-87

The world would actually benefit from a world-wide dictatorship. Nobody would fight each other because they would be to busy fighting together to over-throw the government. Not one country would think their better than the other because the world would be one big country, amirite?

25%Yeah You Are75%No Way
Share
0 13
The voters have decided that this post is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

I partially agree, but that wouldn't get rid of any fighting, because there would be "territories" belonging to certian familys or groups, therefore causing more fighting than already there. Sorry for any grammar or spelling mistakes, of any. My iPod is hard to type from.

idiot.

Anonymous +4Reply

But wouldn't there be people in favor of a dictaorship? This is exactly what happened when we settled America. We were all ruled by one country, but we fought each oter anyway. I also agree with MacaroniSalad about how, no matter what, the world divides into sections: towns, families, cliques, clubs etc.

Watchmen.

Anyone?

Anonymous +1Reply

"Nobody would fight each other because they would be to busy fighting"
lolno

@ihatebakas "Nobody would fight each other because they would be to busy fighting" lolno

Way to take a quote out of context... I don't agree with this post, but, "Nobody would fight each other because they would be too busy fighting together," means something very different than what you quoted.

@Rhinocrow Way to take a quote out of context... I don't agree with this post, but, "Nobody would fight each other because...

They'd be fighting to overthrow the government. Believe it or not, the government is made up of people. Therefore it would be people fighting people. So, people will be fighting each other. I guess I should've included the whole sentence.

@ihatebakas They'd be fighting to overthrow the government. Believe it or not, the government is made up of people. Therefore...

Having read the post, I think it's pretty clear that by "each other" the OP meant everyone not a part of the dictatorship. All those people would be on the same team, so each other would refer to everyone on that team and not on the government. Fighting the government wouldn't count.

@Rhinocrow Having read the post, I think it's pretty clear that by "each other" the OP meant everyone not a part of the...

Do you mean the OP meant everyone who was against the dictatorship? because a world-wide dictatorship would mean that there wouldn't be anyone not in the dictatorship, and that would still be fighting each other.

@ihatebakas Do you mean the OP meant everyone who was against the dictatorship? because a world-wide dictatorship would mean...

Group 1: dictatorship, dictator and everyone who works with him. Group 2: everyone else. Group 2 would be fighting Group 1 so they wouldn't be fighting anyone else in Group 2, AKA "each other".

@Rhinocrow Group 1: dictatorship, dictator and everyone who works with him. Group 2: everyone else. Group 2 would be fighting...

And Group 1 and Group 2 would be fighting each other... well this is just one of the many flaws of human language, and this argument can go on forever. I also think that neither of us cares very much about this, so I'm gonna go and eat something. Have a nice day.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.