Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Il Palazzo: judaism was not the first monotheistic religion, only the first that still remains.

[ChairmanPoo]

Is it just me or do we have some report-happy people around?

[Psyco Jelly]

This leads to what I consider a universal truth: Whenever you do anything, someone, somewhere, doesn't like it.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I don't want anyone to particularly call out anyone on this, but it's got to be said. Let's not call people names or "dicks" because we don't agree with their interpretation of reality. As of late this forum seems to be doing this more than we the DF community have in the past, and it's very unbecoming as Threetoe said.

In order to find the true nature of reality, we should consider all possibilities and contemplate them by looking inward at how they apply to ourselves rather than arguing with other people and immediately rejecting entire philosophies because we don't agree with minute aspects of them or how other people interpret it. There's a lot of hateful rhetoric flying around with people trying to score points for their team rather than trying to learn.

This is why scientific and dogmatic religious people don't get along in spite of both being "objectivists", in search of one universal truth (many think theirs is correct and there is no middle ground).

I believe there is at the very least some things we can agree on and that is how we as individuals and society learn, function, and better ourselves.

[Korbac]

I don't want anyone to particularly call out anyone on this, but it's got to be said. Let's not call people names or "dicks" because we don't agree with their interpretation of reality. As of late this forum seems to be doing this more than we the DF community have in the past, and it's very unbecoming as Threetoe said.

In order to find the true nature of reality, we should consider all possibilities and contemplate them by look inward at ourselves rather than arguing with other people and immediately rejecting entire philosophies because we don't agree with minute aspects of them. There's a lot of hateful rhetoric flying around with people trying to score points for their team rather than trying to learn.

This is why scientific and dogmatic religious people don't get along in spite of both being "objectivists", in search of one universal truth (many think theirs is correct and there is no middle ground).

Amen. Let's stop the fur from flying. Humans as a race are very dogmatic anyways and it's unlikely you'll ever be able to get anyone to say "Wow, I was so wrong about how I lived, but now you've shown me the true path!" and convert the way someone things, so it's pretty much a waste of time attempting to do so.

This leads to what I consider a universal truth: Whenever you do anything, someone, somewhere, doesn't like it.

This is very true. Even if the world was full of peaceful, humanity - loving people, I still don't think it would be a perfect place. There is simply going to always be someone who has obectives tantamount (word?) to yours.

[Lord Dullard]

I'll add (yet another) apology. I understand that there is an edge to my posts, but honest, open, heated debate typically does have an edge. Clearly, this forum does not want honest, open, heated debate where critique of ideas is okay - it wants political correctness and for everyone to stand on ceremony. I find this sad. I also find it sad that certain people can't distinguish between 'debate' and 'argument', or 'hateful' and 'critical'. There is a very firm, very meaningful difference between the two - mainly that the goal of one is improvement of ideas, the goal of the other is the destruction of ideas, and that one is willing to accept critique in return, while the other is not - but it seems that distinction is less obvious than I thought it was.

But I'll withdraw from making any further contributions to this discussion, as I'm tired of drama being created where drama isn't necessary.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Oh no, we welcome honest, open, heated, "edgy", and reasonable debate.

I just think that

Believing in a universe that doesn't revolve around you doesn't require you to believe in an all-powerful invisible man - it just requires you not to be a giant dick.

could be *cough* worded much better. Even though I agree with that statement in certain ways.

There's other posts that have this kind of tone as well, and if you're trying to have reasonable debate, we should avoid talking like that in the first place. You know, avoid implying one side are giant dicks and pissing off the giant dicks 

[LegoLord]

What I think:
Well, there are people who think we should invade at the drop of a hat, so to speak.  There are people that think that no problem should be solved with violence.

History has situations that show both ideals to be imperfect.  Excessive violence merely spawns strife and disdain for the one who uses it; just look at how the rest of the world views the US.  But by the same token, what if you are attacked by an enemy that is unwilling to negotiate or compromise until you have submitted or are destroyed?  A violent response is the only answer.  Just look at the events leading up to WWII.  Conflict avoidance by the soon-to-be-Allies merely encouraged Hitler.

It's sad, but sometimes the fight must be fought with the gun instead of the word.  But I'd much rather the powers that be only use them as a last resort.  If there is any chance for compromise with the other side, it should be sought out with any resources that can be spared.

World peace is an appealing idea to me.  Conflict in the world is what prevents me from seeing family for the majority of the time.  I'd much rather be able to see my family than have wars and revolutions going on around me.

[Muz]

Hah, the irony is that we've become much closer to world peace ever since we invented nuclear weapons. This should last up until people invent a ballistic missile defense system. If you look at both history and simulated history (games), people tend to invade when they think they can get away with it.

[ChairmanPoo]

the irony is that we've become much closer to world peace ever since we invented nuclear weapons

I disagree. That's an oft repeated myth, but we are getting just as many wars as before.

[Il Palazzo]

But none of them between nations with nuclear weapons.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's debatable to what extent that is due to the nuclear weapons themselves. And to what extent it's true, as well.

[Il Palazzo]

Spoiler: So, hey derailing is a long and honoured tradition (click to show/hide)

I don't think that the deterrent effect of mutually assured destruction is debatable. If anything, the Cold War proves that best.
And the "no war between nuclear nations" is a fact. How can you say it's not true?

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't think that the deterrent effect of mutually assured destruction is debatable.

sure. I dont deny there is a degree of deterrence. The key term is "a degree".

And the "no war between nuclear nations" is a fact. How can you say it's not true?

First Because it is not clear to what extent that is due to nuclear weapons. There are plenty of nations without nuclear weapons living in relative peace. Some times more peacefully than countries with nuclear weapons. And countries without nuclear weapons have successfully defended against countries with them.

Secondly: because nuclear weapons have not stopped wars for the countries that have them either. Pretty much all of them have been involved in wars against neighbours.  Russia and the US came to blows several times in the last century: Korea, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile ordeal are just a few examples. India and Pakistan have border scuffles from time to time, and both have nuclear weapons. For that matter, Pakistan has portions of it's territory controlled by guerrillas.
It would be more accurate to say that no country has been willing to escalate to nuclear weapon usage so far.

[Mindmaker]

Well I basically try to survive that last year of school and then finally start university.
I'm pretty burnt out from the mindless technicals stuff we are being taught at my current school (it has 5 grades, so I'm stuck here a year longer, than in most other schools).
I'm neither interested, nor good in it and i certainly don't want to work in that sector.

My parents refused to pay for my driving license that far (it's ridicolous as I turned 20 some days ago), which makes socialising quite hard, since I live in the middle of nowhere and my friends 40+ kilometers away.

So my goals are in chronological order finish school, get a driving license, start university and finally have a normal and enjoyable life.