Thread: President's Speech

Originally Posted by gugi

Interestingly though nobody seems to be interested in the first paragraph of the OP, i.e. consolidation of government. To me it seems that it's just the natural process of our human development. The increased connectivity with others invariably leads to the need of regulation of those interactions. Like the creation of USA - do you think that without a central/federal government the states would be able to have the same level of close interaction as they currently do? EU is a prime example of how monetary integration without a corresponding fiscal union is a recipe for disaster. All those treaties countries sign among themselves are nothing more than the most basic (and rather ineffective) form of shared/common governance.

That's probably because we pick and choose what to respond to and discard the rest.

Originally Posted by gugi;978723 [COLOR="#B22222"

.............'General goodness of the mankind' is probably a reasonable substitute for 'morality', but doesn't provide much explanation. The evolution of what is moral, however, means there is something more than this.....................[/COLOR]
.

General goodness & morality are taught, we are not born with these. With that said, there must been a source for us to pick and choose from. The Bible & the Koran (The only two sources that I can think of, since I'm not educated in religious writtings) are leading "sources" of religion. We are given moral standards from each, to interpret as we choose; so my Friend, religion (of ALL kinds) and morality walk hand in hand.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

General goodness & morality are taught, we are not born with these. With that said, there must been a source for us to pick and choose from. The Bible & the Koran (The only two sources that I can think of, since I'm not educated in religious writtings) are leading "sources" of religion. We are given moral standards from each, to interpret as we choose; so my Friend, religion (of ALL kinds) and morality walk hand in hand.

I almost agree with you...except...there are many philosophies that are not religion...
Buddhism comes to mind as a big one...a lot would say that it is, in fact, a religion...but the Dali Lama doesn't seem to agree:

“I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.”. . . “That is why I sometimes say that religion is something we can perhaps do without.”

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

If you are living with a woman that you are not married to, you are likely getting a lot more than the rest of us!

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

trying to remain gentlemanly in explaining this...
he means your love life is probably better than the married gentlemen on the board

Oh! I see...

Originally Posted by gugi

EU is a prime example of how monetary integration without a corresponding fiscal union is a recipe for disaster. All those treaties countries sign among themselves are nothing more than the most basic (and rather ineffective) form of shared/common governance.

More or less... only 17 of the 27 members of the EU share a common currency. Of course, the integration process through monetary union without fiscal union is proving itself a recipe for disaster. But only up to a point... The problem over here is the sheer lack of competence, political creativity and courage that have served the EEC, the EC and the EU so well over the years. The main goal of these institutions was to keep the peace of the continent. And since we haven't had a big war since 1945 I consider the EU a success. Even now.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

so my Friend, religion (of ALL kinds) and morality walk hand in hand.

Only in the same way as it walks hand in hand with bowel movements. At the risk of using few more fancy words correlation is very different from causality.

As far as nature vs. nurture goes, I'm afraid you're taking on yet another chicken vs. egg issue - the evidence is that either can be the dominant one. So it's better to stay away from absolutizations.

And we can take the logic of the morality and religion one step further. Who is a better human being, one who is moral because a religion tells them to be, or one who does because they think it's the better way to be?

Originally Posted by fpessanha

The problem over here is the sheer lack of competence, political creativity and courage that have served the EEC, the EC and the EU so well over the years.

That's not true at all. The problem is that the EU citizens are not ready for closer integration. You are only two-three generations away from extremely bloody conflicts, so the bad blood and suspicions is very very fresh in the memory of those who vote. The elite has only so much political capital to spend.

Originally Posted by gugi

Only in the same way as it walks hand in hand with bowel movements. At the risk of using few more fancy words correlation is very different from causality.

As far as nature vs. nurture goes, I'm afraid you're taking on yet another chicken vs. egg issue - the evidence is that either can be the dominant one. So it's better to stay away from absolutizations.

And we can take the logic of the morality and religion one step further. Who is a better human being, one who is moral because a religion tells them to be, or one who does because they think it's the better way to be?

I was not looking to upset you Gugi, it appears that I may have (your reference to bowel movements); I am sorry if I did, this is not my intent.
I am sad to say that the only thing that I have experienced that is absolute, is death.
Religion and it's relation to morality is obviously a conversation we cannot agree on.

I will leave this topic and maybe we will meet on the fields of honing in the future; that is an area that you can no doubt teach me something.

I'm not upset at all, not sure why you think I am. Bowel movements are good, I'd imagine the lack of them is one of the worst way to die.

I'm sorry to read that your disagreement with me is causing you to leave the thread. I'd much rather prefer to hear your arguments for disagreeing with me. I tried to keep my arguments pretty logical, but it's quite likely that I haven't expressed them all that well. I could write them down in math, but I'm afraid for most people that'll make it harder not easier....

The EU is a pretty big success if you look at its intended purpose. Europe hasn't had a serious war since the end of WW2. Coming out of 1000+ years of continual warfare and shifting alliances, I'd say that is a pretty big success. Yes, we've had the local wars in the eastern block, but even there I argue that the only reason we had those in the first place is that they were frozen in place just after WW2 by the soviets. The the soviets left, it was like a spring being uncoiled after being compressed for 50 years.

We are not fully integrated, and I think that is a good thing. We have to find a balance between unity, and national identity. Not only because I think countries should be able to maintain their culture and local mode of operation, but also because I don't want to see the EU get an overall 'European' identity plus a big unified army. That would be the first step taking us closer to the empires of days gone by.

I do think the current crisis will have one good outcome when it is over, and that is that Europe will keep a much closer look on the budgets of the Euro countries, forcing them to actively manage their debt and balance their budget.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I do think the current crisis will have one good outcome when it is over, and that is that Europe will keep a much closer look on the budgets of the Euro countries, forcing them to actively manage their debt and balance their budget.

Not unless the individual governments give up their control over their banking systems, which for most of them is equivalent to committing suicide and not just for the party leadership but their whole parties. (The real danger though is the consequence of fringe ideologies becoming mainstream.) And that (even a very weak fiscal union) should be the easiest thing to do because the financial integration is already way way ahead of any other area (business people do value wealth more than nationalism and culture).

But fundamentally the less productive countries do not want to be ruled by Germany even though they've already sold themselves to it, and neither does Germany want to pay for other countries' lifestyle beyond their means.
In US similar crisis was solved by the federal government picking the lesser evil and siding with the people with the money. 3-4 years later this decision continues to be a major point of discontent and one of the consequences is that the republican party has become extremely rigid and ideological.