The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Good news for everyone who I routinely annoy, exasperate, argue with, and generally call wrong, for I shall not bother posting in Life any more after this one topic.
This will be a great loss, to my word count, but other than that very little.
Whilst it is not pointless to be a lone voice, it is when it comes to an internet forum. Quite frankly, I can't be bothered anymore, it's not fun, and you all know better anyway.
Now you can all agree with each other safe in the knowledge I won't post a 1000 word + reply ripping peoples ideas apart, great eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
This will be a great loss, to my word count, but other than that very little.
Whilst it is not pointless to be a lone voice, it is when it comes to an internet forum. Quite frankly, I can't be bothered anymore, it's not fun, and you all know better anyway.
Now you can all agree with each other safe in the knowledge I won't post a 1000 word + reply ripping peoples ideas apart, great eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> This thread has become little more than ego-ramming, with everyone
> locking horns and waving their nobs about trying to impress...I dont
> know who.
> You think one thing, I think another, Hooplah thinks what he does,
> Light has his beliefs....
>
> We're all right and wrong. That's the only point I'm making here. And
> that does include you, and it includes me.
> I can't even remember what the point of this was now...it's late and
> I'm off to look at naked women.
For once, I'm going to agree, and leave it at that.
~~Belldandy~~
> This thread has become little more than ego-ramming, with everyone
> locking horns and waving their nobs about trying to impress...I dont
> know who.
> You think one thing, I think another, Hooplah thinks what he does,
> Light has his beliefs....
>
> We're all right and wrong. That's the only point I'm making here. And
> that does include you, and it includes me.
> I can't even remember what the point of this was now...it's late and
> I'm off to look at naked women.
For once, I'm going to agree, and leave it at that.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
Again, I never actually said YOUR ideas were anti american e.t.c but
> that many of the ideas here are. Try reading them less personally...
---
"To save anyone whose bored enough to read this from going through another post where I dissect Hooplah's reply paragrpah by paragraph, I'll say this"
This along with "A lone voice...in the knowledge I won't post a 1000 word + reply ripping peoples ideas apart, great eh?" is why most people are continuing to post in these pointless dick-waving "I'm so clever" threads.
Again, you seem to position yourself as the superior, all-knowing voice of politik. And should anybody question or say "Ummm, actually you're not entirely factually correct on that point mate" is met with your disdain and posturing, complete with comments about "dissecting" replies and "ripping people's ideas apart".
Dont kid yourself Bell, whilst you do sometimes make valid comments, a lot of the time it's wrapped in your sneering, Will Hunting style of saying "No no no, I shall now lord it and dissect/rip apart your post".
Except when you get pulled up on certain areas, it's then "Nobody's opinion is 100% valid and all truthfull". Which is ironic considering how doggedly you'll drag a thread out until the other person gives up and wanders off to talk about something else.
I've said it before and hell, you've even said it a few posts down - nobody is correct simply because they believe they are.
If you look, I've not attempted to engage you in your thoughts and beliefs on these, or any other subjects, because your opinions are just that - your opinions.
What I will continue to do is to point out how utterly hypocritical it is of you to spend how many days now arguing about this, and to then say "Oh well your opinion isn't any more valid than mine".
If that was the case, if you truly believed that? You'd let it lie.
Yet, it appears, you return to get the last word/try and "dissect" a reply and generally come off as someone that is convinced they are the final word and mind on all matters to do with politics.
I do respect your posts, to an extent. But not when you set yourself apart from everyone else and strut like we should bow and scrape, lest we incur another idea "ripped apart"
Ultimately, unless you actually do something other than post on an internet forum, these discussions are pointless. Because all the words in the world don't change a thing.
Direct action in your beliefs do. That's the *only* way, if you care that strongly, that you can affect a situation.
This thread has become little more than ego-ramming, with everyone locking horns and waving their nobs about trying to impress...I dont know who.
You think one thing, I think another, Hooplah thinks what he does, Light has his beliefs....
We're all right and wrong. That's the only point I'm making here. And that does include you, and it includes me.
I can't even remember what the point of this was now...it's late and I'm off to look at naked women.
Good night
Again, I never actually said YOUR ideas were anti american e.t.c but
> that many of the ideas here are. Try reading them less personally...
---
"To save anyone whose bored enough to read this from going through another post where I dissect Hooplah's reply paragrpah by paragraph, I'll say this"
This along with "A lone voice...in the knowledge I won't post a 1000 word + reply ripping peoples ideas apart, great eh?" is why most people are continuing to post in these pointless dick-waving "I'm so clever" threads.
Again, you seem to position yourself as the superior, all-knowing voice of politik. And should anybody question or say "Ummm, actually you're not entirely factually correct on that point mate" is met with your disdain and posturing, complete with comments about "dissecting" replies and "ripping people's ideas apart".
Dont kid yourself Bell, whilst you do sometimes make valid comments, a lot of the time it's wrapped in your sneering, Will Hunting style of saying "No no no, I shall now lord it and dissect/rip apart your post".
Except when you get pulled up on certain areas, it's then "Nobody's opinion is 100% valid and all truthfull". Which is ironic considering how doggedly you'll drag a thread out until the other person gives up and wanders off to talk about something else.
I've said it before and hell, you've even said it a few posts down - nobody is correct simply because they believe they are.
If you look, I've not attempted to engage you in your thoughts and beliefs on these, or any other subjects, because your opinions are just that - your opinions.
What I will continue to do is to point out how utterly hypocritical it is of you to spend how many days now arguing about this, and to then say "Oh well your opinion isn't any more valid than mine".
If that was the case, if you truly believed that? You'd let it lie.
Yet, it appears, you return to get the last word/try and "dissect" a reply and generally come off as someone that is convinced they are the final word and mind on all matters to do with politics.
I do respect your posts, to an extent. But not when you set yourself apart from everyone else and strut like we should bow and scrape, lest we incur another idea "ripped apart"
Ultimately, unless you actually do something other than post on an internet forum, these discussions are pointless. Because all the words in the world don't change a thing.
Direct action in your beliefs do. That's the *only* way, if you care that strongly, that you can affect a situation.
This thread has become little more than ego-ramming, with everyone locking horns and waving their nobs about trying to impress...I dont know who.
You think one thing, I think another, Hooplah thinks what he does, Light has his beliefs....
We're all right and wrong. That's the only point I'm making here. And that does include you, and it includes me.
I can't even remember what the point of this was now...it's late and I'm off to look at naked women.
Good night
Hooplah wrote:
> Europe was directly responsible for WWI and WWII, not to mention
> plenty of other horrendous acts throughout the ages, the US hardly
> have a clean slate do they? I don't see why you can't grasp that, that
> is what people have been trying to say.
I probably cannot quite grasp whatever it is you are trying to say because you do not fully explain your point until after I've replied. Europe as a whole was not really responsible for the two wars. Yes, they sat back and waited for Germany to make the first move both times, in Hitlers case they ignored the blindingly obvious, but it was always from a desire to avoid conflict. The conditions placed upon Germany after WW1 were so strict because no one wanted a repeat, but it all went wrong because, right until the blitzkrieg began, everyone wanted to believe it was all some horrible misunderstanding.
No country on this earth has a clean slate, history judges them. When it comes to that slate however, America's is cleaner than most - Europe's positively drips with the blood of those it colonised over 300 years, not to mention numerous crusades and so forth. Just how far back do we want to track atrocity ? Because the future, and today, is all that can be changed now.
It's all that matters now.
Again, I never actually said YOUR ideas were anti american e.t.c but that many of the ideas here are. Try reading them less personally...
~~Belldandy~~
> Europe was directly responsible for WWI and WWII, not to mention
> plenty of other horrendous acts throughout the ages, the US hardly
> have a clean slate do they? I don't see why you can't grasp that, that
> is what people have been trying to say.
I probably cannot quite grasp whatever it is you are trying to say because you do not fully explain your point until after I've replied. Europe as a whole was not really responsible for the two wars. Yes, they sat back and waited for Germany to make the first move both times, in Hitlers case they ignored the blindingly obvious, but it was always from a desire to avoid conflict. The conditions placed upon Germany after WW1 were so strict because no one wanted a repeat, but it all went wrong because, right until the blitzkrieg began, everyone wanted to believe it was all some horrible misunderstanding.
No country on this earth has a clean slate, history judges them. When it comes to that slate however, America's is cleaner than most - Europe's positively drips with the blood of those it colonised over 300 years, not to mention numerous crusades and so forth. Just how far back do we want to track atrocity ? Because the future, and today, is all that can be changed now.
It's all that matters now.
Again, I never actually said YOUR ideas were anti american e.t.c but that many of the ideas here are. Try reading them less personally...
~~Belldandy~~
First off Belldandy, this is what is so extremely infuriating about your posting. I am not Anti West/Anti American, a fact that I have stated and you choose to ignore. I'll make this very clear for you this time, as it hasn't yet sunk in.
It doesn't matter who carries out the atrocity, it's wrong. I don't care which geographical region takes responsibility, it is still wrong. I take issue with anybody who defends a government to the hilt when there hands are just as dirty as everybody else's.
Belldandy wrote:
> All of us eh? Thought you hada go at me earlier in this topic for
> using such wording.....Chamberlain was, without doubt
> "flawed" when it came to the issue of Germany. He ignored
> many many reports from jewish refugees from Germany about what was
> happening in Germany, and he chose not to believe them, and believe
> Germany instead. He was one of many foreign leaders which returned
> jewish, and other peoples, who had escaped Germany, back to Germany
> because they wished asylum.
That's correct, did I applaud him for such an action - No. You have however, completely misunderstood (again) why I posted this. I don't seek to claim any side was any better than the other, simply to highlight that our political leaders have a curious way of showing that they have the best interests of mankind set deep within them.
>
> A selective history lesson.... Germany pushed into Russia because,
> without the US, there was no way Britain would push into Europe, and
> the fact that Russia had signed a non-aggression treaty allowed German
> forces to advance into Russia far faster than an open attack such as
> that on France would have. Russia also had the vital resources needed
> by Hitler, along with slave labour, to push the German war machine
> into even greater expansion. On paper it seemed a safe bet, but unlike
> France, Russia did not surrender so easily. Hitler underestimated the
> resilience of Russia and it's soldiers and people. As for Pearl
> Harbour - Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to make sure that an
> apathetic American public opinion would back a war by ignoring clear
> intelligence warnings that said a Japanese attack fleet was heading
> straight for the Pearl Harbour area, this decision went as far as to
> have intelligence agents kill and destroy the only boat and crew - a
> dutch merchant vessel - to have spotted the Japanese fleet. Both
> leaders knew that the only way America could enter the war was for it
> to be attacked directly. Churchill wasn't as "dumb" as you
> suggest - he proposed an alliance with a communist state and an
> isolationist state - that took courage. Whilst America had no army to
> speak of initially, it did have a navy. This was able to give
> immediate assistance, and within 6 months America was beginning to
> form a great army, one that would, three years later, play a crucial
> role in retaking Europe. Without the USA, the war would have gone very
> differently.
What, selective in the same way that you selectively question certain parts of my post, leaving the ones you cannot 'dissect'? It was not supposed to be a thorough insight into the why's and wherefores of WWII, again, it only served to highlight the problems that arose from having a lunatic like Hitler at the wheel. It was not intended as a history lesson, a period that is strewn with accusation upon accusation over who did what. It is widely regarded by most Historians, that the truth will be almost impossible to ascertain.
> So in pre WW2 we should have negotiated more ? Just how should we have
> done that; "Gee Mr Hitler, you want to kill all the jews ? How
> about 50% instead, and how about you keep Poland, and France, and
> leave it at that eh ?"
No, No and No again. I've already said that I feel that due to the circumstances WWII was unavoidable, but it was only a legacy of the great war, an accident waiting to happen. I find it sickening that you even joke about that sort thing.
>
> Peace is maintained through the threat of violence, not the absence of
> it. Sure, if all the world was like Europe and America then it may be
> possible, but it isn't, so it isn't.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Europe was directly responsible for WWI and WWII, not to mention plenty of other horrendous acts throughout the ages, the US hardly have a clean slate do they? I don't see why you can't grasp that, that is what people have been trying to say.
It doesn't matter who carries out the atrocity, it's wrong. I don't care which geographical region takes responsibility, it is still wrong. I take issue with anybody who defends a government to the hilt when there hands are just as dirty as everybody else's.
Belldandy wrote:
> All of us eh? Thought you hada go at me earlier in this topic for
> using such wording.....Chamberlain was, without doubt
> "flawed" when it came to the issue of Germany. He ignored
> many many reports from jewish refugees from Germany about what was
> happening in Germany, and he chose not to believe them, and believe
> Germany instead. He was one of many foreign leaders which returned
> jewish, and other peoples, who had escaped Germany, back to Germany
> because they wished asylum.
That's correct, did I applaud him for such an action - No. You have however, completely misunderstood (again) why I posted this. I don't seek to claim any side was any better than the other, simply to highlight that our political leaders have a curious way of showing that they have the best interests of mankind set deep within them.
>
> A selective history lesson.... Germany pushed into Russia because,
> without the US, there was no way Britain would push into Europe, and
> the fact that Russia had signed a non-aggression treaty allowed German
> forces to advance into Russia far faster than an open attack such as
> that on France would have. Russia also had the vital resources needed
> by Hitler, along with slave labour, to push the German war machine
> into even greater expansion. On paper it seemed a safe bet, but unlike
> France, Russia did not surrender so easily. Hitler underestimated the
> resilience of Russia and it's soldiers and people. As for Pearl
> Harbour - Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to make sure that an
> apathetic American public opinion would back a war by ignoring clear
> intelligence warnings that said a Japanese attack fleet was heading
> straight for the Pearl Harbour area, this decision went as far as to
> have intelligence agents kill and destroy the only boat and crew - a
> dutch merchant vessel - to have spotted the Japanese fleet. Both
> leaders knew that the only way America could enter the war was for it
> to be attacked directly. Churchill wasn't as "dumb" as you
> suggest - he proposed an alliance with a communist state and an
> isolationist state - that took courage. Whilst America had no army to
> speak of initially, it did have a navy. This was able to give
> immediate assistance, and within 6 months America was beginning to
> form a great army, one that would, three years later, play a crucial
> role in retaking Europe. Without the USA, the war would have gone very
> differently.
What, selective in the same way that you selectively question certain parts of my post, leaving the ones you cannot 'dissect'? It was not supposed to be a thorough insight into the why's and wherefores of WWII, again, it only served to highlight the problems that arose from having a lunatic like Hitler at the wheel. It was not intended as a history lesson, a period that is strewn with accusation upon accusation over who did what. It is widely regarded by most Historians, that the truth will be almost impossible to ascertain.
> So in pre WW2 we should have negotiated more ? Just how should we have
> done that; "Gee Mr Hitler, you want to kill all the jews ? How
> about 50% instead, and how about you keep Poland, and France, and
> leave it at that eh ?"
No, No and No again. I've already said that I feel that due to the circumstances WWII was unavoidable, but it was only a legacy of the great war, an accident waiting to happen. I find it sickening that you even joke about that sort thing.
>
> Peace is maintained through the threat of violence, not the absence of
> it. Sure, if all the world was like Europe and America then it may be
> possible, but it isn't, so it isn't.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Europe was directly responsible for WWI and WWII, not to mention plenty of other horrendous acts throughout the ages, the US hardly have a clean slate do they? I don't see why you can't grasp that, that is what people have been trying to say.
To save anyone whose bored enough to read this from going through another post where I dissect Hooplah's reply paragrpah by paragraph, I'll say this.
Many of the ideas about the world, how the West should act e.t.c are all fine and I could accept them IF those same ideals were not entangled with anti-western and anti-american ideas.
however;
>Hooplah wrote:
>After the debacle of WWI, which was bourne out of staunch nationalism, >imperialism and the British Empire and Germany comparing their Navys like >Essex boys comparing Cars, is is not suprising that Chamberlain, the >French and the Soviets wished to avoid a repeat performance. And while >it's true that Hitler lied, it did not help that Chruchill, considered by >many in the UK to be one of the greatest PM's ever, undermined >Chamberlain after the Munich Settlement in 1938 by undertaking what has >been described self promotion at best, and political dirty tricks by the >rest of us.
All of us eh? Thought you hada go at me earlier in this topic for using such wording.....Chamberlain was, without doubt "flawed" when it came to the issue of Germany. He ignored many many reports from jewish refugees from Germany about what was happening in Germany, and he chose not to believe them, and believe Germany instead. He was one of many foreign leaders which returned jewish, and other peoples, who had escaped Germany, back to Germany because they wished asylum.
>Hitler the Maniac invaded Poland. And Churchill, the drunk womaniser >who's only claim to fame other than being able to manipulate the public >to increase his position, was that he appeared to be smart for suggesting >that an alliance between the UK, US and Soviets would be a good idea >before it happened. This only appeared to be wise in hindsight, Stalin >hated Churchill for trying to stop the Soviet Union before it started, >the US was considered isolated and had no army to speak of. He only got >his alliance because the Hitler was dumb enough to attack the Soviets and >Japan bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.
A selective history lesson.... Germany pushed into Russia because, without the US, there was no way Britain would push into Europe, and the fact that Russia had signed a non-aggression treaty allowed German forces to advance into Russia far faster than an open attack such as that on France would have. Russia also had the vital resources needed by Hitler, along with slave labour, to push the German war machine into even greater expansion. On paper it seemed a safe bet, but unlike France, Russia did not surrender so easily. Hitler underestimated the resilience of Russia and it's soldiers and people. As for Pearl Harbour - Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to make sure that an apathetic American public opinion would back a war by ignoring clear intelligence warnings that said a Japanese attack fleet was heading straight for the Pearl Harbour area, this decision went as far as to have intelligence agents kill and destroy the only boat and crew - a dutch merchant vessel - to have spotted the Japanese fleet. Both leaders knew that the only way America could enter the war was for it to be attacked directly. Churchill wasn't as "dumb" as you suggest - he proposed an alliance with a communist state and an isolationist state - that took courage. Whilst America had no army to speak of initially, it did have a navy. This was able to give immediate assistance, and within 6 months America was beginning to form a great army, one that would, three years later, play a crucial role in retaking Europe. Without the USA, the war would have gone very differently.
>If sensible, free thinking man with the courage to do what was right was >at the table, rather than a fringe lunatic, the history of the last >century would be very different. People that can see the point of view of >others, surely the men and women who weld such power should be able to do >that? Peace cannot be maintained through violence, it can only come >around through evolving an understanding for others, on BOTH sides.
So in pre WW2 we should have negotiated more ? Just how should we have done that; "Gee Mr Hitler, you want to kill all the jews ? How about 50% instead, and how about you keep Poland, and France, and leave it at that eh ?"
Peace is maintained through the threat of violence, not the absence of it. Sure, if all the world was like Europe and America then it may be possible, but it isn't, so it isn't.
~~Belldandy~~
Many of the ideas about the world, how the West should act e.t.c are all fine and I could accept them IF those same ideals were not entangled with anti-western and anti-american ideas.
however;
>Hooplah wrote:
>After the debacle of WWI, which was bourne out of staunch nationalism, >imperialism and the British Empire and Germany comparing their Navys like >Essex boys comparing Cars, is is not suprising that Chamberlain, the >French and the Soviets wished to avoid a repeat performance. And while >it's true that Hitler lied, it did not help that Chruchill, considered by >many in the UK to be one of the greatest PM's ever, undermined >Chamberlain after the Munich Settlement in 1938 by undertaking what has >been described self promotion at best, and political dirty tricks by the >rest of us.
All of us eh? Thought you hada go at me earlier in this topic for using such wording.....Chamberlain was, without doubt "flawed" when it came to the issue of Germany. He ignored many many reports from jewish refugees from Germany about what was happening in Germany, and he chose not to believe them, and believe Germany instead. He was one of many foreign leaders which returned jewish, and other peoples, who had escaped Germany, back to Germany because they wished asylum.
>Hitler the Maniac invaded Poland. And Churchill, the drunk womaniser >who's only claim to fame other than being able to manipulate the public >to increase his position, was that he appeared to be smart for suggesting >that an alliance between the UK, US and Soviets would be a good idea >before it happened. This only appeared to be wise in hindsight, Stalin >hated Churchill for trying to stop the Soviet Union before it started, >the US was considered isolated and had no army to speak of. He only got >his alliance because the Hitler was dumb enough to attack the Soviets and >Japan bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.
A selective history lesson.... Germany pushed into Russia because, without the US, there was no way Britain would push into Europe, and the fact that Russia had signed a non-aggression treaty allowed German forces to advance into Russia far faster than an open attack such as that on France would have. Russia also had the vital resources needed by Hitler, along with slave labour, to push the German war machine into even greater expansion. On paper it seemed a safe bet, but unlike France, Russia did not surrender so easily. Hitler underestimated the resilience of Russia and it's soldiers and people. As for Pearl Harbour - Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to make sure that an apathetic American public opinion would back a war by ignoring clear intelligence warnings that said a Japanese attack fleet was heading straight for the Pearl Harbour area, this decision went as far as to have intelligence agents kill and destroy the only boat and crew - a dutch merchant vessel - to have spotted the Japanese fleet. Both leaders knew that the only way America could enter the war was for it to be attacked directly. Churchill wasn't as "dumb" as you suggest - he proposed an alliance with a communist state and an isolationist state - that took courage. Whilst America had no army to speak of initially, it did have a navy. This was able to give immediate assistance, and within 6 months America was beginning to form a great army, one that would, three years later, play a crucial role in retaking Europe. Without the USA, the war would have gone very differently.
>If sensible, free thinking man with the courage to do what was right was >at the table, rather than a fringe lunatic, the history of the last >century would be very different. People that can see the point of view of >others, surely the men and women who weld such power should be able to do >that? Peace cannot be maintained through violence, it can only come >around through evolving an understanding for others, on BOTH sides.
So in pre WW2 we should have negotiated more ? Just how should we have done that; "Gee Mr Hitler, you want to kill all the jews ? How about 50% instead, and how about you keep Poland, and France, and leave it at that eh ?"
Peace is maintained through the threat of violence, not the absence of it. Sure, if all the world was like Europe and America then it may be possible, but it isn't, so it isn't.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Hooplah wrote:
> So in that one statement you've anhilated the left and the right then
> ? No you haven't. Of course it's outdated, but its still in existence
> and in use. Its still used by the media, and in education, and in text
> books.
I didn't claim to of anhilated it, I just claimed that it was outdated. Newtons laws of physics and the 'Solar System' model of an atom are both still used in the media, education and text books as well.
>
> So you mean making "unbiased" decisions then ? Great one,
> and not possible. Who are you to say my opinions are effected by any
> of this, and that my opinions are not rational ?
No, don't twist it. And it's not about making an unbiased decision, all realisation is based in the understanding of fact. It is the presentation of this fact that is biased, therefore leading to the mis-interpretation. I've not insinuated that your opinions are not rational, just pro-west.
> Well I'm not talking about Light, lets let him talk for himself eh ?
> The idea of using "educated minds" to change things is
> exactly the kind of racialised thinking that has ended with the world
> in this situation in the first place. Dependency Theory in the 60's
> was just this - a set of Latin American scholars (mostly) whose
> scholarly ideas would break the third world from dependency with the
> first world. What happened ? The idea died as the scholars turned into
> factions, gave endless lecture tours and those nations that did try it
> found it had bad consequences because of the ideas it was rooted in.
> Moving forward ? Again, we're doing this quite well thanks, though
> many would have us believe otherwise using some choice examples.
>
True, it did fail. But failure is no reason to quit trying. Would you prefer the Third world stayed the way it is? As for doing quite well, I'm not too sure about that. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
> Again, this idea of the few who see the "real" world without
> "blinkers" is highly suspicious and rubbish. Stop kidding
> yourselves you are something you're not. The world is viewed so
> differently by so many that no one can claim they see any kind of true
> world. It's all from perspective and you have an image of the world,
> or how it should be, which matches your own views and ideas. Doesn't
> mean that world view is any more vlaid than mine, or somehow better
> than mine or anybody elses. It's one of a multitude and nothing
> more.
It's not. Again, you wonder why people choose to attack your posts, they're not exactly choice in their construction? Don't drag me down to your level with that sort of sweeping generalisation. There are plenty of people that can manage it, it's not my fault that you can't. Of course people have different views of the world, or to be more precise - their immediate world. But on a larger scale, don't you think people would prefer a world of peace through understanding, rather than through violence?
>
>
> It is always wrong, but I never said it was right. The most difficult
> thing to do is to accept that, at times, people will, and in rare
> cases, must die if peace is to succeed. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there
> was no other way to shift Iraq other than force. We tried diplomacy
> and Iraq laughed. So we attacked, and killed scores of Iraqi soldiers
> because there was no other way. The idea of world without killing is a
> pipedream, and won't exist for a long time yet. And history actually
> proves that it is rare for a society to slaughter all those that
> oppose it's ideology. there's the most recent example of Nazi Germany
> of course - but even before the UK entered WW2 there were those in
> this country who said we should not go to war then, and the same
> before WW1. Hisotry has a long line of examples of people claiming war
> is pointless in the face of conflict, and then being proved wrong.
> What we face now is a war, but a less obvious one.
It may well be a pipedream, but the more people that hold true to that ideal the more likely it is to happen. I however, don't disagree with you on this point - I'm not stupid, I'm aware that in some instances there's no other way. I do not however, agree with the way nations go looking for trouble. I'm sure you're well aware of whoose foreign policy I'm refering to. You know, the country that didn't give a stuff about the Middle East or Terrorism until the Cold War finally blew over.
>
> No more of a problem than you have. You spent you're entire reply
> saying how wrong I was and how you're ideas were superior. And never
> actually made those comments you say... And you do have an ego problem
> - you're worse than me for being convinved you're ideas are some kind
> of one true faith.
Wrong. I have not said that at all. I have not said that my ideas are superior, you said that. I did not spend my entire reply saying how you were wrong, I only pointed out that there's more sense in peaceful resoloutions than violent ones. If that makes me egotistical then I'm happy with that. More than happy in fact. But if that's your interpretation then okay. I don't have an ego problem, I well aware of my limitations.
>
>
> In 1939 we debated with someone, and went aways happy. That debate was
> thought resolved. Months later the greatest War of the century had
> begun. Debate has a time and a place, but in many situations it is
> pointless without something else accompanying it. People do not always
> see the point of view of others, but that's assuming the point of view
> is reasonable in the first place. It is not always possible to do so,
> and it cannot be claimed it always is. Therefore it is not always a
> stubling block, the true stumbling block is often debate itself, which
> forestalls action that is so desperately needed.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Again, I don't disagree with the WWII point. But then I try not to champion my discussions with one of the darkest periods of recorded human history. What I'm trying to get accross here, is that don't you think that it would be better if world leaders were'nt power hungry, fringing on the side of lunacy and in some cases completey deranged?
Of course the debate for between Chamberlain and Hitler ended peacefully - Hitler admired the global accomplishments of the British Empire during the Victorian era and initially stated he only wished to unite Germany and Austria and take in the German part part of Czechoslovakia. Of course, it was part of Germany before the Versailles Treaty.
After the debacle of WWI, which was bourne out of staunch nationalism, imperialism and the British Empire and Germany comparing their Navys like Essex boys comparing Cars, is is not suprising that Chamberlain, the French and the Soviets wished to avoid a repeat performance. And while it's true that Hitler lied, it did not help that Chruchill, considered by many in the UK to be one of the greatest PM's ever, undermined Chamberlain after the Munich Settlement in 1938 by undertaking what has been described self promotion at best, and political dirty tricks by the rest of us.
Hitler the Maniac invaded Poland. And Churchill, the drunk womaniser who's only claim to fame other than being able to manipulate the public to increase his position, was that he appeared to be smart for suggesting that an alliance between the UK, US and Soviets would be a good idea before it happened. This only appeared to be wise in hindsight, Stalin hated Churchill for trying to stop the Soviet Union before it started, the US was considered isolated and had no army to speak of. He only got his alliance because the Hitler was dumb enough to attack the Soviets and Japan bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.
If sensible, free thinking man with the courage to do what was right was at the table, rather than a fringe lunatic, the history of the last century would be very different. People that can see the point of view of others, surely the men and women who weld such power should be able to do that? Peace cannot be maintained through violence, it can only come around through evolving an understanding for others, on BOTH sides.
It's not that I think the US is wrong, I just think there as bad as everybody else.
> Hooplah wrote:
> So in that one statement you've anhilated the left and the right then
> ? No you haven't. Of course it's outdated, but its still in existence
> and in use. Its still used by the media, and in education, and in text
> books.
I didn't claim to of anhilated it, I just claimed that it was outdated. Newtons laws of physics and the 'Solar System' model of an atom are both still used in the media, education and text books as well.
>
> So you mean making "unbiased" decisions then ? Great one,
> and not possible. Who are you to say my opinions are effected by any
> of this, and that my opinions are not rational ?
No, don't twist it. And it's not about making an unbiased decision, all realisation is based in the understanding of fact. It is the presentation of this fact that is biased, therefore leading to the mis-interpretation. I've not insinuated that your opinions are not rational, just pro-west.
> Well I'm not talking about Light, lets let him talk for himself eh ?
> The idea of using "educated minds" to change things is
> exactly the kind of racialised thinking that has ended with the world
> in this situation in the first place. Dependency Theory in the 60's
> was just this - a set of Latin American scholars (mostly) whose
> scholarly ideas would break the third world from dependency with the
> first world. What happened ? The idea died as the scholars turned into
> factions, gave endless lecture tours and those nations that did try it
> found it had bad consequences because of the ideas it was rooted in.
> Moving forward ? Again, we're doing this quite well thanks, though
> many would have us believe otherwise using some choice examples.
>
True, it did fail. But failure is no reason to quit trying. Would you prefer the Third world stayed the way it is? As for doing quite well, I'm not too sure about that. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
> Again, this idea of the few who see the "real" world without
> "blinkers" is highly suspicious and rubbish. Stop kidding
> yourselves you are something you're not. The world is viewed so
> differently by so many that no one can claim they see any kind of true
> world. It's all from perspective and you have an image of the world,
> or how it should be, which matches your own views and ideas. Doesn't
> mean that world view is any more vlaid than mine, or somehow better
> than mine or anybody elses. It's one of a multitude and nothing
> more.
It's not. Again, you wonder why people choose to attack your posts, they're not exactly choice in their construction? Don't drag me down to your level with that sort of sweeping generalisation. There are plenty of people that can manage it, it's not my fault that you can't. Of course people have different views of the world, or to be more precise - their immediate world. But on a larger scale, don't you think people would prefer a world of peace through understanding, rather than through violence?
>
>
> It is always wrong, but I never said it was right. The most difficult
> thing to do is to accept that, at times, people will, and in rare
> cases, must die if peace is to succeed. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there
> was no other way to shift Iraq other than force. We tried diplomacy
> and Iraq laughed. So we attacked, and killed scores of Iraqi soldiers
> because there was no other way. The idea of world without killing is a
> pipedream, and won't exist for a long time yet. And history actually
> proves that it is rare for a society to slaughter all those that
> oppose it's ideology. there's the most recent example of Nazi Germany
> of course - but even before the UK entered WW2 there were those in
> this country who said we should not go to war then, and the same
> before WW1. Hisotry has a long line of examples of people claiming war
> is pointless in the face of conflict, and then being proved wrong.
> What we face now is a war, but a less obvious one.
It may well be a pipedream, but the more people that hold true to that ideal the more likely it is to happen. I however, don't disagree with you on this point - I'm not stupid, I'm aware that in some instances there's no other way. I do not however, agree with the way nations go looking for trouble. I'm sure you're well aware of whoose foreign policy I'm refering to. You know, the country that didn't give a stuff about the Middle East or Terrorism until the Cold War finally blew over.
>
> No more of a problem than you have. You spent you're entire reply
> saying how wrong I was and how you're ideas were superior. And never
> actually made those comments you say... And you do have an ego problem
> - you're worse than me for being convinved you're ideas are some kind
> of one true faith.
Wrong. I have not said that at all. I have not said that my ideas are superior, you said that. I did not spend my entire reply saying how you were wrong, I only pointed out that there's more sense in peaceful resoloutions than violent ones. If that makes me egotistical then I'm happy with that. More than happy in fact. But if that's your interpretation then okay. I don't have an ego problem, I well aware of my limitations.
>
>
> In 1939 we debated with someone, and went aways happy. That debate was
> thought resolved. Months later the greatest War of the century had
> begun. Debate has a time and a place, but in many situations it is
> pointless without something else accompanying it. People do not always
> see the point of view of others, but that's assuming the point of view
> is reasonable in the first place. It is not always possible to do so,
> and it cannot be claimed it always is. Therefore it is not always a
> stubling block, the true stumbling block is often debate itself, which
> forestalls action that is so desperately needed.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Again, I don't disagree with the WWII point. But then I try not to champion my discussions with one of the darkest periods of recorded human history. What I'm trying to get accross here, is that don't you think that it would be better if world leaders were'nt power hungry, fringing on the side of lunacy and in some cases completey deranged?
Of course the debate for between Chamberlain and Hitler ended peacefully - Hitler admired the global accomplishments of the British Empire during the Victorian era and initially stated he only wished to unite Germany and Austria and take in the German part part of Czechoslovakia. Of course, it was part of Germany before the Versailles Treaty.
After the debacle of WWI, which was bourne out of staunch nationalism, imperialism and the British Empire and Germany comparing their Navys like Essex boys comparing Cars, is is not suprising that Chamberlain, the French and the Soviets wished to avoid a repeat performance. And while it's true that Hitler lied, it did not help that Chruchill, considered by many in the UK to be one of the greatest PM's ever, undermined Chamberlain after the Munich Settlement in 1938 by undertaking what has been described self promotion at best, and political dirty tricks by the rest of us.
Hitler the Maniac invaded Poland. And Churchill, the drunk womaniser who's only claim to fame other than being able to manipulate the public to increase his position, was that he appeared to be smart for suggesting that an alliance between the UK, US and Soviets would be a good idea before it happened. This only appeared to be wise in hindsight, Stalin hated Churchill for trying to stop the Soviet Union before it started, the US was considered isolated and had no army to speak of. He only got his alliance because the Hitler was dumb enough to attack the Soviets and Japan bombed the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.
If sensible, free thinking man with the courage to do what was right was at the table, rather than a fringe lunatic, the history of the last century would be very different. People that can see the point of view of others, surely the men and women who weld such power should be able to do that? Peace cannot be maintained through violence, it can only come around through evolving an understanding for others, on BOTH sides.
It's not that I think the US is wrong, I just think there as bad as everybody else.
Belldandy wrote:
> Now you can all agree with each other safe in the knowledge I won't
> post a 1000 word + reply ripping peoples ideas apart, great eh ?
----
Hardly fits with your "Hey man, we're all just people" sudden change of heart does it?
You position yourself as a Martyr to The Truth. The Lone Defender of Democracy, Truth, Justice and Mom'n Apple Pie - deflecting our slingshots of subversive Go-Saddam! type posts and expressing our own opinions on a situation, only to have them "ripped apart".
By someone that is now saying "Your ideas are no more valid than mine. Nobody has the total and final truth on a subject"
Next week on "Irony Corner", we'll be talking about how the Redcoats went to war with America and burned the Whitehouse. Twice.
> Now you can all agree with each other safe in the knowledge I won't
> post a 1000 word + reply ripping peoples ideas apart, great eh ?
----
Hardly fits with your "Hey man, we're all just people" sudden change of heart does it?
You position yourself as a Martyr to The Truth. The Lone Defender of Democracy, Truth, Justice and Mom'n Apple Pie - deflecting our slingshots of subversive Go-Saddam! type posts and expressing our own opinions on a situation, only to have them "ripped apart".
By someone that is now saying "Your ideas are no more valid than mine. Nobody has the total and final truth on a subject"
Next week on "Irony Corner", we'll be talking about how the Redcoats went to war with America and burned the Whitehouse. Twice.
Belldandy wrote:
The world is viewed so differently by so many that no one can claim they see any kind of true world. It's all from perspective and you have an image of the world, or how it should be, which matches your own views and ideas. Doesn't mean that world view is any more vlaid than mine, or somehow better than mine or anybody elses. It's one of a multitude and nothing more.
----
But you do. You denegrate myself and others for saying they disagree with the current course of events. Your usual comments are "rubbish" and "nonsense" if opinions expressed differ from your own view.
You have spent post after post after post underlining your views and why they are correct, whilst taking great pains to highlight the error in opinions you dont agree with.
Now, I'm not saying you're not entitled to your views. I have only once snapped and told you that you were "a mindless tool", the rest of my posts have been trying to get you to act in the manner of which you've just pointed out above.
If you honestly believe that nobody's view is more valid than anyone else's,why are you so intent on trying to change everyone else's?
I don't get it. I agree with what you've written up there
*points to top of this box*, but you haven't acted like those words at all.
The world is viewed so differently by so many that no one can claim they see any kind of true world. It's all from perspective and you have an image of the world, or how it should be, which matches your own views and ideas. Doesn't mean that world view is any more vlaid than mine, or somehow better than mine or anybody elses. It's one of a multitude and nothing more.
----
But you do. You denegrate myself and others for saying they disagree with the current course of events. Your usual comments are "rubbish" and "nonsense" if opinions expressed differ from your own view.
You have spent post after post after post underlining your views and why they are correct, whilst taking great pains to highlight the error in opinions you dont agree with.
Now, I'm not saying you're not entitled to your views. I have only once snapped and told you that you were "a mindless tool", the rest of my posts have been trying to get you to act in the manner of which you've just pointed out above.
If you honestly believe that nobody's view is more valid than anyone else's,why are you so intent on trying to change everyone else's?
I don't get it. I agree with what you've written up there
*points to top of this box*, but you haven't acted like those words at all.
Hooplah wrote:
> The moral high ground has nothing to do with us 'lefties' claiming
> anything, this has nothing to do with the left or right wing, an
> outdated view of world politics if ever there was one.
So in that one statement you've anhilated the left and the right then ? No you haven't. Of course it's outdated, but its still in existence and in use. Its still used by the media, and in education, and in text books.
>It is about the
> ability to view world events without polarising your opinions with the
> regional politics/media effecting any rational judgement you might
> make.
So you mean making "unbiased" decisions then ? Great one, and not possible. Who are you to say my opinions are effected by any of this, and that my opinions are not rational ?
>Can't you differentiate between right and wrong? I also think
> that it is exactly the thinking of people like Light that will change
> things, the more people that use their educated minds to cut through
> the incredibly flimsy smoke screens that pass as 'Doing the right
> thing for Western Justice', the more chance we have of moving
> forward.
Well I'm not talking about Light, lets let him talk for himself eh ? The idea of using "educated minds" to change things is exactly the kind of racialised thinking that has ended with the world in this situation in the first place. Dependency Theory in the 60's was just this - a set of Latin American scholars (mostly) whose scholarly ideas would break the third world from dependency with the first world. What happened ? The idea died as the scholars turned into factions, gave endless lecture tours and those nations that did try it found it had bad consequences because of the ideas it was rooted in. Moving forward ? Again, we're doing this quite well thanks, though many would have us believe otherwise using some choice examples.
> You are not a lone voice. There are plenty of other, seemingly well
> educated people that find impossible to remove the blinkers that have
> been placed on them by the society they were born into. Stop thinking
> in terms of left and right, them and us - just try to think about
> whether it's right or wrong.
Again, this idea of the few who see the "real" world without "blinkers" is highly suspicious and rubbish. Stop kidding yourselves you are something you're not. The world is viewed so differently by so many that no one can claim they see any kind of true world. It's all from perspective and you have an image of the world, or how it should be, which matches your own views and ideas. Doesn't mean that world view is any more vlaid than mine, or somehow better than mine or anybody elses. It's one of a multitude and nothing more.
> The killing of people is wrong - it doesn't matter what political
> ideology you follow. Any attempt to bundle atrocities of any type away
> into the shrouds of 'Justice for All' cannot be tolerated, or we'll
> just end up slaughtering all that oppose our societies political
> ideology. Can you not see where that will lead to? Does it not remind
> you of any other historical events?
It is always wrong, but I never said it was right. The most difficult thing to do is to accept that, at times, people will, and in rare cases, must die if peace is to succeed. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there was no other way to shift Iraq other than force. We tried diplomacy and Iraq laughed. So we attacked, and killed scores of Iraqi soldiers because there was no other way. The idea of world without killing is a pipedream, and won't exist for a long time yet. And history actually proves that it is rare for a society to slaughter all those that oppose it's ideology. there's the most recent example of Nazi Germany of course - but even before the UK entered WW2 there were those in this country who said we should not go to war then, and the same before WW1. Hisotry has a long line of examples of people claiming war is pointless in the face of conflict, and then being proved wrong. What we face now is a war, but a less obvious one.
> Your presumptuous statements that 'We all know better' and 'We can
> all agree with each other without you ripping our arguments'(and you
> insinuated that I have an ego problem!), is perhaps an indication of
> the problem that you have Belldandy.
No more of a problem than you have. You spent you're entire reply saying how wrong I was and how you're ideas were superior. And never actually made those comments you say... And you do have an ego problem - you're worse than me for being convinved you're ideas are some kind of one true faith.
>Debate is the way forward. I
> welcome it. It's when the debate breaks down because of narrow
> thinking, followed by walking away from the table that the travesties
> occur. The inability to see the point of view of another and, perhaps
> agree that you're wrong (not you, the general you) is the stumbling
> block that we trip on time and time again.
In 1939 we debated with someone, and went aways happy. That debate was thought resolved. Months later the greatest War of the century had begun. Debate has a time and a place, but in many situations it is pointless without something else accompanying it. People do not always see the point of view of others, but that's assuming the point of view is reasonable in the first place. It is not always possible to do so, and it cannot be claimed it always is. Therefore it is not always a stubling block, the true stumbling block is often debate itself, which forestalls action that is so desperately needed.
~~Belldandy~~
> The moral high ground has nothing to do with us 'lefties' claiming
> anything, this has nothing to do with the left or right wing, an
> outdated view of world politics if ever there was one.
So in that one statement you've anhilated the left and the right then ? No you haven't. Of course it's outdated, but its still in existence and in use. Its still used by the media, and in education, and in text books.
>It is about the
> ability to view world events without polarising your opinions with the
> regional politics/media effecting any rational judgement you might
> make.
So you mean making "unbiased" decisions then ? Great one, and not possible. Who are you to say my opinions are effected by any of this, and that my opinions are not rational ?
>Can't you differentiate between right and wrong? I also think
> that it is exactly the thinking of people like Light that will change
> things, the more people that use their educated minds to cut through
> the incredibly flimsy smoke screens that pass as 'Doing the right
> thing for Western Justice', the more chance we have of moving
> forward.
Well I'm not talking about Light, lets let him talk for himself eh ? The idea of using "educated minds" to change things is exactly the kind of racialised thinking that has ended with the world in this situation in the first place. Dependency Theory in the 60's was just this - a set of Latin American scholars (mostly) whose scholarly ideas would break the third world from dependency with the first world. What happened ? The idea died as the scholars turned into factions, gave endless lecture tours and those nations that did try it found it had bad consequences because of the ideas it was rooted in. Moving forward ? Again, we're doing this quite well thanks, though many would have us believe otherwise using some choice examples.
> You are not a lone voice. There are plenty of other, seemingly well
> educated people that find impossible to remove the blinkers that have
> been placed on them by the society they were born into. Stop thinking
> in terms of left and right, them and us - just try to think about
> whether it's right or wrong.
Again, this idea of the few who see the "real" world without "blinkers" is highly suspicious and rubbish. Stop kidding yourselves you are something you're not. The world is viewed so differently by so many that no one can claim they see any kind of true world. It's all from perspective and you have an image of the world, or how it should be, which matches your own views and ideas. Doesn't mean that world view is any more vlaid than mine, or somehow better than mine or anybody elses. It's one of a multitude and nothing more.
> The killing of people is wrong - it doesn't matter what political
> ideology you follow. Any attempt to bundle atrocities of any type away
> into the shrouds of 'Justice for All' cannot be tolerated, or we'll
> just end up slaughtering all that oppose our societies political
> ideology. Can you not see where that will lead to? Does it not remind
> you of any other historical events?
It is always wrong, but I never said it was right. The most difficult thing to do is to accept that, at times, people will, and in rare cases, must die if peace is to succeed. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there was no other way to shift Iraq other than force. We tried diplomacy and Iraq laughed. So we attacked, and killed scores of Iraqi soldiers because there was no other way. The idea of world without killing is a pipedream, and won't exist for a long time yet. And history actually proves that it is rare for a society to slaughter all those that oppose it's ideology. there's the most recent example of Nazi Germany of course - but even before the UK entered WW2 there were those in this country who said we should not go to war then, and the same before WW1. Hisotry has a long line of examples of people claiming war is pointless in the face of conflict, and then being proved wrong. What we face now is a war, but a less obvious one.
> Your presumptuous statements that 'We all know better' and 'We can
> all agree with each other without you ripping our arguments'(and you
> insinuated that I have an ego problem!), is perhaps an indication of
> the problem that you have Belldandy.
No more of a problem than you have. You spent you're entire reply saying how wrong I was and how you're ideas were superior. And never actually made those comments you say... And you do have an ego problem - you're worse than me for being convinved you're ideas are some kind of one true faith.
>Debate is the way forward. I
> welcome it. It's when the debate breaks down because of narrow
> thinking, followed by walking away from the table that the travesties
> occur. The inability to see the point of view of another and, perhaps
> agree that you're wrong (not you, the general you) is the stumbling
> block that we trip on time and time again.
In 1939 we debated with someone, and went aways happy. That debate was thought resolved. Months later the greatest War of the century had begun. Debate has a time and a place, but in many situations it is pointless without something else accompanying it. People do not always see the point of view of others, but that's assuming the point of view is reasonable in the first place. It is not always possible to do so, and it cannot be claimed it always is. Therefore it is not always a stubling block, the true stumbling block is often debate itself, which forestalls action that is so desperately needed.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: