Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, I quite enjoy my life and the society I live in, which allows me to stay at least one level removed from the law of the jungle in my day to day. Because there is enough power present to do so, power which is derived from the consolidation of force we call a "society".
Do you think this little 8-year-old girl enjoyed her life in a "civilized world" after you and I funded her head being blown to bits? Is this "society" acceptable to you?
Do you think this little 8-year-old girl enjoyed her life in a "civilized world" after you and I funded her head being blown to bits? Is this "society" acceptable to you?
Yep, anecdotes of real bad s*** happen all the time in a world with billions of people scurrying around on it. Don't have to go to Yemen, few weeks ago a kid in a town near me was just randomly gunned down in his front yard. Drive by. Right to self defense didn't do crap cause the kid didn't have the necessary power on hand to defend it, regardless the element of surprise would have most likely made it worthless even if he was strapped up.
Are you so delusional you think this type of stuff wouldn't happen in an anarchic society as well?
Or that the society would even be stable enough to stop some other society that doesn't share your beliefs from doing what happened to this girl, to you and the rest of the anarchy squad?
Yep, anecdotes of real bad s*** happen all the time in a world with billions of people scurrying around on it.
Are you so delusional you think this type of stuff wouldn't happen in an anarchic society as well?
Or that the society would even be stable enough to stop some other society that doesn't share your beliefs from doing what happened to this girl, to you and the rest of the anarchy squad?
Your point is what? Sometimes collateral damage sucks? Sometimes bad **** happens in war?
The appeal to emotion to attempt to carry the argument rather than data or proof of concept is not lost on me.
Anarchy does nothing to alleviate either of those problems. It just renders the anarchic society defenseless against them. Pretending that human social nature is different than it has evolved to be is not a winning strategy (just like any other strategy based entirely on wishful thinking, heres' lookin' at you "fun and easy to win" trade war).
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 08-23-2019 at 07:38 PM..
Most people are followers. They need someone else to make the hard decisions for them and would be thrilled to have someone step in and make day to day decisions for them. That is why so many like a nanny state. It's also why so many seek to blame anyone and everyone except the person looking back at them in the mirror.
I worked for a big corporation that you could literals spend a career just attending their offsite and training classes.
I went to one, investments in excellence I think it was. Remember this was back in the 90's soooo memory is questionable . In that class we all took a test to determine personality. They didn't tell us what it meant. Then they broke us up into groups and gave us scenarios to work through.
The point was to show how society worked in the work place and why the company believed in diversity. It showed that a high percentage of people in fact needed to be led. Some wanted to be the leaders but hated tough decisions and confrontation. Absolutely feared public opinion.
Anyway it was a good class. Those of us who took it seriously were better performers and leaders because of it. We built stronger more functional teams.
Trump should have taken that course....
Most of our political leaders are scum bags who learned how to manipulate the system and do it well. They are obvious in what they do. Their adoring supporters will never call them on it because that would mean making the hard call. That would mean thinking for themselves and most people hate to be put in that position.
They pretend to be thinking for themselves as they avoid hitting the straight party vote button. They instead vote individually for whomever is in their party. hahahaha
Most people are followers. They need someone else to make the hard decisions for them and would be thrilled to have someone step in and make day to day decisions for them. That is why so many like a nanny state. It's also why so many seek to blame anyone and everyone except the person looking back at them in the mirror.
I worked for a big corporation that you could literals spend a career just attending their offsite and training classes.
I went to one, investments in excellence I think it was. Remember this was back in the 90's soooo memory is questionable . In that class we all took a test to determine personality. They didn't tell us what it meant. Then they broke us up into groups and gave us scenarios to work through.
The point was to show how society worked in the work place and why the company believed in diversity. It showed that a high percentage of people in fact needed to be led. Some wanted to be the leaders but hated tough decisions and confrontation. Absolutely feared public opinion.
Anyway it was a good class. Those of us who took it seriously were better performers and leaders because of it. We built stronger more functional teams.
Trump should have taken that course....
Most of our political leaders are scum bags who learned how to manipulate the system and do it well. They are obvious in what they do. Their adoring supporters will never call them on it because that would mean making the hard call. That would mean thinking for themselves and most people hate to be put in that position.
They pretend to be thinking for themselves as they avoid hitting the straight party vote button. They instead vote individually for whomever is in their party. hahahaha
A political leader isn't a leader. He/she is a bully.
I would not call someone born to a Fortune (which would be in the billions today) low-born. So I picked that one because he doesn't qualify...
It's true that Trump's father was wealthy, but his grandfather Frederich came here from Germany in 1885. His first business was combo restaurant/brothel in Seattle. Then he went on to run a combo tavern/brothel in the Yukon. If that does not qualify President Trump as "low born" I don't know what would.
There is no shortage of ne'er-do-well US presidents. JFK was a sex addict and indifferent student, who finished in the bottom third of his class at Harvard. He dropped out of Stanford MBA school after a semester. His takeaway comment about Stanford U: "the gals are quite attractive...."
LBJ was a true cretin who would conduct staff meetings while he was sitting on the toilet. He also held meetings regularly in the White House swimming pool, where everyone was required to swim nude as that was LBJ's preference. LBJ was tall, and liked to sadistically take staff members to a part of the pool where he could stand with his feet on the pool floor, while shorter staff members would have to tread water while discussing an issue.
Even Ike, now often regarded as a boy scout, had discipline issues at West Point. His main interest was playing football, and he was an inveterate prankster. Then there's Bill Clinton--no comment necessary; Barack Obama, of 'shroom gang' fame; and Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, whose personal life was often a mess. Reagan admitted to going on a womanizing binge after divorcing his first wife.
If we look back at Old Testament history, we find numerous flawed leaders, who were nonetheless raised up by the good Lord. King David might be the epitome, but there are many others. Jephtath, from the book of Judges (chapters 11-12), was son of a prostitute who became a leader of a kind of youth gang. He wound up as a military leader, and a judge who presided over Israel for six years.
Can a ne'er-do-well nonetheless be an effective or even great leader? What do you think.
Someone being a jerk or doing something immoral does not mean that their entire life was "never do well" or "low born" (what is "low born" anyway?), but could give them the bad reputation.
Some of the best leaders are the people who aren't necessarily nice. You can't be a leader if you're too worried about being "nice" to everyone. It doesn't mean you have to be mean to everyone, but you sure as hell cannot be "nice" to everyone and lead - you will be eaten alive.
So yes, someone who acted like the ones you mentioned, yes, despite their flaws, they could be good leaders. What they do when given that opportunity is what decides if they were good leaders or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
