The debating thread

[Sinbad]

Thanks, Tubby.
And you can "cut in" at any time.

[Doubar]

Well, this was just my opinion. And still: you're welcome.

[alex]

Sept 26, 2009 13:05:00 GMT -5 Sinbad said:

Even though this doesn´t really relate to anything we are discussing here... I have been a role player for about three years now and am perfectly aware that characters can have heads of their own that totally have them act in their own way. So there is a difference between my preferences as a fangirl and a possible outcome in an rpg.

I was using it as an example. You should join the boys. They are the stupid ones.

Seriously now, I corrected that as a reading error on my side several times already. My opinion is: EVERYBODY has to pay more. You can of course keep repeating that I misread you there, but I don´t see much sense in it

Okay, just making my point.

You shouldn´t forget I am talking British English. Got is fine there.

Really? Well you should switch from British to American English if you can when you are talking to an American. It has nothing to do with which one is more correct. It is called courtesy. ;D

I´m still not quite sure why you think of myself as cocky. Is it because I don´t agree with everything you say? That would be my theory ;D

Heck know. I said you are entitled to your decision. (Of course, if you did not read that also. ) Hm, lets say you have an opinion which you sound like you think is right. You sound a little arrogant. Choosing words could affect if others think you are c-o-c-k-y.

[Sinbad]

Sept 26, 2009 13:25:19 GMT -5 alex said:

Really? Well you should switch from British to American English if you can when you are talking to an American. It has nothing to do with which one is more correct. It is called courtesy. ;D

Well, I learned BE, and even though I know some AE expressions and such, I can not just "switch" to it. But since the two versions aren´t that different, we will have to cope with that. It´s the same as asking someone from Bavaria to speak with a Saxon accent when talking to someone from Saxony. Ask Doubar even that doesn´t work usually. ;D
So, sorry but my BE spiced with some AE expressions is all I can offer.

[alex]

Sept 26, 2009 13:30:45 GMT -5 Sinbad said:

It´s the same as asking someone from Bavaria to speak with a Saxon accent when talking to someone from Saxony. Ask Doubar even that doesn´t work usually. ;D

*slaps Sinbad on the back of the head*

So, sorry but my BE spiced with some AE expressions is all I can offer.

Okay, I will correct you, so you can learn American English, too.

[Doubar]

Sept 26, 2009 13:30:45 GMT -5 Sinbad said:

It´s the same as asking someone from Bavaria to speak with a Saxon accent when talking to someone from Saxony. Ask Doubar even that doesn´t work usually. ;D

;D No, it in deed doesn't. But could as well have chosen the North and the South. They won't get each other either. ;D

Really? Well you should switch from British to American English if you can when you are talking to an American. It has nothing to do with which one is more correct. It is called courtesy.

That just reminds me: Yesterday my boyfriend and I were googling around some websites that dealt with the differences between AE and BE and on one we saw something very funny. It went roughly like this:

Interaction between a British and an American can become quite embarassing at times. For example when a British goes to sleep in a hotel and wants to have a wake-up-call in the morning, for him it is perfectly normal to say "knock (me) up". But for the American this will rather mean something like "impregnate me".

Bwahahaha! Now just picture that scene! ;D ;D ;D

[Sinbad]

Doubar: Bwahahaha, awesome ;D
I know another one. A student from a school round here was in the US for student exchange and he dropped his rubber in class ("rubber" = BE for "eraser") and when he said "Hey, could you pass me my rubber please?" people got all: "WHat? " because "rubber" is also an AE expression for condom. ;D

Firouz: Well, why do I have to learn AE? English is not even my mother tongue. It would be far easier for you to learn BE

[Doubar]

*lies on the floor laughing* Oh God! This is priceless! ;D ;D ;D

[alex]

Sept 26, 2009 13:48:46 GMT -5 Sinbad said:

Firouz: Well, why do I have to learn AE? English is not even my mother tongue. It would be far easier for you to learn BE

Because you are an English teacher. ;D It is your job.

[19101989]

Okay according to Doubar's suggestions I'll post them here

just little questions guys.

what do you think about peace and war?

I mean do you believe in total pacifism?

should we always use weapons and conflicts to achieve peace?

or there is no good ending like in movies where the hero saves the day and the good gains victory?

If we do can achieve peace by weapons, then why? what is the logic behind that?

are there another ways that can help achieving it , or peace just a mere ethical and ideal thought ?

hum what do you think?

[Sinbad]

Hm... let me see... where to start.

The origins of war maybe.
I think that humans are driven by various desires, one desire, unfortunately, is the desire to dominate. It´s not true for all, but it´s something that sets us apart from animals. Animals are content with their way of life, no wolves pack would try to take over the whole forest for example. We, however, do such things. The question is why and that question I can not answer. I think it roots in a feeling of superiority. Since we are the most complex beings of the planet, since we have things that clearly set us apart from the rest of creation (such as speech, ability to use tools, upright walking etc.) we by and by developed the idea that we are superior. Or rather, some peoeple did develop that idea more than others. With that feeling came the feeling that we have power, that we need to maintain power and enlarge it. And thus there is the reason for war, I think.

For me, war is a sign for the fact that we, as humans, have not stopped in our development yet, that we have not reached a highest point because intelligence would ultimately lead to the realisation that there are things more important than power for a few. In my mind, the idea human would have come to the realisation that peace is more desireable than war because peace would mean the ultimate best for everyone. In an ultimately extremely advanced society this would mean that humans have developed in a way that they know how to behave in a way that noone suffers and where wars are not necessary.The question is, can we get there? Or will we stay stuck in a phase of evolutionary puberty where we still have not reached full rational thinking, thinking that power matters and can be achieved with showing teeth? It´s like growing up. As a reasonable adult you should be able to solve conflicts without punching someone else whereas when still in primary school for example you might shove someone for taking your pencils. We are just like that as humanity. We are developing, but right now, we haven ´t overcome puberty yet. The question is: will we?

Therefore, yes, I do believe in ultimate pacifism. People like Gandhi show that pacifism can be very effective, the question that tehre is is: which strategies of survival show to be the most effective. Violence can be an effective strategies in the sense of that it can make you get what you want. However, we might reach a point where we realise we have to abandon those ways in order to ensure our common survival. What is essential is whether we realise that or not.

Therefore, I think peace is not just an ideal it is achievable, but it is something that requires a certain maturity as a species if you will.

Same with weapons: they should not be necessary to settle conflicts. On the large scale therefore, violence and wars are a sign of human immaturity. Peace, in the end, is more profitable for the common good but so far we as a species are at a stage where we have not fully realised, but are on the way to do so. We learn through trial and error so to say.

I´m not sure whether what I just wrote down can completely convey what I want to express, but I hope it´s halfway understandable

[Guest]

Jan 30, 2010 14:36:23 GMT -5 @19101989 said:

what do you think about peace and war?

Like Sinbad said, peace can be attained without war. War is just a creation of our puny minds. Humans are such primitive species, don't you agree. And yes, we are very young. Think about how long humans have been here, and how long dinosaurs roamed the Earth? If dinosaurs survived, they may be talking. ;D And yes, humans have a feeling of superiority which is flawed. Whales are just as important as humans. In Star Trek IV, a whale saves the humans.

War brings nothing but misery. Yes, some survive, but many die.

I mean do you believe in total pacifism?

Well, I believe in peace, but I wouldn't call myself a total pacifist.

should we always use weapons and conflicts to achieve peace?

Not necessary. Yes, actions speak louder than words, but we can talk. So why don't we use it?

And same with money. It is not necessary. If everybody had the heart to help each other, there would be no use of weapons or money.

And stockpiling weapons is just like saying, "I am the bigger guy. You listen to me." I mean, come on. Are you really so childish?

or there is no good ending like in movies where the hero saves the day and the good gains victory?

Aye, there are no happy endings. Bad situations constantly come up, and unfortunately you can question just how "good" are those who gained victory. WWII may never had happened if the French and its allies didn't humiliate the Germans after WWI.

If we do can achieve peace by weapons, then why? what is the logic behind that?

Quick answer: we won't, because weapons bring fear. Fear brings suffering. Suffering brings hate. And hate is the power of the dark side.

are there another ways that can help achieving it , or peace just a mere ethical and ideal thought ?

Have you read the article where a group of Jews formed peace with the Palestinians? But no, the government would not accept this peace treaty. So the fighting continued.

[19101989]

I agree with you nili in some points. but let's me say my opinion. Human nature is a mixture between fire and light. I mean between good and evil. sometimes a part of -let us say- the evil part - dominates the human soul then it will lead to results like war , havoc and victims. sometimes the good side dominates and then we can know about something like peace and co-operation and so on. But everytime, the ideas of the importance of peace exist only when human realize the destruction crisis they made. after WWII the whole world realized what has happened . the endless destruction and pain the political leaders caused to the whole world. we then began to hear about Atlantic covenant and the principles of the new world order where there is no war or destruction and the revealing of UN. but then what ? the world enters another war. the cold war. it's different from the ordinary war we know. but it holds the same danger. The idea is as long as human being exist they will always seek power. the power is always the strong motivation that makes other countries tries its best to dominate. If you look at the world we live in, you can notice that the same social classification which is implied over different class having different living standards or thoughts or different ideological ideas, is being implied too over countries in the new order. you can see the classification of the high great countries then the middle countries. then at the base of the pyramid you can see the poor countries. there are too many things that can make these countries differ from each other. the political system, the economic growth, and and.....
but with the development of theses countries another element grows more and more. the power. the desire of each country to gain more authority and to force her ideologies and her technologies over the other countries.

the traditional concept of war has changed. it wasn't traditional seek of gaining power through invading or making colonies.
the human being knew and became aware of the danger of the physical war and thus they didn't achieve pacifism, No they changed their way. they make it more elegant to make the whole world think that the real war has reached an end. and they adopted a new concept of war depending on invading minds and changing thoughts. I don't believe that total pacifism can be achieved. 'cause as long as human being exist they will seek power. they may change their methods but the aim will be the same. i hope i explained good. I'm a horrible explainer

[Guest]

Not bad, Bryn. And that is where the saying, "History repeats itself."

[19101989]

have you heard before about the quote " History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme" by mark twain ?