One nation is a solution for war

[Immanuel Can]

I was a Muslim first. Then Christian. Then atheist. And now I am agnostic. You see, everything is possible through proper education.

I figured you were from a different culture. But you can't be an agnostic now, because you believe in "spirits," according to you. You seem to have become a sort of animist, too, since you think that rocks and trees have consciousness. Is that not right?

I believe in the mind with the ability to experience and cause.

But you also believe rocks and trees have it, right?

People should freely join one nation.

Why? Why should they change from what they are now? And why your kind of nation, and not their own?

If you leave them free, they won't do it. If you don't leave them free, they won't have joined you at all...they'll have been forced into it.

What is the difference between me or you and them? Education.

No. It's worldview. Many of them are highly educated.

They don't have the proper education.

Hence the "re-education camps" you're going to need.

So you know what's "proper," but the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, the Jews...none of them know what is "proper"? And yet you think they'll "freely" join your program?

I said that everything experiences. That is different from everything has spirit.

If a thing has no spirit, then it cannot "experience." There's no consciousness, then, to process the "experience."

Mind is everywhere so there is experience everywhere.

Rocks and trees are "mind," you think?

Again, forcing people does not work.

Of course, it doesn't work. And that's why your idea won't work, either. Because forcing them is what you're really going to have to do.

All social movement is the result of an idea. My idea might die with me or maybe be accepted globally. Who knows. My responsibility is to talk about it.

Well, and if you can, to show it makes sense. Or to show what it involves, demands or produces. That's why we're talking about it right now.

Yes, think of Canada for example. People have different languages and they gather under one flag.

With lasting dislike or hatred of one another. Canada's being torn into shreds, and has been under severe national tension for decades. It's the most allegedly multicultural country in the world, but also one of the increasingly most failing ones, exactly as immigration continues to diversify.

I lived in Canada for several years. It is not like what you describe.

Then you know the lasting hatred between Quebeckers and the rest of the country. You know about the Western separatist movement, which has never been bigger. You know about the chronic underserving of the East Coast, the poverty, crime, abuse and addiction in the Indigenous communities...but maybe even so, you don't know about how bad it's gotten lately. You don't know about the Muslim riots and 'demonstrations,' the anti-semitism, the new cultural ghettos, the refugees dumped into Canada without the means to provide for themselves, the absurd cost of real-estate...

So there's a few things you ought to know, and lots you don't.

I would learn another language if it is necessary.

Many would not want that. You won't find they'll do it at all, without force. And they'll resent it ever thereafter, even if you could make it happen.

The second language is taught in many nations. And people are not resisting it and quite oppositely are very welcoming.

That only happens when there's a reason to acquire the second language -- when it gets you political, economic, social and such opportunities. But languages that are not allowed to influence those things get underserved and ghettoized. Look what's happened to all the aboriginal languages: the Indigenous have been allowed to keep them, but they can't do business in them, get educated in them, have a modern vocabulary in them, use them to speak to their fellow citizens, speak to government in their own language, and so on. Indigenous languages have been turned into things that closed communities can use to speak to each other, but that cannot have any utility at all in the larger community or nation.

That's what you are thinking of doing to all the other languages, whether you know you are or not.

[bahman]

I figured you were from a different culture. But you can't be an agnostic now, because you believe in "spirits," according to you. You seem to have become a sort of animist, too, since you think that rocks and trees have consciousness. Is that not right?

I believe in the mind with the ability to experience and cause.

But you also believe rocks and trees have it, right?

No, rocks and trees do not have a mind. I believe in a sort of substance dualism in which there are two substances, namely the mind and Quidia. The mind experiences the Quidia and causes change in Quidia.

People should freely join one nation.

Why? Why should they change from what they are now? And why your kind of nation, and not their own?

If you leave them free, they won't do it. If you don't leave them free, they won't have joined you at all...they'll have been forced into it.

Because it is beneficial for them. Just think of how much money is invested in warfare! This money could be used for education, welfare, and the like.

No. It's worldview. Many of them are highly educated.

They don't have the proper education.

Hence the "re-education camps" you're going to need.

So you know what's "proper," but the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, the Jews...none of them know what is "proper"? And yet you think they'll "freely" join your program?

The proper education teaches the individual to critically think, accept that the idea of one nation is beneficial for everyone, and know their rights...

If a thing has no spirit, then it cannot "experience." There's no consciousness, then, to process the "experience."

Mind is everywhere so there is experience everywhere.

Rocks and trees are "mind," you think?

No, they are Quida.

Of course, it doesn't work. And that's why your idea won't work, either. Because forcing them is what you're really going to have to do.

All social movement is the result of an idea. My idea might die with me or maybe be accepted globally. Who knows. My responsibility is to talk about it.

Well, and if you can, to show it makes sense. Or to show what it involves, demands or produces. That's why we're talking about it right now.

Yes.

With lasting dislike or hatred of one another. Canada's being torn into shreds, and has been under severe national tension for decades. It's the most allegedly multicultural country in the world, but also one of the increasingly most failing ones, exactly as immigration continues to diversify.

I lived in Canada for several years. It is not like what you describe.

Then you know the lasting hatred between Quebeckers and the rest of the country. You know about the Western separatist movement, which has never been bigger. You know about the chronic underserving of the East Coast, the poverty, crime, abuse and addiction in the Indigenous communities...but maybe even so, you don't know about how bad it's gotten lately. You don't know about the Muslim riots and 'demonstrations,' the anti-semitism, the new cultural ghettos, the refugees dumped into Canada without the means to provide for themselves, the absurd cost of real-estate...

So there's a few things you ought to know, and lots you don't.

Actually, there was a referendum for separation and the majority of people didn't agree with separation.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe in the mind with the ability to experience and cause.

But you also believe rocks and trees have it, right?

No, rocks and trees do not have a mind. I believe in a sort of substance dualism in which there are two substances, namely the mind and Quidia. The mind experiences the Quidia and causes change in Quidia.

Then trees and rocks don't have "experiences." They don't "experience" anything that happens to them. And animals have "experiences," but have no ability to have metacognitions about them. So "mind" is definitely not the same thing everywhere.

People should freely join one nation.

Why? Why should they change from what they are now? And why your kind of nation, and not their own?

If you leave them free, they won't do it. If you don't leave them free, they won't have joined you at all...they'll have been forced into it.

Because it is beneficial for them.

That's awfully paternalistic. You think that you know what's good for them, and they don't? What about their right to self-determination?

They don't have the proper education.

Hence the "re-education camps" you're going to need.

So you know what's "proper," but the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, the Jews...none of them know what is "proper"? And yet you think they'll "freely" join your program?

The proper education teaches the individual to critically think, accept that the idea of one nation is beneficial for everyone, and know their rights...

You're not saying anything here that every totalitarian and tyrant has also not said. They all think their "one nation" is special, and that all "right thinking" or "educated" or "critical thinking" people should support them; and that if somebody doesn't, then they deserve to be pushed aside.

So that's just despotism.

I lived in Canada for several years. It is not like what you describe.

Then you know the lasting hatred between Quebeckers and the rest of the country. You know about the Western separatist movement, which has never been bigger. You know about the chronic underserving of the East Coast, the poverty, crime, abuse and addiction in the Indigenous communities...but maybe even so, you don't know about how bad it's gotten lately. You don't know about the Muslim riots and 'demonstrations,' the anti-semitism, the new cultural ghettos, the refugees dumped into Canada without the means to provide for themselves, the absurd cost of real-estate...

So there's a few things you ought to know, and lots you don't.

Actually, there was a referendum for separation and the majority of people didn't agree with separation.

Only in Quebec. And it won by the narrowest of margins. Quebec is still resentful about it. And now, for the first time, Alberta is talking seriously about separation. But worse still, public life in Canada is splintered into warring fragments, with the Muslims, in particular, at war with both the classical and radical liberals, the Sikhs at war with the Hindus, the Jews under fire again, the Aboriginals tirelessly campaigning for more government support or new land claims, and so on, and immigration expanded without commensurate social support, resulting in a rapid increase in street people and crime.

[Age]

Yes, in my view, Social Democracy is the best type of government. Do you have a better example?

Yes.

Exactly as I said here previously. A 'Self-governed' society.

Here, I am just providing my opinion. People have the right to disagree.

Have you noticed all of the 'disagreement' and reasons 'why' you are receiving here?

If yes, are you taking notice of them, and considering why there are so many disagreements here?

All I can do is to discuss.

you can, actually, do far more. Like, for example, one thing you could do here is consider why there are so many disagreeing with you here.

People either agree with me or disagree. Hopefully, more people get the idea after the discussion.[/quote]

There is absolutely nothing flawless nor faultless with the idea of just a 'One nation earth', where absolutely every one is living, together, in peace and harmony, as One.

However, the way you are going about trying to express 'this idea', and especially in how you are saying and claiming will come about, is only making more and more people end up disagreeing with you.

The more you try to 'convince' others here, the more you are defeating, and/or creating the very opposite of, the very idea itself.

And, as I partly explained to you earlier, if an idea, or the way to an idea, needs to be 'convinced' to others, then this is sure sign of the 'information' being False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect itself.

I meant a type of government, Social Democracy.

So then my question still pertains to 'one flag', which to you just means 'social democracy'.

Which you, obviously, believe is the best type of government, correct?

If yes, then you will naturally keep arguing and/or fighting for your belief here, even if your belief is really that good an idea at all. This is just the 'nature of belief/the beast', itself.

Yes, I think that is the best government.

Thinking some thing is very, very different from believing some thing.

Now, if you really think that 'that' is the best government, then are you OPEN to 'that' may well not be the best government, at all?

I want to live within one nation.

But not 'the one' others have chosen, for you, have decided you should be educated upon and with, and who have decided you should agree with, accept, and follow also, correct?

Can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions now in your claims and beliefs here?

This is just an idea.

1. Of course 'an idea' where everyone is living in peace and harmony as One is the best and/or greatest idea possible, probably.

2. Again, can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions in 'the way' you are trying to say and claim that 'the idea' can or would come about?

3. To me, enough people have already explained these things to you, for you to be able to recognize and see them, now already.

4. The very way you are going about expressing, telling, trying to convince, and/or trying to force 'the way' that the 'one nation' idea could or would come about is fully 'self-defeating', because what you have and are still essentially showing and revealing here is the very proof of what people have been saying and pointing out to why 'the way' that 'that idea' will never ever work.

5. That is; the very thing you are doing here is why that great idea will never come about, nor to fruition.

6. There is, however, another way that actually will work, and did and does work, by the way.

It either dies away or leads to a movement.

The idea of living in peace and harmony together as One, is as old as human beings have wanted to be happy, and living in peace. Which was obviously for as long as human beings have existed with the ability to think and dream about this.

Also, the actual movement to create and make this idea Reality has already begun.

Finding those with True interest just takes some time. But, again, there is absolutely no rush, nor no need to hurry here.

My responsibility is to discuss it.

Have you not yet noticed that discussing only what you want others to see and hear about the way you want things done, is only the so-called 'responsibility' of one who is 'full of themself', as some might say here, now.

'Our responsibility' is to discuss, and do, what it actually Truly takes to make 'Life', Itself, better for each and every one.

What you are doing here "bahman" is certainly not this.

[Age]

Thank you for clarifying, and correcting me, here "henry quirk".

*

One issue I have here, however, with what you call the 'real world', the one that you say and claim we are in now, is if 'we' supposedly have a 'natural, moral claim to our own, and no one else's, life, liberty, nor property, then why can you take another's life, for example, for just touching a touch pick, which you want to claim 'is yours'?

Well, let's look at the principle involved, Age.

Okay.

Joe is the owner of his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. Stan wants to control those things. Stan wants Joe's X (X being Joe's property...mebbe Joe's toothpick, mebbe Joe's car, mebbe Joe's body). What should Joe do when Stan comes callin' looking to take that which is not his?

1. Well certainly not shoot 'em dead. Like you would love to do. Which, by the way, and if you have still not yet recognized and noticed goes absolutely completely against your own made up so-called 'principle' here.

2. When one has obtained 'understanding', itself, then that one knows, exactly, what to do, which would make it so that no one wanted to touch/steal another person's Wrongly and Falsely claimed 'property'. Which, by the way, you have 'obtained' under False pretenses and have stolen from others anyway.

3. Once the ill and Wrongly gotten belief of 'this is mine' is removed from that very, very ill and sick society that you are living in 'now', when this is being written, then so-called "joe" will not have to 'decide' what to do, as "joe" would already know what to do. That is; 'share' 'the world' with every one else. By the way, "stan" and "joe" are only thinking and doing what they are there in your example here because both "stan" and "joe" have both had to endure and suffer growing up in and with abuse.

4. Do you still want to insist that taking the life of another, by blowing the head off of 'a body', is acceptable and justifiable if 'that one' just, for example, touched the believed 'your toothpick'?

*

Also, who decides on who claim of property is the True and Right claim.

Who owns Joe's body? The answer seems obvious. Who owns Joe's car or toothpick? Joe sez he does. Unless Stan has evidence to counter Joe, don't we have to take Joe's word?

Oh, so to this one anyway, absolutely anyone can just say, 'I own 'this' or 'that', and until 'evidence' is provided, then we just have to take that one's word for it, right?

If yes, then maybe this is one of the other reasons of how and why "henry quirk" has, to "itself" only anyway, 'justified' its stealing of things, from others, and then claiming those things to be "henry quirk's" property.

Oh, and further more, if any one just even just tries to as so go near to this one to just question them about where they got those things from, it then can choose, justifiably, again to just shoot them dead.

The hypocrisy and contradictions in your so-called 'principles' here are never ending with you "henry quirk".

*

From what I have observed and ascertained, 'the property' that you want to and try to claim is 'rightfully yours' was in loose terms 'stolen' from others.

Your evidence? Who did I steal X (my body, my car, my toothpick, my...etc) from?

The property which you say 'is yours'.

*

Furthermore, in the 'real world' human beings, individually, do not have nor own 'property'.

My first, best property is myself.

'you' do not even know who 'you' are yet "Henry quirk". So, to claim that there is a 'you' who has "its" own 'self' is an oxymoron, and a contradiction in and of itself.

I don't belong to myself? I grow tomatoes. That fruit isn't mine? The car I paid good money for: it's not mine?

If you now say and/or believe so, then okay.

Also, the very reason you have not moved and proceed along here is because of these beliefs, which you keep showing and revealing to 'us' here.

*

But then, different observers have different perspectives of what the 'real world' is, exactly, correct? you know, 'the one' that you are living in 'now' is very, very different from the one human beings in the past were living 'in', just like 'the world' that you were living 'in' back when this was being written is very, very different from the one 'we' are living in 'now', as well.

We all live in the same world as always where water is wet, fire burns, and man, every man, any man, is a free will with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

But there is absolutely no 'world' where you human beings own property.

Also, there are women, and children, in the 'real world', but we know that they do not exist in 'your world' "henry quirk", or at least do not get a mention in, by you. But, then again, 'your world' is a very, very little and narrowed 'world', where not many others are allowed to exist, and where you can pick and choose whose life and liberty you can take, from.

-----

I take it, Age, you don't agree that man, any man, has a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

Well you could not be more Wrong here, even if you wanted to be and/or tried to be.

Why would you 'take' such a thing as this here?

If you don't agree, then how do you judge rightness or wrongness? What's your measure for saying sumthin' is right or wrong?

But I do not not agree. I just say that it is extremely hypocritical to claim that a man has a 'natural right' to his, and no other's, life and liberty while also claiming that 'you', "henry quirk", can take another man's life and/or liberty when you so choose to.

Can you really still not yet see the absolute hypocrisy in this here?

[Age]

So you think you can "educate" all the Chinese into preferring English,

Yes.

the Arabs into rejecting Islam,

What religion individuals have is not the duty of the government.

Unlike in the West, Islam does not accept any separation of religion and State. That's what Sharia is all about. How do you "educate" them to forget that, and act like Post-Protestant, Western believers in human rights?

the Somalis into giving up child-brides and female circumcision,

That certainly is a crime.

How do you make them agree with you about that? To them, these are sacred things.

the aboriginals into abandoning animism,

Actually, I think that everything experiences.

Oh? So you're an animist yourself? Well, how do you make people like me or like modern Atheists to agree to see spirits in trees and rocks?

you have some of the most contradictory beliefs "Immanuel can", as well as say some of the most contradictory things also.

you believe, say, and claim that God, the Spirit, is within every thing, but then appear to also believe and say and claim that there is no Spirit in trees nor rocks.

Some of these people who believed, absolutely, in things that they had not come to fully understand yet, did say and claim some of the most absurd and ridiculous things at times, when trying so hard to back up, support, and justify some of their 'currently' strongly held onto and continually maintained beliefs.

Now, if you "immanuel can" cannot even see the very thing, which your chosen religion insists is absolutely True, and Right there, then I suggest that it is time for you to do some reflection on what 'it' is, exactly, which you have chosen to believe (in) here.

and the Indians into no longer being Hindu...you think that's how it's going to play out?

Again, religion is not the concern of the government.

Every government is shaped around metaphysical beliefs of some kind. They may be unarticulated, or they may be stated; but they're always there. So you're going to have to force people to comply with your metaphysical beliefs, if you're going to make them one nation.

"Something like?" No, it's going to be exactly like that.

But put the shoe on the other foot: if the Chinese tell you that all important functions will henceforth be done only in Mandarin, and English and the other languages are only to be used for local purposes, are you going to sit still for that?

We can accommodate them in the nation if that is their only problem.

It's not the only one. But it's a huge one. People are very devoted to their own language, and they fight vigorously to protect it.

Exactly like "bahman" did just here now.

"bahman" did not answer your clarifying question here because "bahman" is, and thus would, fighting vigorously to protect its chosen language here.

Look at the Quebeckers in Canada, for example, or the aboriginals: both refuse to be absorbed in an English polity, or to allow their languages to be relegated to a cultural curiosity rather than to any position of power.

You would feel the same, if somebody told you that your English was no longer any use for government, education, commerce, international affairs, and so on. If they took your language, they'd render you powerless in all these areas. You wouldn't sit still for that.

As "bahman" just proved irrefutably True here.

NOBODY is ignorant of that idea. What do you think the Third Reich, the Roman Empire, and The Triumph of the Proletariat were supposed to be? They were supposed to be exactly what you're campaigning for: one culture gets all the control, and the others have to fall into line.

It's going to take more than "education" to get that to happen. You're going to end up doing what all those empire-builders also had to do: use force. You're going to end up being a tyrant.

No force. Education is the way to go.

It won't happen. What "education" is going to convince most of the world's population to stop being Chinese or Indian or Spanish or African, either linguistically or culturally, and to convert to your national dream? It will never happen. And if it did, it would only be by way of tyranny. Nothing less would get that job done.

[Age]

Yes.


What religion individuals have is not the duty of the government.

Unlike in the West, Islam does not accept any separation of religion and State. That's what Sharia is all about. How do you "educate" them to forget that, and act like Post-Protestant, Western believers in human rights?

I was a Muslim first. Then Christian. Then atheist. And now I am agnostic. You see, everything is possible through proper education.

But the Real and actual 'I' is absolutely none of these things.

Also, what kind of actual 'education' have you had where 'you' now think or believe that 'you' are a supposed and alleged 'agnostic'.

Furthermore, from the 'education' you have had what have you been taught, and thus learned, 'agnostic' means or refers to, exactly?

And, here is another example of another adult human being who thinks or believes that what its views are, 'currently now', because of a 'proper education'. Which, really is very absurd considering just how much and how many times this one's views have changed, along the way.

So, it makes me wonder when and where, exactly, this one had its so-called and so claimed 'proper education'.

That certainly is a crime.

How do you make them agree with you about that? To them, these are sacred things.

What is the difference between me or you and them? Education.

So, what so-called 'education' is going to re-educate 'you' "bahman" to what is actually True and Right here.

you, obviously, do not yet know.

Actually, I think that everything experiences.

Oh? So you're an animist yourself? Well, how do you make people like me or like modern Atheists to agree to see spirits in trees and rocks?

I said that everything experiences. That is different from everything has spirit.

Again, religion is not the concern of the government.

Every government is shaped around metaphysical beliefs of some kind. They may be unarticulated, or they may be stated; but they're always there. So you're going to have to force people to comply with your metaphysical beliefs, if you're going to make them one nation.

Again, forcing people does not work.

We can accommodate them in the nation if that is their only problem.

It's not the only one. But it's a huge one. People are very devoted to their own language, and they fight vigorously to protect it. Look at the Quebeckers in Canada, for example, or the aboriginals: both refuse to be absorbed in an English polity, or to allow their languages to be relegated to a cultural curiosity rather than to any position of power.

Yes, think of Canada for example. People have different languages and they gather under one flag.

You would feel the same, if somebody told you that your English was no longer any use for government, education, commerce, international affairs, and so on. If they took your language, they'd render you powerless in all these areas. You wouldn't sit still for that.

I would learn another language if it is necessary.

But what you would consider as 'necessary' might well be very, very different to all others.

No force. Education is the way to go.

It won't happen. What "education" is going to convince most of the world's population to stop being Chinese or Indian or Spanish or African, either linguistically or culturally, and to convert to your national dream? It will never happen. And if it did, it would only be by way of tyranny. Nothing less would get that job done.

They could keep their language and culture.

So, 'now' you will allow them to keep their language and culture. Which is very nice of you "bahman" here now.

But, can you really still not see just how tyrannical you really are being here?

Who is giving you the 'right' to pick and choose what other people can 'keep' or 'not keep'?

Regarding language, we encourage them to learn English so they can communicate with everyone around the world.

If you really want everyone to communicate with one language only, then why not choose and begin with the language that is mostly spoken?

That way less people would then have to re-learn another language. Would that be not be just more logical and more sensible?

[Age]

I was a Muslim first. Then Christian. Then atheist. And now I am agnostic. You see, everything is possible through proper education.

I figured you were from a different culture. But you can't be an agnostic now, because you believe in "spirits," according to you. You seem to have become a sort of animist, too, since you think that rocks and trees have consciousness. Is that not right?

I believe in the mind with the ability to experience and cause. The mind is omnipresent and it is needed for change. So there is an experience wherever there is a change.

And, you want others to come-to-believe the exact same thing/s that you do, even though you have been told numerous times already how and why some of your beliefs are absolutely and irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

But then, you know the truth of what I'm saying. Islam does not separate religion and State. And that means that the only way you can include Muslims, or Orthodox Jews, or Marxists, or Catholics, or any other religio-political belief system is by "educating" them out of it...probably in "re-education" camps, like Mao set up.

But even Mao really failed at that. He only partially succeeded in brainwashing his victims, as recent studies have shown, and in most cases, only succeeded in psychologically damaging them.

Not in the camp. People should freely join one nation. The proper education, by which I mean to critically discuss with them and argue against their belief.

Well you "bahman" and "immanual can" are both living proof of just how adult human beings will not listen to a single word of another when they argue against your/one's belief.

What is the difference between me or you and them? Education.

No. It's worldview. Many of them are highly educated.

They don't have the proper education.

Common on "bahman", we know very clearly that you can be very blind to some things, but surely you cannot be as utterly blind as you are showing 'us' here.

Every one of you adult human beings thinks or believes that you have each had the so-called 'proper education', which is one of the reasons why you people believe what you do.

Perhaps they know physics, chemistry, and the like. But this type of knowledge does not help to have a good lifestyle. They have to learn to respect other people's rights, their rights, and think critically...

But if you cannot even do this "yourself" "bahman" why are you expecting others to?

Would it not be better to lead, 'by example', instead of doing the exact opposite of what you are telling others that they 'should be doing'?

I said that everything experiences. That is different from everything has spirit.

If a thing has no spirit, then it cannot "experience." There's no consciousness, then, to process the "experience."

Mind is everywhere so there is experience everywhere.

Again, forcing people does not work.

Of course, it doesn't work. And that's why your idea won't work, either. Because forcing them is what you're really going to have to do.

All social movement is the result of an idea. My idea might die with me or maybe be accepted globally. Who knows. My responsibility is to talk about it.

Yes, think of Canada for example. People have different languages and they gather under one flag.

With lasting dislike or hatred of one another. Canada's being torn into shreds, and has been under severe national tension for decades. It's the most allegedly multicultural country in the world, but also one of the increasingly most failing ones, exactly as immigration continues to diversify.

I lived in Canada for several years. It is not like what you describe.

I would learn another language if it is necessary.

Many would not want that. You won't find they'll do it at all, without force. And they'll resent it ever thereafter, even if you could make it happen.

The second language is taught in many nations. And people are not resisting it and quite oppositely are very welcoming.

They could keep their language and culture. Regarding language, we encourage them to learn English so they can communicate with everyone around the world.

Why English? Why should you and I rule? Why not French? Or Spanish? Numerically, we'd have to say it should be Mandarin. What gives us the right to impose our language as the powerful one, while all the others have to become second-class?

They won't like it. They won't sit still for it. You won't make it happen without a lot of force...and piles of dead bodies, if history is any indicator.

People in most countries learning a second language so it does not need pressure to learn a language which they can share their ideas with.

[bahman]

But you also believe rocks and trees have it, right?

No, rocks and trees do not have a mind. I believe in a sort of substance dualism in which there are two substances, namely the mind and Quidia. The mind experiences the Quidia and causes change in Quidia.

Then trees and rocks don't have "experiences." They don't "experience" anything that happens to them. And animals have "experiences," but have no ability to have metacognitions about them. So "mind" is definitely not the same thing everywhere.

Here, I provide a proof for the mind being omnipresent in spacetime. This is off-topic though.

Why? Why should they change from what they are now? And why your kind of nation, and not their own?

If you leave them free, they won't do it. If you don't leave them free, they won't have joined you at all...they'll have been forced into it.

Because it is beneficial for them.

That's awfully paternalistic. You think that you know what's good for them, and they don't? What about their right to self-determination?

I didn't say that I force them to join. It is through education, discussion,... that we should convince them to join one nation.

Hence the "re-education camps" you're going to need.

So you know what's "proper," but the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, the Jews...none of them know what is "proper"? And yet you think they'll "freely" join your program?

The proper education teaches the individual to critically think, accept that the idea of one nation is beneficial for everyone, and know their rights...

You're not saying anything here that every totalitarian and tyrant has also not said. They all think their "one nation" is special, and that all "right thinking" or "educated" or "critical thinking" people should support them; and that if somebody doesn't, then they deserve to be pushed aside.

So that's just despotism.

I am not saying that we should use force.

Then you know the lasting hatred between Quebeckers and the rest of the country. You know about the Western separatist movement, which has never been bigger. You know about the chronic underserving of the East Coast, the poverty, crime, abuse and addiction in the Indigenous communities...but maybe even so, you don't know about how bad it's gotten lately. You don't know about the Muslim riots and 'demonstrations,' the anti-semitism, the new cultural ghettos, the refugees dumped into Canada without the means to provide for themselves, the absurd cost of real-estate...

So there's a few things you ought to know, and lots you don't.

Actually, there was a referendum for separation and the majority of people didn't agree with separation.

Only in Quebec. And it won by the narrowest of margins. Quebec is still resentful about it. And now, for the first time, Alberta is talking seriously about separation. But worse still, public life in Canada is splintered into warring fragments, with the Muslims, in particular, at war with both the classical and radical liberals, the Sikhs at war with the Hindus, the Jews under fire again, the Aboriginals tirelessly campaigning for more government support or new land claims, and so on, and immigration expanded without commensurate social support, resulting in a rapid increase in street people and crime.

All these problems can be sorted out within a nation. It is better than the war between nations.

[Age]

I believe in the mind with the ability to experience and cause.

But you also believe rocks and trees have it, right?

No, rocks and trees do not have a mind. I believe in a sort of substance dualism in which there are two substances, namely the mind and Quidia. The mind experiences the Quidia and causes change in Quidia.

People should freely join one nation.

Why? Why should they change from what they are now? And why your kind of nation, and not their own?

If you leave them free, they won't do it. If you don't leave them free, they won't have joined you at all...they'll have been forced into it.

Because it is beneficial for them. Just think of how much money is invested in warfare! This money could be used for education, welfare, and the like.

They don't have the proper education.

Hence the "re-education camps" you're going to need.

So you know what's "proper," but the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, the Jews...none of them know what is "proper"? And yet you think they'll "freely" join your program?

The proper education teaches the individual to critically think, accept that the idea of one nation is beneficial for everyone, and know their rights...

But the very thing you are saying every one should be 'educated' in and to you are proving that you cannot even do it "yourself" here "bahman".

Mind is everywhere so there is experience everywhere.

Rocks and trees are "mind," you think?

No, they are Quida.

All social movement is the result of an idea. My idea might die with me or maybe be accepted globally. Who knows. My responsibility is to talk about it.

Well, and if you can, to show it makes sense. Or to show what it involves, demands or produces. That's why we're talking about it right now.

Yes.

I lived in Canada for several years. It is not like what you describe.

Then you know the lasting hatred between Quebeckers and the rest of the country. You know about the Western separatist movement, which has never been bigger. You know about the chronic underserving of the East Coast, the poverty, crime, abuse and addiction in the Indigenous communities...but maybe even so, you don't know about how bad it's gotten lately. You don't know about the Muslim riots and 'demonstrations,' the anti-semitism, the new cultural ghettos, the refugees dumped into Canada without the means to provide for themselves, the absurd cost of real-estate...

So there's a few things you ought to know, and lots you don't.

Actually, there was a referendum for separation and the majority of people didn't agree with separation.

[bahman]

Yes.

Exactly as I said here previously. A 'Self-governed' society.


Have you noticed all of the 'disagreement' and reasons 'why' you are receiving here?

If yes, are you taking notice of them, and considering why there are so many disagreements here?

All I can do is to discuss.

There is absolutely nothing flawless nor faultless with the idea of just a 'One nation earth', where absolutely every one is living, together, in peace and harmony, as One.

However, the way you are going about trying to express 'this idea', and especially in how you are saying and claiming will come about, is only making more and more people end up disagreeing with you.

The more you try to 'convince' others here, the more you are defeating, and/or creating the very opposite of, the very idea itself.

And, as I partly explained to you earlier, if an idea, or the way to an idea, needs to be 'convinced' to others, then this is sure sign of the 'information' being False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect itself.

So you agree with the idea of one nation. That is a great start. What do you think that I said wrong?

So then my question still pertains to 'one flag', which to you just means 'social democracy'.

Which you, obviously, believe is the best type of government, correct?

If yes, then you will naturally keep arguing and/or fighting for your belief here, even if your belief is really that good an idea at all. This is just the 'nature of belief/the beast', itself.

Yes, I think that is the best government.

Thinking some thing is very, very different from believing some thing.

Now, if you really think that 'that' is the best government, then are you OPEN to 'that' may well not be the best government, at all?

Give me another example of a government that you think is better.

But not 'the one' others have chosen, for you, have decided you should be educated upon and with, and who have decided you should agree with, accept, and follow also, correct?

Can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions now in your claims and beliefs here?

This is just an idea.

1. Of course 'an idea' where everyone is living in peace and harmony as One is the best and/or greatest idea possible, probably.

2. Again, can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions in 'the way' you are trying to say and claim that 'the idea' can or would come about?

3. To me, enough people have already explained these things to you, for you to be able to recognize and see them, now already.

4. The very way you are going about expressing, telling, trying to convince, and/or trying to force 'the way' that the 'one nation' idea could or would come about is fully 'self-defeating', because what you have and are still essentially showing and revealing here is the very proof of what people have been saying and pointing out to why 'the way' that 'that idea' will never ever work.

5. That is; the very thing you are doing here is why that great idea will never come about, nor to fruition.

6. There is, however, another way that actually will work, and did and does work, by the way.

What is the other way that will work?

It either dies away or leads to a movement.

The idea of living in peace and harmony together as One, is as old as human beings have wanted to be happy, and living in peace. Which was obviously for as long as human beings have existed with the ability to think and dream about this.

Also, the actual movement to create and make this idea Reality has already begun.

Finding those with True interest just takes some time. But, again, there is absolutely no rush, nor no need to hurry here.

Can you tell me where the idea has already begun?

My responsibility is to discuss it.

Have you not yet noticed that discussing only what you want others to see and hear about the way you want things done, is only the so-called 'responsibility' of one who is 'full of themself', as some might say here, now.

'Our responsibility' is to discuss, and do, what it actually Truly takes to make 'Life', Itself, better for each and every one.

What you are doing here "bahman" is certainly not this.

What I am doing wrong?

[Age]

All I can do is to discuss.

There is absolutely nothing flawless nor faultless with the idea of just a 'One nation earth', where absolutely every one is living, together, in peace and harmony, as One.

However, the way you are going about trying to express 'this idea', and especially in how you are saying and claiming will come about, is only making more and more people end up disagreeing with you.

The more you try to 'convince' others here, the more you are defeating, and/or creating the very opposite of, the very idea itself.

And, as I partly explained to you earlier, if an idea, or the way to an idea, needs to be 'convinced' to others, then this is sure sign of the 'information' being False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect itself.

So you agree with the idea of one nation. That is a great start.

Have you never read anywhere in my writings here previously talking about 'the idea' of everyone living together as One?

What do you think that I said wrong?

Just about everything in regards to reaching and achieving the idea of 'one nation'.

Have you not been reading and following what I have been saying and pointing out about the Wrongs things that you have said and claimed here?

Yes, I think that is the best government.

Thinking some thing is very, very different from believing some thing.

Now, if you really think that 'that' is the best government, then are you OPEN to 'that' may well not be the best government, at all?

Give me another example of a government that you think is better.

I informed you earlier, when you asked me more or less the exact same question, previously.

That is; a 'self-governing' one.

Can you see 'it', this time?

This is just an idea.

1. Of course 'an idea' where everyone is living in peace and harmony as One is the best and/or greatest idea possible, probably.

2. Again, can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions in 'the way' you are trying to say and claim that 'the idea' can or would come about?

3. To me, enough people have already explained these things to you, for you to be able to recognize and see them, now already.

4. The very way you are going about expressing, telling, trying to convince, and/or trying to force 'the way' that the 'one nation' idea could or would come about is fully 'self-defeating', because what you have and are still essentially showing and revealing here is the very proof of what people have been saying and pointing out to why 'the way' that 'that idea' will never ever work.

5. That is; the very thing you are doing here is why that great idea will never come about, nor to fruition.

6. There is, however, another way that actually will work, and did and does work, by the way.

What is the other way that will work?

Through 'self-discipline' to learn how to teach what is actually Right, in Life.

It either dies away or leads to a movement.

The idea of living in peace and harmony together as One, is as old as human beings have wanted to be happy, and living in peace. Which was obviously for as long as human beings have existed with the ability to think and dream about this.

Also, the actual movement to create and make this idea Reality has already begun.

Finding those with True interest just takes some time. But, again, there is absolutely no rush, nor no need to hurry here.

Can you tell me where the idea has already begun?

In this forum, for one.

Have you not yet noticed that discussing only what you want others to see and hear about the way you want things done, is only the so-called 'responsibility' of one who is 'full of themself', as some might say here, now.

'Our responsibility' is to discuss, and do, what it actually Truly takes to make 'Life', Itself, better for each and every one.

What you are doing here "bahman" is certainly not this.

What I am doing wrong?

1. Believing that you have been 'educated' properly.

2. Believing that you already know what is best for others and/or everyone else.

3. Exactly what you are doing here by trying to convince others of what you believe and/or think is right and/or good.

To start off with.

[bahman]

There is absolutely nothing flawless nor faultless with the idea of just a 'One nation earth', where absolutely every one is living, together, in peace and harmony, as One.

However, the way you are going about trying to express 'this idea', and especially in how you are saying and claiming will come about, is only making more and more people end up disagreeing with you.

The more you try to 'convince' others here, the more you are defeating, and/or creating the very opposite of, the very idea itself.

And, as I partly explained to you earlier, if an idea, or the way to an idea, needs to be 'convinced' to others, then this is sure sign of the 'information' being False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect itself.

So you agree with the idea of one nation. That is a great start.

Have you never read anywhere in my writings here previously talking about 'the idea' of everyone living together as One?

No, please refer me to your posts on this topic.

What do you think that I said wrong?

Just about everything in regards to reaching and achieving the idea of 'one nation'.

Have you not been reading and following what I have been saying and pointing out about the Wrongs things that you have said and claimed here?

No, I didn't find anything worth considering. Unless I miss something. Could you please repeat it again?

Thinking some thing is very, very different from believing some thing.

Now, if you really think that 'that' is the best government, then are you OPEN to 'that' may well not be the best government, at all?

Give me another example of a government that you think is better.

I informed you earlier, when you asked me more or less the exact same question, previously.

That is; a 'self-governing' one.

Can you see 'it', this time?

Seld-governing! What is that?

1. Of course 'an idea' where everyone is living in peace and harmony as One is the best and/or greatest idea possible, probably.

2. Again, can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions in 'the way' you are trying to say and claim that 'the idea' can or would come about?

3. To me, enough people have already explained these things to you, for you to be able to recognize and see them, now already.

4. The very way you are going about expressing, telling, trying to convince, and/or trying to force 'the way' that the 'one nation' idea could or would come about is fully 'self-defeating', because what you have and are still essentially showing and revealing here is the very proof of what people have been saying and pointing out to why 'the way' that 'that idea' will never ever work.

5. That is; the very thing you are doing here is why that great idea will never come about, nor to fruition.

6. There is, however, another way that actually will work, and did and does work, by the way.

What is the other way that will work?

Through 'self-discipline' to learn how to teach what is actually Right, in Life.

That is very general. Could you please be more specific?

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't say that I force them to join. It is through education, discussion,... that we should convince them to join one nation.

Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.

I am not saying that we should use force.

Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.

[bahman]

I didn't say that I force them to join. It is through education, discussion,... that we should convince them to join one nation.

Well, let's see how you'd make that case.

Imagine I'm a Somali pirate, or a Palestinian terrorist, a Quaker farmer, a Chinese Party member, or an aboriginal person...explain to me why I ought to stop using my language, depending on my culture, or choosing my nation over others, and join yours instead.

I am not saying that we should use force.

Well, if you can make a case, I'll believe you: but I think you'll find that force is all you've got going for you.

The idea is attractive since it leads to wealth and peace instead of poverty and violence. So, if we could convince the civilized nation to form one nation then other nations would be tempted to join one nation. As simple as that.