Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: tony6789 on 19/04/2007 16:53:15
-
A huge light bulb has gone off in my head!!!! ok before you read any more if your are from mexico,canada, or South American then please stop reading for fear of hated remarks,thx.
Ok this is from me (an American) point of view. ok me being from American am in a country with a big army. Now im sure u all know about the rain forest cirsis. my theory to save the rain forest is that first we (america) take over mexico and canada. Then we send all the Mexicans to were Canada wud b and we build nuclear power plants in Mexico. We then build up or nuclear weapons and we go to war with South America and we take over. The nuclear weapons wud b used as a last resort for fear of damaging the rain forest. anyway after we take over south america then we can save the rain forests!!!! [^]
-
Are you joking? [???]
-
A huge light bulb has gone off in my head!!!! ok before you read any more if your are from mexico,canada, or South American then please stop reading for fear of hated remarks,thx.
Ok this is from me (an American) point of view. ok me being from American am in a country with a big army. Now im sure u all know about the rain forest cirsis. my theory to save the rain forest is that first we (america) take over mexico and canada. Then we send all the Mexicans to were Canada wud b and we build nuclear power plants in Mexico. We then build up or nuclear weapons and we go to war with South America and we take over. The nuclear weapons wud b used as a last resort for fear of damaging the rain forest. anyway after we take over south america then we can save the rain forests!!!! [^]
Like Daniel, I sincerely hope you are joking, cause that is not funny! And even in Jest outlandish and wrong!
-
no honsetly we take over like the places that have rain forest because every minute more and more rain forest is logged to nothing wat do u propose we do about it?
-
You sure as hell are not taking over my country thanks. And Mexicans do not fare well in Canadian winters. People from Sweden probably don't fare well in Canadian winters... Bloody American Capitalist crap
-
no honsetly we take over like the places that have rain forest because every minute more and more rain forest is logged to nothing wat do u propose we do about it?
Certainly not take over a country or move whole populatins of people from their homes.. wholly cow...isn't their enough war and discontentment without making up some more???
-
no honsetly we take over like the places that have rain forest because every minute more and more rain forest is logged to nothing wat do u propose we do about it?
Certainly not take over a country or move whole populatins of people from their homes.. wholly cow...isn't their enough war and discontentment without making up some more???
Exactly
You would be willing to start a war, where lots of innocent people would die, then build more nuclear plant and not to mention build weapons of mass destruction!!!!
So you would use the nuclear weapons as a last resort, which if you did then the only point of starting a war would be to wipe people out and to take over.........gee, who is that sounding like.
I'm sorry Tony but I totally disagree with you
-
no honsetly we take over like the places that have rain forest because every minute more and more rain forest is logged to nothing wat do u propose we do about it?
Certainly not take over a country or move whole populatins of people from their homes.. wholly cow...isn't their enough war and discontentment without making up some more???
Exactly
You would be willing to start a war, where lots of innocent people would die, then build more nuclear plant and not to mention build weapons of mass destruction!!!!
So you would use the nuclear weapons as a last resort, which if you did then the only point of starting a war would be to wipe people out and to take over.........gee, who is that sounding like.
I'm sorry Tony but I totally disagree with you
DITTO! DITTO! DITTO! DITTO!
-
no honsetly we take over like the places that have rain forest because every minute more and more rain forest is logged to nothing wat do u propose we do about it?
On the principle that you don't produce a solution that creates more problems than the one you are trying to solve - I would personally leave well alone.
I have not yet been paniced by all the hysteria about rain forests.
We could just as well decide that the rest of the world should invade the US to stop them consuming all that oil.
Yes, human activity has its effects - but we will live those effects - we have in the past. The alternative is we simply stop all human activity - not a solution I particularly favour - whether it be to stop the South Americans from doing what they think they need to do to live, or stopping the North Americans from doing what they think they need to do to live.
Incidentally, I notice that you are suggesting shipping all these people up to Canada, just as the USA is doing its utmost to seal its own borders to reduce Mexican immigrantion - is there not just a hint of hypocrisy there. If the USA were to offer an open invitation to all Mexicans and South Americans to come and live and work in the USA, then you might at least be seen to have a modicum of equitability in your actions, despite the arrogance therein.
It smacks very much of the kind of policy that the US implements in Iraq, where it, by military force, generates a refugee crisis of epic scale, and then grudgingly only allows a few 10's of thousands of Iraqi refugees into its country, while the rest of the world has to deal with the millions.
-
Ok this is from me (an American) point of view. ok me being from American am in a country with a big army. Now im sure u all know about the rain forest cirsis. my theory to save the rain forest is that first we (america) take over mexico and canada. Then we send all the Mexicans to were Canada wud b and we build nuclear power plants in Mexico. We then build up or nuclear weapons and we go to war with South America and we take over. The nuclear weapons wud b used as a last resort for fear of damaging the rain forest. anyway after we take over south america then we can save the rain forests!!!! [^]
like has been previously said, this is just plain idiotic!
The USA relies on mexican imigrants for cheap labour, where would your labour come from if all the mexicans were shipped off to Canada?
American interventions in south america have not ended well in the past, if you buil the nukes as a last resort to save the rain forests. what good would setting them off do? you would have no rain forest left to save.
where do you think the timber from rain forests ends up? i would like to bet that a lot of it ends up in the US as furnitue, hardboard sheets.....
lastly, it realy annoys me when people knock americans just for being american. however, you are not making my corner easy to fight. i would keep anymore bright ideas to yourself in future.
-
lastly, it realy annoys me when people knock americans just for being american. however, you are not making my corner easy to fight. i would keep anymore bright ideas to yourself in future.
The rest of your comment I would agree with, but this bit I think is uncalled for.
At best, you should give some allowance for age.
Besides that, if someone does have a wrong idea, is it not better to have it discussed than suppressed.
-
The rest of your comment I would agree with, but this bit I think is uncalled for.
At best, you should give some allowance for age.
Besides that, if someone does have a wrong idea, is it not better to have it discussed than suppressed.
My apologies George and Tony.
i meant no offence, i just think comments like those expressed here can serve no good and lead to more people questioning the mindset of all americans - afterall people have a tendancy to put all of one nationality in the same barrel.
perhaps a better reply i could have given would be to take a step back before posing the question or your thoughts either orally or written. Afterall, however good your intentions may be any idea of this kind is likely to offend.
once again, i do appologise if my remark offended you Tony. Thanks for pointing that out George.
-
I for oneam an american and believe no to americans are perfectly alike, nor do we all share Tony's opinion. LOL I do however believe he has the right to it, and I must also say I don't agree with his opinion and find it terribly bold as I said before outlandish and completely crazy..( Sorry Tony No offence but I think the world has seen enough fighting taking over places military action and oodles of other things your post would entail to be done at costs in humanity as well as life well being etc etc etc..
I am sitting here thinking we live in america.. I live in northern California home to many of the most magnificent old growth redwood forests you have ever seen and quite frankly they have been harvesting them forever..They also replant.. which is besides the point... It is truely beautiful check out the pictures I posted in the other Thread. None of us want to see it all go, but the answer does not lie in that kind of action, and frankly I don't know what should be done but it is not for us to say... I live here and I know how population and the way of life are from one culture to another and to up root and take over someones country because you don't want them to log their own timber their own natural resourses....ooh forget it.. I am completely confused by that kind of mentality..I think that we need to clean up our own back yard and worry about what is here under our own noses and just be available should they ever ask our opinion about it or want our help..etc.. I am stepping out of this it's too sticky for me.. But I must say I am with paul George and meg on this one.. Perhaps you could do some work in the rainforests go there see how they live what the culture is like and learn more before you really decide how you feel! You could be an exchange student!!
-
Im not trying to be mean ppl!!! im trying to think of a way to save all of our butts!!! [:(!]grrr... If we dont start saving the rain forests are very existance is in trouble!!!! [:(!] [>:(] [xx(]
-
Im not trying to be mean ppl!!! im trying to think of a way to save all of our butts!!! [:(!]grrr... If we dont start saving the rain forests are very existance is in trouble!!!! [:(!] [>:(] [xx(]
WHAT THE H*** YOU F***IN' DUMBA**. Have you not sense of reason? You're solution is to take over the whole freakin' left hemishpere! If we did this, we are no better than terrorists.
I have an idea. How about we try to educate the developing country to stop what their doing. NOT ENSLAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!
-
You sure as hell are not taking over my country thanks. And Mexicans do not fare well in Canadian winters. People from Sweden probably don't fare well in Canadian winters... Bloody American Capitalist crap
Hey, Elegantlywasted, I hope you don't think all Americans are like this. Most of us actually have COMMON SENSE! I apologize for my colleagues outlandish suggestion.
-
If we dont start saving the rain forests are very existance is in trouble!!!! [:(!] [>:(] [xx(]
Would you like to show this with real evidence, rather than merely stating it as an assertion.
Some people have put forward that conclusion, amongst all the others (like unless Americans stop using their motor cars so much, and stop flying everywhere, etc. we shall all be doomed).
Real evidence as to what fate actually has in store for us is a little thin on the ground - and certainly not known with such certainty that we should start panicing and dropping nukes on people.
Unfortunately, as I have said before, environmentalism is taking on all the manifestations of a religion - like you don't actually need to prove something in order to believe it; like you can righteously kill people who don't follow your particular faith.
-
Well..I'm convinced ! [;)]
-
think about it ok forget the taking over mexico and canada, i see that i didnt think that thru...but if we mayb buy PEACEFULLY the rain forests of South America then we cud save all the many animals and plants that havent even been discovered yet
-
think about it ok forget the taking over mexico and canada, i see that i didnt think that thru...but if we mayb buy PEACEFULLY the rain forests of South America then we cud save all the many animals and plants that havent even been discovered yet
There used to be, and for all I know they are still there, various charities that were trying to do just that - buy up rainforest so they could be preserved.
At least that way you in some way compensate the local inhabitance for the money they could have made by chopping down the rainforests. Ofcourse, on thing you might like to make sure is that the money you pay is actually going to the people who would have benefited from the rainforest (e.g. farmers), and not just to government officials who might be selling the land and pocketing the money.
-
The following is what came up from a quick google for projects where you can purchase rainforest.
I make no recommendation, only to say they are there (as I have no doubt are many others), if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/
The World Land Trust is a conservation charity that has helped purchase and protect over 300,000 acres of rainforest and other threatened wildlife habitats worldwide. You can help us save even more.
£25 Protects One Acre of Rainforest or Steppe in a REAL Place, FOREVER.
http://www.rainforestconcern.org/
We purchase, lease and manage, for protection, threatened native forest with exceptional biodiversity. If land is purchased this is usually done in the name of our partner organisations or local communities in the countries concerned.
Much of our work concerns the creation of protected corridors of forest between existing reserves to avoid the risk of the creation of isolated fragments of forest with a diminishing gene pool.
http://www.worldlandtrust-us.org/supporting/index.html
Thank you for your interest in helping World Land Trust-US (WLT-US) and its partners protect some of the most endangered species and habitat on earth!
Your tax-deductible donation goes directly to assist local organizations to purchase lands around the world that, when protected, halt species extinction and preserve biodiversity.
Or, for a slightly different version:
http://www.ecologyfund.com/ecology/about_faqs.html
What happens when I click on the "save land" button? Does this cost me anything?
There is no monetary cost to you. Our computer server records a contribution to the project you selected. You make this contribution possible by viewing ad banners from the sponsors of that project. All money is paid by the sponsors. The contribution occurs when you click on the "Save Land for Free" button. Your browser must have cookies enabled and support JavaScript for your contribution to be recorded and credited to you, although each click is counted towards saving land whether or not you have cookies enabled or support Java script. When you visit the sponsor's site, the sponsor's contribution is usually doubled.
Do I have to register?
No, but if you do, CharityUSA will contribute 500 square feet of Amazon Basin Rainforest in your name and keep a running tally of all the land that you have been responsible for preserving. This registration requires only your name, country, postal code, and e-mail. If you click 'shop' from EcologyFund, you will go to Shop for Acres where no registration is needed.
-
Im not trying to be mean ppl!!! im trying to think of a way to save all of our butts!!! [:(!]grrr... If we dont start saving the rain forests are very existance is in trouble!!!! [:(!] [>:(] [xx(]
I know you are not Tony.. That is great.. What we all need to do continue to have ideas and thoughts about how to find alternative resolve for the problems that are happening. We just can't go about it in those ways. We have to consider options that are humane and take in the best interest of everyone.. The rainforest is incredible, and it is sad I agreee just as harvesting all the Redwoods here, but if we want to stop we need to find an alternative which is acceptable and rational also. I know you are not being mean.. just keep your thinking cap on and keep problem solving who knows, Maybe one day It will be you who finds the right way to help with this problem!
-
George those are wonderful!!! Thanks.. Wouldn't that be extrordinary to contribute to such a cause!!
-
Whew, I look back at my post and I didn't realize how mad I could get! oh well, it's water under the bridge.
Buying rainforest is a wonderful idea...but there's a lot of it, and it take a lot of money.
Unless we traded rainforest for food. We give them food, They give us rainforest.
The main reason they cut it down is for farmland and food anyway.
-
Whew, I look back at my post and I didn't realize how mad I could get! oh well, it's water under the bridge.
Buying rainforest is a wonderful idea...but there's a lot of it, and it take a lot of money.
It is a lot of money, but there are no cheap solutions, which is why you may want to make sure it is the right solution before you spend lots of money on it.
The trouble is that it becomes so much easier to pretend its cheap when you can get somebody else to pay for it.
Unless we traded rainforest for food. We give them food, They give us rainforest.
How is that cheaper. If you are giving a fair price for it, it is the same whether you pay it in food or pay it in cash. The only way it gets cheaper is if you cheat the buyer out of getting a fair price for what he owns.
The main reason they cut it down is for farmland and food anyway.
This is true, but if the guy is a farmer, then he wants to earn a living by farming, he does not want to live off charitable handouts.
Maybe if you give him enough money that he can invest in starting a business that will earn him money another way, then he can sell up his farm and still keep his self esteem.
-
Nice reasoning. I like that idea. Now i just become president and put that in motion.
-
omg man
-
Yes indeed. Some of these people may have no education or job skills which allow for other income.. Some may,.. but there are those who would be in a bit of a stew if what they new was bought out from underthem,although they probably wouldn't sell if that were the case!
-
More good reasoning! Wow you people are smart!!!!!!!!!!111!shift+one
-
You sure as hell are not taking over my country thanks. And Mexicans do not fare well in Canadian winters. People from Sweden probably don't fare well in Canadian winters... Bloody American Capitalist crap
Hey, Elegantlywasted, I hope you don't think all Americans are like this. Most of us actually have COMMON SENSE! I apologize for my colleagues outlandish suggestion.
Ben I do not believe that all Americans are like that, but I have met very few who aren't. I travel to the US quite a bit and haven't had many positive interactions based on my citizenship. For instance, last summer I was in Tennesse, and my sister made friends with a church youth group that was vacationing from Florida. When we told them that we were Canadian, one of the kids asked if during the Olympics we cheered for the Americans because there weren't any other teams worth cheering for. These kids were like 16, 17 years old, irregardless, that sort of attitude is inexcusible.
-
Ben I do not believe that all Americans are like that, but I have met very few who aren't. I travel to the US quite a bit and haven't had many positive interactions based on my citizenship. For instance, last summer I was in Tennesse, and my sister made friends with a church youth group that was vacationing from Florida. When we told them that we were Canadian, one of the kids asked if during the Olympics we cheered for the Americans because there weren't any other teams worth cheering for. These kids were like 16, 17 years old, irregardless, that sort of attitude is inexcusible.
The problem is, as you say, you regularly travel to the USA, but the vast majority of US citizens don't even posses a passport, and have never left the boundaries of their own country. To them, the USA is their entire world experience, and they have not had opportunity to see the world from another country.
Hopefully, with the burgeoning of the Internet age, at least more US citizens will have at least a small peek of the world beyond their borders, and begin to see the greater complexity of the whole.
I am sure that exactly the same problem happens with Chinese or Russians or anybody who lives is such a huge country that they have little cause to leave it in their lifetime.
-
yea elegantly wasted if some1 were to visit your country you may have traits that other ppl mite find disturbing like u say that all americans are umm somthing i dont wanna go bak and lose my post but any way u said something about americans which is prejudice against all amaericans
-
I said that I am not a fan of Capitalism, and I also do not like arrogance... neither of these traits are strictly American. Canadians, Chinese, Nigerians, Brazilians, it doesnt matter what country you happen to be from, if you act like you are king of the world, I will not be impressed with you.
Without sounding like too much of a witch, I don't care where you are from, what your ethnicity/religion/financial status is, chances are I won't like you, unless you give me a reason to. It may be a cynical approach to things, but it makes life much easier.
-
Many years ago, my mother and I were holidaying in Turkey.
One of the things that will put the following into context is that my mother is Hungarian by birth, and for several centuries Hungary had been occupied by the Turks as part of the Ottoman Empire, and there is still a degree of cultural memory of that time within most of that region of Europe (a memory that contributed to the troubles in Yugoslavia).
As I said, we were touring around the north-western part of Turkey, and stopped in a cafe or bar, cannot recall exactly what it was, on the way back from visiting the ruins of Troy. While we were there, we were engaged in friendly conversation by one of the locals. The local in question clearly had lots of contact with tourists, as his English was superb, but probably had never actually left his home country.
When this local guy realised my mother was Hungarian, he then tried to tell us how Turks and Hungarians were blood relatives because when the Turks entered Hungary they had taken 500 Hungarian girls to the Saltan's harem, so there were lots of Turks today with some Hungarian blood in them.
It did not occur to him that what he was actually saying was that the Turks had kidnapped 500 Hungarian women and kept them as sex slaves - and this somehow brought Hungarians and Turks closer together?
Clearly, the guy was trying to be friendly, so neither of us chose to point out how clumsy he was being about it - we just accepted his good intentions.
Sometimes we fail to see how others see our actions and statements.
-
Without sounding like too much of a witch, I don't care where you are from, what your ethnicity/religion/financial status is, chances are I won't like you, unless you give me a reason to. It may be a cynical approach to things, but it makes life much easier.
I find that a very disappointing attitude.
I prefer to take the view that I will like you, unless you give me good reason not to.
Why start from a negative position - is that not the path to distrust and conflict?
-
It is the path I take from distrust and conflict. I don't feel that I should go around trusting everyone from the beginning, I feel trust is something that needs to be built up. I see so many people put all of their faith in a relationship/friendship with someone only to have it crumble.
I am well aware that my attitude towards the human race is a negative one, but it is something that works for me. The point is to be distrusting of everyone so that you dont get let down. It may be a safe, non risky way to interact, but it really is the way that I am. I have been able to weed out alot of people in my life that were strictly using me for their advantage. Because of my way of thinking I have made some of the best friends a person could have, simply because I built up that relationship. Don't get me wrong I am a very friendly person, but just as there is a difference between alone and lonelness, there is a difference between being friendly and wanting to have alot of friends.
-
It is the path I take from distrust and conflict. I don't feel that I should go around trusting everyone from the beginning, I feel trust is something that needs to be built up. I see so many people put all of their faith in a relationship/friendship with someone only to have it crumble.
I am well aware that my attitude towards the human race is a negative one, but it is something that works for me. The point is to be distrusting of everyone so that you dont get let down. It may be a safe, non risky way to interact, but it really is the way that I am. I have been able to weed out alot of people in my life that were strictly using me for their advantage. Because of my way of thinking I have made some of the best friends a person could have, simply because I built up that relationship. Don't get me wrong I am a very friendly person, but just as there is a difference between alone and lonelness, there is a difference between being friendly and wanting to have alot of friends.
Within certain qualifications, I would not disagree with the above; but there is a difference between saying that "I will only give you qualified trust until you have proven yourself worthy of more" and saying "I will not like you".
There are people whom I would say that I appreciate who and what they are, but still understand the limitations that any relationship with that person would contain (I use the term 'relationship' with its broadest meaning - not specifically an intimate relationship).
Nobody (and that includes you and me) is 100% trustworthy, although I try and do my best - but human nature always has its limits. It is about understanding the limit that each person possesses, not because they are malicious, but merely because they are imperfect.
Maybe the fact that I am still single at 50 years of age tells you something about how cautious I am about close relationships, but I would be very reluctant without good cause to say there was someone I did not like. Quite the contrary, I have found a great diversity of people whose friendship has been very enriching, but that does not mean that each and every one of them I would trust unconditionally.
-
What you have said I completley agree with. Personally, if I cannot trust someone I have no reason to be friends with them, therefore they are expendable to me as an aquaintence. I don't need people in my life that I cannot trust, and if I can't trust you I wont be friends with you, thereby I am saying I do not like you...
I don't know if what I am saying makes sense, it does in my brain. Also it is a good way to cover your ass when you make a blonde or newfie joke infront of the wrong person. I don't discriminate, I hate everyone equally!!
-
O.K.. So I've just read through this idea.. And.. *Gasps*.. Here comes World War III. *Smacks Forehead*
-
Personally, if I cannot trust someone I have no reason to be friends with them, therefore they are expendable to me as an aquaintence.
The point is that absolutely nobody is 100% trustworthy - so if that is the standard you set yourself, it can never be met. Equally, if you understand a person well enough, then you will know in which circumstances a person might be trusted - and we all have situations where we can be trusted, just as we have situations where we cannot be trusted. The world simply is not as black and white as that. I am not even sure that I would be comfortable with the responsibility of having somebodies unconditional trust - it would imply that the person did not understand me, and that the person was somehow putting me on a pedestal that I did not deserve.
Ofcourse, we are all also expendable. One day I shall die, and the world will continue without me, so I am clearly expendable. Nonetheless, I would like to think that until that day comes, I can make myself useful to others, and can make others useful to me; but for that to happen, there must be an element of qualified trust between myself and others.
-
How about Jeebus? I can twust in Jeebus can't I? Please tell me I can George.. Pweeze!! I always twusted in him!! [;D]
Yes, I guess your right George. No one is 100% trustworthy, but when you get to know them, you know which circumstances you can trust them in, but sometimes you have to pass, even if it is your 95% trustworthy friend.
-
You are certainly entitled to your opinions but this is the way that I have chosen to live my life, and I am more than happy with the outcome.
I understand that no one is 100% trustworthy, I have been burned enough to know that. I build up my relationships slowly rather than deconstructing them from the beginning, it works...
On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?
-
You are certainly entitled to your opinions but this is the way that I have chosen to live my life, and I am more than happy with the outcome.
I understand that no one is 100% trustworthy, I have been burned enough to know that. I build up my relationships slowly rather than deconstructing them from the beginning, it works...
OK [:)] - we all must choose our own path (although I am not sure how much the paths diverge, and how much it is just different labels we place along the same waypoints on that path).
On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?
(is this a subtle way to change the subject [?][;)])
I think the word is changeable (is it ever otherwise).
We have not had rain now for a little while (although I can only speak for the south-east - it could be different elsewhere in the country); but we have had generally overcast mornings, but bright afternoons, with temperatures in the early 20's centigrade.
My mother is presently in Israel, where I understand it is chilly, and she is having to borrow warm coats to go outside.
-
Quote from: elegantlywasted on Today at 16:59:51
On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?
(is this a subtle way to change the subject )
I think the word is changeable (is it ever otherwise).
That sounds alright, its around 20 degrees C here too, but nice and sunny :) seeing as it was snowing here 4 days ago it is a welcome change!
-
I for oneam an american and believe no to americans are perfectly alike, nor do we all share Tony's opinion. LOL I do however believe he has the right to it,
Karen, whilst i agree that we are all entitled to our opinions, some opinions should be kept to ones self. What is different to one person saying move all the mexicans out of mexico and another saying all the jews out of israel, muslims from serbia? the reason they all give are different but the result is the same.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions but this is the way that I have chosen to live my life, and I am more than happy with the outcome.
I understand that no one is 100% trustworthy, I have been burned enough to know that. I build up my relationships slowly rather than deconstructing them from the beginning, it works...
On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?
Meg, i totally anderstand this position. i treat people in a similar way.
I am not even sure that I would be comfortable with the responsibility of having somebodies unconditional trust - it would imply that the person did not understand me, and that the person was somehow putting me on a pedestal that I did not deserve.
George, get married, become a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust - and love to and from the other person?
personally i think subjects like this and god real or not have no place in a science forum, what do they achieve? nothing,
like i said before, opinions like those expressed only help to reinforce peoples steretypical perceptions of people/nationalities and races.
Americans are fat, lazy, self centred and thinks the world owe them. mexicans are stupid, dirty and lazy. french are garlic eating surrender monkies. muslims are terrorists who beat their wives. this is what people think. you can argue that it is wrong to group them all together, but it happens, topics like this only encourage and confirm those opinions.
ok, thats my rant over and my last post in this topic.
-
Karen, whilst i agree that we are all entitled to our opinions, some opinions should be kept to ones self. What is different to one person saying move all the mexicans out of mexico and another saying all the jews out of israel, muslims from serbia? the reason they all give are different but the result is the same.
Sorry, I have to totally disagree with you.
What is the value of keeping an opinion to oneself. If you keep your opinions to yourself, then you simply deny others the opportunity to challenge your opinions. Do you consider that really to be a beneficial situation.
If you have controversial opinions (or any strongly held opinions at all) you should learn to be able to discuss those opinion with respect for opposing opinions, but discussion is the only path forward - not denial.
If you do not understand why some people might wish Jews out of Israel, or Muslims out of Serbia, then how can you ever hope to deal with the tensions at the heart of such issues. Maybe their solutions are wrong, and unacceptable; but it is a basic necessity that their voices be heard.
George, get married, become a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust - and love to and from the other person?
Have you any brides in mind, or should I just advertise? [:)]
As for becoming a mother - that would indeed be an interesting feet.
personally i think subjects like this and god real or not have no place in a science forum, what do they achieve? nothing,
In general, I think the airing of such opinions is more valuable then letting them fester.
As to whether a science forum is the appropriate place to air them; this is the matter I have myself asked in the past, but I do not make policy, and the policy is that allowing the broad, chatty, nature of the site to continue without bounds (so long as also maintain the strong science core) is to the benefit of the site. Not my decision, but if that is the policy, then all I can do is follow it. If these topics are to be discussed within the remit of the site, then I am as willing to discuss them as anything else (as I said, I do not believe in the suppression of opinion - although opinion should be expressed as tactfully as can be achieved).
like i said before, opinions like those expressed only help to reinforce peoples steretypical perceptions of people/nationalities and races.
Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.
Americans are fat, lazy, self centred and thinks the world owe them. mexicans are stupid, dirty and lazy. french are garlic eating surrender monkies. muslims are terrorists who beat their wives. this is what people think. you can argue that it is wrong to group them all together, but it happens, topics like this only encourage and confirm those opinions.
As you say, there are some people who believe such things; but topics like this give people the opportunity to disabuse them of such prejudices; which cannot happen if you deprive people the opportunity to openly and honestly discuss their prejudices (even if they do make you uncomfortable).
-
Sorry, I have to totally disagree with you.
i expected that!
What is the value of keeping an opinion to oneself. If you keep your opinions to yourself, then you simply deny others the opportunity to challenge your
opinions. Do you consider that really to be a beneficial situation.
If you have controversial opinions (or any strongly held opinions at all) you should learn to be able to discuss those opinion with respect for opposing
opinions, but discussion is the only path forward - not denial.
If you do not understand why some people might wish Jews out of Israel, or Muslims out of Serbia, then how can you ever hope to deal with the tensions at
the heart of such issues. Maybe their solutions are wrong, and unacceptable; but it is a basic necessity that their voices be heard.
The problem here George, is that you have already stated that we/i should give some allowance for the age of the poster. How can we/i challenge the views when kid gloves have to be applied? Adult questions should be answered in an adult way with appropriate language and conviction.
Have you any brides in mind, or should I just advertise? [:)]
As for becoming a mother - that would indeed be an interesting feet.
This was not a suggestion, i was simply implying that by becoming a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust! If you don't give unconditional trust in a marriage how do you expect it to last? Would you not be happy with your children giving you unconditional trust? All children should have unconditional trust for their parents. How can a child progress if it does not? Why enter in to marriage if you do not trust, unconditionally the other?
In general, I think the airing of such opinions is more valuable then letting them fester.
As to whether a science forum is the appropriate place to air them; this is the matter I have myself asked in the past, but I do not make policy, and the
policy is that allowing the broad, chatty, nature of the site to continue without bounds (so long as also maintain the strong science core) is to the
benefit of the site. Not my decision, but if that is the policy, then all I can do is follow it. If these topics are to be discussed within the remit
of the site, then I am as willing to discuss them as anything else (as I said, I do not believe in the suppression of opinion - although opinion should
be expressed as tactfully as can be achieved).
OK, agreed. you can not stifle debate. But there are better places to post such idea's. Political forums would love such topics, there are plenty around. My personal opinion is that people tend to post such topics to antagonise and offend. Struggling for a topic to post! i know lets start a topic, such as this, or about god, or we never went to the moon. These are topics designed to annoy people and get lots of replies.
i know what about a topic where i suggest that all Jews should be evicted from the Bronx, because they have lots of money and there are a lot of poor African Americans living there. or what about state sponsored euthanasia at the age of 50 because we can not afford their pensions. Or kill all overweight people because there are starving people in Africa. if i write that i am only a teenager and put a smiley face on the end of my post it will be OK.
all pretty ludicrous idea's but should we tolerate them?
Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.
It's not what i believe that counts, people follow like sheep, the opinions of other. Their peers, parents and what they read in the gutter trash news. Ask the man on the street why we went to war in Iraq? what will his answer be? because we followed America and they only went there for the oil. how did they come to this conclusion because they heard it from their peers or read it in the newspaper.
we have a serious issue of the TV news and the printed news being dumbed down, nothing is questioned just simple statements made and hay, if its on the news it must be true.
people no longer question what they are told they just go with the flow.
As you say, there are some people who believe such things; but topics like this give people the opportunity to disabuse them of such prejudices; which
cannot happen if you deprive people the opportunity to openly and honestly discuss their prejudices (even if they do make you uncomfortable).
but the discussing of the topic has been restricted because of the age of the poster!
and for the record, yes i apologised for my initial post because of his age. Not for what i said, you somewhat back me in to that corner because of a previous comment i made about a reply to one of Anastasia's questions
-
The problem here George, is that you have already stated that we/i should give some allowance for the age of the poster. How can we/i challenge the views when kid gloves have to be applied? Adult questions should be answered in an adult way with appropriate language and conviction.
I am not sure what you mean by “adult language”, but I suspect it has more to do with the language of the school playground than with the tactful and considered response of a mature adult. I do not consider that telling people they should not be allowed to express their honestly held opinions to be a mature adult response.
I think we did, for the most part, have an adult response, with, for the most part, adult language (by which I mean, language that was courteous but to the point). I believe that the respect we showed Tony while disagreeing with his idea allowed Tony to, in a totally adult and mature way, reconsider his ideas without feeling he had to defend his ideas as a matter of honour. I think it shows great credit to Tony that he did respond as he did.
This was not a suggestion, i was simply implying that by becoming a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust! If you don't give unconditional trust in a marriage how do you expect it to last? Would you not be happy with your children giving you unconditional trust? All children should have unconditional trust for their parents. How can a child progress if it does not? Why enter in to marriage if you do not trust, unconditionally the other?
So that probably reaffirms why I have never gotten married, or become a parent.
OK, agreed. you can not stifle debate. But there are better places to post such idea's. Political forums would love such topics, there are plenty around.
Personally, I would not disagree with this; but, as I said before, I do not make policy.
My personal opinion is that people tend to post such topics to antagonise and offend. Struggling for a topic to post! i know lets start a topic, such as this, or about god, or we never went to the moon. These are topics designed to annoy people and get lots of replies.
Posting in order to generate replies is not uncommon, even for some of the science topics. Many consider that it serves a useful purpose (within limits) to ensure a continuity of flow of the forum, and give others more confidence to post if they see lots of other people posting.
If a post is designed to ruffle a few feathers, and challenge orthodoxy, then I find nothing wrong with that. Where a post is followed up by an arrogant refusal to see why the views the person puts forward will not work, then I do have a problem (and in some cases this does happen, but equally it is by no means universally the case).
i know what about a topic where i suggest that all Jews should be evicted from the Bronx, because they have lots of money and there are a lot of poor African Americans living there. or what about state sponsored euthanasia at the age of 50 because we can not afford their pensions. Or kill all overweight people because there are starving people in Africa. if i write that i am only a teenager and put a smiley face on the end of my post it will be OK.
all pretty ludicrous idea's but should we tolerate them?
Tolerate? What do you mean by tolerate.
If, in some hypothetical situation, you were genuinely to believe that, then it is not for us to tolerate or not tolerate - the opinion is a matter of fact. The question must be how best we respond to that opinion, not whether we can forbid you from having the opinion.
If you were to genuinely hold such an opinion, I don't think that my jumping up and down, waving my fists in the air, and calling you all sorts of rude names, will in any way cause you to change your opinion. This is true, whether you be 6, 16, or 60.
Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.
It's not what i believe that counts, people follow like sheep, the opinions of other. Their peers, parents and what they read in the gutter trash news. Ask the man on the street why we went to war in Iraq? what will his answer be? because we followed America and they only went there for the oil. how did they come to this conclusion because they heard it from their peers or read it in the newspaper.
we have a serious issue of the TV news and the printed news being dumbed down, nothing is questioned just simple statements made and hay, if its on the news it must be true.
people no longer question what they are told they just go with the flow.
Firstly, what I meant by my comment was that a cool and calm debate about a particular stereotype should only reinforce that stereotype if that stereotype reflects an underlying reality. If you believe the stereotype to be false (and most, in the broader application, are), then you should have no fear in debating the matter, as you should be able to coolly demonstrate the falsehood of that stereotype.
Yes, the wider masses merely follow the opinions of others like sheep, but it always has been so. It is not even simply the news media (and before them, the religious bodies – and in some societies those religious bodies still do hold that power), but even the school system largely propagates prejudice. Maybe you regard the school system to propagate politically acceptable propaganda, but what the school systems do not teach is for people to question the opinions of those in power (including the opinions expressed in the media, or expressed by politicians).
The problem is that if we too then condemn people for bringing into the open views that they hold that you may be uncomfortable with, then we merely compound the notion that people must hold only the opinions of the common herd (except that in this case, you are dictating what you think the common herd should be thinking – but it still holds true that you refuse to allow dissent, or will at least openly rebuke people for voicing dissent).
As you say, there are some people who believe such things; but topics like this give people the opportunity to disabuse them of such prejudices; which
cannot happen if you deprive people the opportunity to openly and honestly discuss their prejudices (even if they do make you uncomfortable).
but the discussing of the topic has been restricted because of the age of the poster!
and for the record, yes i apologised for my initial post because of his age. Not for what i said, you somewhat back me in to that corner because of a previous comment i made about a reply to one of Anastasia's questions
No, discussion of the topic has in no way been restricted because of his age – we have discussed the matter in a very constructive manner.
My comment was that if all else, one should at least make allowances for his age (insofar as understanding why he might have formed the opinion he did, not in neglecting to challenge that opinion); but personally, my attitude went further than that, and regarded that the opinion expressed should be treated with civility no matter what his age. Your comment was to deny Tony the right to express his ideas, rather than to simply challenge his ideas. It was that which I disagreed with, and would have done so no matter what age Tony was. Maybe I should not have brought his age into it, because I believe Tony had the right to express genuinely held belief, even of he had been thrice his age.
I am a great believer in Voltaire's maxim: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it”.
I am sorry if you felt that I was holding Anastasia at ransom over this – it certainly was not my intention, and Anastasia was certainly not at all in my mind when I made that response.
-
I am not sure what you mean by adult language, but I suspect it has more to do with the language of the school playground than with the tactful and considered response of a mature adult. I do not consider that telling people they should not be allowed to express their honestly held opinions to be a mature adult response.
I think we did, for the most part, have an adult response, with, for the most part, adult language (by which I mean, language that was courteous but to the point). I believe that the respect we showed Tony while disagreeing with his idea allowed Tony to, in a totally adult and mature way, reconsider his ideas without feeling he had to defend his ideas as a matter of honour. I think it shows great credit to Tony that he did respond as he did.
No, i was not talking about school yard language. You will have, i hope, noticed that i do not use such language here or anywhere come to that. I see no need in swearing and think those that use such language in their everyday coversations use it to disguise their lack of intellect and to intimidate and bully people.
I meant and adult language where we have to pull no punches in our distaste for such opinions, no matter the persons age.
So that probably reaffirms why I have never gotten married, or become a parent.
well sort of! i would not reccomend marriage, but parenthood is a joy and the most wonderful thing.
Posting in order to generate replies is not uncommon, even for some of the science topics. Many consider that it serves a useful purpose (within limits) to ensure a continuity of flow of the forum, and give others more confidence to post if they see lots of other people posting.
If a post is designed to ruffle a few feathers, and challenge orthodoxy, then I find nothing wrong with that. Where a post is followed up by an arrogant refusal to see why the views the person puts forward will not work, then I do have a problem (and in some cases this does happen, but equally it is by no means universally the case).
yes, i notice this and have no problem with it in general. they can produce some great topics with equally great replies. But, i suspect topics like these are wholly designed to ruffle feathers and upset people. this is not fun or funny, and sometimes a arrogant reply is the intention. it gets other peoples back up and can quickly turn sour.
Firstly, what I meant by my comment was that a cool and calm debate about a particular stereotype should only reinforce that stereotype if that stereotype reflects an underlying reality. If you believe the stereotype to be false (and most, in the broader application, are), then you should have no fear in debating the matter, as you should be able to coolly demonstrate the falsehood of that stereotype.
Yes, the wider masses merely follow the opinions of others like sheep, but it always has been so. It is not even simply the news media (and before them, the religious bodies – and in some societies those religious bodies still do hold that power), but even the school system largely propagates prejudice. Maybe you regard the school system to propagate politically acceptable propaganda, but what the school systems do not teach is for people to question the opinions of those in power (including the opinions expressed in the media, or expressed by politicians).
The problem is that if we too then condemn people for bringing into the open views that they hold that you may be uncomfortable with, then we merely compound the notion that people must hold only the opinions of the common herd (except that in this case, you are dictating what you think the common herd should be thinking – but it still holds true that you refuse to allow dissent, or will at least openly rebuke people for voicing dissent).
Age dependant, the school system does encourage the challenges of ideas. Maybe when we were at school this was not so but it is now.
No, discussion of the topic has in no way been restricted because of his age – we have discussed the matter in a very constructive manner.
My comment was that if all else, one should at least make allowances for his age (insofar as understanding why he might have formed the opinion he did, not in neglecting to challenge that opinion); but personally, my attitude went further than that, and regarded that the opinion expressed should be treated with civility no matter what his age. Your comment was to deny Tony the right to express his ideas, rather than to simply challenge his ideas. It was that which I disagreed with, and would have done so no matter what age Tony was. Maybe I should not have brought his age into it, because I believe Tony had the right to express genuinely held belief, even of he had been thrice his age.
I am a great believer in Voltaire's maxim: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say IT.
I am sorry if you felt that I was holding Anastasia at ransom over this – it certainly was not my intention, and Anastasia was certainly not at all in my mind when I made that response.
my own personal opinion is that this forum, or any similar science based forum, is not the place to express such opinions. by all means you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs but think carefully where and to whom you express them. if you intention is to cause hurt and offence then choose somewhere else.
the original post contained this text: "OK before you read any more if your are from Mexico,Canada, or South American then please stop reading for fear of hated remarks,thx."
to me this infers that the poster knew the responce such a question would generate, and for that reason i made the suggestion that "i would keep anymore bright ideas to yourself in future.
"
how is the weather down south [;)] [;)]
-
The main reason they cut it down is for farmland and food anyway.
Who are they?
are they the poor people who use the rain forrest to live off, cultivate farm land and grow food? or the loggers who cut down trees for a living?
what food could you offer the loggers to stop what they are doing?
i find this whole topic offensive and racist, maybe i am letting my own personal feeling cloud my judgement on this issue. but it makes me so mad.
asside from my regular job i also occasionally work as a door man and had reason to evict some people who were being offensive to a coloured couple because of their skin colour and ethnicity...needless to say this became heated and more than reasonable force had to be used to evict those people.
maybe i am still raw at the things the coloured couple were subjected to, and this is coming out in my posts here.
so this will be my last word on the subject.
-
The main reason they cut it down is for farmland and food anyway.
Who are they?
are they the poor people who use the rain forrest to live off, cultivate farm land and grow food? or the loggers who cut down trees for a living?
what food could you offer the loggers to stop what they are doing?
i find this whole topic offensive and racist, maybe i am letting my own personal feeling cloud my judgement on this issue. but it makes me so mad.
asside from my regular job i also occasionally work as a door man and had reason to evict some people who were being offensive to a coloured couple because of their skin colour and ethnicity...needless to say this became heated and more than reasonable force had to be used to evict those people.
maybe i am still raw at the things the coloured couple were subjected to, and this is coming out in my posts here.
so this will be my last word on the subject.
I think you were right and that was what was frustrating me and why I stepped out ..I hope that he was not actually thinking that way as he did apologise after rethinking what he said.. but I do share your concern as to what it seemed to me also. It was frightening to hear one so young post comments about moving and uprooting people without regards to their rights feelings culture etc.. I do agree with you on this count which is why I stepped back after.. I needed to cool off also..
-
Who are they?
are they the poor people who use the rain forrest to live off, cultivate farm land and grow food? or the loggers who cut down trees for a living?
what food could you offer the loggers to stop what they are doing?
The two are intertwined.
My understanding is that logging itself can be done in a way that limits the damage to the forest at large - they can select individual trees without curring down whole swathes of forest, and without denuding the forest.
The problem is that the loggers cut roads through the forest, and those roads give access to farmers who do cut down whole swathes of the forest to plant fields of crop.
i find this whole topic offensive and racist, maybe i am letting my own personal feeling cloud my judgement on this issue. but it makes me so mad.
Nobody has mentioned race as such. There might be a matter of generalisation of a people - some of it an inevitable consequence that none of us have actual personal experience of the environment we are talking about.