That would make alot of sense, if the habit forms at an early age where you're used to getting what you want it's very difficult to break, so when it is broken in later life it's a new sensation and you react like a child would - with alot of stress basically.
Well yes, I wasn't saying that being wiser was the total opposite of shyness - I was listing three different possibilities not two, I should of been clearer. If anything there's probably a correlation between being thoughtful and being reclusive. I was simply saying these are different ways people can react to the same fact.
I suppose there's genes to factor into this aswell, what we experience changes the way in which our genes express themselves, but there's still a given range which is anchored within the genes. Social experience can only shift you so far away from what you are genetically.
Then there's traumatic events, and life-changing experiences that can affect you in all sorts of ways. Like an horrific event, can either lead you to becoming wiser and more mature, or it can do the total opposite, it can even make you shy and reclusive. Which way you go in circumstances such as this are again almost entirely a question of your genetics.
Shyness has alot to do with how much attention you're paid as a baby, lots of kisses and cuddles from Mum and Dad will help in the development and mapping of brain cells in order to optimise social interaction and understanding.
What diversity? If anything I find it scary that the international opinion is almost identical to the local opinion, everywhere the same, everyone the same.
People whom have their own opinions will talk through other's opinions to improve their own, these people are a minority. A debate is not about originality or opinion, it's about taking sides. Side-taking subsequently results in taking offence to the opposition by default, not for what they say, but for who they are - or at least who you think they are.
Aren't you missing the point that it was a national emergency. Liberalism and free-marketeering could of been wiped out if the other side had won the second world war, things America holds to its core now aswell as then.
Wouldn't any past hero be wasted these days when we're all equal individuals? Nobody else can know better than the self, or else that would be a contradiction.
Globalism creates an amount of jobs we'll call Y, the amount of workers globalism enables access to we'll call X. Given that most of the world is not as scientifically and economicaly developed as the west, then from our view Y has to be greater than X.
Also, if this wasn't the case then business would have no interest in foreign labour, as there'd be no more money in employing them over employing domestic workers.
Then why is State Capitalism fairing so much better in the world than Liberal Capitalism? How an industry battles within itself is best determined by the market. However, leaving where you invest time, new energy and efforts, which industries we pioneer and develop is not always best left to populism, to have a plan is not always a bad thing.
They already have here in an attempt to bring the defecit under control, via heavy taxation of the middle class, which is the only option left for western society other than social collapse. As for the rich, corporate owners should be taken upon the viability of their industries, where infant and promising industries are protected from heavy taxation to promote growth in areas we'd wish to encourage, and inefficient and dying industries are thrown to the wolves so to speak.
It is key to ensure that growth is of a sound and rational material basis, and not repeat another ruinous cycle of speculation, easy-living and plunder like that of the failed and cannibalistic older generation. How you make your money is far more important than the money itself - a lesson the banker's need to learn.
Depends on why, if she was majorly allergic i'd get rid of the pet.
If I fail at love amongst my own species, then maybe one day i'll fall back on love from the less judgemental world of animals, but for now I feel human beings are the more important of the two.
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to shake it up, I would prefer that to happen when the world is more secure economically. I dread to think of what the cost of revising the UN could be and to me, doing anything now doesn't really fit the facts we're in.
Ideally replace it with something less corrupt and inefficient, but how you stop a body of that size from becoming corrupt and inefficient I have no idea.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: God created us and we created God
I would of said both parts are the same thing written in a different way.