One change in the world, for a price of course.
- Thread starter Zacharine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
sorry, fox is the #1 propaganda news so it go's, feel free toCody211282 said:
Oh I know it is, But you see that everywere to some extent, only thing i notice diffrent about fox is its right leaning and not leftGuitar Gamer said:
In your country, Disnex corporation is formed and begins the production of their first cartoon....?bleachigo10 said:
Or perhaps, suddenly the only cartoons/animated films shown in your country are nothing but reruns of the disney films that were made.
Okay.
First of the awesomely absurd one. I would place myself as the emperor of all the lands of the old Roman Empire (and since it is a wish they love me) the loss to America would either be the loss of me or the loss of its "Power".
Second Answer. I can't think of one that isn't delightfully absurd. I can easily say i would stop the genocide in Darfur, or bring peace to Israel and Palistine, but in both cases it would be a short lived peace that would brew resentment. The countries around Darfur might wonder, what about our needs. The Arab Nations around Israel would still resent the loss of land, or the Israelites would be forced out of their homes. I would trully want to stop the suffering in Darfur, but it is a political war, the losing side would soon enough raise to arms again.
And the sacrifices required to stop the Genocide, if under the equivalent exchange rule, would cost American lives that would be on my conscious for the rest of my life. If my ability to stop the Genocide around the world started an equal Genocide at home would anything truly be fixed?
I can easily wish for racial equality, i can easily wish for an end of nationality, racism, secular hate, but that would not stop anything. People would still fight and kill, and the sacrifice paid upon the billions of Americans would in itself be a Genocide.
Maybe i would just change a few countries flags.
First of the awesomely absurd one. I would place myself as the emperor of all the lands of the old Roman Empire (and since it is a wish they love me) the loss to America would either be the loss of me or the loss of its "Power".
Second Answer. I can't think of one that isn't delightfully absurd. I can easily say i would stop the genocide in Darfur, or bring peace to Israel and Palistine, but in both cases it would be a short lived peace that would brew resentment. The countries around Darfur might wonder, what about our needs. The Arab Nations around Israel would still resent the loss of land, or the Israelites would be forced out of their homes. I would trully want to stop the suffering in Darfur, but it is a political war, the losing side would soon enough raise to arms again.
And the sacrifices required to stop the Genocide, if under the equivalent exchange rule, would cost American lives that would be on my conscious for the rest of my life. If my ability to stop the Genocide around the world started an equal Genocide at home would anything truly be fixed?
I can easily wish for racial equality, i can easily wish for an end of nationality, racism, secular hate, but that would not stop anything. People would still fight and kill, and the sacrifice paid upon the billions of Americans would in itself be a Genocide.
Maybe i would just change a few countries flags.
I don't believe in changing anything about other people's countries, since it is not my country, it is not my right to decide their fate.SakSak said:
Secondly, based on the math I have seen, allowing citizens to own/carry guns results in less crime. There are some relevant facts here:
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/
I believe the ability to defend oneself is an innate right...and secondly, the math seems to show that letting citizens defend themsleves helps, rather than hurting. For example: Michigan allowed citizens to carry guns around in the year 2000. The crime rate immediatley fell, and it stayed lower, even as the recession got worse. By contrast, both Britain's crime rate and violent crime rate have skyrocketed since banning handguns...and the crime rate rise started about 3 years before the global recession hit in 2000.
Lastly, although I don't believe in marching into other people's countries and telling them what to do, I would have the propaganda and lies of political groups and goverments exposed around the world. I would have people suddenly know the truth on many issues. Then we could truly fight corruption, and create a better future. I am not sure what the downside of that would be.
I'm trying so desperately not to say something rude about France, I know there have got to be French people on this forum, and I have no problem with French people, they're just so damn French--
A HA! I've got it! I would change France so her people would stop being so damn French! In return us Americans would lose what remains of our patriotism in these divisive times. Hasn't killed our economy so far OH WAIT. Aw, who am I kidding, we could all be waving the stars and stripes and it wouldn't get any better. >.<
But if France isn't so French I could move there when America tears itself apart! Yay! I guess...
A HA! I've got it! I would change France so her people would stop being so damn French! In return us Americans would lose what remains of our patriotism in these divisive times. Hasn't killed our economy so far OH WAIT. Aw, who am I kidding, we could all be waving the stars and stripes and it wouldn't get any better. >.<
But if France isn't so French I could move there when America tears itself apart! Yay! I guess...
Wow, i'm amazed that some of the posters here have completely failed to grasp the OP.
As for me i'm not sure, someone further up commented about the UK bringing about world piece that is more of less bulletproof (i'm assuming Labour is removed from power at some point along the line!).
As for me, i guess that i'd have gun restrictions made a little tighter in the USA, and although i'm assuming the punishment would be that gun laws are laxed slightly in the UK (depending on whether you see it as a good or bad thing i suppose) i believe we would be able to realize much better that guns are a privilege, not a right.
As for me i'm not sure, someone further up commented about the UK bringing about world piece that is more of less bulletproof (i'm assuming Labour is removed from power at some point along the line!).
As for me, i guess that i'd have gun restrictions made a little tighter in the USA, and although i'm assuming the punishment would be that gun laws are laxed slightly in the UK (depending on whether you see it as a good or bad thing i suppose) i believe we would be able to realize much better that guns are a privilege, not a right.
I agree, everyone has the right to defend themselves. But not by immediately killing the offending party. And that is the only use for guns: killing.RelexCryo said:
Also, correlation does not imply causation.
If strict gun control results in an increase in crime, my country would be high in criminal numbers as while we have lots of guns, we also have strict control. And yet, for some reason, our crime rates are not that bad. In the year 2004, we had 150.46 offences per 1000 people. This includes traffic violations (over 40 per 1000 people).
In fact, gun related homicides are rare, comprising only about 14% of the total number of homicides (comparatively low number). Street shootings and gang violence are mostly nonexistant.
In fact, alcohol is a much larger problem than guns over here. The majority of criminals and victims have been under the influence of alcohol during the act of violent crime. In homicides 61-75 percent, in attempted homicides 71-78 percent and in assaults 71-73 percent of the criminals were under the influence of alcohol.
So how does the math apply to Finland? Apparently, it does not. So either my country is the anomalous data point in the statistic, or strict gun control does not increase crime by default.
That's actually a good one. I can't think of anything else that could possibly not cause too much harm to my country. Actually, placing me in command of Russia would be good. This way I would prevent war with the only possibly hostile nation nearby (I'm from Finland). This would also mean that the current person in command of Russia (the actual president might not be the one) would have to take a place in Finland. That wouldn't matter: he wouldn't have that much power. Actually, I can't see any possible huge harm done with anyone here.RareDevil said:
The consequence is that the American flag would be replaced with a neon pink background with a winking unicorn as the national symbol, center mass.RareDevil said:
I don't mean to be crass, but you seem to have missed the point of this thread and gone on to your own tangential agenda. Your original post ignored the confines as provided by the OP, and seems oriented towards contentious arguments of semantics and cherry picked statistics.RelexCryo said:
Such debates are fine. One might hope, however, that such debates would occur in private or within the confines of a thread created for that effect.
Ahh I'll just let the world simmer in the boiling pot that is the Solar system on the cooker of the Milkyway in the kitchen of the Universe.
