• Welcome to the Zelda Sages Forums!

    The Zelda Sages Community Forums are a fun and easy way to interact with Zelda fans from around the globe. Our members also have access to exclusive members' only content. Register and/or log in now! Please note that user registration is currently disabled. If you would like to register please contact us.

The Official Zeldasages Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
animaldude said:
hmm... change is good...
Click to expand...
CHANGE IS BAD
People hate change.

Let me give you some examples from history:
Protestant countries and holy wars.
France after Napoleon (I think it was Napoleon).
Middle East and democracy.


Read Il Principe by Machiavelli.
 
yoyolll said:
Read Il Principe by Machiavelli.
Click to expand...
I have. Good read, good thoughts, but I must disagree, at least somewhat. It is not that change is bad, merely that people resist change. Change fosters growth and advancement at the price of personal stability and happiness. This is good for the system, but bad for the individual.

I say again. STALINISM =/= COMMUNISM.

STALINISM=BAD (in practice)
COMMUNISM=GOOD (in theory)

As for a working example of communism, the only one I can think of is in Star Trek. Now before you start puking on your computers or ranting about the underlying meaning and symbolism behind the series that puts the entire analogy out of context (yes, I mean you Bob) just listen for a second. The economy in Star Trek is based upon two things - the replicator and dilithium reactors. What this boils down to is that there is more than enough of everything to go around. Since all necessities are taken care of, the need for a job evaporates. What do you do then? With nothing to do, the average citizen gets bored. People therefore take jobs they enjoy, and work out of personal motivation. Some people take care of government bureaucracy and receive special privileges, but the vast majority of the population is involved in luxury-based occupations. Nobody needs to work, therefore nobody who doesn't want to work simply does. The rest of the population continues as per the norm, with simply careers they enjoy.
 
Hmm, this is getting a little rough.

1. If a planet was going to hit us in 100 years, we would definitely know about it.

2. Change is good when people need it. Change is bad when everyone is happy.

3.
Animaldude said:
hmm... change is good...
Click to expand...
Animaldude said:
Barack Obama has been preaching change and he's leading the democratic race right now.
Click to expand...
By the way, I thought you hated Obama. No you are sympathizing with him?
 
animaldude said:
So that all of society doesn't become communist and that all the progress of mankind doesnt go to waste.
Click to expand...

But if Communism doesn't work, the U.S. wouldn't have to do anything to stop it. Wouldn't it just collapse on its own?



animaldude said:
I was using him as an example as how people like change. His change is obviously horrible but he's gotten enough people to believe it's good.
Click to expand...

It depends on the situation that the general public's opinion on change varies. Example: Right now many people want change after having President George W. Bush in office for eight years. Your example is inaccurate because it is of a Democratic Party whose majority wants change, and also had its Democratic nominee frontrunners also wanting change. However if Obama were to win the election over John McCain (assuming those are the two presidential nominees) you would have a point. As Versac was saying, human beings throughout history have a tendency to resist change, but it is not unheard of when change happens.
 
Liriano, the Cold War was less about communism and more so "OMG we need to build bigger better nukes than the USSR!" We were not trying to really do anything but protect our own freedoms. The idea was that communist individuals would try to destroy the US government through fear and weapons. Besides, the Cold War was not really a war at all; it was more so than anything nothing more than an arms race.
 
webmasterbob said:
Liriano, the Cold War was less about communism and more so "OMG we need to build bigger better nukes than the USSR!" We were not trying to really do anything but protect our own freedoms. The idea was that communist individuals would try to destroy the US government through fear and weapons. Besides, the Cold War was not really a war at all; it was more so than anything nothing more than an arms race.
Click to expand...

Exactly the USSR was a communist nation, so if communism always fails, wouldn't communist nations fall?...wouldn't the USSR fall? If the USSR ceased to exist how would they use their nuclear weapons? I'm not saying I think communism always fails I'm just using someone else's logic to merely try to understand this concept.

And whether or not the Cold War was a "war" is irrelevent. Point being it was a series of events involving communism as well as "building nukes," building up our space programs, and other economic projects.
 
Liriano said:
Exactly the USSR was a communist nation, so if communism always fails, wouldn't communist nations fall?...wouldn't the USSR fall? If the USSR ceased to exist how would they use their nuclear weapons? I'm not saying I think communism always fails I'm just using someone else's logic to merely try to understand this concept.

And whether or not the Cold War was a "war" is irrelevent. Point being it was a series of events involving communism as well as "building nukes," building up our space programs, and other economic projects.
Click to expand...
The USSR was socialist fascist (basically communist with the exception of a dictator and ruling political party) and they did fall in 1991.
 
yoyolll said:
The USSR was socialist fascist (basically communist with the exception of a dictator and ruling political party) and they did fall in 1991.
Click to expand...

One of the major reasons the USSR fell was because of their economy, they spent to much money on their nuclear weapons, space programs, etc in order to keep pace with the U.S. If the U.S. had not been there competing with them, would the USSR have fallen?
 
Liriano said:
One of the major reasons the USSR fell was because of their economy, they spent to much money on their nuclear weapons, space programs, etc in order to keep pace with the U.S. If the U.S. had not been there competing with them, would the USSR have fallen?
Click to expand...
Yes, because people saw that the outside world was so much better and the leaders of the Soviet Union were treating them like crap. Everything was being censored and people were being mechanized.
 
yoyolll said:
Yes, because people saw that the outside world was so much better and the leaders of the Soviet Union were treating them like crap. Everything was being censored and people were being mechanized.
Click to expand...

Well they obviously saw that the outside world was better, but would they have done something? That's the real question. Fear keeps people in line and it takes courage for an individual or a group of individuals to lead a rebellion.
 
Liriano said:
Well they obviously saw that the outside world was better, but would they have done something? That's the real question. Fear keeps people in line and it takes courage for an individual or a group of individuals to lead a rebellion.
Click to expand...
Recall the Berlin Wall.
 
yoyolll said:
Recall the Berlin Wall.
Click to expand...

No, that was under different circumstances. Their economy was falling apart and with that their fear over the people. I'm talking about if there economy hadn't been falling apart and if the U.S. hadn't been competing with the Soviet Union.
 
Liriano said:
No, that was under different circumstances. Their economy was falling apart and with that their fear over the people. I'm talking about if there economy hadn't been falling apart and if the U.S. hadn't been competing with the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
People were afraid of their own country. Without a happy populace, any country will fall apart.

Take, for example, England's many revolutions, especially the one against Charles (the fifth?). He was silencing people, imprisoning people, cheating people. So they took down the government and set up a new one even though England's economy was doing good.

Also, all the crap Russia was put through with Czar Alexander II. He did such horrible things like freeing the slaves (serfs, whatever), setting up local governments, and allowing Russia to become more like Europe. So what happened? His people killed him.

The Soviet Union would not have lasted.
 
yoyolll said:
People were afraid of their own country. Without a happy populace, any country will fall apart.

Take, for example, England's many revolutions, especially the one against Charles (the fifth?). He was silencing people, imprisoning people, cheating people. So they took down the government and set up a new one even though England's economy was doing good.

Also, all the crap Russia was put through with Czar Alexander II. He did such horrible things like freeing the slaves (serfs, whatever), setting up local governments, and allowing Russia to become more like Europe. So what happened? His people killed him.

The Soviet Union would not have lasted.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from but I'm still not entirely sure that a country with an unhappy populace will always fall apart. We'll never know with the Soviet Union, due to the U.S. intervention, and the Soviet Union was the closest modern day example of a feared governmental superpower. I believe that it is possible and probable that revolutions will rise up with an unhappy populace, but even if they do, they could still be crushed and I don't think its fair to say that a country will always fall apart, just because its people are unhappy.
 
Liriano said:
I understand where you're coming from but I'm still not entirely sure that a country with an unhappy populace will always fall apart. We'll never know with the Soviet Union, due to the U.S. intervention, and the Soviet Union was the closest modern day example of a feared governmental superpower. I believe that it is possible and probable that revolutions will rise up with an unhappy populace, but even if they do, they could still be crushed and I don't think its fair to say that a country will always fall apart, just because its people are unhappy.
Click to expand...
Really? I think I found another:

800px-Location_United_States.svg.png


I'd love to explain further, but it's time for Mute Trivia!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top