0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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!!!! [^]
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?
Quote from: tony6789 on 19/04/2007 17:59:45no 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???
Quote from: Karen W. on 19/04/2007 18:31:52Quote from: tony6789 on 19/04/2007 17:59:45no 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???ExactlyYou 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
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!!!! [^]
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.
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(]
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
If we dont start saving the rain forests are very existance is in trouble!!!! [!]  [xx(]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: elegantlywasted on 19/04/2007 18:20:14You 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 crapHey, 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.
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.
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.
Personally, if I cannot trust someone I have no reason to be friends with them, therefore they are expendable to me as an aquaintence.
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?
Quote from: elegantlywasted on Today at 16:59:51On 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).
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,
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have you any brides in mind, or should I just advertise? As for becoming a mother - that would indeed be an interesting feet.
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).
Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.
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).
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.
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?
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?
Quote from: another_someone on 21/04/2007 02:06:16Only 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.
Quote from: another_someone on 21/04/2007 02:06:16As 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
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.
So that probably reaffirms why I have never gotten married, or become a parent.
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).
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).
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.