but thuggery doesn't have any place in society o_O its not a denial that it happens, it just means, it has no place in society
does society need thieves? nooo
Printable View
but thuggery doesn't have any place in society o_O its not a denial that it happens, it just means, it has no place in society
does society need thieves? nooo
I've been away for quite a while, but after a spending a few days scanning the forum, I think its safe to say that the OP is 100% insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
I was under the impression we weren't allowed to discuss Your Highness?
If it was a pledge of awareness it would be "Thuggery shouldn't have a place in our society and we need to eliminate it as soon as possible." Not "Thuggery has no place in society". The difference is clear. That it is not clear to you and Juroara is evidence of that mind control pattern in operation within the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
What I was discussing is a principle not a sentence. The statement is a direct quotation of the politician by the media which is all they broad casted of him and I had thoughts on it. What's more, the real bias thing here is to reject the analysis, the report with the mistaken conceptualization that it's expressed as an opinion. When really it was feedback on what was already broad casted that day in the media .Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
I am not concerned with 'convicting' the politician or what his records are, and the other things, is of no concern. My focus was on the principle of the statement made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
It seems like this question is a strange sort of end rebuttal to the report. You ask if generalizations are therefore the brainwashing factor rather than what I said in my report, which you said was a generalization. However you are not actually interested or focused on what the report was. All you are trying to do here evidently is invalidate it, which is against the guidelines of peaceful discussion that I am trying to create with this thread. So please be thoughtful and fully considerate in how you respond as this is treading on thin ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
Imran_p made an invalid contribution to the thread that is against my guidelines by posting simply to call me 100% insane without actually trying to discuss anything.
Close, you're not welcome in the thread because you don't agree and follow the guidelines, while others who do are welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
Eh, I don't like this game. I'll continue until bored.
But still. I can't imagine someone saying that sentence comfortably. It sounds somewhat automaton, y'know? The more common second phrase has a similar connotation. The theory you came up with seemed like a stretch, valid, but almost unrelated to the quote. I somewhat agree with your argument, though. I would've liked to see better examples, so that I could get a better grasp on it without being clouded by skepticism.Quote:
If it was a pledge of awareness it would be "Thuggery shouldn't have a place in our society and we need to eliminate it as soon as possible." Not "Thuggery has no place in society". The difference is clear. That it is not clear to you and Juroara is evidence of that mind control pattern in operation within the masses.
Nuclear war has no place in our society. Before the radiation poison has taken effect and the dust has settled. Remain in your home and await further instructions from Feema for your own safety.
Pedophiles have no place in our society. To ensure your children are safe, look for the following signs that your neighbor may be a child predator.
Injustice has no place in our society. Terrorist are warned they will not be negotiated with. Look out for any suspicious activity in your area and report it immediately to this number.
Now lets look at those examples again. With the normal thinking.
Nuclear war must be prevented so this doesn't happen in our society. After the radiation poison has taken effect and the dust has settled. Remain in your home and await further instructions from Feema for your own safety.
Pedophiles must be eliminated in our society. To ensure your children are safe, look for the following signs that your neighbor may be a child predator.
Injustice must be stopped for peace. Terrorist are warned they will not be negotiated with. Look out for any suspicious activity in your area and report it immediately to this number.
Just because something may be automatic and comfortable doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense or works in practice.
Thuggery has no place in out society? No, we need to eliminate the thuggery already present to solve this problem in order that we may be able to say that with honor in the future rather than saying it now with indecency.
Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
ATTENTION, EVERYONE:
- Everything is made of tiny pieces of toast. Everything. You, your mom, that steak, abstract concepts, everything.
- Everyone is named Bruce. No Exceptions.
- All common nouns are to be spelled "f o d d e r".
Henceforth, I expect all of you to post in this thread in accordance with the above statements. And remember: no disagreement, no skepticism. Whoops, I mean: And remember, Bruce: no fodder, no fodder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archdreamer
The only problem is I don't have those beliefs and neither do you. Skeptical of my knowledge of your post against the guidelines is an offense. For reasons of trying to sow conflict. Also to disagree with my decisions on what is and is not against guidelines unless you want to become an offender and therefore not welcome. There is plenty of other threads avaliable you don't NEED to post. But you did because you couldn't help it here. I drew you to the thread and you were powerless. Now you have disrespected the thread and bear the reflection of an offender in my eyes because that was your nature and my judgment of it complete.
You were not concerned with harmonious discussion. You were concerned with conflict and made absurd statements for the sake of sowing discord.
This post ridicules me. No disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
Someone isn't adhering to the guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
EDIT: C'mon, this has to be a troll. Noone is really this insane, right? Right?
Oh, very good! You missed one minor detail though. I am the guidelines. I made the rules that it was my discernment that ruled the entire thread before anyone posted and it was entirely your choice to participate. Hence until you no longer break my guidelines I consider you not welcome here. You are also arguing with me which is why you are still offending by going off topic.
This thread is about eliminating conflict and if you were in harmony with it you wouldn't have a problem.
The troll nonsense is quickly getting old btw.
Even though it is very difficult for you to stay away from the thread when you don't agree with it evidently, it is even more difficult for you to abide by it's guidelines while in it. At the same time I would love to be proven wrong this is not about ego for me as it is with you. All I ask is respect and it isn't asking much.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3...40c9c16vc7.png
EDIT: I'm out. Enjoy your crazy thread.
WOOT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Now I think I see what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
There is no difference between either sentence if the result is the same. The media covers more of the self-defense portion of crime than the prohibition of the source. Why would they do this? First, I'd say it's because we have an instinct to protect ourselves before attacking the predator. So we'd want to hear what we can do to save ourselves. But that's just the end of the stick. Why not, then, tell us what the government is doing to solve these problems? Because they can't. This is both good, and bad.
I'd say, there are too many factors for us to pinpoint a cause to these problems. We know the generalities involved with crime. They come from low-income families, abusive families, etc. But how do we prevent low income, short of communism? How do we discover which families are abusive (how do we know how many cases go unreported?)? The government cannot intervene with one's personal life. We could find out all murder plans, and drug trades, if we tapped all phone lines and chat rooms. But that invades privacy. In the end, the government leaves it up to the individual to choose whether he/she will be criminal.
In a way, it is a trade-off. Privacy/Free will, or the existence of crime? There is no balance that will appeal to everyone.
The result is different that's the point of what I was saying. That they mean different things. It's easy to see why they are different sentences.Quote:
There is no difference between either sentence if the result is the same.
First it isn't good they can't solve it. Second the government is not what is going to save us.Quote:
Why not, then, tell us what the government is doing to solve these problems? Because they can't. This is both good, and bad.
Another excuse. There are too many factors it's too hard I give up lets let it slide and accept it. It's really not as difficult as you make out.Quote:
I'd say, there are too many factors for us to pinpoint a cause to these problems.
Not really crime can happen from any family, not just low income but also high income. Not just abusive families but also even when people had supportive parents.Quote:
We know the generalities involved with crime. They come from low-income families, abusive families, etc.
Low income is not your only problem are the core of it though. I wouldn't concerntrate on that as it's not an accurate strategy to eliminate crime at it's root.Quote:
But how do we prevent low income, short of communism?
You don't have to go spying on people to solve this all you have to do is use some common sense and preventing abuse would be part of that but again only a branch of the tree.Quote:
How do we discover which families are abusive (how do we know how many cases go unreported?)?
Are you totally blind? That's all the government does. It isn't about the government they are not the solution to everything but a cause of many problems in a lot of cases.Quote:
The government cannot intervene with one's personal life.
Do you think the military industrial complex can't do this or isn't doing this of it's own accord? They exist to make war and build security it's not like they sit there minding their own business. This is the real world not the one you see on television with 'friends'.Quote:
We could find out all murder plans, and drug trades, if we tapped all phone lines and chat rooms.
In a state of war privacy is a earned luxury. You have to be smart enough.Quote:
But that invades privacy.
It's not about the government you are obsessed with the government. This is a joke because they don't leave anything up to anyone that isn't the nature of government. The point of existence of government is to govern not to leave things to other people. They only reason you have the freedom you do right now is because they are not powerful enough to control every aspect of your life at this time. But given the chance it will happen if it was possible. That's why you need to be smart.Quote:
In the end, the government leaves it up to the individual to choose whether he/she will be criminal.
No you can have privacy free will and no crime. First you have to know it's possible and believe in it before you will attempt to make it real. You think it's impossible while I know it's possible. How do I know it's possible? Some people in the world already have attained it within their own life. Saying it's not possible is an evident contradiction to those who have already attained it personally.Quote:
In a way, it is a trade-off. Privacy/Free will, or the existence of crime? There is no balance that will appeal to everyone.
Here's an important topic to talk about: THIS THREAD SUX TEH BIG ONE!111!
Nah i'm kidding, I get the motive behind it and I like.
I hope this doesn't break the "personal beliefs" rule, I mean for it to be more of an intelligent discussion than a personal attack. Even so, if you wanna pwn me Minerva, go ahead and do it :P
I would like to PEACEFULLY discuss the "meaning of life". I know this is a topic that leads inevitably to the religious shunning to "non-believers" and the atheists snobbing the religious, but I would like, for once, to have an active peaceful discussion about it.
My opinion: There IS no meaning. I personally feel that there is no meaning to life, and that in itself is a beautiful thing. People constantly complain about how objectives and obstacles are laid about them (working, parenthood, being a good person), and I find it interesting that people often have insecurities about how life "lacks meaning" or "direction", when it seems such a hassle to be associated with direction in the first place. Lack of meaning, in a way, is freedom. Freedom to choose the path of life that YOU want to take, to make your OWN type of meaning. But that's just me, i'm interested to see if anyone else has ever felt this way.
The main answer I am expecting to this is a type of "Life is about living out the word of God" answer, and thats koo' if thats your thing. Its just that i've studied most of the major religions (Christianity in particular, having had a catholic education up until now), and I find that many of the religious people I encountered only acted "good" because they were TOLD to act good by their sacred text of choice and their church-like structure of choice, and were offered the chance of eternal life for being good, and eternal damnation if they weren't.
Believing in having an eternal moderator who JUDGES your every action is a good thing in a way that it helps society maintain its flow (IMO, of course), but a bad thing when it comes to the fact that people have to be so damn selfish to expect a reward for being kind towards others.
So err yes, feel free to discuss, what is the meaning you have found for yourself/do you HAVE a meaning?
I'm sorry if I have touched any nerves as well in regards to the religious thing, it seems whenever i try to talk to anyone about their religious views I offend them :?
oh man, you don't need to be sorry that was a proper post SmoothGroove. Offenders are the ones that pop in and drop out and get all sulky about it and leave after trying to condem it. You posted something decent and worthwhile with a honest intention. Anyone that is offended by your post is not really welcome in the thread.
Everybody stop arguing. What you are saying is not true.
For example SmoothGroove him. He's an offender.Quote:
Originally Posted by UM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s4Dapf_NKcEQuote:
Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix
You'd be right to be kidding. Anyone who sees this thread would lose their erection immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothGroove
This thread sucks the small, flaccid one ;)
Please don't quote-splice all my replies. It feels like you wish to refute single sentences, instead of the idea as a whole. When I discuss, I enjoy a debate-style, where one sets their side, and the other refutes using their own ideas, without interruption. That's why I use forums for discussion, instead of chatrooms.
I know I refer to 'the government' too much. Really, when I say that, I'm talking about anyone who has socially accepted authority over another (police, parents).
Also, the facts say that most crimes are committed by lower income people. Proof:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/resear...es/figure8.gif
So, one can deduce that low-income correlates to crime. Of course, low-income is not the direct cause of crime. The relation comes from many factors, which are also correlated to both low income and crime: alcoholism, abuse as a child, stress in keeping a job/family together. Stress causes people to commit crime. I'd say extreme stress directly correlates to crime. So how does one eliminate this stress so rampant in low-income neighborhoods? Increase income, but how, if nobody has "gone to college" to be able to earn higher income? Sincerely, how would you solve this problem, Minerva?
I don't know about the whole religion argument. Morals came before religion as a whole, and I'd assume you'd have to have morals to allow yourself to follow the religious text. But what I don't like about religion is the afterlife. Common to all popular religion is the karma concept. You get what you give. Some are nice (reincarnation), and some suck royally (Chinese hell sounds worse than Christian hell, because not only does it last a few thousand universe lifespans, but you'll have to do it over and over if you screw up in the next life. It also has layers of increasing intensity and duration. In modern Christian hell, you burn for a single eternity, in the same setting.). Ah. I'm on a tangent. Oh well. Anyway, religion has great ideas: don't kill people, don't steal, don't lie. But some people only adhere to it because they are afraid of the afterlife.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothGroove
Many Christians think life is a test of soul, to see whether or not you get into heaven. But heaven is life itself! The test is the universe! The whole meaning of the universe is to become self-conscious. As simple atoms and molecules, the universe is mostly unaware. Sure, atoms react to other atoms, molecules interact with other molecules, but that isn't true perception. Life creates a better perception. As life becomes more complex, so does the universe's self awareness. Life evolves from bacteria that are pure reaction, to microorganisms with true instinct, to worms with simple memory, all the way to humans. We can experience the universe. We know that what we are experiencing is the universe. We are apart of the universe. Is the universe self-aware? No, not all the way. We still have evolving to do. Luckily, humans have reached a point where we don't need DNA to evolve. We've got language (a medium) and technology (speed).
I feel this ias a good thread, ppl have stopped discussing things peacefully and that has really been bothering me.