be. In Boolean algebra 1+1=0 (carry the 1). Our only reference for the measurement or "truth" of anything in the universe is the value which we assign to it. A "statute mile" consists of 5,280 feet only because that is the value we have given to it. The freezing point of fresh water at sea level is 32ºF/0ºC - only because Daniel Fahrenheit gave it that value in the early-18th century, and we accept it as such. There is no universality in measurement.

Don't Bogart that doobie! ;) Pax...

Don't mean to be picky, but 1+1=1 in Boolean... the (+)plus sign is the "or" operator.

As it pertains to "truth"... REALITY is truth. It is our perception of reality that is suspect.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Don't mean to be picky, but 1+1=1 in Boolean... the (+)plus sign is the "or" operator.

As it pertains to "truth"... REALITY is truth. It is our perception of reality that is suspect.

You're absolutely right, georg! :shocker: I don't know what I was thinking... other than 1+1 didn't equal 2 in the 19th century world of George Boole, nor does it today in the 21st century world of computers.

My example was a zero (false). :uhoh: Well, maybe not a true 'false', but it was certainly inaccurate/erroneous. I hit the right target, just missed the bullseye! ;)

And, yes, we all have our own sense of what is 'real' as well. Pax...
 
Last edited:
Top