Ahhh let me guess, everybody has had an experience with a backstabber, yet nobody is the backstabber themselves.
For me, I usually get criticised for being too real/honest/blunt. I contend that it's the masses that seem nice all of the time that must be the actors, the world wouldn't be the place that it is if these people were as genuine as they make out.
Find those who care about you as much as you care about them and focus on those people above yourself. As long as you're not isolated then hopefully you'd recognise you have no right to feel depression for the sake of depression. It's self-obsession and it isn't fair on everybody around you.
I only say this on the assumption that you're not manically depressed or depressed as the result of some kind of trauma, these are a different ball game.
This is a fair point where a Socialistic government does a better job, imo. Why? Because the effort requires centralised, organised planning to maximise efficiency - like a military operation. The qualities that make Socialism better at war also make Socialism better at dealing with instances like this.
Once you get the past all the taking sides it's quite obvious that there's no such thing as a perfect system and depending on the current facts of the day one system will perform better than the other.
It isn't very nice. But should we say halve the population of the Earth through various methods? Or let nature take its course?
All life comes up against this same problem, and in life the most adaptable and the fittest survive. Why on Earth would we wish to change this? Why would we let some of the elites decide which half dies? When if we leave it as a natural struggle then the surviving half is the product of evolution, the meritable half, the kind of people that would then go on to achieve far more.
I believe nature should dictate who lives, just as it does with all life when it outgrows its means. If we allow man to govern this affair then how do we ensure the better elements remain?
Surely if we manage this then only the rich will survive, or we'll make it an equal affair - either way the survivors won't survive because of their merit. To do this would be actively working against evolution.
That's kind of the point, no two people would ever have the identical perspective, despite any shared experiences. I wouldn't say the positioning of a person is the cause of this difference in perspective - for instance changing seats at the cinema wouldn't change the film, what changes the film is what each viewer makes of it in their mind.
Twins are interesting, they are used again to argue genetics factoring in on behaviour. Because twins that are separated completely, living lives removed from eachother, hold true to patterns of behaviour where the only explanation can be genetic.
My philosophical view is that one nation should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of another. So on this basis I don't believe he should be removed by a foreign power.
However, we - broadly speaking - are the reason for the existence of Gaddafi's power base. If I were to give a gun to a man who I know is a murderer and this man goes ahead and kills somebody with it, their blood is on my hands. So in this light I believe us to be morally obligated to work against Gaddafi. The fact that Libya is so close to Europe only adds to the argument.
Is it $142? Anyway, the problem of just giving the consumer money in America and throughout the West is that a significant portion of what is spent would go on imports, so you'd be directly enriching foreign nations such as China, Brazil & India, not America - or the money could of been spent on such vital internal industries such as pet grooming services.
It's not how I would of saved the car industry but they were right to attempt to. But this is globalisation, ultimately being a means to level all nations across the world - the rich nations can't sustian their quality of life when pitted in competition with the world's arsehole. The US will one day be like Mexico, England will one day be like Poland or Portugal and we have the international traders, financeers and the politicians they own to thank for it. There is a reason that what is called globalisation today would of been called high treason a century ago.
I don't believe the Earth can sustain what we demand. And there's no example in history of a culture, country or tribe that has advanced consistently enough to sustain its own needs forever. But I don't believe in a doomsday, I doubt life will just end one day. Doomsday is a far too grandiose term to describe our decline.
It's a purely passive appeasement. Islam grows here in a vacuum, that is, Islam grows here because of how plastic and cultureless Western life is.
Westerner's would back anything to try to be authentic, from the deeply spiritual Wiccan movement that grew from the polytechnics of the 1960's & 70's, to the fact that nearly everybody today wears jeans.
Coming from arguably one of the most degenerate countries on the Earth that really is something. I used to think Western peeps were trashy, lazy and spoilt - on aggregate - but you guys are something else.
I believe your own labour minister said something very similar not that long ago. But then, Arabs have never been famed for their productivity.
Health and safety gone mad, maybe. It doesn't take much these days for anything to be considered a hazard - even tying your own shoe laces is soon to become a nationally recognised qualification.
Victoria, Elizabeth I, Thatcher, Boudica - the bloodiest and/or most brutal leaders of British history.
Neville chamberlaine, Charles Linbergh, two men that wanted peace and we can all be thoroughly grateful that they never got their way.
I think the majority of wars are fought for practical reasons - expansion, economics, expediency - and these reasons will remain no matter what the gender of the leader(s).
Intelligence and faith are not linked. Afterall, faith(or lack thereof)is a measure of the attitude you have towards that which you don't know, not that which you do.
If what was truth had much to do with the intellectual mind, why is it then that it is the intellectuals that disagree the most?
The laws of the cosmos are the proof, so I believe Pantheism is true. Imo modern science proves the Monotheists are wrong and the Atheists are ignorant.
But who would decide what the pragmatic way for politics should be? Would you trust the next politician who comes along who says he speaks for the national good?
Most people today are educated, which leads to more opinion and more disagreement. Times are also still pretty easy, which means low standards and an unwillingness to change attitudes. It would take a cataclysmic event to change people because experience is the only way people learn.
I dunno, he could of been neglecting her. Or even if it was a night of drunken madness I wouldn't judge it the same as say her cynically cheating on him without any provacation.
There's not a lot of details of the circumstances there, so I think that's a little bit of a brutal attitude to take. I mean, it's one thing to be mad with or feel betrayed by someone, quite another to turn your back on them.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: This subject is on backstabbers:-(
Ahhh let me guess, everybody has had an experience with a backstabber, yet nobody is the backstabber themselves.For me, I usually get criticised for being too real/honest/blunt. I contend that it's the masses that seem nice all of the time that must be the actors, the world wouldn't be the place that it is if these people were as genuine as they make out.