Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I disagree with you, so now I'm naive? Interesting sort of dismissal.
|
Is there a better word in Englisch to translate "naiv" ? Ingenuous (unbedarft, arglos)? Undiscerning (unbedarft, einsichtslos)? Low-brow?
To take something literally just because it is written, or to believe somebody just because he says something, is "naiv" in German , is "naive" in English. Or not?
No attack was meant.
Quote:
America may not have a history going back thousands of years, but we do have the unique position of having started from scratch* and creating the government we wanted. We also made sure we had it in writing that we reserved the right to do so again, if necessary.
|
You people of today did that NOT. Because you lived not back then. What I called naiuve earlier is this beoleive that because over 200 years ago some people meant to design a new country today would automatically mean their principlkes are still valid. The naivety lies in ignoring the long time that has passed sionce then, the wider and wider rift between how your country once was meant to be, and how it today reallky is, and to assume that becasue somewthing isd written on a historic papyrus it still is protected from already being eroded and abused. I see massive abuse and distortions there, I massive treason of ideals writtehn down long time ago, and a system that only stage-acts as if it still is driven by the motives and still is in conformity with thgose values. Many ordinary people may htink that way indeed, loike you do, and they may design their social habits to reflect that. But the power structure, the state, the laws, the mechanisms that drive politics - to me that has little to do with old ideals of back then anymore. And I have made that point many times by now in forum debates, since over a decade! If the early presidents would see how modern Us politics are functioning and are driven behind the scene, they would cry in despair over what has come of their hopes.