I sure as shit did. What’s so good about traditions is that they have a proven track record. I asked you a follow up question, you don’t feel like answering it, so now we’re all done.
A proven track record of what? You call that an answer? You expect me to believe that you’re arguing in good faith with that?
I honestly couldn’t care less what you think, I thought I made that clear. I already tried the whole ‘explain my beliefs in an honest conversation’ thing with you on multiple occasions, and in every case, you took it down to a single bullshit one-liner irrelevant to the conversation at hand. So now you get nothing from me- the moment you appear to be doing that thing you do, I drop the conversation. You should probably print this out, and tape it to the bottom of your computer monitor so you don’t have to keep asking me why when I blow you off.
Ucci, for what it’s worth, I’d actually like to know your answers to smears questions above. I really don’t think he’s being intentionally obnoxious. Tradition has a proven track record of some pretty terrible things as well. What you’re doing is a clear appeal to tradition.
I’m not arguing for any specific untested alternatives, but I think some alternatives could possibly be better ones. If we only stick to tradition we may never know.
It's a relative thing. I'm making an appeal to tradition in general, as opposed to reform in general, because Smears asked what's so good about tradition, in general. Whether or not every single tradition ever is good, or every single reform ever is bad, would be a whole other thing, right? Sure, traditional cultures have some some pretty terrible things. But it's not as though we have some perfect society to compare them to. The question is not 'can we think of anything bad a traditional culture has done', we have to ask if radicalism has a better track record, and it pretty clearly does not. Hence why I asked if alternatives are any better, and hence why Smears didn't want to answer that question.
I don’t really see how you can say tradition has a better track record than reform. I don’t think we’d seek reform if tradition had such a solid track record. Also, reform seems to be a part of tradition, so I’m not sure I agree that there is any real dichotomy.
Of course, I’m admittedly unaware of the discussions you’ve had in the past with smears regarding this subject, so my comments may not even be relevant.
Why? People want different things, people don’t bother studying history, and people can’t predict/don’t care what the results of their proposed reforms will be. Surely there’s some reform movement out there you disagree with, what’s your explanation for their existence if you agree with the above?
There’s no dichotomy between tradition and change, but radical reform is another thing.
America was founded by people who wanted reform. I learned that in one of the 12 or so history classes I took in college.
As far as Hollywood goes, they are out to make money. Producers are not interested in educating, they want money, so they produce films that follow trends. In a few years they will produce other crap that the public wants to see. That is the only conspiracy, , catering to mass trends for money, not politics.
Not the film-industry follows trends which are created by the masses, but the masses follow trends which are created by the film-industry.
And then again: It was the Parliament which forbid showing women being weaker than men.
I don’t understand the question. Of course there will be reform movements I disagree with, just like some traditions. Why do I need to explain their existemce?
Each country has their issues, if your country did something like that then protest, stick your neck out there. Its an idiotic law. Here Hollywood just does it for money. Comicbook action movies are trending as well as Scifi. Previous trend was government/military / cops. Romance and family was before that and Westerns somewhere before. And I just get really disgusted when women run in the woods with high heels, trip in front of the bad guy/monsters and scream helplessly. I mean reaaally???
The very huge companies can alraedy be compared with a bee or ant colony. I call them “super organisms” or “organisation systems”. They behave like bee colonies.
Excessive naivety has once again raised its ugly head.
The mandate stemming from WW2 was that all of society (in effect, all life) is to be controlled via Money, for a variety of reasons dating back to king Solomon’s temple and eventually to the formation of the FED. When one controls the money source of any society, they control the society.
Thus the military must make money in order to thrive. Non-profit organizations must make money to thrive. And Hollywood must make money to thrive. None of them are making money merely to make money. Money is used to support the effort to perform the other function.
During the late 60’s and early 70’s the news and Hollywood media expressed its power against the government. During the 70’s many agreements and disagreements formed between the military and the media. In the late 70’s it was proposed to make the media into the “Fourth Branch of the Government”. Despite it being extremely unconstitutional (for good reasons), the only real objection was that the media wasn’t an organized entity.
By 1980 after a considerable number of media businesses had been taken over or annihilated, the media had finally come under singular management. In 1980-81 the Writers Guild in Hollywood went on strike against the new censorship rules being imposed on them concerning exact content and psychological promotion involved in all story lines and films. The Guild lost their strike and thus for a few years, Hollywood had no competent writers. But the media groups, MGM and such, had anticipated that and proceeded anyway. So for a short while, to keep the ratings up, sexual scenes became common on public TV (R-rated films on open-air TV).
After that point, all psychological content was to be exactly programmed and has become extreme to the point of literally dictating the variation of pixel coloring and timing on HDTV screens to maximize hypnotic effect. The particular agenda being promoted had nothing to do with corporate concerns, but rather what later was formulated into the UN’s Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 and its later addons (Rio-5,10,20) specify how the world is to be (“Because this is the future we want”). It includes the requirement of psychological manipulation of the masses at all times. Money is merely one of the three foundations of control to ensure that society remains under control at all times.
And as so often occurs, if you think this is merely conspiracy theory, you are living in the stone age. It was conspiracy theory 40 years ago when only a few people knew about it. Today, the actual documents are wide spread, the events aren’t secret, the agenda isn’t secret to anyone but the most naive. 180 “political leaders of the world of socialist nations” convened at the UN and set forth how the new world order is going to be… period (no surprise that the new world is to be a socialist world controlled by those same political leaders). Realize that a political leader is a professional social manipulator. That is literally his job. Social engineering (the use of sex, women, diseases, media selection, false-flags, chemicals,… anything that works…) is used to mold the new world.
If you want to know what the new world is to be, you can read their documents yourself…
In the USA, a “Corporation” is different than a “Company”. A corporation is literally a citizen with almost the exact same rights as a person; some greater, some less. A company is merely a group effort owned by a person or partnership. There are substantially different laws regulating the two.
P
This is not an issue of ‘my country’. A law, which is passed by the European Parliament is valid in all 28 countries of the European Union. Gender mainstreaming (political sex-change would be a more appropriate expression) is a stated goal of the EU and the gender-lobby is financially supported by it. “Equality of men and women is only then guaranteed, when women become full time employed”.
. Translation: The human resources of women who are not engaged in paid full-time work, are plain and simple unused.
Everything gets done to destroy families.
Going out into the streets and protest? No thanks, I’m neither a political activist nor a martyr. Say something against mainstream or against political correctness, and they throw you immediately in the radical right- wing corner.
I don’t say that women should go back to home and hearth. I merely want them to have the choice.
There must not be too many USA movies there. I fully agree women should be able to choose with pride, just as males should be able to. I have met men that make better “moms” then the real mom. Here stay at home Dads are becoming more common. LOL, I sometimes wish my husband would have been such a Dad but, yea, he was a great Dad but, sucked as a full time caregiver. Too much a pushover. 
I was the elected parent. I am proud of being a mom at home. I work now so its all good. People should be able to choose with pride and without guilt.
Seems to me you would get screwed up kids otherwise.
It sure should not be a punishment to speak honestly and if you get tossed into the right wing pile for this one opinion, smile and say thankyou, don’t let them get your goat.
In 2013 the market share of US-movies in Germany was 66%.
Some main TV stations show more than 80% US-productions, including movies,series ,soaps and cartoons.
Did you read James’ post, Kris?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=185258&start=50#p2468968
“I hear the message well, but lack Faith’s constant trust” (Mephisto, Goethe’s Faust)
I meant the ‘real world’, not the internet.
When I was young I never thought to communicate with someone in another land let alone on a daily basis or with so many from a variety of countries. In the 70s and 80s the governments did not forsee this occuring either. Communications such as this was only for the “elite”. This includes wealthy, powerful and politicians.
Control through media has a limited affect/effect when opinions ,beliefs and knowledge is freely exchanged between strangers in strange lands. Over a trillion humans talk daily with foreign people that have different ideas, beliefs etc. Short of all major countries successfully shutting down all communication, what James and others see can not fully occur. Want to really try to brainwash fully an entire world to one way? It can only be done if communication between peoples becomes illegal.