It makes sense to me that how we see the world would reflect in how we vote...

[Moonbeam]

So I'm wondering which of these ideas would fit you best.

1. Armageddon or 2. Paradise on Earth

I don't do polls and I'm not interested in the numbers of folk who go one way or the other. I am asking which of the two feels right for you without any rigorous explanation.

 

[dank69]

I was raised by parents who thought that Armageddon was just around the corner. It is tough to break free of that type of thinking after having it ingrained from such a young age. Even though I have mostly put it behind me I still always have that small nagging fear every once in awhile that something big could happen. I don't let it affect my life anymore, though. Life is too short to spend it afraid.

It was hard to watch my parents glued to Fox News searching for the next sign that the apocalypse was here. It just HAD to be coming because if it didn't, what fools they would look like. They aren't so bad anymore or if they are, they hide it from me pretty well. Still get the anti-Obama chain letters forwarded on occasion. Still bad enough to let the Republican Fear Machine persuade them to vote against their own self interests.

Funny side note, my mother HATED the WWF/WWE when I was growing up. Work of the Devil and all that... Now she is a staunch supporter of Linda McMahon. /facepalm

As for your question, I obviously lean much more toward the Paradise thing. I see plenty of good all around. I don't think everything is sunshine and roses, but I do smile a majority of the time.

 

[Nintendesert]

I only see rainbows and unicorns.

 

[Jaskalas]

So I'm wondering which of these ideas would fit you best.

1. Armageddon or 2. Paradise on Earth

I don't do polls and I'm not interested in the numbers of folk who go one way or the other. I am asking which of the two feels right for you without any rigorous explanation.

I view the world as !@#$ed and will vote against that as I see fit.

The ballot is stacked. Either way it's choice #1 that'll win with 90% support. I'll give mine to #2, but believe me, the outcome was set against us a long time ago. Human nature is a terrible beast to escape.

 

[xj0hnx]

Neither. The end of the world is not coming, but the human race no matter how much we want to deny it are animals, and nature is competitive, so it will never be "peace on Earth". We need to do our best top work with each other, and on our own to succeed inside of the confines of the structure we call society.

 

[werepossum]

Neither. The end of the world is not coming, but the human race no matter how much we want to deny it are animals, and nature is competitive, so it will never be "peace on Earth". We need to do our best top work with each other, and on our own to succeed inside of the confines of the structure we call society.

I can't imagine anyone could state it any better, so I'll just say THIS.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't imagine anyone could state it any better, so I'll just say THIS.

On our own in society and we are animals, I think that fits with Armageddon thinking. 'In society' above is a modifier that has no meaning.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I will go with peace on earth not because I think we'll get it, per se, but because I feel the world is improving on the whole and will continue to do so. Over the last 300 years (indeed, even 3000 years), life expectancy, quality of life, standards of living, happiness, and freedom have all been steadily improving worldwide.

We often lose sight of this fact by looking at the past through the eyes of those who were doing the best and comparing it to our own plight. Those who get lost in this regressive trap tend to become paralyzed by their fear of an unknown future. You see this on the right with social conservatives, but also on the left with many environmentalists (see the GMO crop and nuclear power threads for examples). In both cases, they assume the only proper solution to the problems of the present is to go backward in time, which would make them worse.

 

[xj0hnx]

On our own in society and we are animals, I think that fits with Armageddon thinking. 'In society' above is a modifier that has no meaning.

It doesn't have anything to do with Armageddon dooffus.

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't have anything to do with Armageddon dooffus.

What the hell is Armageddon dooffus? And if you didn't mean Armageddon, doofus, what are you doing in my thread. I asked you which idea fits you best, doofus, not if neither do. From you comments, Armageddon is clearly your preference. Your job was to pick one without rigorous definition and since you didn't do so I did it for you. You were obviously too scared what the unknown implications might suggest, Armageddon thinking-wise, to say.

 

[monovillage]

I live in paradise.

 

[Jaskalas]

I will go with peace on earth not because I think we'll get it, per se, but because I feel the world is improving on the whole and will continue to do so. Over the last 300 years (indeed, even 3000 years), life expectancy, quality of life, standards of living, happiness, and freedom have all been steadily improving worldwide.

Perhaps Nero voted paradise on earth. It certainly would have seemed like it to him and his fiddle.

History tells a different tale, knowing the future consequences. Do we know ours?

 

[Greenman]

So I'm wondering which of these ideas would fit you best.

1. Armageddon or 2. Paradise on Earth

I don't do polls and I'm not interested in the numbers of folk who go one way or the other. I am asking which of the two feels right for you without any rigorous explanation.

Neither.
The wheel goes round and round, what has been before, will be again. Societies will rise and fall, people will live and die. Someday we'll be bright enough to embrace an ethic of taking only what we need, but that's a very long way off.

 

[xj0hnx]

What the hell is Armageddon dooffus? And if you didn't mean Armageddon, doofus, what are you doing in my thread. I asked you which idea fits you best, doofus, not if neither do. From you comments, Armageddon is clearly your preference. Your job was to pick one without rigorous definition and since you didn't do so I did it for you. You were obviously too scared what the unknown implications might suggest, Armageddon thinking-wise, to say.

Armageddon would be the end, doofus would be you.