Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
How you dare to have actual arguments behind your claims?
Quoting studies and stuff?? Seriously???
Shame on you, dude, shame on you.
Quoting studies and stuff?? Seriously???
Shame on you, dude, shame on you.
maybe new war ?
Israel vs. Syria ? Why ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-05/syria-declares-israel-attack-act-war-while-israeli-defense-forces-close-northern-air
Israel vs. Syria ? Why ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-05/syria-declares-israel-attack-act-war-while-israeli-defense-forces-close-northern-air
How easy is it to break into a house, given it has windows made of glass? How often does your house get broken into? Humans are generally decent, no doubt about it. If those links you posted validate your personal world view, then I think it says more about your personal world view than humanity as a whole.
You have locks and keys at your house?
Yes, because you put locks on your house for those few people who aren't nice. That certainly means most people aren't nice and decent. What kind of logic is that? And when you take a fire insurance, that means that houses often burn to the ground. I have news for you: that only happens rarely, and it is against that rare case that you have an insurance. The same reason to install locks.
(edited)
Yes, because you put locks on your house for those few people who aren't nice. That certainly means most people aren't nice and decent. What kind of logic is that? And when you take a fire insurance, that means that houses often burn to the ground. I have news for you: that only happens rarely, and it is against that rare case that you have an insurance. The same reason to install locks.
(edited)
It is basically that someone
1) sticks to his point of views
2) nevertheless how ridiculous
3) proven wrong by science
4) these views at some points are
5) furthermore the inability to admit that the points were at least partially wrong
6) and having the last word in discussion seems to play also a big part
1) Like, I don't know, everybody unless proven wrong.
2) Your personal opinion.
3) No. I say I prefer liberty over everything else. That can't be proven wrong by science, it's my preference. Preferences are personal.
4) Not a real sentence.
5) How can my preferences be proven wrong?
6) Which is exactly the same with you.
What's your point?
1) sticks to his point of views
2) nevertheless how ridiculous
3) proven wrong by science
4) these views at some points are
5) furthermore the inability to admit that the points were at least partially wrong
6) and having the last word in discussion seems to play also a big part
1) Like, I don't know, everybody unless proven wrong.
2) Your personal opinion.
3) No. I say I prefer liberty over everything else. That can't be proven wrong by science, it's my preference. Preferences are personal.
4) Not a real sentence.
5) How can my preferences be proven wrong?
6) Which is exactly the same with you.
What's your point?
You disagreed with the English guy when he said people in general are nice. Because: "You have locks and keys at your house?" You still haven't explained to us (please, share your knowledge) why having locks on your house would prove him (the English guy) wrong.
Through laws and standards society tries to avoid that ppl follow their desires and hurt and offend other people in the process.
This is not science, this is your opinion on what society should do. An opinion that is shared by most people, but that doesn't make it science. Needless to say I disagree with that premise. Society should not avoid that people get offended.
which would end in a circle of offending and offending which would ultimately end in violence. You can read that in basic human behaviour and basic psychology literature. People get more and more aggregated and it ultimately leads to violence. Basic knowledge.
You know, I say a lot of things that are offensive to some people. I recently had a discussion with a friend of one of my friends. That person is deeply religious. I said things (about the Catholic Church and about their faith) that for Catholic people are quite insulting. Yet, he didn't try to insult me (just like I wasn't trying to insult him), although he felt insulted. It didn't end in violence. And quite frankly, I've never had to deal with violence when I offend people.
Through laws and standards society tries to avoid that ppl follow their desires and hurt and offend other people in the process.
This is not science, this is your opinion on what society should do. An opinion that is shared by most people, but that doesn't make it science. Needless to say I disagree with that premise. Society should not avoid that people get offended.
which would end in a circle of offending and offending which would ultimately end in violence. You can read that in basic human behaviour and basic psychology literature. People get more and more aggregated and it ultimately leads to violence. Basic knowledge.
You know, I say a lot of things that are offensive to some people. I recently had a discussion with a friend of one of my friends. That person is deeply religious. I said things (about the Catholic Church and about their faith) that for Catholic people are quite insulting. Yet, he didn't try to insult me (just like I wasn't trying to insult him), although he felt insulted. It didn't end in violence. And quite frankly, I've never had to deal with violence when I offend people.
Levi doesn't speak French, so he could not read the Rousseau's "The Social Contract".