Àlstor 70 Paladin Blood Elf

[Warhoof]

There is a hell. It's called Hyjal.

Why were you guys in MH yesterday? Or was it just Dooki, trying to steal guildmembers

[Smorisha]

We were in Hyjal and he is not trying to steal anyones members. He gives them option to come on their own

[delling]

We are doing FFA Hyjal on Sundays atm. And probably some BT soon.

[Warhoof]

Ah, cool to see some more FFA raids. But I'd like to remind you that it was monday yesterday

[Goza]

We found a way to do instances multiple days per week. Haxx.

[delling]

This post didn't exist during our Hyjal raid...

So he posted after we did Hyjal, and this post existed -- ergo, yesterday.

[Daekesh]

I am not sure what you mean here, my english skills are emptied, hehe. with my mixed well reasoned statement, you won't agree.. but if i want to qualify it you will agree. i don't make sense of it, but it's probably my lesser english understanding.

What I mean is that you can't say that all fights for peace are bad.  Most are probably bad, yes, and have the wrong motivations.  You didn't say that "fighting for peace with the wrong motivations is like ...", though.

Yes it does, in 99% of the cases, cause you cannot grant one person that much power, he won't be able to act reasonable (Edit: Rational), and it will ultimately end up like every other dictatorship i've ever heard of..

This is precisely why I said a benign dictatorship.  One that is not "evil". One that does not harm it's nation, but rather prides itself on the improvement and success of it's state.  A rare find, indeed.

[Alstor]

I am not sure what you mean here, my english skills are emptied, hehe. with my mixed well reasoned statement, you won't agree.. but if i want to qualify it you will agree. i don't make sense of it, but it's probably my lesser english understanding.

What I mean is that you can't say that all fights for peace are bad.  Most are probably bad, yes, and have the wrong motivations.  You didn't say that "fighting for peace with the wrong motivations is like ...", though.

Fighting dosen't bring peace.. ok maybe there are some fights which are unavoidable and/or nessecary, but saying that you fight for peace is simply wrong.. On a shorter term fighting brings chaos and devastation, and in the long run it shatters families ruins infrastructure of the contry and you name it! Sure it might be a better alternative from what was present before the fight/war.. but when people say that they are fighting for peace, people just eat it raw.. Let's see how many lifted eyebraws i would get if i told them that i were fucking for virginity? cause that's, imo, just as dumb a term

[Goza]

So'n Stuss.

[Alstor]

Yes it does, in 99% of the cases, cause you cannot grant one person that much power, he won't be able to act reasonable (Edit: Rational), and it will ultimately end up like every other dictatorship i've ever heard of..

This is precisely why I said a benign dictatorship.  One that is not "evil". One that does not harm it's nation, but rather prides itself on the improvement and success of it's state.  A rare find, indeed.

If you agree with both of these terms, 10 minds are cleverer than 1, and 1 leader is better than 10.. i guess democracy is the only way... you have 1 person leading, selected by the many people.. i know that it's a fact that many people dosen't care about policy.. but that's just cause our democrazy is working so good now a days that THE way to run it is already decided and the differences between each of the parties are so small (like we dont have someone who belive that we should kill people over 60 yearsof age, because they cost the society too much) Then i guess people would wake up and start caring for what they were voting..

[Fatalbone]

hah I can finally post in here.

first to shapa

Your idea is not a radical one, it was really popular 60 years ago. Some people are better than other in one or more senses but it is not survival of strongest it is the survival of fittest. And the meaning of this is the surviving one is the fittest. You can only understand who is better after he lived and probably died there are no constant traits that makes people better because world has diverse environment and the needs of the populations change contantly. If there wasn't a diversity or change in the world there would not be evolution or genetic diversity. I am sure if bill gates lived 300 hundred years ago he would die at the age of 26 or something because he does not have traits for that years but now he is a billionare. well being faster or stronger doesn't mean much in corporate world.

to TTaM

you mention benign dictatorship but benign according to who? you might like his way of rule but others might not agree. if the majority of population does not like him will he be benign ?
other thing is reality of this design. First of all decision making is not easy in a state, there are increadible amount of decisions that should be done and almost each of them require specilization. It is not even possible for a person to form an idea about all these jobs. For system to work there is a need for a)information service that informs the dictator about the matters discussed b)a bureaucracy that does the little jobs or the ones that need specilization. Do you expect the dictator to know about the best route to make a highway and the best path to follow in international politics if a neighbor state declares war to another state at the same time ? Even there is a benign dictator (which there are in the history) both a and b has to be benign too to create a just rule. Generally in dictatorships real problem is corruption which is caused by wrong information given by a) about the people who work for b). which is around the same thing with democracy only there is a possibility of "evil" dictator (which is high) btw a)+b) is called administration

[Fatalbone]

to alstor

well sorry alstor but 10 people being better than 1 argument is a little bit childish. The idea behind the democracy is more like market economy rather than people helping each other. There are two kind of parties in a parliment, ideological ones and pragmatic ones. ideological parties are believers of more radical minority groups which represents their believers and try to make others believe them. Pragmatic parties are the ones that just try to get more votes.(general example of this is center right and left). Being a goverment provides fame power and wealth to the party members so they compete with other members to get to the top. They need votes to reach to the top so they spend more energy helping people. So people are getting getting good system becouse of the competition. But the real thing doesn't work like that. Now pragmatic parties have party programs almost identical because all of them wants to get the same vote. And arguing technical (well roles and decisions that a government makes are way complicated than it looks) realities doesn't bring lots of vote because majority can't understand it. so the simple down everything to retard level and create fake baloon like arguments to get more from the next party. For example abortion in US. It is so polarated in the media and the country that your side almost correlates to 1 with your vote. or religion in many countries.

There is another view on democracy in the book I am reading. Democracy is not really different from a kingdom with liberal rights. In a kingdom there is a family that is exerting its power on the whole population. In a democracy there is a group of people exerting the power over the whole population only difference is they are selected(hopefully)by majority. (keep in mind that there is no alternative to choosing one of them there is always a group of people that has power over you). In both systems you can't go against their power ie. you can't say I am not paying tax or I am not going to compulsory education. Doing an action against to systems in traison in both of them. And you have to give up your rights(forced to give up) against the ruling group.

thats all... for now

[Alstor]

to alstor

well sorry alstor but 10 people being better than 1 argument is a little bit childish.

yet relevant in this discussion which is/was dictatorship versus democracy?

an example was Mao in china, who had some crazy idea, and because he were the single ruler he could carry out some thing way out of mind.. like for example he decided that now they would want to kill as many birds in china as possible, because the birds were eating from teh corn storage thingies and h didn't want them to.. but this single mind was not thinking very clear and noone dared to not obey or question his word, so they killed a shit load of birds, what happened after that? birds also eat insects and when the birds are gone, there were a shit load of insects coming in huge swarms eating up field after fiel and people died from hunger... that would enver happen in a contry where people are taking the decisions as a group, nd where you split out responsibility throughout a great lot of people who can specialize.. and not just 1 man with crazy ideas.. this is where 10 minds are stronger than 1, you got my point? 

[Daekesh]

to TTaM

you mention benign dictatorship but benign according to who? you might like his way of rule but others might not agree. if the majority of population does not like him will he be benign ?
other thing is reality of this design. First of all decision making is not easy in a state, there are increadible amount of decisions that should be done and almost each of them require specilization. It is not even possible for a person to form an idea about all these jobs. For system to work there is a need for a)information service that informs the dictator about the matters discussed b)a bureaucracy that does the little jobs or the ones that need specilization. Do you expect the dictator to know about the best route to make a highway and the best path to follow in international politics if a neighbor state declares war to another state at the same time ? Even there is a benign dictator (which there are in the history) both a and b has to be benign too to create a just rule. Generally in dictatorships real problem is corruption which is caused by wrong information given by a) about the people who work for b). which is around the same thing with democracy only there is a possibility of "evil" dictator (which is high) btw a)+b) is called administration

That's a very specious argument.  Does the President of a Democracy handle every single decision made by the government?  A dictatorship is not 1 man, it is a system of people who do not need to be voted for.  The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that in a democracy the leader changes (possibly) every 4-5 years and the leaders have to account for that.  This means that a democracy is far far far less effective than a dictatorship at implementing policy.  A dictator can make hard decisions and come up with an unpopular, but better, solution without fear of reprisal. The downside to the dictatorship (as apose to a democracy) is that if the person in charge is bad at it, you're screwed, unless there is a revolution.  Then again, the same is true for a 2-party democracy where both parties are equally bad.

Yes it does, in 99% of the cases, cause you cannot grant one person that much power, he won't be able to act reasonable (Edit: Rational), and it will ultimately end up like every other dictatorship i've ever heard of..

This is precisely why I said a benign dictatorship.  One that is not "evil". One that does not harm it's nation, but rather prides itself on the improvement and success of it's state.  A rare find, indeed.

If you agree with both of these terms, 10 minds are cleverer than 1, and 1 leader is better than 10.. i guess democracy is the only way...

10 minds is not better than 1.  10 minds is 10 people who are greedy, self-absorbed and not thinking of the group.  10 minds who will argue over everything and never reach a decision.  1 mind, with absolute power, can not be bribed, extorted, etc.

[Fatalbone]

What you said has nothing to do with democracy it is about fear of leader or unsuccessful administration. You don't have to be democratic to solve a problem. That problem can be solved even under fascism which is pretty away from democracy. Actually fascist governments in the world can solve many problems much more efficently from the democracies. Alstor how do you explain scientific and military strategy success of germany under fascist rule ? How did they solve much more complex questions without democracy ?(no n word no godwin ) And... I don't actually think you can simplify all events like that. He is a son of a farmer after all I am sure he knows that birds eat insects and such. You can say he tried new methods of agriculture and failed. As I told to TTaM a) and b) is actually more important than the dictator. It is probably the case where a) and b) lied about the result of experimental methods to raise in the hiercarcy or not to get punished. Well modern agricultural methods are found revolutionary at first and increased the production a lot but now we know it has long term damage to environment and it can degrade the arable land.

you are confusing democracy with a group decision making.

TTaM if there is a group of people ruling it is called oligarchy
But if you ask me you would prefer a technocracy to a dictatorship. look it up
Well no President does not handle every single thing because it is a democracy and based on seperation of powers unlike dictatorship and in parlimentary democracies president doesn't actually do alot he is a ceremonial leader. in presidental system it has more power but still he doesn't do all the things because power is divided between him(executive) parliment+senate(legislative) judicary and administration.

A dictator has a control over executive legislative judicary and administration at the same time.