Why atheism and a universal Anglophonism policy is beneficial for the planet

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 21
Topic's author
#1
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 843
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
1. When people say they are willing to die for ANY cause, they have no clue what they're talking about.
2. If your religion calls on you to die for that religion, then you know in advance that you won't be willing to die for your religion, so you should view that religion as crazy.
3. If you view religion as crazy, then you become an atheist.
4. If everyone worldwide willingly becomes an atheist, then you have no more religious wars. If it wasn't for religion, then Israel/Palestine wouldn't be fighting. What would they fight over? If everyone becomes Anglophone (not by genociding the non-Anglophones, but by having non-Anglophones learn English and if they reproduce, then attempt to get their kids to become Anglophones), then wars over language differences are gone.

Homogeneity often prevents massive death and economic wartime waste, helping to pave the way for a one world nation, where wars are no longer required as well as people obtaining unconditional freedom of movement to move to any place they choose.  Increased education funding can make sure we don't be replaced by low IQ people because they wouldn't stay low IQ.

#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,937
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown

Well stated.
#3
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@RemyBrown
You realise anglophones can often only talk fluent in 1 language? What kindnof IQ argument is it to diss bi, tri and further multilinguals?
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,469
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Well stated.
It's only "well stated" if what he's trying to say is "I'm a crazed whack job idiot".
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,937
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

Hey, RB  is not P. Diddy!
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,844
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Sidewalker is correct.
#7
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Wylted is not that different. RB just actually thinks it is fine. Wylted knows how depraved he is and does it anyway.

That is basically the primary difference.
#8
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,469
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Wylted is not that different. RB just actually thinks it is fine. Wylted knows how depraved he is and does it anyway.

That is basically the primary difference.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Wylted is not a crazed whack job idiot, that goes without saying.
Topic's author
#9
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 843
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
You realise anglophones can often only talk fluent in 1 language? What kindnof IQ argument is it to diss bi, tri and further multilinguals?
Learning multiple languages requires a lot of effort (effort that can be put into alternative topics to learn about).  You only have a finite quantity of academic hours annually, so it makes sense to rapidly get the world to become anglophones via bilingually immersing the existing kids and 15 years from now, teaching in English only globally so the language bridge is solved, allowing for alternative topics to be learned to fill the void.
Topic's author
#10
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 843
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Learning multiple languages requires a lot of effort (effort that can be put into alternative topics to learn about).  You only have a finite quantity of academic hours annually, so it makes sense to rapidly get the world to become anglophones via bilingually immersing the existing kids and 15 years from now, teaching in English only globally so the language bridge is solved, allowing for alternative topics to be learned to fill the void.
Topic's author
#11
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 843
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Learning multiple languages requires a lot of effort (effort that can be put into alternative topics to learn about).  You only have a finite quantity of academic hours annually, so it makes sense to rapidly get the world to become anglophones via bilingually immersing the existing kids and 15 years from now, teaching in English only globally so the language bridge is solved, allowing for alternative topics to be learned to fill the void.
#12
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@RemyBrown
Literal spam
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 4,015
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RemyBrown
1. When people say they are willing to die for ANY cause, they have no clue what they're talking about.
No, when peoplesay they are willing to die for cause, then. they are either commitrtex to cause, or are blowing it up your skirt, or bragging, our have a death wish. options, my friend, and all those are legit, and there are probably mitre.

2. If your religion calls on you to die for that religion, then you know in advance that you won't be willing to die for your religion, so you should view that religion as crazy.
"If" is one of the weakest, smallest words in your anglophonics, because typically, while trying to be the launch of some logic, that which immediately follows "if" is usually, currently false, and will not yield the "then" clause [even if "then" is only implied] when "if" changes its tune. Thst is a pathetic wmeans to start a logical proposition, isn't it? This is also true of your #3 and #4 for the same reason. "If/then logic isn't.

Therefore, you really had nothing to say.





#14
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 4,015
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RemyBrown
Learning other languages widens our understanding of more people around the world, and I've been in about 30 countries in my life, and know that is true.  Also it improves knowledge of English, simply because English has the benefit of having root in Latin, Greek, and other langiuages, and knowing the roots of word meaning is very helpful. Speask more languages, have more friends. What5's wrong with that.
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,527
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RemyBrown
The Planet is not sentient, but a dynamic lump of space debris.

It will hang around the Sun for as long as the Sun allows.

And then kaput.

Organic fluff is or isn't inconsequential.

And benefit is an intelligent concept relative to itself.
Topic's author
#16
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 843
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6

Unblock me and I'll respond.
#17
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,403
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@RemyBrown
Unblock me and I'll respond.

Today I gave him instructions on how to unblock.  He said last year he would unblock me when he figured out how. So today I gave him directions on how to do it.
#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 4,015
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RemyBrown
Unblock me and I'll respond.

Nope. Making response is on you. Must it be addressed to me to be a valid response? You don't understand the block. That's to stop your direct address to me, and that's because you violate DebateArt policy in treatment of other members, including me. Show you can comply by policy, I'll unblock. Until you can, I merely follow the results of policy. Block is there for a reason. You figured it out. Block me, if that is your only response, but I have not violated you by personal attack, only that your argument is abusive toward me and not toward what I say. It is obvious without your calling me an idiot that you think I'm an idiot, You belittle yourself by the claim. Just shut it toward me and say your piece. That's the proper response to everyone here.  Others have told you this. Maybe a little mirror time would be helpful, but only if you use it constructively, and not via narcissism.
#19
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,018
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Valid point. I had left him unblocked but it is valid. His disrespect is too far, he must reform or stay blocked. I blocked him now.
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 4,015
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Thanks. I consider that if DebateArt provided a means to shut down direct communication with some members on site, it was for good reason. Some people get along, inspite of different opinions, and even about interpretations of facts, as I think you and I, and many others with whom we communicate on this site, who have that assurance that just by treating each other with respect, and make our arguments against others' arguments, alone, and avoid turning a disagreement into personaL confrontation, is what the site would like to see. Proof that we can, in fact, get along. That's what God would have us do, but he will not force it, IMO.
Topic's author
#21
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 843
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6


and that's because you violate DebateArt policy in treatment of other members, including me. 
Please provide an example of this.

It is obvious without your calling me an idiot that you think I'm an idiot
  1. Where is your evidence?
  2. Lets say this claim is accurate (which is besides the point).  What ever happened to, "Facts don't care about your feelings?"  There are many people that call me an idiot in my social life; but you know what?  I just accept that that is their opinion and I genuinely don't get bothered by a harmless and non disparaging opinion (a disparaging opinion would be if I said you were worse than a bear and should get treated worse than a bear).  Are you willing to denounce the, "facts don't care about your feelings" belief?  Are you willing to claim that men can act on their feelings and be emotional?  Because if yes, then you are sounding like a feminist, who wants men to be as emotional as women (when in reality, women and men should both not be ideologically emotional).