It was a royal embarrassment in my eyes: Putin played him like a broken violin, forcing him to criticize his own country in front of the whole world, while standing next to a dictator. Thinking of how Reagan, Bush or even Obama would act in the same position, this was definitely a sorry display.
Mandela was definitely a terrorist by definition - but, again, by definition, it is very hard to fight an oppressive government without becoming a terrorist. Human rights such as Desmond Tutu managed to do it in a non-violent way, but some people employ more straightforward and direct ways to shift the balance. Such ways tend to be more effective short-term, but more damaging for the resulting state long-term. Mandela's actions created a precedent in the new state of employing violence in the name of an allegedly noble goal, and this precedent is exploited by the modern Southern African government relentlessly. Tutu's path was more difficult and painful, but it would give South Africa a better chance to turn into a democracy, rather than ending up as another African dictatorship with the racial roles simply reversed, not removed from the equation.
Hitler was attacked by terrorists a few dozen times. If one of those terrorists ended Hitler's life, would Germany be where it is today? I do not think it likely. A more likely scenario would be Germany becoming a violent dictatorship, perhaps less totalitarian than Hitler's design, but probably more lasting and durable due to the lack of immediate expansion goals.
The US is one of the best countries on Earth to live in, at least, for the people with my mentality. Different people prefer different societal organizations, but the US offers the one that is closest to what I see as a perfect system (only Switzerland disputes the top spot). This country is full of opportunities, it has very friendly and optimistic people all around the country, it leaves the individuals mostly free to live however they see fit, it has incredibly beautiful and diverse landscapes, it is the world's scientific and technological leader by a wide margin, and it is by far the most influential country in the world.
As any other country, it does have its downsides. Infrastructure in most states could use some innovation, the mainstream school education system is somewhat dubious, the healthcare system is extremely overpriced (although its quality is very high), some areas and neighborhoods do not match the rest of the country in quality of life, and the crime rates are much higher than what a First World country should be able to bear without shame - but overall, the average citizen in the US has their dreams in their hands, as long as they are willing to work hard in order to obtain it.
I wish we had a better leadership, too, especially compared to the last couple of years - but this is a universal problem: people are always unhappy with their governments.
@AlexOland Technically, the person is stupid, not the question. According to the definition as well. Questions do not have an intellect, the person asking it does. So when someone calls a questions stupid, what they really mean is the person asking it is stupid.
@AlexOland What is obvious to you may not be obvious to another due to lack of experience. Sure, there are stupid people that have all the necessary information but still unable to make connections. But there are people with adequate intellect, yet lack of experience, that require more information in order to make the connection. Therefore, it's not a matter of whether the question is stupid, but if the person asking it is stupid. There is no stupid question, only stupid people.
@AlexOland Over the top examples do not help the discussion. Exaggeration is used as a tactic to sway people's point of view. It's a form of manipulation. A reasonable debate should not involve manipulation, only facts. It is a fact that even the smartest people in the world do not know some things. It does not make a person stupid to not know something. Even if it's considered common knowledge to you. We only know what we have learned. If a person has never been introduced to certain information, they will not know some variables about the topic. It does not make them stupid, because they may still have the comprehension to easily understand it once it has been explained to them. It is quite possible that a recluse with genius intellect exists. As a recluse, they would not be aware of many things in the world, but with genius intellect they would easily comprehend the information once they were exposed to it. They may even have to ask about it even though it's considered common knowledge to those of us that are not recluses and actually participate in the social world. So, no, there is no such thing as a stupid question. Only people who feel that others are stupid for asking something that they think everyone should already know. It's all about perspective.
@arguer "What makes you stupid is the belief that sky-daddy, despite a huge amount of proof in the opposite direction, created everything and how an old mythology book's word should be taken over the research of hundreds upon hundreds of scientists who have worked hard to try and piece together how we came to be with actual evidence."
First of all, in the scientific method, there is no such thing as "proof" for a theory. There is evidence for a theory, but if there were proof, it would be a fact, or a law. If you had proof for the theory of evolution, there would be no argument. You have not empirically observed speciation, nor has anyone. Ever. It would be like saying "it can rain" or "the surface of water is flat". With that in mind, there are facts that support creationism that you don't seem to know about, but you're in luck! You are in the right place.
Secondly, the whole " you're stupid because you believe in a sky daddy" thing is childish, not to mention completely fallacious and shows a complete lack of critical or rational thought. You're assuming you or anyone else knows it all.
Thirdly, if you're just here to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid and close your mind off to anything other than your religious beliefs that you read in new books of mythology, this is not the place for you. I have empirical evidence of intelligent design for you, if you are genuine, but the nonsensical insults are counterproductive, and any serious adult will not waste their time with the insults. If you're looking for a circle jerk where you can pat other atheists on the back for their ignorance, you may find a group somewhere on reddit. If you're willing to unbiasedly examine evidence that contradicts your belief system, then we can continue the conversation.
"Find me Noah's ark,"
Somefind me the Garden of Eden,
In due time. I wouldn't want your head to explode.
"find me some hardcore evidence that you are right! "
There you go, maybe you can figure it out. Here is some more.
See that? That's a fingerprint. Every being has it's own fingerprint and this particular one is on pretty much everything. That's put rather simply, not hard to figure out.
"On the other hand, look at the evidence for evolution. "
We've seen it all, except for speciation, for which there is currently no evidence for.
"We see evolution in bacteria, evolution in lizards, and this is in a few months."
Yes, I'll agree that adaptation is plausible, possibly even a fact. This does nothing for the theory of evolution, which must involve speciation.
"Now, imagine what could happen in millions or billions of years."
Sure, throwing a billion years at something makes it more plausible /S. Why is it that people believe anything they hear as long as the phrases "scientists say" and "billions of years" are in the statement?
In a billion years, if we're still here as a species, and have kept honest and accurate results (because we can never observe a billion years), the lizard will still be a lizard, the bacteria will will be a bacteria, and there's no way you can prove otherwise. The lizard will not turn into a bacteria or the other way around.
"We have also found countless fossils which all point to a genetic change in organisms being the reason they have changed over time, and how we got to this point in time."
This is an assertion. Give me one example.
" We have geologic evidence that shows the true age of the earth, not just what your fantasy book claims."
This is what you are told, no doubt, it's what we were all told. Are you going to believe words in books, written by men, as do any religious member of a religious cult? Do you have something empirical to offer as evidence? I do, and it proves you are wrong.