Eurasian Union

[Damajin]

No thanks, we have too much surrender of national sovereignty to multinational 'unions' as it is in this world.

[lonely zergling]

EU is already bad why would a EAU be better?

[Reeve]

You aren't right on this, you are literally arguing against how the English language is commonly used and that isn't an argument you can win.

The words are useless as economic terms, as they're completely undefined. One person might say China is First World, while another might say it's Second, and still a third person might argue that China's interior is Third.

There's no clear meaning to the words, and don't really do a good job of identifying countries.

Meanwhile, First, Second, and Third world have ACTUAL definitions.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Usually now we use

Developed
Developing
Undeveloped

For 1st, 2nd, 3rd nowadays.

[Kalis]

The words are useless as economic terms, as they're completely undefined. One person might say China is First World, while another might say it's Second, and still a third person might argue that China's interior is Third.

There's no clear meaning to the words, and don't really do a good job of identifying countries.

Meanwhile, First, Second, and Third world have ACTUAL definitions.

You're arguing from some nonsensical belief that meaning of words and phrases in the English language don't change. You are wrong and arguing the toss won't make you right.

If I said to you to get a clue, would you think I am asking you to fetch a ball of thread? After all, that's what the word 'clue' originally meant.

[luc54]

The words are useless as economic terms, as they're completely undefined. One person might say China is First World, while another might say it's Second, and still a third person might argue that China's interior is Third.

There's no clear meaning to the words, and don't really do a good job of identifying countries.

Meanwhile, First, Second, and Third world have ACTUAL definitions.

Sweden and Finland are 3rd world countries based on alliances. It's basically meaningless in terms of representing anything. Nowadays it does mean something else than some old cold war division. This semantics debate is pretty useless imo.

- - - Updated - - -

EU is already bad why would a EAU be better?

Yeah and somehow adding some more countries thousands of kms away with vastly different values is not going to make it any better.

[Reeve]

You're arguing from some nonsensical belief that meaning of words and phrases in the English language don't change. You are wrong and arguing the toss won't make you right.

If I said to you to get a clue, would you think I am asking you to fetch a ball of thread? After all, that's what the word 'clue' originally meant.

I'm aware that the meanings of words change. I'm arguing that the meanings as people use them for these words are bullshit and unhelpful.

[Kalis]

I'm aware that the meanings of words change. I'm arguing that the meanings as people use them for these words are bullshit and unhelpful.

Arguing against the English language as people commonly understand it, is helpful?

[Reeve]

Arguing against the English language as people commonly understand it, is helpful?

It can be, if it brings people closer to a more specific understanding of terms.

[Kalis]

It can be, if it brings people closer to a more specific understanding of terms.

How is arguing for an obsolete usage clarifying anything?

[Reeve]

How is arguing for an obsolete usage clarifying anything?

Because the "obsolete usage" has a clear meaning, while the "new usage" doesn't. I'm not asking for a return to the obsolete usage, but I think we should use a different term entirely, because using the old term is ambiguous at best, particularly when people don't know if you're using the old usage or the new (comepletely undefined) usage.

[Bad Ashe]

i think both china and india would love the idea of such a union, but only if they were the puppet master pulling the strings. i dont see either of them joining such a union on an equal footing as any of the other though, and without them it would never work.

[Kalis]

Because the "obsolete usage" has a clear meaning, while the "new usage" doesn't. I'm not asking for a return to the obsolete usage...

You posted a map referring to the obsolete usage and said people using it do refer to economic terms were using "...the words wrong". They weren't.

...but I think we should use a different term entirely, because using the old term is ambiguous at best, particularly when people don't know if you're using the old usage or the new (comepletely undefined) usage.

Virtually nobody would use the old usage in a modern context, e.g. calling Iran a US ally doesn't make much sense.

[Deleted]

There is no sense in "big unions" only similar countries with similar problems and needs should work together. Otherwise we will get crap like EU.

[Reeve]

You posted a map referring to the obsolete usage and said people using it do refer to economic terms were using "...the words wrong". They weren't.



Virtually nobody would use the old usage in a modern context, e.g. calling Iran a US ally doesn't make much sense.

I totally agree. I think we should just stop using those words altogether. There are alternative far more accurate and descriptive words we can use instead.

- - - Updated - - -

When did China, India and Russia move out of Eurasia?

None of those are first world countries.

[Kalis]

I totally agree. I think we should just stop using those words altogether. There are alternative far more accurate and descriptive words we can use instead.

Descriptions don't have to be completely accurate. There is no good reason to stop using the term, you not liking it isn't relevant to the billion or so English speakers in the world.

[Reeve]

Descriptions don't have to be completely accurate. There is no good reason to stop using the term, you not liking it isn't relevant to the billion or so English speakers in the world.

The OP suggests a Eurasian Union with Europe and the First World nations of Asia. I have no idea which countries he's referring to. India? China? Lebanon? Thailand? I have no clue, other than that he's probably not talking about the Cold War divisions (probably), and what he's talking about may have something to do with wealth, but the wealthiest countries in Asia aren't exactly in obvious Union range, so that doesn't make sense either. So I'm stuck with no clue what he's trying to get at.

That's why I made a thing out of it. Because the words didn't mean anything, didn't help to get across his point.

[Kalis]

The OP suggests a Eurasian Union with Europe and the First World nations of Asia. I have no idea which countries he's referring to. India? China? Lebanon? Thailand? I have no clue, other than that he's probably not talking about the Cold War divisions (probably), and what he's talking about may have something to do with wealth, but the wealthiest countries in Asia aren't exactly in obvious Union range, so that doesn't make sense either. So I'm stuck with no clue what he's trying to get at.

That's why I made a thing out of it. Because the words didn't mean anything, didn't help to get across his point.

I fail to see how you not understanding the OP makes your claim that using the term First World for economic reasons is wrong.

[Reeve]

I fail to see how you not understanding the OP makes your claim that using the term First World for economic reasons is wrong.

It's very gracious of you to admit your failure.

[Tierbook]

Why are people acting like the Eurasian Union doesn't exist? It's only Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and I think Albania atm though