Is this statement true......?

Question

Ok I posted this question in another catagory, but with the response i was recieveing, and the additions I added, I decided its more philosopical, and its on of my greatest thoughts... so I decided to come back to my favorite catagory and see what you guy think.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060730184212AARRoES&r=w

post your responses in any of the question, thanks

one of my greatest

did u all not read my additions, thats where im really focusing my philosophy, Im soory I mis lead some where in my opening title

Is it not possible to defeat a person, to change a person, to build up a person, by being nuetral, this theory is called Zin, and theres Three main Zins, Positive when your Attacking, Negitive when your retreating, and Nuetral when you do nothing, apply this to your life as you please, Jesus tought neutral, and who won that battle, yes he died, but walk up a city street and tell me he didnt win, theres a church on almost every street. BNuetral, is what I should asked, by saying defeat, i imply the other Zins, but no Im implying Nuetral

Well Miss ButterCup, I must say, and I will agree with you, but enter into my gates to pull my flowers, but see the buety of my garden and you shall pull my weeds.
You can come into something dishonest, but come out honest, this is also a teaching of Jesus(although speacking of food) what goes in does not matter, but what comes out causes you to sin, its the same thing.

See Im trying to use this philosophy now to sulupt minds, and change the world for the better, and Im using what most care about, and i can added anything, that you care about to do so, and with that i can do those three thing, but I only care about one the middle, to change. Christainity will play a big part in changing this earth, so using Jesus you grab ppl to your beliefs, but then I will have to deal with another fear, the anti-christ, Im scared that i may be him, but my hearts pure, and I hope im not

very smart theycallmetomu and I will tell you why, by joing america, you can cripple it, or you can go blindly, and even in neutral you can become to comfortable, and those swayed by other, its to hard for me to show how I see a world gov., and how we can acheive such, and the thing is its because we want to see flaws, and so we see them, one minute this is such a good Idea, u tell me yeah its ok, but it can hurt us as well, those underminding my whole purpose. and now Im seeing more flaws. but lets go to another of Jesus', buddhas, etc teachings, take the path less traveled, because thats were we will attain enlightnment, the path traveled by others is littered, and will lead you astray----------This wil be my final worlds for tonite, so think about one world standing together, in all its glory, ready to do anything, and everything.

Answer 1

There's some platitude about China:

"No one conquers China, but China conquers them"

Meaning no matter how powerful a ruler, China will always be the culture and people, which in turn amalgamate the ruler and make his dynasty Chinese no matter how hard he tries to control them.

The same could be said of Hinduism, every prophet and God is just a manifestation of Krisna, Visnu, Atman, Self-- whatever.

In your discussion on the link you suggest it's positive we all accept a world government where we are herded to the proper pastures like cows on the earth under one rancher.

I find this both unappealing and wrong.

A government that is AGAINST the people, which masters and controls the population is just an superstructural domination of one NATION over another.

Nation-states today are dissolving. It is clear that multi-national corporations control much what once was relegated to sovereign states. It is also clear that there are many nations of peoples within a nation-state, based on culture, ethnicity, economic background.

Truly if a Brave New World government called the United States of Earth controlled our lives, it would be a nation only in name, just as our nation-states are today.

A completely unified nation would be anarchic. The government would be everyone. The governed would be ourselves.

Answer 2

"The best way to defeat America is to join America".

No, I don't agree.

Unless you mean to PRETEND to join America. But if you pretend you will probably be found out eventually. And if you don't pretend, but instead you really do join America, then you won't want to destroy it because you will be a part of it.

That is like the quote from the movie The Godfather Part I: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

The best way to defeat America is have something America needs but then refuse to give it. Just like a person addicted to drugs, America is addicted to oil and to well-made but very cheap products. If American stopped receiving these things tomorrow, there would be chaos with no way to recover.

Last year, America sold $42 billion dollars worth of products to China. BUT, America bought $244 billion dollars worth of products from China last year. And that money isn't coming back to this country. America is getting poorer and making other countries richer.

Answer 3

That might work, but I would not recommend it
as dishonesty would play a big part in this kind of
situation, and we should never include dishonesty
in trying to work out any kind of a solution to any problem.
Wisdom is to use truth and honor.

Answer 4

It's not universally true that the easiest way to destroy America is to join it. But it's not universally false either: it's pretty much just too hard to objectively decide one way or another.

Can joining America destroy America? It's possible. But... what if joining America destroys you? Perhaps it's the easiest way, but it's not the safest way.

Answer 5

all of those additional comments are too confusing and hard to follow. Find a more concise and simple way to say what you are thinking.

Answer 6

We're already defeating ourselves. Why should someone have to do it for us? We're perfectly capable of creating our own downfall, thank you very much.

Answer 7

it is not true. Your philosophies suck.

Answer 8

what she said

Answer 9

No.

Answer 10

ditto, no.