Yep. I think communicating on the internet in large amounts maladjusts people towards real life relations. When talking online you lose most of the subtleties of human interaction, tone of voice, body language, facial expessions etc, this can only result in a more wooden and robotic individual.
Yet they said a similar thing about television and video games, perhaps technology demands that people become less interesting.
To rebuild our exports, as we can both agree needs to happen, we need manufacturing, with manufacturing we need workers. The only condition I wish to see on this is that as many as possible of these workers are British workers and not foreigners.
But for me, the argument against multiculturalism has much more to do with culture than it has with class and economics. In my opinion anti-multiculturalism at its core is not an economic viewpoint, but that it represents national liberation.
I wouldn't go down the 'might is right' road quite as far as you, it's often the relatively thick that do the menial and basic things in society on which everybody depends - I'd never say a nurse or soldier is less than a hedge fund manager for instance.
When you're talking about the affairs of man there is no such thing as perfect, everything one considers perfect is only his/her perception of perfection. Perception is entirely a construct of the culture and the individual within. For this reason there can't be an objective and abstract concept which is perfection itself, for there to be one, humanity in its entirety would have to think identically to begin with, to then agree on what perfection is and how to obtain it.. and so begins the brainwashing of politics.
There's a lot of religions in the world and they can't all be right. You even get those who still hold a candle for Communism -never underestimate mankind's capacity for believing in utter crap.
Not being perfect is a matter of opinion - My point isn't that America is bad at Human rights, which is where the Liberal would go with this, it is that the demands of Human rights themselves are untenable and hence any advocate would fall short of the expectation of an idealistic public.
Obviously questioning Human rights would lead to contradicting Human rights, that is essentially the point in determining the plausability of Human rights. This is the point on which I would agree with the use of waterboarding for instance, as it's a case in my opinion where Human rights pose to do more harm than help, where they're jeopardising the many on the behalf of the few(a recurring theme within human rights).
If you're in/from a tough background then the media seems rose-tinted if anything - what you see on television looks a lot nicer than what you see outside of your own front door. Whereas a sheltered life is easily shocked.
- A claim made where there is no truthful intention.
- A claim made without the means to achieve it.
- A claim made that is inherently implausible.
What i'm saying is that if you have one who speaks a lot of Human rights but fails to achieve then you should find a better advocate, or, you should question whether the aspirations and expectations of Human rights are achievable.
Tree huggers are not idiots because they have a low intellect they are idiots because they're over-emotional wrecks living in a fantasy, and they have little or no gratitude for all the positive things mankind does and has done,
And I really don't think Hippy's need any help making themselves look foolish, so I can't say I care for who does believe me.
That's the Left for you, bunch of vegetarian cyclists, it's no wonder they look like a bunch of freaks and it's no wonder anybody normal steers well clear.
Nope. First of all mankind is nature so we have the right to exist. And secondly, even if the biosphere were to change dramatically as a result of man's activities, plenty of other forms of life would live on after us, the planet itself would live on.
It goes against nature to think we shouldn't exist. This kind of thinking makes you wonder how humanity ever decided to climb down from the tree.
How does validating the plausability of there being a god(which in a sense you do)validate Christianity? I could form a religion tomorrow and that could just as easily reflect God as well as any other religion as humanity knows nothing of God other than that which is self-taught.
God itself is the name we put to the things which we don't understand, so no religious doctrine could honestly claim to know what God is or what it wants, they can only believe in what they say, surely?
Egypt will experience a couple of years of chaos, as none of the protestor's can agree on what 'Democracy' is supposed to look like, and then some bulwark type figure will come along to restore order.
Many people can adapt to many things. Ideally though, as you have the higher empathy quotient(EQ), you are, biologically speaking, better suited to nurturing children than the man in most cases.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: Do you think it's easier to behave naturally on the computer, as opposed to meeting in real life?
Yep. I think communicating on the internet in large amounts maladjusts people towards real life relations. When talking online you lose most of the subtleties of human interaction, tone of voice, body language, facial expessions etc, this can only result in a more wooden and robotic individual.Yet they said a similar thing about television and video games, perhaps technology demands that people become less interesting.