Tainari88 wrote:No @wat0n I don't have the vision you have about the USA. I am a separate person from you. I got a totally different perspective than you do. I don't expect people to agree with me. I never have. I expect in a debate forum to be presented with strong arguments. Not on beliefs about which nation is better than other nations. That kind of shit is not in any way intelligent. Power and the nations in or out of power over time and history vary. They play musical chairs. I don't see the way you see it at all. Why? Because I see human beings and who is in power. And who is not. Why do people who live in countries with class systems have to play by the rules and accept that some of the people wield power as a class over them and others don't? That is the way I think.
You're describing pretty much any country, not just the USA. Seriously, what countries don't have a class system? Which countries have no elites that wield their power over everyone else? In what countries can you just refuse to play by the rules?
Cuba? North Korea? China? All of those do have their own elites and their own class system. And dissent (let alone rebellion) is treated harshly.
Finland, Sweden, Denmark? They also have their own class system, they also have their own elites and everything, even if they are very well governed overall. And ironically their system is far more like the one the US has, than the one Cuba or China have.
Do you know what one of the problems with the US is? That many are have dug into their trenches, and they'd rather die in them than be pragmatic. Not just the elites, but plenty of those below too. Worst part is that the US isn't the only place where this is happening.
Tainari88 wrote:I don't think about Puerto Ricans all prefer.
So no democratic sovereignty? Why shouldn't they decide what happens to their future?
Tainari88 wrote: No. I think about why people leave their native countries. Like why did you leave yours?
Honestly? To look for better opportunities, to study (for the sake of it, not solely to earn more) and have the experience of living elsewhere. And I had initially planned to go back home, but as time has gone by I prefer it here despite all the problems the US has to deal with and the fact my family and most of my friends live in Chile.
Tainari88 wrote: I never believed lies about Latin Americans are into power grabs and caudillos because it is part of the culture. That stuff was your statement. It is not about culture dude.
Oh it is about culture, or at least the elites' culture, among other things. It's true it isn't just about culture, the institutional design also allows to make it easy to concentrate power and our history is also not something we can just brush aside.
Caudillos have been part of the elites since our very independence. How else would you describe people like Bolívar or O'Higgins? And it's not just a Latin American thing. France also has that, indeed, the uber caudillo was French (Napoleon), and our own are inspired by this guy in one way or another. Let's also not forget the fascists throughout Europe in the 1930s, those were caudillos on steroids.
Tainari88 wrote: It is about human beings with defects and need for power grabs and how did I prove it? Bringing you evidence of a plot for some generals to take over Washington DC because they disagreed with the policies of the government. It happened with the ANGLOS. Not with us. It happens with Africans and Asians and Europeans. So what does that mean @wat0n? It means that you accepted a theory that demeans your background and makes assertions that Latin Americans are naturally attracted to power grabs and dictatorship. You don't do any historical analysis or politically valid ones either. It is about knee jerk reactions about the lies someone fed you dude. It lets me know....you are defending a point of view that is not about human behavior in all groups. It is about wanting to believe in some fairy tale of what humanity is. It is a complex thing.
Anglos also have their own tendency of liking caudillos from time to time (like Trump, Huey Long, Andrew Jackson to name a few) but you know what's the difference? Their political systems have better checks against them because England itself had to deal with one (Cromwell) and the experience was traumatic enough to influence political culture and intellectuals to prefer designing their institutions to make it hard for anyone to become a caudillo. Hence why many are constitutional monarchies or, in the case of the US, they are republics with very strong checks against centralized power. Have you read The Federalist 51? That text illustrates this idea perfectly.
This is about history, above all. Not because anglos are so good and perfect, they have their own flaws too (like their obsession with race), but their history pushed them to think like they do when it comes to government. And I think they were right, all in all, even if their way - like all human constructs - is flawed too.
Tainari88 wrote:People in islands that have a specific history of colonization are not going to behave like Imperially minded people with enormous power and military might. Each human group acts according to their experiences, positions and history allows them to act. But in the end? All are human.
Indeed, but why not let the people in these islands make their choices? Why would it be wrong for them to prefer to remain part of an empire if they wish to?
Tainari88 wrote:And all have the potential for greatness and enormous achievement, and disgrace and enormous shame and failure to be worthy of being called dignified and just people seeking equality in all of the human race.
Indeed, and we want everyone to realize their potential.
Tainari88 wrote:I don't like many people who equate poverty and lack of money with inferior intellects or not having to respect that group. Because? It is false. Poor people are HUMAN. With all the potential all human beings have. If you start saying Latin America or Africa or parts of Europe, Asia and so on should be ignored and disrespected because they are not the most powerful and the most wealthy of them all? You make a grave mistake.
After all wasn't the USA supposed to be founded on the fact that people from poor and humble backgrounds can reach great achievements. If that is true? Then why even think that the other nations who are not rich or wealthy or spend billions on arms and bombs? Have nothing to offer the world?
I use real logic based on human behavior. Not on nationalistic shit or my socioeconomic status is the way it is because it is SUPERIOR it is JUSTICE. That is foolish shit @wat0n.
What makes you believe I think Americans and Europeans somehow inherently superior to, say, Latin Americans or Africans? No, the thing is, the US and Europe are better places to live in than those countries and I can actually compare. This doesn't mean Americans and Europeans are somehow superior, just that their economies are more productive and their governments work better.
Not that development is something that can be taken for granted, countries that are developed today can perfectly become shitholes sometime in the future. Hell, it would even make sense. FWIW parts of Latin America were among the richest in the world, richer than Europe let alone today's US and Canada, before the French Revolution. Likewise, the poor countries in Africa and Latin America may actually be the economic powerhouses, with their population enjoying high living standards, at some point in the future. But right now, that's just not the case and it doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.
Tainari88 wrote:A lot of people leave Mississippi dude. Alabama too. Lately California. To other states. Does it mean those people don't love their native states? No. It means something is pushing them out of a place they invested a lot of time and energy in.
Right, although if they're leaving they are also implicitly criticizing how things work at home. I think we can agree most people don't move elsewhere because they are too happy where they are.
Tainari88 wrote:The issue you have is you want these flaws that we are criticizing to not damage whatever false ideas you got about the US government. I don't care about the image. I care about the facts. The fact is that the USA did not have constant school shootings. Now it does. WHY?
Something is happening. In the society. Teachers are not supposed to be security guards with guns. They get paid to teach. Not to do law enforcement. But the people with power to put some resources into prevention and policy changes to protect the public are not being successful. That kid in Texas still shot a bunch of children.
No one here is shooting children. Why? No one thinks teachers jobs here are to be armed and ready to take down shooters. That is crazy. No one talks about the 2nd amendment and why that might be outdated for the USA and the crazy thought that automatic weapons for military might not be a good idea to sell to many people who are not exactly sane or healthy in thought.
Not shootings of children in Mexico? Oh come on @Tainari88, Mexico has its own serious gun and cartel problem. Far more serious than the US. Let's not get into the femicide problem, which is even worse, but insecurity is widespread enough that I was able to see the Mexican military guarding their Cry of Dolores celebration when I was there 3 years ago (in Guadalajara). The Mexican military itself is deployed from time to time when things get too dangerous in some places.
But going back to the US, I also don't know for certain why is it that we see so many shootings, not just in schools and not just of children, and I don't think anyone does. At least for Mexico we know why, in places like south side Chicago we can also tell why (gangs, similar to Mexico actually), but for school shooters and others like them we don't.
What I do know, though, is that if you don't let strangers into schools these things are made a lot harder. So how about we start with relatively easy things to do first, and we take it from there?
Probably going back to something like the AR ban of the Reagan era would help too. Who knows, at least we know that would be constitutional and I don't see why wouldn't Americans at least try. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment reads firearm sales and use cannot be regulated, in fact, it actually says quite the opposite. But since many prefer to dig in their positions, how about we start with what I said about not making it so easy for a stranger to go into schools? No federal intervention is needed, even the states don't need to act - this is something districts can do.
Tainari88 wrote:You piss me off with your lack of respecting what people actually say. You distort a lot @wat0n and you put words in the mouth of people who you are debating with. I don't live in denial dude. If you make a valid point I will acknowledge it. If you don't? And you lie on me again? I don't care. I will call you out on the denial shit!
I'm not distorting anything
And I'd say you are the one who lives in denial. Socialism already failed. The USSR doesn't exist. China barely pays lip service to socialist ideals. The few other "socialist" countries are, at best, dictatorships that try to remain socialist yet fail at that and impoverish their population in the process. The Nordics are not socialist, certainly not for a Marxist, regardless of whatever dumbass American conservatives claim.
The US may have its own problems but it's neither the worst place to live in the world (quite the contrary) nor it has the worst educational system in the world either (it's not even the worst one in the OECD) nor it's the most dangerous country to live in either.
@Godstud what makes you believe a stranger with bad intentions will just "leave"? What happens if he pulls a knife? What happens if he comes into school during break and leaves with a child? Am I to believe these things never happen in Thailand?
And more importantly, why should teachers have to deal with any of that? We don't need them to carry guns, and we also don't need them to police strangers entering schools.
@BlutoSays you can't deny something is not working as it should if cops need to be present in schools. Yes, it happens, but it's not a good thing. And if a permanent police presence in a school is necessary, then quite obviously making it physically impossible for strangers to enter school premises uncontested also is.
Also the shooter in this case was given the AR by his father as a birthday present I think. I don't know if you can buy a gun for someone else in TX, at least where I live it's a felony IIRC.
- By wat0n
- By Puffer Fish
- By FiveofSwords