Why is America so arrogant? We who live in America think that all our ideas are the best, our way of living is great for everyone and that anyone who doesn't do it our way, should. Then we decide to go over to the Eastern world that is dominated by a primarily Muslim culture, and decide to take a government that isn't run by a religion and force it onto those that are. America recreated Israel. Then we decide that going over to Iraq and taking out their leader and trying to impose our way of life on them was a good idea. We live in a perminant state of hate and misunderstanding between our counterparts in the Eastern world, and we don't care. Americans think that since we have the best way of life, that everyone should follow our example if they want to prosper. Oh, wait, we are running on China's money, our banks are to stupid to understand money, and we decide to bail out giant motor vehicle companies, because we can. It seems to me that we don't really have any clue as to what makes a country prosper. We keep barely getting by on the seat of our pants, and then we have the gaul to try to force our ideas, morals and culture on a completly different civilization.
Why do we do that? What conceviable reason is there for the US to try to force it's failing way of life on another part of the globe.
Oh, this discussion was started in my English class today...
Looks to me like the European Union beat us on two of them.
#1 Tecnnology
Have you looked at China, South Korea or Japan recently? They are pretty much dominant in the technology department. Especially robotics.
We consistently work with China on how to keep the Koreans from blowing each other up, Russia and us are cool now cuz democracies stick together, and India has more troubles to worry about in the form of Pakistan than us.
CUZ DEMOCRACIES STICK TOGETHER!?!?!? Wth man? There is no way that we are cool now, just because Russia is a democracy. Tension is still there becuase of the cold war, and the fact that we are just to close, country-wise, to Russia for their comfort.
Also, when I said most of the Middle East, I wasn't simply talking about India, China, and the Koreas. I was talking about the majority. Iran, Palistine, Lybia, the Gaza Strip, and many more tiny nations. When we made Israel, we pissed a lot of countries off, and they still haven't forgiven us.
Britain made Isreal. Yea. It was to give Europeon Jews a place of sanctuary after WW2
Saddam Hussein was a dictator who funded and aided the monsters who flew the planes into the World Trade Center
True, but we had already started a war with the people who actually did it, so why attack Iraq as well?
and was potentially holding Nuclear Weapons
Oh, okay, that makes it all better, right? He may have had weapons of mass destruction, or may not have. Either way, we have to attack him to make sure. >_>
I just successfully dissected your entire post, disproved it entirely, and did it all with hard facts. I would LOVE to see you try to disprove me.
I just had a good time, how about you? You said you would love it, so have fun! ^_^
I disagree with everything posted here referring to the US being arrogant or superior.
Britain was far worse, but we flip flopped positions. Britain now is a bit more isolationist while the US needs to stick its big fat nose into everything.
Fallacy of ad hominem.
Even if you believe in macroevolution, it doesn't mean the whole universe was created by it. The theory is that everything living came from a simple living cell.
Show me the innate difference between living and nonliving material and I'll show you a fallacy.
Culture has no right to exist, it's just how we act.
I can agree with this sentiment. I see no intrinsic value in culture for its own sake.
Ad hominem is not a fallacy. Your argument, which utilized an ad hominem attack, was fallacious on its own merit.
Ad hominem is when I used a personal attack to degrade one's argument. I was not degrading anybody's argument, and I was not personally attacking anyone.
Show me the innate difference between living and nonliving material and I'll show you a fallacy.
One grows, possibly moves, and reproduces itself. One cannot do anything. Falala. The 'Big Bang' theory is the creation of nonliving material. The evolutionary theory is the creation of living material on the rock that the 'Big Bang' created.
One grows, possibly moves, and reproduces itself. One cannot do anything. Falala. The 'Big Bang' theory is the creation of nonliving material. The evolutionary theory is the creation of living material on the rock that the 'Big Bang' created.
That made me lol, and have a chortle as well. Thank you my friend, for pointing out his failed logic.
Ad hominem is when I used a personal attack to degrade one's argument. I was not degrading anybody's argument, and I was not personally attacking anyone.
While not a human, Brittan is an entity. You attacked it to lend meritless support to a false statement. Brittan's previous actions do not affect America's arrogance or superiority. Your second sentence
Britain was far worse, but we flip flopped positions. Britain now is a bit more isolationist while the US needs to stick its big fat nose into everything.
in no way supported the assertion that America is not arrogant or superior.
While not a human, Brittan is an entity. You attacked it to lend meritless support to a false statement. Brittan's previous actions do not affect America's arrogance or superiority. Your second sentence
I am not in a debate with Britain. I am not insulting Britain, but drawing a comparison to show the irony in how Britain used to be imperialistic but now is isolationist and how the US used to be isolationist but now is imperialistic.
Have you looked at China, South Korea or Japan recently? They are pretty much dominant in the technology department. Especially robotics.
You mean electronics in the way of technology.
Now I have heard Russia made Israel, and Britain. Watch this. It is quite helpful.
Never heard of that before. However, that is not true. There are records of Israel before the 1900's, not including the Bible. Besides, it doesn't make any sense. Why would the Jews claim pretty much all of what happened in Israel when there was no such thing at that time, and get away with it? It doesn't fit. You must realize the Jews had records of things in Israel before when the video said Israel was born. And why are they finding documents written by Jews thousands of years ago in Israel?
I am not in a debate with Britain. I am not insulting Britain, but drawing a comparison to show the irony in how Britain used to be imperialistic but now is isolationist and how the US used to be isolationist but now is imperialistic.
Why does know one understand what irony is? You see how annoying that is?
And you weren't doing that at all. You were using Brittan's position to deny claims about the US. This was utterly non sequitur.
One grows, possibly moves, and reproduces itself. One cannot do anything. Falala.
Stars grow. Are they alive? Planets move. Are they alive? Mules cannot reproduce (actually, they can, it's pretty cool. Let me start that one again Sterile humans cannot reproduce. Are they not alive? I'm looking for an innate difference. Something that somehow differentiates living from nonliving. A soul. A spark of life. Frankenstein's dark secret.
Organisms are complex pieces of matter. Living is a useful label, but there is no innate separation between live and dead.
Stars grow. Are they alive? Planets move. Are they alive? Mules cannot reproduce (actually, they can, it's pretty cool. Let me start that one again Sterile humans cannot reproduce. Are they not alive? I'm looking for an innate difference. Something that somehow differentiates living from nonliving. A soul. A spark of life. Frankenstein's dark secret.
How do you know stars are not living? Haha, jk. I see your point. But that still doesn't prove you right.
Organisms are complex pieces of matter. Living is a useful label, but there is no innate separation between live and dead.
Try telling that to rocks. Wait. Sorry. That didn't make any sense. You could also try to tell that to the stars. You have to get really close for them to hear you... Good luck with that
Okay... Lets see: Stars bearing stars and growing: have you not heard of stars? fuel. explosion of fuel. Star dies. pieces of star makes new star. Falala. Planets move: gravity from stars. Mules: What? Humans can't reproduce: Are you saying someone who gets punched in their stomach can no longer reproduce? Possibly. But that doesn't mean they couldn't at one time: they have the same body as another human being, maybe damaged, but nonetheless a living human.
Something that somehow differentiates living from nonliving. A soul. A spark of life.
Stars bearing stars and growing: have you not heard of stars? fuel. explosion of fuel. Star dies. pieces of star makes new star. Falala.
I know how stars work. If you don't like the implications of my claim that they grow, I suggest you alter your definition of life. Pearls grow. Stalactites grow.
Planets move: gravity from stars.
You did not make any specifications as to how it moves. If you don't like the implications of my claim that planets can move, I suggest you alter your definition of life.
Humans can't reproduce: Are you saying someone who gets punched in their stomach can no longer reproduce? Possibly. But that doesn't mean they couldn't at one time: they have the same body as another human being, maybe damaged, but nonetheless a living human.
I'm shocked. I would assume people knew more about infertility. People can be born infertile. Many corpses were at one time fertile. Are you going to say they're damaged, but nevertheless alive? No? Then alter your definition of life.
If you don't like the implications of my claim that they grow, I suggest you alter your definition of life. Pearls grow. Stalactites grow.
Didn't I mention fuel? It's like an engine. You put in gas, it runs. Does that mean it's alive? In the case of stars and pearls and whatnot, they grow by fuel. Instead of running, it grows. You get my point?
If you don't like the implications of my claim that planets can move, I suggest you alter your definition of life.
Sorry if you don't like my arguements. In the case of the 'Big Bang' theory, when the universe expanded, the rapid expansion caused the planets to spin. The spinning + gravity made the circle/oval path they follow. End of story.
People can be born infertile. Many corpses were at one time fertile.
I'm not saying that they always get damaged during their lifetime. They get damaged during the way out of the womb or were born mutated.
