Flame 1: Che (not C#)
-
There is a difference between them. The people he mentioned were people who were risking themselves for their own ideas. The Nazi SS divisions were risking themselves for someone else's ideas. I personally don't have much respect for either group, but I recognize the distinction. Ryan Johnston
Ryan Johnston wrote: The Nazi SS divisions were risking themselves for someone else's ideas. Really? They were the most fanatic types, surely fighting for ideas they believed. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't know if he's suggesting it, but i'm agreeing with it. You, and most of the industrialized world. Is there really and wonder why certain bits of the planet we neglect despise us? J
jamiehale wrote: Is there really and wonder why certain bits of the planet we neglect despise us? Damn ungrateful
bits. Straighten up, or i shallbyteyou!---
Shog9 Actually I use to find learning in bars when drinking really useful. It sort of makes a language liquid. - Colin Davies, Thinking in English?
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: The Nazi SS divisions were risking themselves for someone else's ideas. Really? They were the most fanatic types, surely fighting for ideas they believed. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Oh, I agree that they believed in them. But the difference, in my oppinion, is that they were the duped by propaganda, and charismatic leaders into what they believed, rather than being the leaders themselves (as the other people mentioned are). So in my view they were just slavish followers of someone else's ideas (though they should still be held accountable for their own actions, in the end we all have choices). Ryan Johnston
-
jamiehale wrote: Is there really and wonder why certain bits of the planet we neglect despise us? Damn ungrateful
bits. Straighten up, or i shallbyteyou!---
Shog9 Actually I use to find learning in bars when drinking really useful. It sort of makes a language liquid. - Colin Davies, Thinking in English?
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Ryan Johnston
-
Oh, I agree that they believed in them. But the difference, in my oppinion, is that they were the duped by propaganda, and charismatic leaders into what they believed, rather than being the leaders themselves (as the other people mentioned are). So in my view they were just slavish followers of someone else's ideas (though they should still be held accountable for their own actions, in the end we all have choices). Ryan Johnston
Ryan Johnston wrote: But the difference, in my oppinion, is that they were the duped by propaganda Just like the followers of Guevara and Castro. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
-
jamiehale wrote: Is there really and wonder why certain bits of the planet we neglect despise us? Damn ungrateful
bits. Straighten up, or i shallbyteyou!---
Shog9 Actually I use to find learning in bars when drinking really useful. It sort of makes a language liquid. - Colin Davies, Thinking in English?
Shog9 wrote: i shall byte you! Roll them left, then roll them right. :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: But the difference, in my oppinion, is that they were the duped by propaganda Just like the followers of Guevara and Castro. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Yep, I agree completely. Ryan Johnston
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i don't know if he's suggesting it, but i'm agreeing with it. You, and most of the industrialized world. Is there really and wonder why certain bits of the planet we neglect despise us? J
-
jamiehale wrote: marketing companies have to push harder to create in us artificial needs I really don't agree with this. I don't feel like I need modern products. I want them (which is a big difference). I haven't been brain washed. Most marketing is done by a bunch of retarded morons who couldn't get a real job (have you seen advertising?). Basicly I'm tired of hearing this line. Sure you are told that you need things. You are an individual. No one is in control of your decisions. No one is making you work those extra hours. We choose our pain. I will work harder if I think I can get more out of it. jamiehale wrote: It makes us not care about anything other than what directly affects our "way of life". I disagree again. Human nature keeps the majority of people focused on their "way of life". It isn't advertising. It is us. We, human beings, are the problem. Every one wants to blame someone else. As far as I can tell that is the root of most conflicts. I can't change human nature, so I can't change the world. The best I can do is try to lead a good life, and help others where I can. Ryan Johnston
Ryan Johnston wrote: I don't feel like I need modern products. I want them (which is a big difference). How so? Why do you want them? For your comfort? For your entertainment? For satisfying your needs? Ryan Johnston wrote: I will work harder if I think I can get more out of it. More what? More stuff? Think of how your life would change if you had no TV, no radio, no CD player, no automobile, no computer, no telephone. Banks, that are encouraging people to use their ATMs instead of their branches, are a perfect example. Using a human teller is a pleasant and arguably natural social experience, but it costs the banks too much in salaries and insurance. They cut costs by setting up ATMs and firing employees. But they need to make people want to use the ATMs instead, so they pummel us with data on how much faster you can do your banking, and how you can get cash anywhere - how convenient it will be for you. Of course, we still have to line up for them. We pay extra fees. We no longer get the benefit of human interaction (unless you chat with the people in line), what's more we get alienated from the process since we have no recourse if the machine crashes, or breaks, or doesn't do what we ask. So really, ATMs are not good for us, but the banks have manufactured the need for them in us. But I like using the ATM, you say. I don't have to waste time talking to the teller. I can do my transactions fast. Sure, but you're a computer geek (no offense - I'm one too) and these things seem pretty natural to us. For the majority of people, having the ability to explain to a compassionate human who's job it is to listen and try to help is far more desirable. But they're being forced to change. They're being forced to put up with a "technologized" banking industry so that the banks can squeeze an extra half-percent profit gain and the share-holders can make a few extra pennies in dividends. Plus, we're being encouraged to be anti-social and efficient. Remember the last time you were stuck behind someone paying a whole bunch of bills at the ATM. Remember how frustrated you were, becuase you had to get back to work, or get home to watch TV, or get to McDonalds to eat dinner, or whatever. You came to the ATM to be fast, but this loser isn't as good at this as I am. We actually take pride in the fact that we can do our banking faster than others. Have you ever felt like just pushing them aside and saying, "Look, lemme do it for you..." This is another
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: I don't feel like I need modern products. I want them (which is a big difference). How so? Why do you want them? For your comfort? For your entertainment? For satisfying your needs? Ryan Johnston wrote: I will work harder if I think I can get more out of it. More what? More stuff? Think of how your life would change if you had no TV, no radio, no CD player, no automobile, no computer, no telephone. Banks, that are encouraging people to use their ATMs instead of their branches, are a perfect example. Using a human teller is a pleasant and arguably natural social experience, but it costs the banks too much in salaries and insurance. They cut costs by setting up ATMs and firing employees. But they need to make people want to use the ATMs instead, so they pummel us with data on how much faster you can do your banking, and how you can get cash anywhere - how convenient it will be for you. Of course, we still have to line up for them. We pay extra fees. We no longer get the benefit of human interaction (unless you chat with the people in line), what's more we get alienated from the process since we have no recourse if the machine crashes, or breaks, or doesn't do what we ask. So really, ATMs are not good for us, but the banks have manufactured the need for them in us. But I like using the ATM, you say. I don't have to waste time talking to the teller. I can do my transactions fast. Sure, but you're a computer geek (no offense - I'm one too) and these things seem pretty natural to us. For the majority of people, having the ability to explain to a compassionate human who's job it is to listen and try to help is far more desirable. But they're being forced to change. They're being forced to put up with a "technologized" banking industry so that the banks can squeeze an extra half-percent profit gain and the share-holders can make a few extra pennies in dividends. Plus, we're being encouraged to be anti-social and efficient. Remember the last time you were stuck behind someone paying a whole bunch of bills at the ATM. Remember how frustrated you were, becuase you had to get back to work, or get home to watch TV, or get to McDonalds to eat dinner, or whatever. You came to the ATM to be fast, but this loser isn't as good at this as I am. We actually take pride in the fact that we can do our banking faster than others. Have you ever felt like just pushing them aside and saying, "Look, lemme do it for you..." This is another
jamiehale wrote: Since the 70s, anthropologists have started to discover that primitive man (humans, not penis-owning people) lived in a society of mutual respect for one's fellow humans and for the natural world as well. There seems to have been gender equality. No organized crime. No wars And then, suddenly, white anglo-saxon penis-owning men took over the civilization and things get really hairy ;P Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.