New link in the top of page "IRC Chat".
|Register | Login|
| Active users
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users
Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album
|0 users currently in Debate Shrine.|
|Flaming other members is not to be tolerated here, Topos. Aside from that, I find your view of the book interesting because it is not one that I have heard before.|
Originally posted by Phoenix
Are you retarded or can you just not read? 1984 wasn't about oppression as much as the triumph of the human spirit, the rise and fall of two single souls in love, even when all else seemed utterly and completely bleak--the idea that even in the worst case scenario love would still come through.
|Now now, be contributive.
Anyway, ok... while not going out of my way to promote my book (Darkfang) I would like to point out that this is EXACTLY what the background plot of it is. And I feel personally that sacrificing our personal liberties is in no way worth proposed "safety", because true safety is an illusion as long as human nature exists.
Originally posted by Seijika
|Well this thread certainly sucked.|
But I agree with Cairoi and Katana. I would like to elaborate mor on crime, as that seems to be your biggest point here, Vince. This kind of society would not get rid of crime in the least bit. You don't even have to bother looking back through history, it's happening right now. We try to suppress terrorists in Iraq. What do they do? Revolt. They hide, they murder, and they won't listen. While it is true that they are terrorists, and therefore considered criminals in the first place, everyone has that capability. If you try to cage a wild bull that doesn't care to be caged, expect a fight. Same goes for humans. Humans are still animals, and instinct will take over. They will fight for their freedom.
So, there would be suppression and revolt, and each would just make the other worse until it was a war. Revolters would act as assassins, in a way, by hiding and using no technology to communicate. How can you track them if you don't know who they are and what they're doing? Of course, I'm pushing this a bit. Mainly, crime would not, and will never, go away. If this type of government existed, your child/ family would be less safe. In todays society, you can mostly spot a criminal. If the revolt happened, every single person around you may be involved in taking down the government, or getting rid of revolters. There would be no neutral.
Originally posted by Cairoi
Alright, so let's make clear what we're doing here. :p I have been under the impression of this being a "what if" kind of deal, but taken to the extreme(the "nightmare" so to speak), hence using the word "Dystopianism." Because if it isn't, then my thoughts "outside the box" don't matter anymore. **pouts**
But Vince, you did contradict yourself quite a bit. Well, perhaps contradict is the wrong word to use, but I hope you get what I mean. If not, I'll clarify. But, one instance, you have said that people should be punished severely for even speaking of a crime. That right there made your malice toward crime evident. But then, a few sentences later, you dumb it down for yourself by stating "I have never had the "rush" or "lust" to commit a crime. I don't want to, I talk about it a lot but i wouldn't go through with it." Not going through with it is very noble indeed, but by your standards, if the society in which you are imagine were real, you would have been severely punished, should that statement you made be true. And that statement, came across to me at least as saying that sure you've mentioned it, but it's not that bad because you'd never actually DO it. Which, is fine in my opinion, but just before that, you freverently proclaimed that one should not even speak of crime.
That right there is the exact reason why a totally controlling government would lead to a real nightmare. Think of it this way. You're the one proposing the idea. So pretend in this thread your world is real. You are the government in charge, and those who replied are the people you govern. If WE speak of crime, we get severely punished. But you, it's okay that you do, because you would never committ the crime. It doesn't matter that we wouldn't go through with it either, we're being punished for speaking of it. But an exception has been made for yourself. An unfair exception. But you can do that. You're in control. And we can't do anything about it. Its a very miniscule example, but I hope you see what I'm trying to convey. The people governing won't be fair and just. People aren't capable of that yet. Well, they aren't capable of being fair and just at ALL times, and if they're running the show like you're proposing, then revolt would occur anyway. As Cairoi said, go through history. You'll see. :p
You like the movie 300? It was based off the actual battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans took a stance because they were being suppressed. Someone else was coming in to run them and control their lives. And they revolted. They stood up for themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, I know the Spartans weren't perfect either. No one is. That's my point. We all have the ability to defend ourselves, and we all have the ability to supress. All of us. So the society in which you are proposing would not eliminate crime, in my opinion, because there would either be revolt, or those in charge would be criminals themselves through their suppression.
I'm not trying to knock you down here, Vince, but you opened up a serious discussion of ideas that will not submit to the will of another, without real proof and support. You're making points, but you're not supporting them. I think it's wonderful that you were so bold as to bring up such a discussion, so don't take offence to the "attack" I may seem like I'm pulling on you. Consider it something to nurture your thoughts. Don't just say what you think. Fight back. Say WHY you think what you think. Refute what others are saying with facts to support your opinions. But in a way, you HAVE this chance to "fight back", to come back and further your thoughts and attempt to deter my own, because we are not in the society in which you proposed. :p But prove me wrong.
|If i'm not speaking about a dystopia i apologize and I realize you are trying not to be mean and i thank you for that. but you aren't living in fear of your government you live in sync with it. Those who commit crimes leave those who don't stay.|
|Alright, dude, that's AUTHORITARIANISM, not DYSTOPIANISM, which, as far as I can see, is not an actual word. A dystopian society is a "nightmare" vision of government. Though it is often seen as authoritarian or oppressive, that's only a small facet of the definition.
Past that, if honestly believe an all powerful government would fix crime and violence issues then I honestly don't know what to say to you, except you don't know much about history and you represent the cowardice that is stagnating our society. If this is considered flaming, I'd like the records to show I rewrote this paragraph several times, censoring myself, and this is the nicest you're getting out of me.
|A government controlled world. I completely support the idea as long as it's ran with an iron fist. and like i said before you will be closely watched and certain "gray areas" will be taken into consideration. i'm not saying "that man jay walked shoot him!" i'm saying tampering with evidence as a reason for a murderer not to be convicted won't work. your emails and texts will be read. your phone calls monitored. you will live in the shadow of big brother. and in exchange for these intrusions upon your privacy you will be granted a crime free socitety as for your situation involving the red light. there will still be courts and such but the process will move much quicker, because of the strict monitoring. I would trade my privacy for a world that's safer for my family in an instant. no doubts or second thoughts.|
Originally posted by vince_rigle
Well, to be picky, this is the first time a reason for this thread was mentioned. You simply defined the word and left it at that. Considering this is the debate shrine, it is very easy to assume that the discussion could be about the pros and cons...but how can the pros and cons be truly measured if the possibility of this happening isn't considered? Either way, the context of this thread wasn't outlined specifically enough to condemn one for speaking of the topic in a certain viewpoint. :p
**had to be 'that guy'**
With that said...I don't know you in person, but I bet it would be very easy if I did, to prove that you've committed a "crime." It doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you human. And what is and isn't a crime, isn't always clearly stated. There are a lot of gray areas. And that's what a world such as your proposing, would elminate. There's laws, rules, whatever you want to call them, and then there's the gray area.
It's against the law to run a red light. However, what would I do if say, there was an emergency with one of the passengers in my car, suddenly, and I had to rush them to the hospital? I wouldn't run red lights to be a douche, and I sure as hell wouldn't be stupid about running them, because if the idea is to get someone to safety, blazing through an intersection when it's not my turn might not be ideal. But hazard lights and a horn could make certain lights safer to pass through. But I'd still, technically, be committing a crime.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to convey, Vince, because you're not covering many sides of what this would entail, in your opinion. Yes, crime rates suck. And I'm all for their reduction, but still...there's MANY things to be considered as well. You've made it clear that you're for a dystiopanistic society, but you're not very convincing on it's pros.
Either way this IS an intersting discussion, and I'd be pleased to see people's opinions to their fullest, not just "This is good."
Oh, and let's say this, if it were higher powers doing the governing, then I might be all for this sort of society. Higher powers that wouldn't be corruptable and would always be fair, just, and selfless. But until the sort of "human" or better comes before us, well, I just don't trust humans as we are now, to rule such a society. Corruption will occur to those powerful enough to censor the rest of us.
well indeed the odds of this coming about are slim, but we're not here to discuss the possibility of it happening but the pros and cons of its actuallity. And who said anything about slavery. you aren't a slave. you do your job and when you are done you leave. you are allowed to listen to anything you wish, read anything you want, but if you speak of committing a crime you will be punished, the punishment will be severe as to deter you from further thoughts of anarchy. and if you actually commit a crime you will be killed. Crime cannot be tolerated. I have never had the "rush" or "lust" to commit a crime. I don't want to, I talk about it a lot but i wouldn't go through with it. It seems that only the criminals would be against this...........phoenix is there something you'd like to tell the group lol jk.
|A perfect world ruled by slavery of the mind and body. Is the crime rate worth individuality? I hate to sound selfish, but not to me. There will always be crime. If you try to shut out crime, it simply gets worse because people wish to break the rules.
Have you read 1984? The government would seize control, and continue squeezing until every drop of humanity is lying shattered on the floor. Power leads to the need of more power.
And how would this come about? Other countries will not simply throw centuries of work out of the window. In order for this to even occur world wide, it would mean war. Like how Hitler decided that his way of rule was superior to everyone elses. They fought back, and lives were lost.
Nay, I say it is not only impossible, but daft to even consider.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
|But look at the crime rate, and i'm not talking about a nation wide dystopia, i'm talking about a worldwide combined effort. A perfect world ruled with an iron fist.|
|Yeah, I agree. If I had the choice between the ways things are now, and that, I would choose this. Although, things could use some changes.|
|If we go on the standard definition of a dystopia, then I do not know who would actually vote for one.|
|The fight for or against a completely government controlled society. Including wiretaps and random searches. A completely safe society in exchange for a few domestic freedoms.|