I want a quality argument with Nifty or... [Archive]

Original?

26-08-2004, 23:43

Round 1; religion.
The religion that 90% of the world's population "choose" has nothing to do with freedom of choice whatsoever. Religion is merely a function of society/family pressure in most cases.
Anyone wanna argue differently?

Yes you are going far too lightly on it, structured religion is a way of imposing your own beliefs on others and forcing those beliefs upon them whether they wish for them or not. Then if they do not agree with you, they are wrong, evil or insane.

There is no way for people to come to their own conclusion as do-gooders knock on their doors shovelling shit in their face about what they should and shouldn't do/believe, frankly this pisses me off. Sanctamonious preachers are the scourge of the earth along with idiots.

Have your own beliefs, but do not force them upon me.

50!

26-08-2004, 23:45

.
Anyone wanna argue differently?

Nope I know its very unargumentative but i agree

Anyone think Bush should still be president. I think not going to war with Iraq was a farce and Bush and Blair should both resign

Singh

26-08-2004, 23:46

Yes you are going far too lightly on it, structured religion is a way of imposing your own beliefs on others and forcing those beliefs upon them whether they wish for them or not. Then if they do not agree with you, they are wrong, evil or insane.

There is no way for people to come to their own conclusion as do-gooders knock on their doors shovelling shit in their face about what they should and shouldn't do/believe, frankly this pisses me off. Sanctamonious preachers are the scourge of the earth along with idiots.

Have your own beliefs, but do not force them upon me.

Yikes good to see someone who sticks up for there own relisgios beliefs

stevieboy

26-08-2004, 23:48

hahah quality thread
That's not really what I was looking for, but thanks for the err compliment anyway.
To expand on what I posted about religion, if you're reading this as a Born Again Christian, then you'll say I'll rot in Hell for all eternity because I don't follow your chosen path. Likewise, Muslims will say their religion is the 1 true voice of reason. I have met many people at work who are Muslim, for example, and asked a couple of them about this. The one thing they have a problem explaining is if you're born & bred in Tibet for instance, you've around a 99% chance of becoming a Buddhist, whereas, all the guys that I know (from Pakistan) all say there's no chance of them being anything other than a Muslim if coming from a Muslim family - that's just all there is. Some go as far as saying their families would dis-own them.

The 3 religions say completely different things. There is no way they can all be 100% correct.
Or am I missing something?

50!

26-08-2004, 23:52

In certain countries you must follow a religion or you will get either Beaten or Laughed at it was more common in the older days. However in countries like Britain and America you are free you to practise whatever religion you please although people usually tend to follow their family.

Original?

26-08-2004, 23:55

That's not really what I was looking for, but thanks for the err compliment anyway.
To expand on what I posted about religion, if you're reading this as a Born Again Christian, then you'll say I'll rot in Hell for all eternity because I don't follow your chosen path. Likewise, Muslims will say their religion is the 1 true voice of reason. I have met many people at work who are Muslim, for example, and asked a couple of them about this. The one thing they have a problem explaining is if you're born & bred in Tibet for instance, you've around a 99% chance of becoming a Buddhist, whereas, all the guys that I know (from Pakistan) all say there's no chance of them being anything other than a Muslim if coming from a Muslim family - that's just all there is. Some go as far as saying their families would dis-own them.

The 3 religions say completely different things. There is no way they can all be 100% correct.
Or am I missing something?

On my deathbed I shall have to swear to be about 20 different opposing religions, hedge my bets, hell sounds a bit hot for my tastes.

Download The Path and the Way by BLAZE, great song about this topic.

Religions are also used in politic as an excuse to remove an opposing faction, which I find disgusting. To persecute for beliefs is disgusting and I hope it is clamped down on in developing countries where it is still being done.

The only belief I refuse to accept are those that cause harm to others, those involving sacrifice and the like, there is no justification.

Original?

27-08-2004, 00:03

How about catholics, corporate scam, oh and write a letter to the vatican asking to hear more about the dead sea scrolls ;)

Pig

27-08-2004, 00:11

I think religion is for the weak, well those people who don't have belief in themself need something else to believe in. People at the head of religions use these peoples' belfiefs to control and/or exploit them. When you go to church you have to put money in the collection plate, people are willing to die for their religion when ordered to, its all a big plot to contol the masses.

As for the original question possed, people do have the freedom to choose their religious beliefs. In a democracy such as ours in good old GB people can choose from any relion because they can freely research the best one for them and practice it without persecution. In other countries were religion is forced upon people by the state (Iran or even the USA for example) they have the freedom not to belive even if they must show outward conformity. They also have the choice to stand up for their beliefs, god only knows what will happen to them in that case though (no pun intended). The same is true in religious families, an individual does not have to believe in that particular religion but can apear to to apease relatives or apear normal. These people too can choose different beliefs openly but face certain consequences if they do. A counter arguament is of course that people in religious states or families may knot have an accurate view if any at all about other systems of belief and so must choose to believe in what is thrust upon them or not to believe at all. It is also entirely possible that conformity with the religion in that particular system is a concious choice that benefits the individual.

Another point is that a culture of strict religion or belief of any sort will naturally breed disagreement and rebelion from some faction. The reformation for example, catholicism is shit and corrupt so they chose protestantis which is slightly less shit and corrupt.

o0oGedo0o

27-08-2004, 00:12

Likewise, Muslims will say their religion is the 1 true voice of reason.
i just want to say there is something different about muslims, christians and jews ... christians believe in Judaism right ? at least i think so that God sent a prophet and created judaism, i watched passion of the christ and i saw that when the new religion that Jesus was teaching its beliefs was rebelled by the jews i don't know about their stance now about christians, sent by God or not but if they believe in it they just should become christians, same thing happened with muslims, we believe only in Christianity and Judaism, but at the same time christians don't believe in Islam though in our beliefs we believe in both religions that they were sent by God too so you just can't say that our religion is the 1 voice of reason but we believe that it came to complete the 2 religions and that the other 2 were derived a bit through time so God sent us Islam that's about it

jamez

27-08-2004, 00:16

Man made religion, religion didn't make man. It was used in times of old to control the population, scaring them senseless about the consequences if people stepped out of line. Now religion is out-of-date and becoming irrelevent.

I'm not an aethiest, i just have my own beliefs and respect others who have different beliefs. If everyone did that there would be no wars and we could all get along.

Original?

27-08-2004, 00:24

Pig you are not free for those people who force there views on you effect your views whether you like it or not, from a very young age where you are very impressionable you get garbage shoved down your throat.

I am an atheist, but not out of spite towards other religions it is just my belief that there is no such higher power.

razor

27-08-2004, 00:25

Man made religion, religion didn't make man. It was used in times of old to control the population, scaring them senseless about the consequences if people stepped out of line. Now religion is out-of-date and becoming irrelevent.

so you think its coincidence that judaism, christianity and islam share almost identical beliefs. this accounts for nearly half the world. they are all the same religion but christianity has more added to judaism. islam adds even more to that.

Pig

27-08-2004, 00:29

Religion has been the cause of conflict and death as long as it has existed.

Even both of the World Wars can be link to the medievil coflict between the christian germainians and the pagon the later authodox slavs in the east. Well at least the russian theaters of operations which were the most destructive and murderous in both wars. And then there's the whole crusaids. (excuse spelling)

None have killed more than the armies of christ.

Original?

27-08-2004, 00:30

so you think its coincidence that judaism, christianity and islam share almost identical beliefs. this accounts for nearly half the world. they are all the same religion but christianity has more added to judaism. islam adds even more to that.

Judaism comes along and was very weak in its base, Christianity is the added part to Judaism though most of the new testament is as bollocks as that of the earlier trestament.

Islam coming much later took these religions giving them its own twist and claming independence.

There are so little differences but ofcourse that a cause for war :rolleyes:

Pig

27-08-2004, 00:34

Nobody disputes the fact that those three religions are based on the same foundations. All religion is practically the same anyway, for example all of the hindu gods are faces of one god and most branches of christianity beliebe in the 'holy trinity'.

razor

27-08-2004, 00:51

man will always find a reason to fight. even neandrathals fought. they wantede control of land. or they fought for women. i personally dont think some of the current wars are cause of religion. i think its stupid when the muslim (mainly Arab) countries say they think america is against them cause they are muslim countries. its not that. its the fact that those countries have what america wants - OIL. i think what fuels the america being anti-muslim argument is the strong jewish influence in america. i dont see why jews and muslims shold hate each other as much as they do. i think its mainly to do with the israel thing. i have to say that the jews were wrong in their taking over of palestine (in the 50's or 40's i'm not sure), after the palestinians allowed the jewish people to reside in their country following the world war. what further fuels the hate is the fact that america didnt stop israel like they would stop palestine if tehy tried taking over now.

Ogopa Djz

27-08-2004, 00:55

...anyone else who's capable of 1. ;)
Pig, mutu & maybe a few others spring to mind.
Any topic; politics, religion, current affairs whatever. Just not about whose Nike strips look better than last seasons, purrrleeze. :rolleyes:
I've had some interesting discussions with Mr. Pound50 already on msn.
Could get messy, but here goes.

Round 1; religion.
The religion that 90% of the world's population "choose" has nothing to do with freedom of choice whatsoever. Religion is merely a function of society/family pressure in most cases.
Anyone wanna argue differently?

Good challenge.Maybe we could have someone make this a Bettable event?I am the new Don King.

razor

27-08-2004, 01:04

I am the new Don King.

theres only one don king unless you know of any other promoters who have outrageos hair.

stevieboy

27-08-2004, 01:06

...hell sounds a bit hot for my tastes...
Well, I certainly don't believe in Hell. Good & evil are just value judgments that reflect a societies moral stance; 300 years ago people in England were regularly drowned for heracy or burned at the stake. Now anyone doing that is considered "evil".
I don't think Osama Bin Laden is "evil". Twisted, homicidal egomaniac for sure, but not evil in the strictest sense.

Btw, don't just think I'm having a go at Islam. As has been mentioned Catholicism is responsible for so much misery. Original Sin. Now there's a good one. Feel guilt for something that you haven't even done! Also a ridiculous stance on contraception that causes illness, disease & death in the Third World on such a massive scale.

Original?

27-08-2004, 01:11

Well, I certainly don't believe in Hell. Good & evil are just value judgments that reflect a societies moral stance; 300 years ago people in England were regularly drowned for heracy or burned at the stake. Now anyone doing that is considered "evil".
I don't think Osama Bin Laden is "evil". Twisted, homicidal egomaniac for sure, but not evil in the strictest sense.

Btw, don't just think I'm having a go at Islam. As has been mentioned Catholicism is responsible for so much misery. Original Sin. Now there's a good one. Feel guilt for something that you haven't even done! Also a ridiculous stance on contraception that causes illness, disease & death in the Third World on such a massive scale.

That was a joke stevie, I don't believe in heaven or hell either.

Good and Evil are only determined by the sensibilities of the society, suicide bombers think of themselves as good and righteous and their victims as evil, on the other hand the victims think them evil. So even good and evil are not constant.

stevieboy

27-08-2004, 01:52

Pig

27-08-2004, 01:54

Good and evil are relative. It depends on what grounds we judge. Many people see George Bush as evil, other see him as fighting against teror. It is subjective, unlike his stupidity which can be seen by all and is proven.

Flipper the Priest

27-08-2004, 02:13

Religion in it's rudimentary form is a beneficial if a little dated concept, but it has been mutilated and deployed in such a way that it could be detrimental to the future of this entire planet.

Therefore, I deem it shite.

Pig

27-08-2004, 02:20

Beliefs of such a nature should be personal, if we all kept our feelings about god/religion to ourselves and didn't band together to form religions then there would be one less reason for conflict in the world. Perhaps there would be just as much conflict but for better reasons religion. People would fight for imperial power and the worlds first batch of playstation 3.

On the other hand there are many moderate people who follow one religion or another and for these people the rules to live buy such as the ten commandments or thier equivilents keep them out of trouble and in a relatively happy existance.

stevieboy

27-08-2004, 07:23

Another change of subject. I know he^^^ is a Tory boy. I suspect others are hiding amongst us & I intend to flush 'em out!
Seriously though, surely the Tory mentality panders to all that's bad/negative about human nature (greed, one-upmanship, individual over society - if you believe society exists) whereas at least the average Labour voter actually gives a shit about the NHS & opportunity for all, not just the few.
Have the Tories got any chance of getting back in, in the near future?
And please, I'm begging, argue the Tory case from an Economic point of view; the Tory MP's gave that up about 3 or 4 years ago!

This thread is becoming a disaster - you're not all supposed to agree with me!

Pig

27-08-2004, 09:07

Will be back in a few weeks. Then we will get the political discussion underway. I do howver have the economic arguament.

Travis Bickle

27-08-2004, 10:56

I'm quite pro-religion really. In these days of "Thatcherite" Britain, as mentioned by Stevieboy, with a decay in social structure, lack of consideration for your fellow man and a constant chasing of the yankee-dollar by whatever means necessary(including selling your own Grandmother). I'm always happy to read in my local newspaper about a charity event organised by our local church, or a community gathering in the Mosque. Of course people can argue about the violence caused by (an interpretation of) religious teaching, but there are just nutcases in the World, who would use an affiliation with practically anything, I'm sure theres been a few Communists that have blown themselves up, but you can't blame religion which at its basic principal is to lead people to do good.

One last thing, as a catholic there is sort of an unwritten rule to give approx 10% of your earnings to a charity of your choice. People always vindicate this say its propostirous to force someone like this, but look at your own spending, you'll (probably) see that you spend about 50% of your wages on crap, getting drunk and superficial things that you throw away, well I do anyway. 10 percents nothing.

Actually last thing, if we didn't have religion there'd be no Father Ted, think about that!?!?

razor

27-08-2004, 11:41

Change of subject (my thread) :p

Nifty recently argued with me that one of the main reasons we in England don't speak German is a result of the Polish fighters efforts in WW2. I disagree.
I still say that the 2 main reasons Germany lost are because A) the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour & brought the US into the war in a full sense & B) the Eastern front in Russia was a disaster for Germany; they over-extended themselves & lost badly.
I'm no expert on history. Anyone care to enlighten me?
its all mainly because of them fighting on two fronts like you said. they went into the U.S.S.R and didnt take enough supplies. it was too cold. when they needed tsupplies it took too long for them to get them to russia. other stupid things they did in russia were seiges on the cities. this just wasted time and meant they neede to gett more supplies. if they attacked the cities they could've used the supplies from the city.

japan involving america in the war was a bad mistake too as the ataak on normandy wouldnt have been possible without the americans.

gollan

27-08-2004, 12:10

To Razor - learn your history before you speak. England ruled Palestine and the UN decided to let jews reside here. Not the Arabs. But that's a whole different thread.

Anyone think about what motivates religion, or how and why was it created?
My point of view is that religion is a mechanism of control. Like someone said, even the Neanderthals had to fight for resources, like all animals do. With the evolovement of human mind, people could have relied more on their brains than on their strength.
So when the next argument between 2 of the tribesmen rose, one told the other (after arguing for an hour) - well, the Sun told me that we should go in that direction.
and if that guy was convincing enough, and the other was dumb enough - you have religion. Look at all ancient religions - or religions of indigenious people - believing in the god of the Sun, Moon, Snake, River, Mountain, Tiger - whatever is naturally close to them. So why should people believe? Because it's easy when you can disarm yourself from responsibility. Someone else had already made the choice. It's not your fault.
Now look at the Roman and Greek ancient religions - some personification of idols in order to enhance the sympathy of the masses with their Gods. creating stories. creating myth. All this in order to retain control of the people. You have your king - and you have your god. During some times in medieval histories kings were considered messengers of god.
Back to track. One very smart guy thinks to himself: "I'm gonna create a mega-god. he's going to replace all other gods, and in order for my god to be undisputed, he's going to be everywhere, see everything, if you see him you die, he created everything, and he is a very VERY angry god". that guy was moses, or some other dude. He created the first monotheist religion. They did pretty well, but after some time the babylonians kicked their ass. and after them the greek, and then the Romans. during Roman dominance over Judea, some guy who was a political figure went out against the corruption of jewish clergy. that guy was jesus, and most of his ideas were political. in order to terminate him the clergy went to the Roman ruler and told that jesus claims he's the king. Jesus was crucified. After his death, one of his friends, Paul, who was brought in a pagan house (hence the communion - according to ancient mideastern religions, eating bread and drinking wine is connected to ressurection rituals) elaborated jesus' ideas. Being a much easier religion to follow, christianity evolved rapidly, and was used as a mechnism to control millions of people in Europe by the Church, who enslaved people for more than a thousand years.
Islam was created by a very smart guy who was persecuted in his own country, and created a religion that was based on the 2 former religions.

As you can see, religion being a mechanism for control can be demonstrated by 3 elements: A charismatic figure, people who are in distress, and some redemptive idea.
Example: Hitler selling the depressed germans the idea that they are destined to rule the world and that they are the best.
All religions control people by offering them some flattering idea - judaism (the chosen people) christianity (a place in heaven) and sadly I'm not educated enough about Islam buy I'm sure it's there. Add to that the abovementioned disarming of responsibility and you have the perfect tool to control the masses, a tool that was designed to bring better life to people through the development of morals (look at Islam and Judaism for great examples of legal and moral developments) and values, but was used, sadly, by power seeking people to advance their own goals, and many times - led to the worst atrocities this world has seen.

gollan

27-08-2004, 12:18

Change of subject (my thread) :p

Nifty recently argued with me that one of the main reasons we in England don't speak German is a result of the Polish fighters efforts in WW2. I disagree.
I still say that the 2 main reasons Germany lost are because A) the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour & brought the US into the war in a full sense & B) the Eastern front in Russia was a disaster for Germany; they over-extended themselves & lost badly.
I'm no expert on history. Anyone care to enlighten me?

You know enough Steve. The american production rate of warships was 1 per day(!) where the rest of world produced a warship at the rate of around 1 warship per month or so. That example demonstrates the power of american industry, which eventually won the war. The germans used emphetamines (stuff that exists in ecstasy pills) to do their blitz attack around europe, but like you said, the russian front and mainly the german defeat at stalingrad were major factor in their lose. keep in mind that the german army wasn't that big - they were just very effective. Japan's attack which dragged the US into the war finished the axis' efforts.
To nifty you can say that the polish army brought in their cavalry against the german Panzers, so I don't really think it contributed much to the UK efforts.

LiamK

27-08-2004, 13:53

Religion seems to be just another way of segregating people, and consequently segregation eventually results in conflict. However, for many people, including myself, religion is a guide-line of how to live your life, not just to qualify for reward in an afterlife. Religion teaches how to respect one another and live well on Earth.

However, due to the sometimes cryptic metaphors, logic and phrases used in certain Holy Books, a violent minority can misinterpret these as excuses for racism and war amongst other religions and races of people. The amount of religious sects, with their entire foundations built upon 1 misinterpretted phrase in the Bible/Koran etc..., which they deem as a religiously accepted reason for the extermination of another religion is incredible.

As a Catholic, although not often practising, I should highlight the beneficial sides of Religion, for most followers, it encourages the importance of humane morals and offers guidelines for people, even athiests, to live their lives by. However, it also brings about the segregation of people based on their religious beliefs and the confusing, almost cryptic style that Holy Books are written are fully open for mis-interptretation which can have some terrible effects when groups interpret these statements as excuses for violence.

stevieboy

27-08-2004, 16:19

Interesting stuff.

Still no-one wants to argue the wonders of Tory economics.
Unemployment is a price worth paying in the fight against inflation
Ok, so you can't have low unemployment & low inflation? Riiiiight.
That was always the Tory mantra, right up until Labour got into power.

All the Tories can come up with is negative stuff like the EU & Council tax. People vote with their wallets, as a rule. This is why the Tories have no chance at the moment. People have more disposable income than ever, even taking into account Council tax rises.
I'm no Blair fanboy; his stance on the war on Iraq was shameful. I just think going back to the Conservatives would be a disaster for us.

Mc Clean

27-08-2004, 16:29

im gonna try and start one so . . . . . . . all everton fans are wankers :D

BazHilder

27-08-2004, 16:30

I don't particularly like the current labour government but anything (bar the bnp of course) would be preferable to the tories. Think of everything people dislike about the labour party and then consider whether the tories would do any different.

They would have backed bush's war even more whole-heartedly than blair did.

They may reduce taxes for the bourgeoisie (after all, those are the tory voters) but this would have an adverse effect on everyone else - lower minimum wage, higher umployment, homelessness, crime etc.

stevieboy

27-08-2004, 16:36

im gonna try and start one so . . . . . . . all everton fans are wankers :D
Most people are wankers - masturbation is very common, you know. It's better if you can get your lady-friend to do it for you.
I've never really understood football fanaticism. To me it's like nationalism/religious fundamentalism brought into the Western way of life. To many, it's replaced Religion.
It gives people a sense of community. It also (like any religion) attracts it's fair share of idiots. ;)

Mc Clean

27-08-2004, 16:39

exactly stevie, over here in Ireland celtic & rangers fans take this sort of thing seriously, they actually fight when they see eachother in the street!!!

gollan

27-08-2004, 16:50

This might serve as a topic for you - the role of sports in a society.
There are several studies indicating that sport is a substitute for war - when people can project their violence through others, they don't feel the need to act violently. remember that all competitive sports are, in some way, gladiator-like. the violence during sport events is due to the overflowing emotions of those who came to disarm their violent feelings (and it's usually those who lose who start acting violently). Football is just very easy to follow, very dramatic and to be honest addictive. but if someone thinks football is a religion - then they are wrong. football doesn't provide any substitute for responsibility, like religion does.

o0oGedo0o

27-08-2004, 17:01

football isn't some sort of religion people only tend to find people who share the same interests so they can have more power and number, it makes people more secure to be a part of some sort of tribe i think it's some sort of prehistoric habit that didn't go away with time

50!

27-08-2004, 17:08

o0oGedo0o

27-08-2004, 17:11

i like germans ... also french, english (but only in our time i can't say that i like them when they were trying to occupy us) and americans

Original?

27-08-2004, 17:32

I might say I hate frogs, and krouts etc owever it is lighthearted and I do not infact hate any country or it populace as I have no idea what they are like. Plus hating takes up far too much of my precious time.

Travis Bickle

27-08-2004, 18:23

Interesting stuff.

Still no-one wants to argue the wonders of Tory economics.

Ok, so you can't have low unemployment & low inflation? Riiiiight.
That was always the Tory mantra, right up until Labour got into power.

All the Tories can come up with is negative stuff like the EU & Council tax. People vote with their wallets, as a rule. This is why the Tories have no chance at the moment. People have more disposable income than ever, even taking into account Council tax rises.
I'm no Blair fanboy; his stance on the war on Iraq was shameful. I just think going back to the Conservatives would be a disaster for us.

Labour died the day John Smith died. He'd be turning in his grave with this new Labour/pseudo "tory" crap that Tony's doing.
Continuing privatisation,
doing bugger all for public services,
increasing the gap between rich and poor which includes segregating the poor from University places,
public sector staff still being under-paid over-worked,
still not taxing big business and the rich.

I mean I'm sure there are some differences between new labour and the old Conservative government, it just might take me a while to work them out.

Flipper the Priest

27-08-2004, 19:14

Actually last thing, if we didn't have religion there'd be no Father Ted, think about that!?!?

Amen to that.

Or is it Eamonn?

stevieboy

27-08-2004, 23:14

Labour died the day John Smith died...

...which includes segregating the poor from University places...

I agree with the first point, John Smith had a superb analytical mind. Could wipe the floor with any Tory MP when he was Shadow Chancellor.

The second point lost me. Labour are trying to artificially force over 50% of pupils into further education. It all sounds very noble, but this is a mistake for the reasons I said in the "GCSE's here" thread.

50!

27-08-2004, 23:24

It all sounds very noble, but this is a mistake for the reasons I said in the "GCSE's here" thread.

Its not as bad as saying 'Cristiano Ronaldo is shite' an argument on that would go on for days. Also 'Man U v Arsenal' is very popular you should ban them from this thread while you can

trfc_82

28-08-2004, 02:18

I still say that the 2 main reasons Germany lost are because A) the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour & brought the US into the war in a full sense & B) the Eastern front in Russia was a disaster for Germany; they over-extended themselves & lost badly.
I'm no expert on history. Anyone care to enlighten me?

The fact the USSR lost 20m in WWII suggests that their contribution to the Allies in the war was vital.
Also Hitler stopped the Panzer's just outside of Dunkirk when the British were evacuating, had he used them the British Army would have been non-existant (save the home guard and the odd garrison in the far east). He also didnt invade in early 40-41 when the British Costal Defences were non existant. Some people say the Axis lost the war more than the Allies won it, but that is open to debate.

-=[101st]=-

28-08-2004, 02:58

we should select a new topic. something a little more relevant.. sure WW2 was relavent.. but it ended 59 years ago... i have respect for every one who fought in WW2 especially those who lost their lives.. but.. it is difficult to have an arguement over it because it is all in the history books.. and it depends on who teaches us it, and where they are from.. it is easily to be biased when there are only a small percentage of people that are still around, who were old enough to have an opinion.. and i dare say that not one of those people are a member of this forum...

stevieboy

28-08-2004, 03:01

WW2 is one of the reasons but i think there is not really any countries that actually like the Germans. They are very unfriendly and do-not have words like 'hi' in their dictionary as its 'too nice'. They are just hated worldwide i think.
Hate to say it mate, but I think the English are more widely despised than the Germans these days. We're battling out for bottom place in the League of Most Liked Countries with the good old US of A.

-=[101st]=-

28-08-2004, 06:13

i think that the English and US depends on where you're from.. but most of the 1st world countries don't hate germany, but certainly do not like them.. and probably never will because of hitler.. and what he did with germany and what the german army did to the rest of the world...

Travis Bickle

28-08-2004, 12:29

I agree with the first point, John Smith had a superb analytical mind. Could wipe the floor with any Tory MP when he was Shadow Chancellor.

The second point lost me. Labour are trying to artificially force over 50% of pupils into further education. It all sounds very noble, but this is a mistake for the reasons I said in the "GCSE's here" thread.

It wasn't just John Smiths mind, it was the fact he was a socialist.

Well you'd hope that 50% of pupils go into further education because of all these private profit-making companies Tony has allowed to build educational establishments, they need to make money. Also force the elite universities to take on a few "common " people, the ones from comprehensive schools.

And anyway your talking about the people that complete basic education, what about the ones that don't, you know the guys that get "demonized" in the press, the kids from the real declining areas in Britain, that don't even go to school. They're families are the ones that are paying for these increases in school spending, why don't labour spend the money on something useful for them, like businesses that require basic labour, you know the ones that Thatcher closed down.

Tony's alright, don't get me wrong, but he's as right-wing as they come, and I'm sure all the guys that lost their jobs from the miners strikes, whos sons unfortunately were unable to get to grasps with formal education, aren't exactly juumping for joy at this new socialist Britain.

The only good things that the Tories didn't manage to mess up, were free-university education and funding to help small businesseses, nice one Tony.

gollan

28-08-2004, 16:10

Socialsm doens't work. It's too flawed and too much contrary to basic human nature. It also provides for too many "free-riders" who can benefit from the efforts of the hard-working. Don't get me wrong - pure capitalism isn't very good either, but at least it's not as unjust as socialism. When the country can provide or subsidise certain services, I think it should, but when 5% of the population pay 80% of the tax (like in Israel - I'm not familiar with the figures in England), and when you've got social organizations that have their hand on the switch - I.E the port workers organization, the electric company workers organization, the train authority workers...you get it....whenever they feel they want a raise they strike. It's unbelievable. Many institutions should be privatised, as economic efficiency can be reached when people have a motivation to succeed and advance, and not motivation to preserve and go backwards.

stevieboy

28-08-2004, 17:04

...but when 5% of the population pay 80% of the tax (like in Israel - I'm not familiar with the figures in England...
Well it's certainly nothing like as high as that here. The average national income is around £23,000 per person. Top rate tax - 40% only comes in at £32,000 I think.
The top rate is only paid on the amount above £32K, so if you earn say £35K, you only pay 40% on the additional £3,000 earned. The rest is paid on the basic tax rate.
Keep in mind that most people earn well below the average; in the UK it's skewed by a few really high earners, mostly company Directors, CEO's. Many people work part-time in the UK compared to a lot of other European countries, because for instance, many women have these jobs because child care is very expensive here.
All this stuff that Pig & others harp on about, when people have no incentive to earn extra money when going to a higher tax rate is fine in theory, but has never actually been proven in practice.

Lower income tax promises are just used to bribe the vote. The only other option is to raise tax by indirect means (VAT) which affects lower income earners more than high earners, or to cut national funding for services or to increase national Govt debt.

gollan

28-08-2004, 17:24

I'm impressed steve. Indirect taxes and direct taxes....sounds like you studied introduction to taxes 101 or something.... :D
Listen, I know what you're talking about - the median earning being above the average earning, and lowering income tax as a bribe to the already rich....
but - I'm not familiar with the unemployment figures in the UK, in Israel it's around 10.5%. The average earning is around 8,000 NIS per month (1,000 pound). you pay your tax in a progressive scale, and people who earn the average income pay about 30% income tax. add to that social security tax, you get to around 40%. The highest tax level pay 50% income + 13% social sec. tax =63%.
Also, england IS very expensive - but in comparison Israel is a more expensive place to live in. What is the situation with workers unions/associations in England? I mean, I've read that privatising the trains didn't do any good (in the short term) but all I'm sayin' is that nothing wokrs practically as it does theoretically, but still there are some premises that cannot be disputed. people will always want to work less for more money. people will always try to get what they need the easiest way. that's the way things are. Are you promoting more regulation? look at china, where agricultural machines are forbidden - so people won't be unemployed. I mean, it's ridiculous. Socialism drags you backwords. for sure. maybe there are things to be done with trying to correct the economic flaws in Capitalism, but going away from it just means that your country can afford it. look at scandinvian coutries - they can afford socialism because they are very rich. also in england and in the rest of europe - too much of socialism + your policy of letting everybody in will, for sure, create a massive free rider problem that your children and your friends children will have to face.

Miami FFC

28-08-2004, 17:46

Hate to say it mate, but I think the English are more widely despised than the Germans these days. We're battling out for bottom place in the League of Most Liked Countries with the good old US of A.

I'd say the most hated Countries are in this order according to HIFA (haters international federation alliance)

1) Israel
2) United States
3) France
4) England

Israel gets blamed for everything bad that happens in the middle east. main haters of israel: Iraqi's, Palestinians (duh), Jordanians, Far left Liberals in America and the UK, Muslims around the globe.

The United States gets hated for various reasons. America gets blamed for many of it's foreign policies and aggression, and Americans are percieved as arrogant and uneducated. main haters of the u.s.: About half of the middle east (the countries that don't get massive aid from Bush), Much of Western Europe and large segments of most Countries but most of all: FRANCE.

France is hated by some because it deals with Mugabe and Saddam Hussein. But most of all French people are percieved to be arrogant and rude. the main haters of France: Americans, Poles, many Brits, African Muslims, Israeli's and Iraqi-Americans (there is an iraqi owned restaurant near my house that refuses to serve french people).

England is hated by the Scots first and foremost. Also many people have thought of England as the United State's bitch ever since the Thatcher days.

Well that is my view. :D

stevieboy

28-08-2004, 19:35

gollan

28-08-2004, 19:59

Israel always tends to get itself tangled in spy bullshit. People think that the Mossad is so great (hope that no one's gonna knock on my door for saying that) but since the late 70's all they ever did was fuck up.
Israel, and I'm saying this as an Israeli, is a very arrogant nation. Our main luck is that (and I mean it in the most objective way) is that we are surrounded by Arabs. If we were threatend by countries whose people believed in their leaders, instead of being led by fascist dictators, we would have lost ages ago. On the other hand, if the Arab coutnries were democracies where people led decent lives, maybe there would be peace. Did you know that in many of Israel's wars we were close to defeat, but the Arab armies just chose to surrender? peasants with guns are no professional soldiers. not even mercenaries. Israel almost got knocked out in 73' after we were still drunk from our 6-day victory in 1967. It has to do with everything Israeli governments do - they think that we have such a great espionage agency that they'll never get caught, which is bullshit, and they lie to everybody - I mean, they lie to the americans, they lie to Europe, but mostly they lie to us, the Israelis.
If you just took the time to look into the corruption in Israeli adminstrative authorities and government you'd think of it as a banana republic.
It doesn't mean, though, that in the bottom line what Israel does isn't correct.
Just consider the choice.
Just consider the reason why Israel was decided to be given to the Jews by the UN.
Just ask a Palestinian that you trust what would be their idea of a solution to the conflict. Just ask. I know the answer and it comprises of all the Israelis and the Sea.
Simple, isn't it?
I will be the first one to say that the settlements are an atrocity, and to be honest, after living 4 years in Jerusalem my best idea was to put rocket engines underneath the holy city and launch it to the moon, together with all the religious jews, christians and muslims - let them have their religious fights over there. It's just not worth it.
I don't think this is a biblical right for the jews to live in Israel - and I really don't care where we theoretically could or should live. But the fact is that we live in Israel now, and there is no way we are going to get out. Some practical questions: Why should we? Who's gonna make us? why is it more just that someone else should be here instead of us? territories had exchanged hands so many times in history between ethnic groups. Why us? Why now? If you start from this point, that yes, what Israel does has a lot of wrong in it, and yes, the Palestinians deserve their own country, and yes, the world should pay more attention to this region and not just be busy oohhhing and ahhhing and condemning instead of doing something, you are really left with the pragmatic solution - and I'm saying it with a lot of sadness - it's going to take a lot of more dead people from both sides before this shit subsides. Asking yourself a question like "what drives people to bomb-strap themselves" is the wrong question. because you cannot answer the same question when it comes to 9/11, and the motivation is the same. The question is - how can you deal with an irrational adversary? if there are rules to the game, and you play with someone who brakes them constantly, wouldn't you stop obeying the rules? we all pay for the mistakes of long dead leaders - but here, in the middle east, we pay the most.

Miami FFC

28-08-2004, 20:25

Well I think Israel has used up a lot of sympathy that it's (quite rightly) had in the past. The Israeli government is one of the most secretive in the world. They're in breach of more UN legislation than Saddam ever was.
This current bust-up with the spy plane & insider at the Pentagon doesn't surprise me at all.
As for all the bulldozing of settlements, indescriminate shootings & that fooking great wall...
Nothing excuses Arabs strapping a bomb-belt around themselves & blowing up the local mall, but anyone consider what drives them to it?
Someone I work with says it's all the Palestinian's fault. The answer is quite simple; it's both Arabs & Israeli leaders fault.
Oh & don't forget we (the good old Brits) helped carve up the country & leave it in the mess it is now.

I feel that the UN is a joke and it's dealings with israel show exactly why. There is obvious anti semitism from people like Syria, Iran, etc who for whatever reason have influence in the UN. So I find it odd that the UN of all people tries to tell Israel what it can and can't do to protect itself. The settlements, the wall, the IDF....all of it may seem inhumane and on the surface it is but it is all in response to terrorism. Below I'll list why I not only have gripes with the UN, but I think it's an absolute disgrace of a club.

Remember when the UN kicked the US off the human rights commission and then put Sudan, Libya and and China there? So you're expeccting me to take the UN seriously when on the human rights commision was some of the worst human rights violating Countries ever. France voted to give Syria a seat. Syria. Yes the same Syria that occupies Lebanon.

Or how the European Union condemned Israel's wall. And then went and built thier own.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39998

Or how about as of 2002 the UN passed 28 resolutions condemning Israel. 690 Israeli's died, 5,000 israeli's injured from over 10,000 terrorist attacks berween 1995 and 2002 and the UN didn't pass even ONE resolution condemning the Palestinians. Reminds me of how France passed a resolution condemning the Taliban for killing dogs yet during thier rule in Afghanistan in which they killed women and children France never once said a thing.

Does the UN really mean ALL people? as recently as June, 2001, a staff member of the
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights
Commission was refused the chance to speak in front
of the Human Rights Round Table at the United Nations
General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS--
after being invited to speak on the subject--
because she represented a gay/lesbian organization.

Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Malaysia, Libya, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia
and Morocco "voted mostly anonymously Friday to prevent the seating of the San Francisco-based human rig organization." Discussing the subject of homosexuality,even in reference to AIDS, was considered a "cultural insult."
Source: Gay Today

After a three hour debate on the subject, the speaker
was finally allowed to address the Round Table--
for three minutes.
Thirty nations had abstained from voting on the motion
to reinstate the speaker in an effort to invalidate
the vote by denying quorum.
Source: AIDS Education Global Information System

Later, Egypt led a "group of conservative Muslim
nations" in an effort to remove any reference
to homosexuality from the UN's AIDS declaration.
Source: Gay Today

To date, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
holds no references to sexual orientation as
a human right worthy of protection.
Source: UN

Lastly the Yugoslav imbroglio, in which a quarter of a million people were killed, was resolved only after the Americans/NATO bypassed the UN Security Council and intervened directly.

So in conclusion, I have very little respect for the UN.

Miami FFC

28-08-2004, 20:38

Just consider the reason why Israel was decided to be given to the Jews by the UN.
Just ask a Palestinian that you trust what would be their idea of a solution to the conflict. Just ask. I know the answer and it comprises of all the Israelis and the Sea.
Simple, isn't it?
I will be the first one to say that the settlements are an atrocity, and to be honest, after living 4 years in Jerusalem my best idea was to put rocket engines underneath the holy city and launch it to the moon, together with all the religious jews, christians and muslims - let them have their religious fights over there. It's just not worth it.
I don't think this is a biblical right for the jews to live in Israel - and I really don't care where we theoretically could or should live. But the fact is that we live in Israel now, and there is no way we are going to get out. Some practical questions: Why should we? Who's gonna make us? why is it more just that someone else should be here instead of us? territories had exchanged hands so many times in history between ethnic groups. Why us? Why now? If you start from this point, that yes, what Israel does has a lot of wrong in it, and yes, the Palestinians deserve their own country,

Whenever people say that israel is wrong and the palestinians are fighting for freedom or whatever I remind them of Camp David and that Bill Clinton made a deal that would have worked for all sides involved, giving Palestine almost everything it wanted. Then Arafat thumbed his nose at the deal.

I also remind them that Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were moving towards giving land to Palestinians yet the terrorism didn't stop. Nor did the terrorism stop after the Wye River peace deal from Netanyahu.

gollan

28-08-2004, 20:51

2 years ago I met this old (50 year old) lady at a friend's house for dinner. She was this Aussie weirdo (that's how she looked at first) and my friend's mom, who is a very kind woman, met her on the beach walking with her donkey, all dressed in rags, so she invited her for dinner. (not customary in Israel, but it does happen - we invite strangers 4 dinner).
Anyhow, I was discussing some stuff with her, and apparently she came over here as a school teacher to teach little palesitinian kids English. She lived with Palestinians for 2 years and was very anti-Israeli. Until she had one serious conversation with a palestinian, who obiviously trusted her enough. when she asked him what are their plans, their aspirations, their goal - he said - we want to put all the Israelis in the sea. simple. that's what they want. That's why they don't want 99% of 105% of what Israel will be willing to give them. They want nothing from us except to be gone. I want to believe that none of you forum dwellers ever been to a situation where your life has been threatened. I have. It's not very nice to have people shoot you and shoot them back. It's nothing like a game on PS2. you sweat, it's hot, your'e scared, it's loud, you can't see or understand shit. you just shoot on because you are shot. think about that next time you read about some innocent person getting killed. it just the way it is in fighting.
Here's a story for you.
2 and a half years ago I was in Jenin. there were 4 Hammas guys in a building. we sprayed the building with machine gun fire and after 30 mins or so we got radioed by the UN health services that the hammas guys are injured and need to be evacuated. we said ok. 4 ambulances came and were parked - not in front of the building's door - but one after the other, from the building door to the door of the next building, which was a mosque. We knew that they were trying to get into the mosque because IDF doesn't shoot holy places. so we had a sniper team on the overlooking roof. when they started to run towards the mosque, they were shot. 2 were shot dead. one got back into the building, leaving his gun behind. another got a bullet in his thigh. he waved a piece of dirty cloth which was once upon a time white. me and my captain approached him. he lost too much blood. my captain didn't even look at me when he shot the guy in the head from about a yard or so.
this is war for you.
this is real.
all of you have your opinions but they don't matter.
you see it on the news, you read it on the papers. still don't matter.
most of you will never understand this. consider yourself lucky. and be humble when you express your opinions on those matters, please. there's just so much you don't know.

Travis Bickle

28-08-2004, 21:13

I always find your comments interesting gollan. The only (indirect) story I have of conflict is from my cousin who was in Ireland. He and his regiment were ambushed and four of them were stranded behind a wall as an enemy sniper looked on and a rescue-helicopter came down, when they stood up to make a run for the helicopter the guy in front of him got shot in the head, blood splattered across my cousins face and he just had to make a judgement and run for the helicopter.

I'm going to the pub now, to ponder this war-driven World we live in, but I would like to point out, I don't actually want to live in an extreme socialist society, I was just pointing out that the Labour government was appointed for some of its socialist beliefs but hasn't implemented any of them, it is just catering for the middle-class rather than the upper-class of the tories time.

stevieboy

28-08-2004, 21:34

...and be humble when you express your opinions on those matters, please. there's just so much you don't know...
Well nothing would surprise me. Don't forget we in the mainland UK have lived with terrorism since the early 70's, though of course, not open warfare like you're talking about.
Your story is shocking & brings all this into focus. However, people should always feel free to express their opinions; humble or not. Their thoughts are there to be questioned. I question things constantly. A shame others aren't more open-minded & a little less dogmatic.

gollan

28-08-2004, 22:23

Not you, nor Travis, or this FFc Miami guy are the people I was aiming at with the plea for some humility. It's those who don't actually know (like you mentioned) that the Brits were controlling the middle east until 1948, for example. It's people who generally DON'T KNOW a lot; but do feel the urge to speak a lot; they have opinions based upon 15 minutes of Sky News on 20:30; and they just piss me off.
Besides, being humble is just a very good virtue, in my opinion, a virtue many of our generation lacks. It might sound something like your dad (or mine) would say but I do feel sometimes that our generations always "knows", always "has the right answer". and it's bullshit because we don't. the conviction that some people speak with is almost ridiculous - but it's usually nobodies fault - it's what you are taught at school, what you hear in the news, what you've been told - how many of you really make an effort of conducting your own reserach, when something interests you?
My hobby is researching religion. I've been writing an essay about religion. to be more accurate, I've started it 11 years ago. It's still being written. I've read so much about so many religions - and there still so much, almost every source has some contradictions to others. creating a coherent theory about something is very, very difficult and takes a lot of time and study. That's why I'm really frustrated with people who commnet on whatnot because they "have an opinion". I'm sorry, and this might be rude, but to me, their opinion matters like the opinion of a chair, for instance. That's why I like to have quality arguments with people who actually thought before they opened their mouth. This disposition gives me the pleasure of being surprised - almost always to the best - when I interact with people who do have an educated, interesting opinion. Like your opinion about tax, steve, and the Miami guy opinion about the UN.

stevieboy

28-08-2004, 22:48

It's people who generally DON'T KNOW a lot; but do feel the urge to speak a lot; they have opinions based upon 15 minutes of Sky News on 20:30; and they just piss me off.

Ok, fair enough. If anyone like that enters my thread they'll be crushed. Rest assured - that's the whole point of this thing after all.
A bit of friendly banter :D

Anyway, looks like no-one votes Tory anymore. At least no-one with a fully functioning cerebral cortex, capable of coherent textual to & fro.

By the way, misguided total belief in something (whatever it may be) is what I look for in someone almost more than anything else... at least when I wanna let off some steam anyways.

Miami FFC

28-08-2004, 23:13

You know what I noticed? Most people get thier information from the news.

Many Europeans think that Americans think they way they do because American media is biased and manipulative. And it is. American media is terrible. To take it a step further, many people (certainly not me) think that the American jews have too much influence on American media and slant things towards Israel's favor. Many people also feel that the large Irish population in Boston controls the media in the U.S. Whatever the case is, the American media is a sham.

But this is where it gets tricky. The BBC news is often very biased, Duetchewell TV is often biased and so is Agence Presse France. Here in the U.S. we get all the channels via satellite and now pretty much everyone owns satellites since they are so cheap. While I watch American news I think "hey that's not exactly the way it is" but when i watch the BBC or Al Jazeera i find myself thinking the same exact thing.

Media Watch is an orginization in Australia that monitors the media around the world and asesses it's fairness. During the Iraq war for example, all the American media outlets got poor marks but so did the BBC and Sky News. Al Jazeera, the middle eastern network, recieved the worst marks of them all. Which goes to show you why people feel the way they do.

The only real way to have an unbiased opinion on world affairs is to travel to places like Israel and see for ourselves, or go to Iraq and see or go to the Sudan. Since that isn't always possible or safe, the best we can do is form opinions on the information given to us, which is unfortunately often poorly reported.

gollan

29-08-2004, 07:34

By the way, misguided total belief in something (whatever it may be) is what I look for in someone almost more than anything else... at least when I wanna let off some steam anyways.

Good one. Letting off steam is always healthy - and to let off steam on someone who should have it coming is even better. But you know what - and it's probably my temper - when I get into vebal conversations or arguments with people who are lacking knowledge of the subject matter I just turn really horrible and start insulting them. ;) - my bad temper.

Miami FFC - I'm starting to like you more and more, dude. good call on the researching your own stuff and the media watch. do they have an internet site? and a more important question - who would you know that THEY are not biased?

stevieboy

30-08-2004, 20:26

Random change of topic#3:
I'm not an Atheist - these guys can prove (at least to themselves) there's no God. I on the other hand think it's possible that God exists, but very unlikely. Certainly in any paternal, judgmental way - a being with a thought process. The way I think God may exist is as the energy that brought into effect the Big Bang. But that's definately too loose a definition of God for any organised religion.

Anyway, the thing is that I don't believe that there is an afterlife. People say that's negative, that there's little point in life etc. I think quite the opposite. If this is all we've got, you better make the most of it. None of this patronising "well the Jews who died in the holocaust are now in Heaven" or "those people starving in the Africa will live forever with God".
That simply isn't good enough for me. It's an excuse to do little & really care even less. Oh sure, send in the bibles for vaccines brigade, but even if they die, these folks have immortality.

A lack of belief in God & an afterlife is no hindrance to helping your fellow man. You don't need a belief system to give you morals. Or at least I don't. I know it's wrong to steal, shag a mate's girlfriend, burn ants with a magnifying glass... I don't need some politician from ancient history laying down the law!

Travis Bickle

30-08-2004, 21:18

I know it's wrong to steal, shag a mate's girlfriend, burn ants with a magnifying glass... I don't need some politician from ancient history laying down the law!

Some people don't know its wrong. We have a selfish attitude to life these days, and I don't think it's just coincidence that a decline in our moral values comes at the same time as a decline in church attendances. Everyone should watch Mean Streets (itv wed 12.40) "You don't make up for your sins in the church. You do it on the streets". People probably don't even know what is a sin these days anyway, never mind repenting of them.

stevieboy

30-08-2004, 21:42

The "some people" that you talk about won't be helped by anyone.
Moral values (which are subjective) are probably on decline for many reasons, not just folk not going to church anymore. The world's a smaller place & I think we're in some sort of transition period of conflict between religion/culture/race. This tension is what causes a lot of problems these days. It's a different issue to the one you mention.

Unless of course you think that Christian churchgoers were the glue that held our society together?

o0oGedo0o

30-08-2004, 22:04

look gollan i will tell you some stuff and don't talk too much coz all your replies are too long and i can't be bothered to read them, but if they're about muslims i kinda have to, first nice story about shooting the guy in the head while he lost too much blood he's not a racing horse you know, second Britain ruled the middle east in the fourties not like if it's their land, occupying a land for a short while doesnt mean you can give it to whom you want, it's practically palestinian land like i mentioned before historically, and IF you think otherwise that it's your land by history then why wouldn't americans give the land back to the native americans? it's just britain occupied this land for some while and when it got out of control a bit, when all countries were getting their freedom they came up with a good plan why don't we get rid of the jews and the muslims there in the middle east? jews were suffering during world war 2 and they wanted them to feel better, but also they needed some sort of a thread in the middle east, i think why they gave israelis a land isn't because they were having a bad time it's mainly because they want to make a conflict in the region the old devide and conquer thingie, if i got a word to say then they're the real (anti-sam) i don't know the term exactly in english but it's where arabs and jews came from ... just a news flash for my third remark jews were having a home with us in Egypt not to mention the arab world, in Alexandria over the past century more than 15 different cultures, religions and nationalities lived together in harmony, mainly greeks, jews made it to the cinema and the best places in the government i think that's why they knew about us too much they were treated as Egyptians not as jews, and you can ask any christian how he feels here we've been good with eachother since forever, the only fault Egypt did was in the time of the pharaos, were they drove moses out of the country, and while Jews were suffering in the world war 2 all over Europe they were living fine in Egypt, and you can ask any Jew from Israel who was living in Egypt well i think that's about it

gollan

30-08-2004, 22:48

At the beginning I was kinda offended by the "I can't be bothered to read your long replies" bit, as one of my main arguments mentioned above was about people who just comment on stuff they don't know about...but I have this weakness of doing things thoroughly - and I always read posts before I comment. So I read yours, and was happy to see that maybe for the first time I agree with everything you say.
Firstly, the guy who was shot in the head wasn't a nice story. It was just an example to demonstrate the fact that war is just brutal, period. People in wars are no better than race horses. In fact, they are no better than animals. If you ever heard that people in wars are heroes then you were lied to.
secondly, your observation on Anti-Semitism, or like you said, anti-SAM (noah's son) was probably correct - it is known that europeans, and christianity, in fact, have a much bigger tendency toward anti-semitism. I know for a fact that Islam is the most tolerant religion - more tolerant than judaism and christianity. The fact that Muslims hate the jews now is just because of the last 56 years. I know that many jews lived in arab countries for years in peace with the Muslims, and held very good positions there. When my grandparents came to Palestine in the 1930's they had arab neighbours and they lived in peace with them. Another thing is that I appreciate the fact that you are not going out trying to talk bullshit about WW2 like some people do trying to say it never happened.
I can tell you a few things about yourself - as I am a little bit familiar with Egyptian social situation - you come from a very rich family, probably in the top 1% of rich people in your country. Your parents are very educated, you probably went to a private school in Europe. You are, and you know it, not the average Egyptian guy off the street. Maybe, and you should consider this, if more people in your country were as fortunate and as open minded as you things could've been better.

Now for you steve - saying morals are subjective is total bullocks. Some good reading material would be H.L.A Hart "The concept of Law" and some of Hans Kelsen Positivist Legal Theory. Also, just try Aristotle "Ethics - Nicomachean edition".
Basically, a norm, and morals are norms, cannot be subjective as it is defined by social prejudice. There are many theroies on morals - each trying to define it from a different perspective, but they are all aiming at defining a plausible formula. Saying morlas are subjective is like saying you don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow. I mean, you don't KNOW it's going to happen - in a certain degree of certainty, that is - but you know it will. Do you understand? (I know this is a shitty example but if you think about it it's actually the best one). I hope I made some sense.

And lastly - religion had it's social role giving morals to people - through fear, I admit - but it was the base to modern morals. Now, it's just causing a lot of trouble. but we've discussed that matter already.

Lami

30-08-2004, 22:56

man gedo its ok for gollan to argue and share his opinion, but whats not ok when he starts talkin wrongfully about history. Well gollan, just like Gedo said, Britain conquering some of the arab world for a short time doesnt mean they owned it, if they really had then they should still be here. They couldnt stay, they left, and let in a lot of jews. As for that, that was a plan, where the jews were supposed to given a country, and i still dont understand why they wanted a country for themselves. That gollan, in itself is racist enough, the jews being given a country. Why not just go and simply LIVE with existing civilians in that country you want? Nah, jews want it for themselves, they take it, steal it from the natives, and then claim its theirs, Ironic. Well in some post (page 6 i think) gollan, surprisingly you did say alot of daring things on Israel, which reveals lots of facts.

stevieboy

30-08-2004, 22:59

...Now for you steve - saying morals are subjective is total bullocks...
Well, morals change over time. That suggests they are not definite & in that case are totally subjective. You can think of many examples throughout history of acts that were at one stage considered morally correct, as defined by the ethos of the day. Those people doing those same outdated acts would now be considered morally bankrupt.
Morals are not absolute; they change over time. They even differ from culture to culture within the same time.

They are therefore utterly subjective. Nice try though :)

o0oGedo0o

30-08-2004, 23:02

well i am sorry if my first comment offended you because i thought i cleared it up that i had to, it's good to see that you agree with me for once, well last thing too bad i am not one of the 1% rich people in Egypt i drive a 71 beetle yeah i am 18 but still some of my friends drive subarus and lancers, i didn't go to school in Europe but close i went to a french school, been taught by french that's why i love the country, my father is well educated he's got a Phd in economics and worked in politics, likes germany and hates america i don't have to agree with him, but still i am not of the richest people in Egypt, i am from the above average class, i won't say that the majority of egyptians suffer from social level differences but they're everywhere look at america for example and i will be honest with you if it wasn't for it's support for israel it would have been the best country in the world cause i like the basics it was founded on, too bad they're being only after the money now, people sue eachother for anything and everything

wixon

30-08-2004, 23:24

religion is human created, just like lots of other things on this planet. It is used to try to explain our existince in this world. We humans are too clever for our own good. We need to know WHY things happen, such as why we exist. The only reason why people still believe in various religions today is because they cannot be proved wrong.
Before the advance of scientific knowledge, peoples only explaination for our existence on this planet was that we were created by a god and that he rules, protects and guides us.
I think the reason why there are different religions is because they were 'thought up' in different parts of the globe (e.g Christianity in Europe and Hinduism in Asia Etc.) Because ,at this point in time, there was no means of communication between these parts of the world people didn't know of other religions and so believed only what they were told, and because there wasn't the science to prove them wrong it was the only possible answer to the question 'why are we here'. Now that global transport and communication systems have advanced to a point where we can contact/travel to any part of the world, we now know that there are different religions. Different religions which were created by different stories which give different answers. Which is the true religion? probably none of them. The bible states that the first human beings on the Earth where Adam and Eve who where created by God. Charles Darwin proved that wrong with evolution theories. There is NO proof that religion exists where as there IS scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and that humans have evolved from apes. Anyway, the bible leads you to think that Adam and Eve where white skined. If this was the case then how come there are black people on the planet? Again this can be explained by evolution and adaptation theories. Religion poses so many questions but gives very little, if any, answers. God is supposed to have created the Earth itself aswell. Again, this has, to some extent, been proved wrong by scientists who use the 'big bang' theory. This is a very believable exlaination which does have some evidence to back it up.

Like I said earlier, humans are too clever for our own good. I don't think animals or any other species on this planet for that matter believes in or thinks about religion. This is because they are not clever enough. They just have to worry about surviving on a day to day basis. When they die they will just rot in the ground just like us humans will. We wont go to an after life. Why not? because there isn't one. Religion has been used to control people by making them think there is a good and a bad side to the after life (e.g. heaven and hell) If you are bad you go to hell and if you are good you go to heaven. If people are scared you can make them believe anything. people didn't commit crimes because they were scared that they'd go to hell. When you think about it though, whe would there be an afterlife? we don't have a soul. we are just made up of billions of cells that where created by chemical reactions and when we die we just rot in the ground like every other living thing on this planet.

Basically, religion and science are opposing forces. I'd like to to meet a religious scientist put it that way. Religion is designed to explain and answer questions about our existence. questions that are now being answered by science. This is why religion in the western world is in the decline. People are choosing to believe science over religion, me being one of them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs and I respest that fully. I just feel that there is too much hard evidence against the existence of religions. It seems to me that they are just nice stories.

stevieboy

31-08-2004, 00:03

...Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs and I respest that fully...
I'd really rather you didn't - not in this thread, anyway ;)

I agree about the science V religion stuff.
The religious say "science can't explain everything".
At least the scientists can reply "yeah, but at least we're working on it!"

Miami FFC

31-08-2004, 03:55

Zoidberg

31-08-2004, 04:08

I agree about the science V religion stuff.
Science is the new religion, there is no doubt about that in my mind. It's human nature to have something to believe in, as a race we cannot just accept things unknown and we strive for an explanation for everything. Religion filled that quest for knowledge for thousands or years, but now the ideas and theories behind them are outdated.

Religion states that "God created the Universe" (or something to that affect, I'm not religious myself) and for the majority of people that was good enough. As we've developed that explanation is no longer the case though, the idea is illogical and we need something more, something Religion can't provide, this is where science has filled that hole - God never created the universe, it was the Big Bang. So that's sorted then, the universe was created from an explosion of concentrated matter, why didn't we see this before? But hold on...has anyone actually stopped to question this theory? We, as normal individuals, have no idea whether this is true or not...we are just believing what someone else is telling us. We are accepting this theory as the truth despite the fact we will never know the truth, we even get taught these things, 'spreading the word' if you will...

So there you have it, Science is filling the gap that Religion has left in the majority of the population. A thought occured to me then in the last paragraph - is school the new church? That is where we are getting taught our beliefs without really questioning the information we are given...hmmmmm....

Miami FFC

31-08-2004, 04:14

I know for a fact that Islam is the most tolerant religion - more tolerant than judaism and christianity.

I'm not sure about that. Even disregarding Islamic fundamentalist, I think you'll find that the Quran is just as hateful, homophobic and intolerant as the Torah or Holy Bible or Book or revelations or whatever.

I am catholic, I respect judiasm and Islam and all major religions. However I know that the original catholic doctrine and the old testament has some hateful stuff in it.

But so does Islam.

In the passage entitled "the opening" verse 7 there is several claims that Christians and Jews will face the wrath of Allah for being non believers. A rough translation says the following:

"Verse 7. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. "

or....

"lah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not.

"Verse 10: In their hearts is a DISEASE, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie."

I can go on and on and on about the hateful verses in the Quran.

And the Bible.

And the Torah.

Taking a Theology class is highly reccomended for everyone.

The difference is that too many Islamic extremist follow the words of thier religion so literally that it's no wonder why sexism, homophobia, human rights violations and repression is so common in the middle east.

It's too bad that more Muslims don't look at thier religion with a more critical eye. Most Christians in the west are not fundamentalist. Even in the city where I live in you see Women who's faces are covered when they go out in public, and often I see a man driving and a woman in the backseat.

This is not an attack on muslims mind you. It's an attack on the fundamentalist, and there is way too many of them. I am just as critical of the fundamentalist christians of the past (crusades for example).

Ok I'm prepared for the oncoming attack on my post now. Flame away.

jthk2004

31-08-2004, 07:00

well everyone has its own mind and no one could change it once ppl believe in a religion... so no hate please or u fall into the trap of the devil... that's for any religion...

gollan

31-08-2004, 08:22

Well, morals change over time. That suggests they are not definite & in that case are totally subjective. You can think of many examples throughout history of acts that were at one stage considered morally correct, as defined by the ethos of the day. Those people doing those same outdated acts would now be considered morally bankrupt.
Morals are not absolute; they change over time. They even differ from culture to culture within the same time.

They are therefore utterly subjective. Nice try though :)

The fact that morals change over time does not mean that they are subjective. Objectivity is not consistent with eternality, and maybe I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me, but objective views can change over time - it's the method of constructing those views which matters. Like you said, some of the moral conceptions change over time (Durkheim Social Constructionist Theory) - like Homosexuality was conceived as a moral sin, later as a mental disease,and now it's treated (in most parts) normally. However, the foundation of that moral conception - in each period - was objective. It's like Kun's Paradigm change theory - a theory is developed and studied, some contradicitons are found through that study, and this helps develope the next, more coherent theory. Morals are constructed from within society according to contemporary conceptions - but you must differ between morals that are based upon religious conceptions or sceintific paradigms or plain public panic (like the attitude toward gay or feminism or why drunk driving is not OK) and morals that are based on moral formulas. Those formulas "live" within contemporary conceptions, but have their own existence nontheless. Moreover, the consequence of believing in subjective morals will lead to anarchy and chaos - morals are like social adhesive, and must have objective value in order to serve that purpose.

Lami - you need some education and perspective before you speak dude. it's pretty obvious you don't understand or know enough history.

Miami FFC

31-08-2004, 11:09

The fact that morals change over time does not mean that they are subjective. Objectivity is not consistent with eternality, and maybe I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me, but objective views can change over time - it's the method of constructing those views which matters. Like you said, some of the moral conceptions change over time (Durkheim Social Constructionist Theory) - like Homosexuality was conceived as a moral sin, later as a mental disease,and now it's treated (in most parts) normally. However, the foundation of that moral conception - in each period - was objective. It's like Kun's Paradigm change theory - a theory is developed and studied, some contradicitons are found through that study, and this helps develope the next, more coherent theory. Morals are constructed from within society according to contemporary conceptions - but you must differ between morals that are based upon religious conceptions or sceintific paradigms or plain public panic (like the attitude toward gay or feminism or why drunk driving is not OK) and morals that are based on moral formulas. Those formulas "live" within contemporary conceptions, but have their own existence nontheless. Moreover, the consequence of believing in subjective morals will lead to anarchy and chaos - morals are like social adhesive, and must have objective value in order to serve that purpose.

I wanted to quote this again because it's the best thing I've read on the internet in a long time.

gollan

31-08-2004, 15:22

Thanx (blushing).

Miami FFC

31-08-2004, 15:50

sorry to hear about the bus tragedies today in Israel.

gollan

31-08-2004, 17:07

Yeah. Would you believe that in my football-crazed mind the first thing I thought of is that UEFA is going to cancel the matches in Israel? 2nd thing I thought was "fucking terrorists just won't let me watch some decent footall around here". LOL.
Listen dude, all I have to say is that I'm happy we were able to prevent those things from happening for 8 months or so - last year it was much worse.
Well, life goes on for some of us, for 16 people in Beersheba I guess they just stopped. I am not upset, though - I am only sad. I know that death can only bring death. Don't you think the IDF is going to retaliate? Don't you think that some innocent Palestinians are going to be killed now? You know, I asked a friend of mine, whose a F16 pilot (actually people my age are wing leaders) what does it feel like to drop a bomb - he said it feels like nothing. 1.5 tons of explosives feel like nothing from 20,000'. Weird. I wonder what does it feel like to blow yourself up. Probably the same.

stevieboy

31-08-2004, 20:48

Hmmm.
I remain unconvinced about the whole thing regarding morals.
To me a moral is a basic foundation for judging the difference between right & wrong. A more subtle definition may involve doctrines that have political/religious influences to keep the population obedient & pliable.

According to my dictionary:

Subjective = "relating to, determined by, or arising from the mind or self. Characteristic of or belonging to reality as percieved, rather than as independent of mind."

Objective = "expressing the nature of external reality rather than personal feelings or beliefs".

Now tell me, using your own example - homosexuality - how moral values applied to that are not done so in a purely subjective sense. Let me save you the hassle. The predjudices & values of the time create the basis for moral judgments. Maybe there's a language or culture problem, but it sounds to me like you're grasping at thin air; what are these mysterious "morals based on moral formulars" that you talk of? Can you give me an example, coz maybe I'm thick, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!

gollan

31-08-2004, 21:42

Eeezzy ball there. you answered it yourself - homosexuality has nothing to do with morals in the wide sense. You are not thick, I'm just really bad at explaining stuff, especially such things which such great minds thought of.
Let's take Bentham - Bentham would say that a moral thing is anything that will maximize the bliss in society. This is the utilitarian formula for a moral value. Now you can put into that formula whatever you want - and you'll get a result. Off course, Bentham's moral formula is flawed, as you can easily find examples which will ridicule it - and I'll provide you with a real one that happened in S. Carolina in the 19th century. A white girl was found dead and raped. The white folks looked for a black man to lynch. There were no evidence apparently, and the mob besieged the sherrif's office. Now, letting the mob grab the poor fella would be totally wrong - as there were no grounds for the accusation - but on the other hand, not letting them do it would result in massive violence toward the black population of that town. Now Bentham would say let the poor bastard hang, even though you know it's wrong. That's why I mentioned Kun's Paradigm Theory - because of cases like this people developed another form of utilitarinism which is more sophisticated (rule utilitarianism).
Kant would say that an immoral thing is anything that you wouldn't want to be done to you (do unto others). For example, you shouldn't liiter because you don't others to litter. His theory is also flawed. Hart said that a moral thing (well he really talked about norms in general) would be anything that can be defined as moral. (I know that is a tricky concept to grasp). Wittgenstein (my favorite) actually said that there are no rules in this world - and he proved it, too. To him, rules are like language - if you understand the language, you understand the rules. Now, if you travel to an imaginary island where 2 people are stomping their feet and scream, you wouldn't know that those gestures are actually a code representing moves on an imaginary chess board. To you it would look like 2 savages doing the rain dance or something. Imagine me thinking that the word "car" means "be" and that a "moderator" means "cricket" (:D). We wouldn't be able to communicate. But since language is objective - so are morals. It could be true that people do not understand some of the morals, or do not follow them, but in the context of morals in society (here I am repeating myself) it's contradictory to the concept of morals to be subjective, as there needs to be some sort of relation understandable between people who go by those morals.
Besides, there's always the winner question for guys like you - can you subjectively find a reason why frying little babies in boiling oil is moral?
think about this.

stevieboy

31-08-2004, 22:21

Well yeah, I think Wittgenstein's right on the money!
Not sure about babies & boiling oil though...
When you get involved in these sorts of debates most of the arguments revolve around definitions & interpretations of them.
I'd like to leave the debate on morals there, at least for the moment.

What I wanna know next is...

I think that when we die that's it - lights out. No more of anything. Finito.
Is that a negative basis to live your life, or have I found the answer to positive living?

gollan

31-08-2004, 23:15

Sorry to dissapoint you but there is no argument between us there. Maybe our more religious fellars are going to try and contradict this, but I just don't seem to understand what is the big yearning in afterlife. Look at budhist monks - they don't really eat much, drink much, fuck much, or have a good time. They want to reach nirvana. well, I used to listen to 'em. ;)
The reason for afterlife in monotheistic religions is an incentive towards people who don't really give a shit - like - I don't care if I'll hang for this, as long as I get to kill john doe - but if you know you're going to suffer for eternity then you think twice. Just think of Dante's inferno - being so vivid and graphic - gives you the shivvers.
I'm with you on this one - live your life today like there is no tomorrow and sleep when you are dead. My reasons for being nice to people is because when the people around you are happy it projects positive energy on you and it makes your life better.
So as long as you don't hurt nobody - you should live your life to their full extent, that's what I say, because in a few years you'll be worm food/nurture some flowers.

Can I start a debate? what is, in your evaluation and opinion, the future of our world in the next 100 years?

Miami FFC

31-08-2004, 23:18

I think the general point, and I might be slightly off on this but as I interpret it in simplistic terms is that morals are not subjective because they are a necassity for survival of the species. Thus morals are an absolute.

So that means things like homosexuality are not morals to a large degree because a few gay men aren't going to take down the whole human race.

The problem then becomes Religion, which overextends the morals issue. Take Iraqi Cleric/nutcase Mutaqda Al-Sadr for example. He believes that rock music is immoral. This is the slippery slope when people start thinking this way. Rock music is not immoral.

The only morals are things like murder. It is 100% absolute that murder is wrong because without the basic human decency alarm we have in our heads, we'd do alot more murdering of eachother than we do thus we'd have chaos and eventually the end of the race.

Theft is an absolute moral. Theft also leads to chaos if not regulated.

trfc_82

01-09-2004, 02:43

Lastly the Yugoslav imbroglio, in which a quarter of a million people were killed, was resolved only after the Americans/NATO bypassed the UN Security Council and intervened directly.

Well Im not so sure it is totally resolved at the moment.

stevieboy

01-09-2004, 10:49

The only morals are things like murder. It is 100% absolute that murder is wrong because without the basic human decency alarm we have in our heads, we'd do alot more murdering of eachother than we do thus we'd have chaos and eventually the end of the race.

That's not right!
Murder can clearly be justified in certain circumstances. Like killing 1 person to protect the many innocent potential victims.

A more difficult area for me is where murder is a mercy killing; as in people suffering from a terminal illness. I think that euthanasia should be allowed - but only with strict legal guidelines.

Gollan the future of the Earth in the next 100 years... You ask all the easy questions ;)
I think that human beings by nature tend to leave things to the last possible moment, humming along, taking the easy route. Like with renewable energy sources for instance. Then when the shit's just about to hit the fan, the government funding kicks-in & the scientists/designers/builders can get to work.
From a religious/cultural point of view, that is more difficult to predict I think. Many in the West fear the growing influence of the Islamic faith (whether they care to admit it or not) and the general blurring of international borders.
I think that many of the current areas of conflict - for instance the Middle East - will be resolved in the next 100 years, after much more bloodshed. But I'm also sure that other conflicts will arise in different areas, based upon the same problems.
The development of the Chinese economy could spell the end of Western dominance in the world. I can't see the African continent getting it together in a major way because all the different countries have biiiig problems with corruption. Those guys all have different agendas - I can't see them pooling together to be honest.

gollan

01-09-2004, 18:47

Nice ideas Steve.
I agree with most of what you said, except in regard to Chinese economy, which is growing too fast which will cause a major downfall in the next 10 years or so.
In my opinion, in a 100 years man will settle the moon/mars or someplace out of earth. Well, there is a high probability of that happening. In any case, there will surely be at least one big war - bigger than WW2 which will kill many people, as human population must go down in order for the human race to survive. Hopefully, that war will not end human race.
I can see several mergers - not corporation mergers - but ethno-social mergers between several groups, like the european union, but in a more complete way. I also think that there will be a new form of social entities - something like state-corporations, meaning corporations that will have enough power to determine major things and to make political decisions.
I can see the end of the state of Israel- at least by the way our current leadership takes us.
I can see human cloning in full effect, food substitues, and sex substitutes.
Legal penology going into extreme as well, having a much stricter code of behavior.
Maybe some sort of a beginning of a total global federation, even though it's going to be hard.

Miami FFC

01-09-2004, 19:15

Steve I assumed when i said that murder was wrong that everyone would know what I meant. yes murdering someone to protect others is noble and does not apply to what i said above.

stevieboy

02-09-2004, 21:59

...I can see the end of the state of Israel- at least by the way our current leadership takes us...

In what sense?
Do you mean that it will be engulfed as 1 Islamic state, or just self-destruct?
People can get sick of the killing, you know. Look at the N. Ireland problems in the last 30 years. No-one would have believed you if you'd said that we'd reach some sort of peaceful solution like we have now. Trouble is, the powers that be have to accept that the terrorists/freedom fighters do have an agenda. Bitter as that may taste.

o0oGedo0o

02-09-2004, 22:17

well i don't agree with you gollan about the man living on the moon or mars in the next 100 years i think we need more time,it's exactly like we see in old movies were they think by the year 2000 we'll be driving flying cars and going to other planets for holidays, and about Israel self destruction i have heard some theories about it, i have heard about some poverty problems in Israel ...

Lami

03-09-2004, 00:51

Lami - you need some education and perspective before you speak dude. it's pretty obvious you don't understand or know enough history.
yes mate, i do know enough history. Look at your post, you do prove you're arrogant enough. You out of all don not tell me i need education. If it's any who needs it, it's you sweetheart. I don't know what you read or where you get your info from, but surely, YOU need education about history, not myself. I got alot of proof more than you know my friend. How about this, remember when the israeli army were let into lebanon because they made some agreement with lebanese christian army to slaughter the palestinians in beirut? YES i WAS there, i was in the camp, sweetheart. I have seen all the shit the army did to the palestinians. For your information, not only palestinians were slaughtered in this rumble, also anyone who was in there was, even the lebanese themselves, and a some from different countries. Some of us managed to escape, i don't know how, but we did. We fled to the north. This is some TRUE history for anyone who doesnt know about this. Don't you ever tell me i need education on history, this is not the only history i know because i know a LOT. After this incident, oh sorry, the slaughter my eyes saw, i planned on educating myself with enough info about Israel. This story, is NOTHING compared to what Israel does. Israel continues to do this, yes it will cause to itself a massive self-destruction. Unless Israel lets down their filthy plans, and all the lies, they will vanish "some" day. Yes, they might think theyre smart enough, but at the same time theyre self-destructing. There are too many lies, theyre just too many.....

K.1.N.G.

03-09-2004, 17:08

Man made religion, religion didn't make man. It was used in times of old to control the population, scaring them senseless about the consequences if people stepped out of line. Now religion is out-of-date and becoming irrelevent.

what a joke!!! wheres dundons when you need him...?!

sham, dont you know that aliens invented religion as a means of keeping man under control!

gollan

03-09-2004, 18:23

Listen Lami I know about Sabra & Shatila. And you know it was the Chrisitian Militia who did all the slaughtering and not Israel, so don't twist things around. It is true that Sharon was conning the late prime minister Begin into going to war in Lebanon, but this was because the Syrians were shooting misslies into Israel from within Lebanon. Btw, do you know that Syria occupies Lebanon? How come nobody is condemning them? I think that the Arab world is very hypocrite in that sense. Having a mutual enemy, a common "Pure Evil" is essential in keeping poplulation under dictatroships, which all arab countries are. Without that common denominator, the people will rebel. To be honest I don't believe you were there, as you said your family is from Sicily and that you are halkf arab.
And you are oh so one sided.