Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 95
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Sure, sure, that is also why the exploding cross-border trade between European countries and between the EU and the US, or between the US and Japan have led to rapidly increasing aggression, so that we are standing at the verge of World War III now...
    Note that I did not say that we are on the brink of war, but rather that close economic ties does not necessarily preclude war. Two quite different things.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #62  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Have you ever heard of or even seen black and white pictures? Since black and white are closely intertwined in such images, black and white surely cannot be opposites.... according to your logic, if black and white were opposites, such a thing as a black and white picture could not exist.
    Funny considering that I don't consider black and white opposites any more than I consider love and hate opposites.
    As long as I have the major dictionary publishers on my side, I can live with your disagreement...
    That's the point. You _don't_ have major dictionary publishers on your side. They state that opposite means two mutually exclusive things. The dictionary doesn't agree with itself, hence cannot be an authoritative reference.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #63  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Which Arab country on whose oil the US depend on was ever attacked by the US? I must have missed that war, please share your knowledge with me. [...]
    Why? You seem to know it all already?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by clulup
    I never claimed war won't happen any more, nowhere, never. All I said is that WAR IS NOT INEVITABLE.
    Problem is that you're using a specific short-term example in an attempt to disprove a long-term argument.
    Germany and France, the US and Japan, are examples that show that a state can be reached in which war is not a realistic option any more, even if war between some of these nations was the most normal thing in the world for centuries.
    Problem is that wars are still going on, aren't they? A global economy is nothing new. Didn't Marco Polo and his compatriots in old Europe freely trade with most of the known world at their time? While I generally disagree with the Freudian view that "War is inevitable", I'm sad to say that I see humankind doing little to evolve beyond it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by Toby
    One last thought on the love/opposite thing. If an opposite cannot be neutral or the lack of something and must be a 'negative', what's the opposite of 'war'? Can't be peace, because the definition of peace is the lack of war. Hmm...
    You do not seem to know what peace is. That peace is the absence of war is your own (and very weak, if not to say false) definition. Absence of war is not peace: take the Cold War as only one example, no war, but certainly not peace either.

    Apart from that: I never claimed that an opposite cannot be defined by the lack of something. Take "bright" (presence of photons) and "dark" (absence of photons). So don't try to prove my statement "the opposite of love is hate" is wrong by proving something (a) I never claimed and (b) has nothing to do with it. That would be poor logic.

    And don't forget to write to the publishers of all those dictionaries and complain about the false opposites of love they indicate.
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by clulup
    You do not seem to know what peace is. That peace is the absence of war is your own (and very weak, if not to say false) definition.
    "peace ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps)
    n.

    1. The absence of war or other hostilities. [...] "

    Don't call _me_ a liar. Look in that dictionary.
    Absence of war is not peace: take the Cold War as only one example, no war, but certainly not peace either.
    Strange how language works that way. Opposites are not always what they may seem when looking at things overly simplisticly?
    Apart from that: I never claimed that an opposite cannot be defined by the lack of something.
    "The opposite of positive is negative, not zero/neutral..." sounds exactly like a claim that the lack of something cannot be an opposite. Only the negative value. Zero and neutral would not be negatives to a positive according to your definition. The problem with this is that we don't have a straight linear and measurable scale for human emotions. This is why a lack of feeling makes a better opposite for a strong feeling rather than another strong feeling which can sometimes coexist with the other strong feeling.
    Take "bright" (presence of photons) and "dark" (absence of photons). So don't try to prove my statement "the opposite of love is hate" is wrong by proving something (a) I never claimed and (b) has nothing to do with it. That would be poor logic.
    Like your black and white example?
    And don't forget to write to the publishers of all those dictionaries and complain about the false opposites of love they indicate.
    What do you think dictionaries are? Dictionaries don't define words. Dictionaries only document popular usage of words at a particular moment in time. Writing to them would be just as fruitless an exercise as trying to use one to 'win' an argument. I'd just as soon use an Iron Maiden song like "The Thin Line Between Love and Hate".
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #67  
    Oh, and the opposite of both black and white is clear.

    And as a final aside, the position more fittingly advocated by a porn star would be more along the lines of 'f*ck, don't fight'. Of course, this also is a very good and clear use of language.
    Last edited by Toby; 08/18/2003 at 12:30 PM.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]"peace ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps)
    n.

    1. The absence of war or other hostilities. [...] "

    Don't call _me_ a liar. Look in that dictionary.[B]Strange how language works that way. Opposites are not always what they may seem when looking at things overly simplisticly? [B]"The opposite of positive is negative, not zero/neutral..." sounds exactly like a claim that the lack of something cannot be an opposite. Only the negative value. Zero and neutral would not be negatives to a positive according to your definition. The problem with this is that we don't have a straight linear and measurable scale for human emotions. This is why a lack of feeling makes a better opposite for a strong feeling rather than another strong feeling which can sometimes coexist with the other strong feeling.[B]Like your black and white example?What do you think dictionaries are? Dictionaries don't define words. Dictionaries only document popular usage of words at a particular moment in time. Writing to them would be just as fruitless an exercise as trying to use one to 'win' an argument. I'd just as soon use an Iron Maiden song like "The Thin Line Between Love and Hate".
    - I never called you a liar
    - I did look in that dictionary: "Peace: ... 4a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments"
    - That the opposite of positive is negative was a specific example you have overgeneralised. Some things do not have a negative, like light, space, etc. For things that exist both in positive and negative form (like electrical charges), the opposite is on the other end of the scale (like positive vs. negative charge, not positive vs. no charge or negative vs. no charge). Some things do not have an opposite, like Baseball, a TV, the New York Stock Exchange, Porn, etc.
    - Dictionaries do define words, by documenting their usage
    - Sometimes there is not even a thin line between white (full reflection of the whole spectrum of visible light) and black (no reflection of the whole spectrum of visible light). That does not mean they are not opposites
    - That was it, good night
  9. #69  
    Hate to be cynical here, but war is not inevitable ONLY if:

    1) One group does not know of or desire what another group possesses or the advantage such a war with that group would provide, or
    2) the situation is such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war cold war).

    I would love to be in a positive mood again, so please give me one example of a group (country, whatever) that did not initiate or participate in a war simply for another reason (not the right things to do, etc) and having nothing to do with either of the two aforementioned reasons.

    We'd all like to live in a peace loving world, and many of us do love peace, but the complex reality of a multitude of people seems to preclude that. We're constantly forced to act in the manner of the lowest common denominator.

    Not to be too geeky, but even Star Trek had wars, including aggressions involving Star Fleet personnel despite the group's overall love of peace and non-aggression.

    Dan.
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by clulup
    - I never called you a liar
    You said just as much by implying my definition was false, if the dictionary definition of false is to be believed.
    - I did look in that dictionary: "Peace: ... 4a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments"
    That's a bit of a stretch to go that far down. What was the first definition? Was it an absence of war or hostilities? Selectively using dictionary definitions seems to call into question the validity of trying to invoke its invisible authority.
    - That the opposite of positive is negative was a specific example you have overgeneralised.
    No, that the opposite of a positive is negative is something you explicitly stated. I stated that the opposite of love was apathy. Love is neither specifically positive or negative. Neither is hate.
    Some things do not have a negative, like light, space, etc. For things that exist both in positive and negative form (like electrical charges), the opposite is on the other end of the scale (like positive vs. negative charge, not positive vs. no charge or negative vs. no charge). Some things do not have an opposite, like Baseball, a TV, the New York Stock Exchange, Porn, etc.
    All I said was that the opposite of love was not hate. Porn, TV, black, white, bright, dark, and all that other stuff are yours. Which one of us is overgeneralizing again?
    - Dictionaries do define words, by documenting their usage
    That is not defining. Usage within context defines a word. Words which aren't in a dictionary are used everyday. Off the hizzle, for shizzle, my nizzle. Dictionaries don't define words. When you said my definition was false, did you accuse me of lying? If one goes by the first couple dictionary definitions of false, i.e. "contrary to fact or truth", and "deliberately untrue", then yes you did. If usage and context defines the word, then it's debatable.
    - Sometimes there is not even a thin line between white (full reflection of the whole spectrum of visible light) and black (no reflection of the whole spectrum of visible light). That does not mean they are not opposites
    And it doesn't mean that they are either.
    - That was it, good night
    Sweet dreams.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by vagabond
    Hate to be cynical here, but war is not inevitable ONLY if:

    1) One group does not know of or desire what another group possesses or the advantage such a war with that group would provide, or
    2) the situation is such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war cold war).

    I would love to be in a positive mood again, so please give me one example of a group (country, whatever) that did not initiate or participate in a war simply for another reason (not the right things to do, etc) and having nothing to do with either of the two aforementioned reasons.

    We'd all like to live in a peace loving world, and many of us do love peace, but the complex reality of a multitude of people seems to preclude that. We're constantly forced to act in the manner of the lowest common denominator.

    Not to be too geeky, but even Star Trek had wars, including aggressions involving Star Fleet personnel despite the group's overall love of peace and non-aggression.

    Dan.
    (1) Thanks to TV we can rule out that "some group" does not know about the whealth of the other. Whether war is a useful means of getting a hold of that whealth is a very different question. Most often, this is not the case, because most of modern whealth is based on know-how and services which cannot be conquered.

    (2) The situation in most of the Western/First World is indeed such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war. Or can you imagine a situation in which e.g. Germany would find it advantageous to attack France or Poland, or Japan the USA (Pearl Harbor II), as it was customs not long ago?

    Since not going to war because "the situation is such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war" is a very good and universally applicable reason for not going to war, it is impossible to find a "group" that does not go to war for other reasons.

    I am a simple person, please make simple sentences for me so that I do not have to read each one of them three times in order to understand what you mean.

    P.S.: Just out of curiosity, are there other facts of life or predictions about our future you deduce from Star Trek episodes? Your hint that war may probably be inevitable after all because even the peace loving members of the Star Fleet spark a violent conflicts in some distant galaxy every now and then was new to me and a way of reasoning that had escaped my attention so far. Maybe I should watch TV more often.
  12. #72  
    Originally posted by clulup
    [...] (2) The situation in most of the Western/First World is indeed such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war. Or can you imagine a situation in which e.g. Germany would find it advantageous to attack France or Poland, or Japan the USA (Pearl Harbor II), as it was customs not long ago? [...]
    Don't forget that after WWI (originally dubbed "The War To End All Wars"), people thought it unimaginable that we'd ever do _that_ again.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Don't forget that after WWI (originally dubbed "The War To End All Wars"), people thought it unimaginable that we'd ever do _that_ again.
    I'll think about that before I go to bed, meaning right now. My cable connection and my WLAN network works great, though, it was worth setting the whole stuff up tonight....
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by clulup
    I never claimed war won't happen any more, nowhere, never. All I said is that WAR IS NOT INEVITABLE. Germany and France, the US and Japan, are examples that show that a state can be reached in which war is not a realistic option any more, even if war between some of these nations was the most normal thing in the world for centuries.
    I thik we're argueing at cross purposes. My statement that war is inevitable is true, as there will aways be war somewhere as long as there is Man.
    You seem to be constructing an argument around the idea that war is not inevitable in some/all circumstances.
    Two very different things.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    I thik we're argueing at cross purposes. My statement that war is inevitable is true, as there will aways be war somewhere as long as there is Man.
    You seem to be constructing an argument around the idea that war is not inevitable in some/all circumstances.
    Two very different things.
    But not opposite....
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #76  
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  17. #77  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    I thik we're argueing at cross purposes. My statement that war is inevitable is true, as there will aways be war somewhere as long as there is Man.
    You seem to be constructing an argument around the idea that war is not inevitable in some/all circumstances.
    Two very different things.
    While it may be true that there will be a war most of the time somewhere for the foreseeable future, it cannot be concluded from this that war is inevitable.

    Example: It is a fact that every day somewhere people die from leprosy. However, it is certainly wrong to say that their death is inevitable. A small fraction of the money some countries use for preparing war would be sufficient to change this.

    Falsely calling something inevitable is too easy an excuse for not doing something against it.
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by clulup

    (1) Thanks to TV we can rule out that "some group" does not know about the whealth of the other. Whether war is a useful means of getting a hold of that whealth is a very different question. Most often, this is not the case, because most of modern whealth is based on know-how and services which cannot be conquered.
    I was thinking in general terms where "groups" could be tribes or countries and what they want could be anything from gold to tactical advantage to genocide. You bring up a good point though. Perhaps nowadays "groups" should include non-political entities, such as multinational corporations.

    (2) The situation in most of the Western/First World is indeed such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war. Or can you imagine a situation in which e.g. Germany would find it advantageous to attack France or Poland, or Japan the USA (Pearl Harbor II), as it was customs not long ago?

    Since not going to war because "the situation is such that war would be, on the whole, obviously less advantageous than no war" is a very good and universally applicable reason for not going to war, it is impossible to find a "group" that does not go to war for other reasons.
    But that reason is, at least, partially accepted because the group is forced to that conclusion. I meant are there any other reasons *inherent* to human beings that groups use not to wage war. It's a matter of the nature of people vs. the realities of living in our world.

    I am a simple person, please make simple sentences for me so that I do not have to read each one of them three times in order to understand what you mean.
    All of my writing is intended to be concise but also comprehensive and accurate. Anyone should always feel free to ask me for clarification, since this medium isn't full of contextual clues (like tone of voice, etc.). It's easy to miss the intent. For example:

    P.S.: Just out of curiosity, are there other facts of life or predictions about our future you deduce from Star Trek episodes? Your hint that war may probably be inevitable after all because even the peace loving members of the Star Fleet spark a violent conflicts in some distant galaxy every now and then was new to me and a way of reasoning that had escaped my attention so far. Maybe I should watch TV more often.
    I was simply giving a nod to a popular series that many believe is used as an example of a "good future" utopianish society. Maybe I should have included a smilie afterwards. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Dan.

    BTW, question for the group and the mods, "Is it *really* possible for a thread in the Off Topic forum to be off topic?"
  19. #79  
    Originally posted by clulup
    While it may be true that there will be a war most of the time somewhere for the foreseeable future, it cannot be concluded from this that war is inevitable.

    Example: It is a fact that every day somewhere people die from leprosy. However, it is certainly wrong to say that their death is inevitable. A small fraction of the money some countries use for preparing war would be sufficient to change this.

    Falsely calling something inevitable is too easy an excuse for not doing something against it.
    I really can't see even talking to you anymore about this because you seem to absolutely refuse to accept all of human recorded history as evidence of your complete and utter wrong thinking.

    Calling war inevitable doesn't necessarily mean that it's "the easy way out". Quite the contrary, if you know where things can lead to you won't have false hopes and be disappointed when things go along their natural course.

    Your argument seems to run along the lines of "I don't believe in gravities effect on mass on objects on Earth". That's fine and dandy, just don't complain when you fall down.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    I really can't see even talking to you anymore about this because you seem to absolutely refuse to accept all of human recorded history as evidence of your complete and utter wrong thinking.

    Calling war inevitable doesn't necessarily mean that it's "the easy way out". Quite the contrary, if you know where things can lead to you won't have false hopes and be disappointed when things go along their natural course.

    Your argument seems to run along the lines of "I don't believe in gravities effect on the mass of objects on Earth". That's fine and dandy, just don't complain when you fall down.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions