Who still remembers me? Sorry for not being online more often but I'll try to come here every once in awhile when I get the chance. Sooooooooooooo............Talk to meh! (>'3')>
Printable View
Who still remembers me? Sorry for not being online more often but I'll try to come here every once in awhile when I get the chance. Sooooooooooooo............Talk to meh! (>'3')>
No one? Awwwwwww :wtf: I feel rather saddish. :(
I remember you!
I remember everything!
...... where am I? :l
How could one forget you?
Especially someone like me!
Ohai Vira.
This colour's just for you :]
I <3 Vira. I remembers you, you are such a sweety
I'm not sure I remember you. Are you the chick with the panda ears? >___>
She's the one who married someone from the site, probably MoS.
Hey, I remember you! Welcome back
Who.
I of course remember you. I remember pretty much everything from the Saga of DV of which you were a part.
hey lets have attention garnering DOES ANY1 REMEMBER ME??????????????????????? threads all in one thread
except only sometimes
Speaking of the DV Saga, I still want to know if you ever punch google in the face so hard that it turns into yahoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
I don't know. I don't know why I was portrayed as some kind of Rambo guy because I dislike fighting in general, I think it's pretty childish.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
Fighting or Kiza's story or both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
Concerning you representation, maybe it is a complex satire using a good-humoured but sarcastic attitude as an analogy to antagonism in general and it used a non-violent entity to portray the ridiculousness of categorizing different types of hostility into good and bad sub groups- eventualy leading one to the conclusion of the pointlessness of human existance in general.
Or not, though. That too.
I believe you can make the argument that some types of hostility are objectively bad.
Let us examine this on a grand scale.
One only needs to look at any period of history to see that physical violence and subjugation of others through killing/violence has never produced a peaceful regime, unless you take into account complete and total genocide--destroying an entire people or nation will indubitably produce peace as all dissenters are dead..but could you say this is desirable? Seems doubtful.
Consider the alternative: not total annihilation. There will still always be dissenters, such is humanity and human nature. How did the Jews react to Nebuchadnezzar (II), the king of Neo-Babylonia, ravaging and destroying Jerusalem? Were they accepting of this "solution" to mutual tension and aggression between the two parties? Did they profess that they were acceptable of this resolution of the conflict between the King and their own Judaic people? No, they wrote him in the Book of Daniel as a beast and tyrant, and this settles for much of his view in present day. They claimed he later went insane for seven years, living in the woods as a monster, as a punishment for his actions by God. The same is true for Christians some 600 years later -- they made sure to note that the Romans who oppressed and killed them would burn in their hell for eternity, for their murder and worshiping "pagan" (I apologize for the inherent Abrahamic bias of this term) gods.
Lets consider more modern, smaller scale instances- the same is true for any form of physical antagonism throughout history. This does not solely apply to religious conflicts; it is also true for secular events and conflicts. The Provisional Irish Republican Army, for decades in the mid 20th century, sought a united Ireland through acts of violence and chaos. They used explosives, human-driven urban warfare, and other less conventional forms of terrorism to achieve their aims. They never achieved a separate Ireland like they wished -- for all their bravado and persistence, their physical aggression did not get them anywhere. Finally realizing their folly, or arguably coming to terms with it, the coalition called off their armed campaign in 2005. They now seek "purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means". Have they looked at history and realized their blunder? Bestial acts of aggression have not resolved conflicts for anything more than a peace or resolution in name only.
Now; whether or not their diplomatic methods prove to be effective remain to be seen, but non-physical methods of resolving conflict at least have a success rate, however low.
Consider a concrete, everyday example. Let us come up with a scenario. Imagine you and an acquaintance had a financial discrepancy. Your associate owes you a monetary sum, that for the sake of fictitious instance, is slow or non-existant in payment. If you resorted to physical aggression to solve the unpaid loan, it is likely you would both not get your money back, and lose the good-natured relationship between you and your colleague in the process. Through diplomacy, you would at least have a chance of receiving back your funds, while keeping the relationship on good terms.
Good or bad? These are unarguably subjective terms, one method cannot be "bad" - Nebuchadnezzar II would consider his methods justified and "good" and you and him would never reach an agreement. However, "effective" and "ineffective"; these seem more readily useful terms for our problem. It's simple to see that physical hostility can be put into the "ineffective" camp, while diplomacy can hover in-between. How useful this can be is up to a number of factors; however, my aim is not to dissect these variables. History and everyday existence repeatedly shows us that to ignore transcendence from base instincts of aggression to resolve matters, but instead to indulge in violent measures will, objectively, have a paltry outcome, and ultimately be futile.
Hey gurl.