Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The USA are a backward country

"By R.J. Rummel. From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war."

Japan eh

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM#:~:text=By%20R.J.,including%20Western%20prisoners%20of%20war.

"By R.J. Rummel. From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war." Japan eh https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM#:~:text=By%20R.J.,including%20Western%20prisoners%20of%20war.

Again "But what about China?"

Japan eh
Dude that was WW2. Long time ago. Back then Germany was ran by nazis. But I distinctly recall seeing you write "we love Germany".

I don't even know why I bother replying to you.

Again "But what about China?" > Japan eh Dude that was WW2. Long time ago. Back then Germany was ran by nazis. But I distinctly recall seeing you write "we love Germany". I don't even know why I bother replying to you.

Your posts are full of hate, full of insanity, full of B.S. You can't even win against a 1600 in 5 3.
You think there's any comparison between these different countries?

You are blathering mindlessly about a lot of B.S. and you sound EXACTLY like RoseofSharon, and his posts,
and in case what do you hate so much? why are you so miserable, why do you try to spread your misery?
You hate democracy? You hate freedom of speech? You hate individual rights?
DO you hate LGBT rights like RoseofSharon and Putin?

Do you hate gun violence? -- Don't pretend this now,
Don't say all of this B.S., aggression and hate is because you care so deeply about the people were killed in gun violence.

Are you going to say you give a d*mn about the 10 people who died in the Buffalo shooting?
You and I both know you couldn't possibly care less about that, so what the heck is your problem?
You get off on the drama, and the B.S., and attacking people with personalisms.

You get on the brainless, mindless blathering and just general mindlessness, B.S. attacks,
without realizing how absolutely insane all of the crap you are spieling is.

So yeah keep on polluting day after day after day;
But you will fail to make this place bad.

Your posts are full of hate, full of insanity, full of B.S. You can't even win against a 1600 in 5 3. You think there's any comparison between these different countries? You are blathering mindlessly about a lot of B.S. and you sound EXACTLY like RoseofSharon, and his posts, and in case what do you hate so much? why are you so miserable, why do you try to spread your misery? You hate democracy? You hate freedom of speech? You hate individual rights? DO you hate LGBT rights like RoseofSharon and Putin? Do you hate gun violence? -- Don't pretend this now, Don't say all of this B.S., aggression and hate is because you care so deeply about the people were killed in gun violence. Are you going to say you give a d*mn about the 10 people who died in the Buffalo shooting? You and I *both* know you couldn't possibly care less about that, so what the heck is your problem? You get off on the drama, and the B.S., and attacking people with personalisms. You get on the brainless, mindless blathering and just general mindlessness, B.S. attacks, without realizing how absolutely insane all of the crap you are spieling is. So yeah keep on polluting day after day after day; But you will fail to make this place bad.

@FC-in-the-UK said in #59:

Again you're comparing two countries that can't reasonably compared. In Mexico you have drug cartels, corruption, etc.

Is not a Mexico thing either. There are drug cartels in most countries, including the US. There is also corruption everywhere.
The only difference is how out of control they are.

If you want to compare the US to another country you should probably pick a country from western Europe, Canada, Australia >or Japan. Now tell me, how many mass shootings have there been per capita in those countries?

Why? Those countries are not even in the same continent as the US. There is a different social context.
In the US, you have illegal immigration from, well, drug cartels from Mexico, but also central and south America. You guys have immigration from other first world countries mostly.

But also there are other cultural context. For instance, though they are different, there is a lot of cultural affinity in Europe due to the historical contact the civilizations had over time.

But North America was basically created by Europeans, and have since, mantained a cultural blockade with the rest of the continent (except canada, which was also founded basically by Europeans). There is no cultural affinity between the US and the rest of the continent. They dont even speak the same language than us. And where there is immigration from the rest of the continent to the US, there is no assimilation of culture. There are basically no cultural issues in the UK, except, you know, when you receive immigrants from the middle east, which you didnt addressed it, but you got a spike in violence, as I said.

Now tell me, how many mass shootings have there been per capita in those countries?

The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents.".

How many mass shootings in the last 20 years you said? 100? Even if you add other related crime violence. It accounts for less than 1% of the total population with weapons.

Its not a gun issue. Its a cultural and mental health one.

"US mental health studies

Previous widely cited large-scale surveys in the US were the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) survey and subsequent National Comorbidity Survey (NCS).[11] The NCS was replicated and updated between 2000 and 2003 and indicated that, of those groups of disorders assessed, nearly half of Americans (46.4%) reported meeting criteria at some point in their life for either a DSM-IV anxiety disorder (28.8%), mood disorder (20.8%), impulse-control disorder (24.8%) or substance use disorders (14.6%). Half of all lifetime cases had started by age 14 and three quarters by age 24.[12]

In the prior 12-month period only, around a quarter (26.2%) met criteria for any disorder—anxiety disorders 18.1%; mood disorders 9.5%; impulse control disorders 8.9%; and substance use disorders 3.8%. A substantial minority (23%) met criteria for more than two disorders. 22.3% of cases were classed as serious, 37.3% as moderate and 40.4% as mild.[13][14]
European population studies

A 2004 cross-European study found that approximately one in four people reported meeting criteria at some point in their life for one of the DSM-IV disorders assessed, which included mood disorders (13.9%), anxiety disorders (13.6%) or alcohol disorder (5.2%). Approximately one in ten met criteria within a 12-month period. Women and younger people of either gender showed more cases of disorder.[15]

A 2005 review of 27 studies have found that 27% of adult Europeans is or has been affected by at least one mental disorder in the past 12 months. It was also found that the most frequent disorders were anxiety disorders, depressive, somatoform and substance dependence disorders."

@FC-in-the-UK said in #59: > Again you're comparing two countries that can't reasonably compared. In Mexico you have drug cartels, corruption, etc. Is not a Mexico thing either. There are drug cartels in most countries, including the US. There is also corruption everywhere. The only difference is how out of control they are. >If you want to compare the US to another country you should probably pick a country from western Europe, Canada, Australia >or Japan. Now tell me, how many mass shootings have there been per capita in those countries? Why? Those countries are not even in the same continent as the US. There is a different social context. In the US, you have illegal immigration from, well, drug cartels from Mexico, but also central and south America. You guys have immigration from other first world countries mostly. But also there are other cultural context. For instance, though they are different, there is a lot of cultural affinity in Europe due to the historical contact the civilizations had over time. But North America was basically created by Europeans, and have since, mantained a cultural blockade with the rest of the continent (except canada, which was also founded basically by Europeans). There is no cultural affinity between the US and the rest of the continent. They dont even speak the same language than us. And where there is immigration from the rest of the continent to the US, there is no assimilation of culture. There are basically no cultural issues in the UK, except, you know, when you receive immigrants from the middle east, which you didnt addressed it, but you got a spike in violence, as I said. >Now tell me, how many mass shootings have there been per capita in those countries? The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents.". How many mass shootings in the last 20 years you said? 100? Even if you add other related crime violence. It accounts for less than 1% of the total population with weapons. Its not a gun issue. Its a cultural and mental health one. "US mental health studies Previous widely cited large-scale surveys in the US were the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) survey and subsequent National Comorbidity Survey (NCS).[11] The NCS was replicated and updated between 2000 and 2003 and indicated that, of those groups of disorders assessed, nearly half of Americans (46.4%) reported meeting criteria at some point in their life for either a DSM-IV anxiety disorder (28.8%), mood disorder (20.8%), impulse-control disorder (24.8%) or substance use disorders (14.6%). Half of all lifetime cases had started by age 14 and three quarters by age 24.[12] In the prior 12-month period only, around a quarter (26.2%) met criteria for any disorder—anxiety disorders 18.1%; mood disorders 9.5%; impulse control disorders 8.9%; and substance use disorders 3.8%. A substantial minority (23%) met criteria for more than two disorders. 22.3% of cases were classed as serious, 37.3% as moderate and 40.4% as mild.[13][14] European population studies A 2004 cross-European study found that approximately one in four people reported meeting criteria at some point in their life for one of the DSM-IV disorders assessed, which included mood disorders (13.9%), anxiety disorders (13.6%) or alcohol disorder (5.2%). Approximately one in ten met criteria within a 12-month period. Women and younger people of either gender showed more cases of disorder.[15] A 2005 review of 27 studies have found that 27% of adult Europeans is or has been affected by at least one mental disorder in the past 12 months. It was also found that the most frequent disorders were anxiety disorders, depressive, somatoform and substance dependence disorders."

@FC-in-the-UK said in #40:

This is a strawman. Obviously disagreeing with a bunch of countries doesn't inherently make you backwards. But every thing I mentioned is by itself backwards. The only reason I compared with other Western countries is that there is no point in criticising a country for something if they still are the best at that thing. But it turns out that in this case, they are the worst.

What I said was not a straw man-- it related to your point and was something I found important for the discussion.

That's up for debate :D
Granted.
Another strawman. Clearly refusing to join an instance whose goal is to punish genocide, crime war, crime against humanity and crime of aggression is backwards and can't be compared with not joining a military/ strategic alliance.
First: the fallacy would be a false equivalence, not a strawman. A strawman requires me to argue against a point that wasn't made in the first place.
Second: Watch me: Both are intergovernmental agreements focused on limiting violence.
Boom. Comparison.

You know what I mean and I know you do. I don't care if a law is federal or within a specific state. You judge a country by what they do worst, not by what they do best. If even one single state of US has strict abortion ban (which is the case) my point applies.

No-- maybe YOU judge a country based on the actions of a minority population, but to me, that's a backwards way of thinking. Personally, I take comfort in the fact that my government isn't relying on the popular opinion of non-US citizens to dictate policy, especially when the government is operating within a legal democratic framework. Do I always like the decisions that my government makes? Nope. But the alternative would be creating a law in direct violation of our country's charter by steamrolling the electorate. And before you remind me that a majority of Americans support reproductive rights, I would like to remind you that this means that like-minded candidates will be elected, and will be able to enact laws accordingly.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a FORWARD country?

@FC-in-the-UK said in #40: > This is a strawman. Obviously disagreeing with a bunch of countries doesn't inherently make you backwards. But every thing I mentioned is by itself backwards. The only reason I compared with other Western countries is that there is no point in criticising a country for something if they still are the best at that thing. But it turns out that in this case, they are the worst. What I said was not a straw man-- it related to your point and was something I found important for the discussion. > That's up for debate :D Granted. > Another strawman. Clearly refusing to join an instance whose goal is to punish genocide, crime war, crime against humanity and crime of aggression is backwards and can't be compared with not joining a military/ strategic alliance. First: the fallacy would be a false equivalence, not a strawman. A strawman requires me to argue against a point that wasn't made in the first place. Second: Watch me: Both are intergovernmental agreements focused on limiting violence. Boom. Comparison. > > You know what I mean and I know you do. I don't care if a law is federal or within a specific state. You judge a country by what they do worst, not by what they do best. If even one single state of US has strict abortion ban (which is the case) my point applies. No-- maybe YOU judge a country based on the actions of a minority population, but to me, that's a backwards way of thinking. Personally, I take comfort in the fact that my government isn't relying on the popular opinion of non-US citizens to dictate policy, especially when the government is operating within a legal democratic framework. Do I always like the decisions that my government makes? Nope. But the alternative would be creating a law in direct violation of our country's charter by steamrolling the electorate. And before you remind me that a majority of Americans support reproductive rights, I would like to remind you that this means that like-minded candidates will be elected, and will be able to enact laws accordingly. Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a FORWARD country?

@mixK9 last ever reply to you so better pay attention.

I really wonder where you found the idea that I am anti LGBTQ rights, anti democracy, anti freedom of speech and so on. If you ever read my past posts it would clearly appear to you that this is not the case.

You seem to think I am a cracked up conservative or something. I am actually quite the opposite. If you actually read #1, the criticism of EACH AND EVERY ONE of the points I made fits perfectly in a progressive agenda.

Criticising is not the same as hating. If you can't understand that, you should REALLY seek help because you're probably having a hard time in your life every time your friends, family, or partner disagrees with you.

Assuming horrible stuff about someone just because they happen to disagree with you is also something you may want to consider seeking help for.

You speak of personal attacks. I did not attack you once. I pointed out that you used a fallacy known as whataboutism. That's not a personal attack. But since then you spent hours writing half a dozen posts in two different threads saying horrible stuff about me coming straight out of your imagination. I would call that, a personal attack.

You also used your alt account to artificially increase the number of downvotes that my posts receive, until I pointed that out, when you suddenly stopped. You proceeded to downvote each and every post of mine. Not that I care about it, but I think it is telling about your state of mind.

Finally, rating shaming is rather unbecoming.

Peace.

@mixK9 last ever reply to you so better pay attention. I really wonder where you found the idea that I am anti LGBTQ rights, anti democracy, anti freedom of speech and so on. If you ever read my past posts it would clearly appear to you that this is not the case. You seem to think I am a cracked up conservative or something. I am actually quite the opposite. If you actually read #1, the criticism of EACH AND EVERY ONE of the points I made fits perfectly in a progressive agenda. Criticising is not the same as hating. If you can't understand that, you should REALLY seek help because you're probably having a hard time in your life every time your friends, family, or partner disagrees with you. Assuming horrible stuff about someone just because they happen to disagree with you is also something you may want to consider seeking help for. You speak of personal attacks. I did not attack you once. I pointed out that you used a fallacy known as whataboutism. That's not a personal attack. But since then you spent hours writing half a dozen posts in two different threads saying horrible stuff about me coming straight out of your imagination. I would call that, a personal attack. You also used your alt account to artificially increase the number of downvotes that my posts receive, until I pointed that out, when you suddenly stopped. You proceeded to downvote each and every post of mine. Not that I care about it, but I think it is telling about your state of mind. Finally, rating shaming is rather unbecoming. Peace.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #33:

Someone mentioned gerrymandering, but I think the best change for the US would be an introduction of ranked choice voting in all elections, as it would make it easier to fix gerrymandering and many other problems.

The US desperately needs more political parties. The way we currently vote is mathematically reprehensible. You should be able to vote for who you want without throwing your vote away.

Actually this is absolutely correct and is what I really meant to say - I think its the first-past-the-post system that the US and Canada share, and but its even worse in Canada because we have more ways to split the vote. So every election you have this situation where one candidate can get like, 34% of the vote, while the other two get 33%, and you end up with a victory for that 34% candidate. All the other votes are basically ignored.

Its extremely demoralizing as a voter because, you always have to cast your vote tactically, and most of the time it feels like your vote is worthless anyway. If the majority is going to win, does your single vote really matter in the face of 10,000 or so? Nope. But at least with something like proportional representation (my favourite), your vote actually means something (even if its still small) and parliament will correspondingly be made up of the percent of the population that voted for each party.

Its ironic we have been living for so long under a system that is such a poorly functioning democracy yet consider ourselves the most free in so many ways. Ah well. Here too I have hope that things will eventually change.

@Sleepy_Gary said in #33: > Someone mentioned gerrymandering, but I think the best change for the US would be an introduction of ranked choice voting in all elections, as it would make it easier to fix gerrymandering and many other problems. > > The US desperately needs more political parties. The way we currently vote is mathematically reprehensible. You should be able to vote for who you want without throwing your vote away. Actually this is absolutely correct and is what I really meant to say - I think its the first-past-the-post system that the US and Canada share, and but its even worse in Canada because we have more ways to split the vote. So every election you have this situation where one candidate can get like, 34% of the vote, while the other two get 33%, and you end up with a victory for that 34% candidate. All the other votes are basically ignored. Its extremely demoralizing as a voter because, you always have to cast your vote tactically, and most of the time it feels like your vote is worthless anyway. If the majority is going to win, does your single vote really matter in the face of 10,000 or so? Nope. But at least with something like proportional representation (my favourite), your vote actually means something (even if its still small) and parliament will correspondingly be made up of the percent of the population that voted for each party. Its ironic we have been living for so long under a system that is such a poorly functioning democracy yet consider ourselves the most free in so many ways. Ah well. Here too I have hope that things will eventually change.

@clousems

Both are intergovernmental agreements focused on limiting violence.
Hope you're kidding.
No-- maybe YOU judge a country based on the actions of a minority population
Not what I said. A state law is not the same as "the actions of a minority population".
I would like to remind you that this means that like-minded candidates will be elected, and will be able to enact laws accordingly
You know as well as I do that this is not the case.
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a FORWARD country?
There aren't that many out there, but for sure the countries of western continental Europe do not suffer from any of the point 1-6 I enumerated in #1. And as @Alientcp obligingly informed us, they also suffer way less from mental health issues. So much for "the best place to live in". My favourite ones are probably France and the Nordic countries. But they're of course not exempt of criticism either.

@clousems > Both are intergovernmental agreements focused on limiting violence. Hope you're kidding. > No-- maybe YOU judge a country based on the actions of a minority population Not what I said. A state law is not the same as "the actions of a minority population". > I would like to remind you that this means that like-minded candidates will be elected, and will be able to enact laws accordingly You know as well as I do that this is not the case. > Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a FORWARD country? There aren't that many out there, but for sure the countries of western continental Europe do not suffer from any of the point 1-6 I enumerated in #1. And as @Alientcp obligingly informed us, they also suffer way less from mental health issues. So much for "the best place to live in". My favourite ones are probably France and the Nordic countries. But they're of course not exempt of criticism either.

@FC-in-the-UK said in #68:

@clousems

Hope you're kidding.
Aren't they? Sure, they take different approaches, but still.
Not what I said. A state law is not the same as "the actions of a minority population".
Well, since no state houses over 12% of Americans, and a state law is an action performed by a state population...
You know as well as I do that this is not the case.
That implies Americans vote for the candidates who oppose their own views, which would be whack.
There aren't that many out there, but for sure the countries of western continental Europe do not suffer from any of the point 1-6 I enumerated in #1. And as @Alientcp obligingly informed us, they also suffer way less from mental health issues. So much for "the best place to live in". My favourite ones are probably France and the Nordic countries. But they're of course not exempt of criticism either.

There are 195 countries. Continental Western Europe encompasses something like 10 countries (plus the Vatican). I consider any "backwards" concept to be at least in the bottom half of the sample.

@FC-in-the-UK said in #68: > @clousems > > Hope you're kidding. Aren't they? Sure, they take different approaches, but still. > Not what I said. A state law is not the same as "the actions of a minority population". Well, since no state houses over 12% of Americans, and a state law is an action performed by a state population... > You know as well as I do that this is not the case. That implies Americans vote for the candidates who oppose their own views, which would be whack. > There aren't that many out there, but for sure the countries of western continental Europe do not suffer from any of the point 1-6 I enumerated in #1. And as @Alientcp obligingly informed us, they also suffer way less from mental health issues. So much for "the best place to live in". My favourite ones are probably France and the Nordic countries. But they're of course not exempt of criticism either. There are 195 countries. Continental Western Europe encompasses something like 10 countries (plus the Vatican). I consider any "backwards" concept to be at least in the bottom half of the sample.

@clousems said in #69:

Aren't they? Sure, they take different approaches, but still.
There is no "but still". The purpose of NATO is to defend the strategic interests of its members. Period. NATO is neither the UN nor a replacement for it. Refusing to join the NATO means refusing to align one's country strategical interests to those of NATO members. On the other hand, refusing to join the ICC means sanctionning genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression crimes. Allowing oneself to militarily intervene against were the ICC to judge one's citizen is the same as declaring to the world that one is considering being legitimate in carrying on crimes against humanity, and so on.
Well, since no state houses over 12% of Americans, and a state law is an action performed by a state population...
You're playing with semantics. Yes, I get that this is amusing, but you and me we've been through that, haven't we?
That implies Americans vote for the candidates who oppose their own views, which would be whack.
You know as well as I do that things are not as simple in politics. The powers of the president are limited. The candidate with fewer votes sometimes ends up being the one who wins the election, due to your representative system. The fact that there are only two mains parties means you don't vote for the guy who shares the same views as you, but the one which is the least opposed to your own views. Some topics (eg firearms) will NEVER be tackled by any candidate to the presidential elections because, being too divisive, they would be the equivalent to a political suicide.
I consider any "backwards" concept to be at least in the bottom half of the sample.
I did not mean backwards as in a ranking. I meant it as the opposite of progressive. For that matter, all 195 countries could be backwards.

@clousems said in #69: > Aren't they? Sure, they take different approaches, but still. There is no "but still". The purpose of NATO is to defend the strategic interests of its members. Period. NATO is neither the UN nor a replacement for it. Refusing to join the NATO means refusing to align one's country strategical interests to those of NATO members. On the other hand, refusing to join the ICC means sanctionning genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression crimes. Allowing oneself to militarily intervene against were the ICC to judge one's citizen is the same as declaring to the world that one is considering being legitimate in carrying on crimes against humanity, and so on. > Well, since no state houses over 12% of Americans, and a state law is an action performed by a state population... You're playing with semantics. Yes, I get that this is amusing, but you and me we've been through that, haven't we? > That implies Americans vote for the candidates who oppose their own views, which would be whack. You know as well as I do that things are not as simple in politics. The powers of the president are limited. The candidate with fewer votes sometimes ends up being the one who wins the election, due to your representative system. The fact that there are only two mains parties means you don't vote for the guy who shares the same views as you, but the one which is the least opposed to your own views. Some topics (eg firearms) will NEVER be tackled by any candidate to the presidential elections because, being too divisive, they would be the equivalent to a political suicide. > I consider any "backwards" concept to be at least in the bottom half of the sample. I did not mean backwards as in a ranking. I meant it as the opposite of progressive. For that matter, all 195 countries could be backwards.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.