News Stories

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

If your country/culture/nation is not the greatest in the world, why live there ?

Because moving would be too inconvenient and not worth it

why defend it ?

Because I don't want to die. And you don't have to consider it the best in the world to be proud of it.

why try as much as possible to spread it ?

Spread what? Fish and chips?

[SeijiSensei]

Assad tells Syrians recent unrest the result of external plots

Originally Posted by BBC

President Bashar al-Assad has told parliament Syria will defeat those behind a "plot" against his country.

"Syria is a target of a big plot from outside," he said in his first speech since anti-government demonstrations erupted two weeks ago.

Mr Assad said he would continue on the path of reform for Syria - but did not announce the lifting of a state of emergency, as some had predicted.

More than 60 people have been killed in protests in the southern city of Deraa.

I guess the regime feels comfortably knowing Western powers aren't about to intervene in a country which only ranks 33rd in the world in proven oil reserves. Libya's reserves are nearly twenty times Syria's.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

The same reason as how old Winston describes democracy: it's not the best out there, but it is as good as it gets after trying all others. Also, I defend my country for other reasons. It's where my family and friends are, and really, do you need any other reasons to live in the place or defend it?

Originally Posted by Haak

Because moving would be too inconvenient and not worth it
Because I don't want to die.
Spread what? Fish and chips?

both of you think too small.
human civilization progresses the most when in direct compatition with each other.
its always been that way.
WWII, for all its horror, also led to incredible technological breakthroughs.
the cold war, was even more so.
human civilizations standing around having a dick waving contest tends to lead to greater advancements then anything else.

now, rather then having more WWIII, i'd rather see another cold war period.
you know, back when both countries we're trying to prove who's dick was bigger.

but why should it be limited to just two countries ?
EVERY country should act as if its inherently the greatest nation on earth, then do their best to prove it.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Assad tells Syrians recent unrest the result of external plots



I guess the regime feels comfortably knowing Western powers aren't about to intervene in a country which only ranks 33rd in the world in proven oil reserves. Libya's reserves are nearly twenty times Syria's.

3 guesses who's going to be accused of being "behind the plot".

[Haak]

Technological breakthroughs? I'm pretty sure science has become advanced enough at this point to stand on it's own two feet without the aid of war to keep it going. In that regard I guess i just have more faith in humanity than you do. And I honestly don't see how current wars have helped achieve technological breakthroughs in anything other than better weapons.

Besides you can justify a lot with that kind of thinking. Amazingly you've just tried to justify the worst one so there's no real point in me in showing you the slippery slope. You're already right at the freaking bottom.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Haak

Technologcal breakthroughs? Science has become advanced enough at this point to stand on it's own two feet without the aid of war to keep it going.

its not about WAR.
its about CHALLANGE.
COMPATITION.

rather then having that compatition stem from war, wouldn't you rather have it stem from a need to prove who's best to for the sake of being best ?

In that regard I guess i just have more faith in humanity than you do. And I honestly don't see how current wars have helped achieve technological breakthroughs in anything other than better weapons.

you do know what the internet started out as ... right ?
and who needs stuff like satellites or jet engines.

Besides you can justify a lot with that kind of thinking. Amazingly you've just tried to justify the worst one so there's no real point in me in showing you the slippery slope. You're already right at the freaking bottom.

its not justifying.
its stating facts.
compatition breeds evolution, be it natural or technological.

i say, why wait for the reason for that compatition to be WAR.
why not have it simply be an inherent need to prove who's best.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

both of you think too small.
human civilization progresses the most when in direct compatition with each other.
its always been that way.

Darn right, I think "small". If you think human civilisation is almighty, then I guess we have different ways of thinking.

At least, learn to spell the word. It's "competition". And no, evolution is not only competition.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Darn right, I think "small". If you think human civilisation is almighty, then I guess we have different ways of thinking.

not almighty.
but it shouldn't ever accept Stagnation.

At least, learn to spell the word. It's "competition". And no, evolution is not only competition.

my spell check is fucked

both of you seem mistaken in my aim.
I'm not pro-war
i'm pro-progress.
competition breeds progress, hence, i'm pro-competition.

so why have only WARS serve as a cause for competition ?
why not have it be an inherent goal of every civilisation to prove who's best ?

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

its not about WAR.
its about CHALLANGE.
COMPATITION.

rather then having that compatition stem from war, wouldn't you rather have it stem from a need to prove who's best to for the sake of being best ?


you do know what the internet started out as ... right ?
and who needs stuff like satellites or jet engines.


its not justifying.
its stating facts.
compatition breeds evolution, be it natural or technological.

i say, why wait for the reason for that compatition to be WAR.
why not have it simply be an inherent need to prove who's best.

Life isn't and shouldn't be a competition. Nice and friendly competition is fair enough but you don't need to delude yourself in thinking you're the best in order to have national pride. That's just overcompensating.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Haak

Life isn't and shouldn't be a competition. You don't need to think you're the best in order to have national pride. That's just overcompensating.

Competition encourages progress.
Why play if not to win.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

its not about WAR.
its about CHALLANGE.
COMPATITION.

rather then having that compatition stem from war, wouldn't you rather have it stem from a need to prove who's best to for the sake of being best ?


you do know what the internet started out as ... right ?
and who needs stuff like satellites or jet engines.

its not justifying.
its stating facts.
compatition breeds evolution, be it natural or technological.

i say, why wait for the reason for that compatition to be WAR.
why not have it simply be an inherent need to prove who's best.

Competition is one way to breed evolution, but at the same time, it tries hard to push for it, force it out in people to a point where it's not natural for them to be so productive.

Being able to accept differences or varying pov's is another way to evolve as human beings. We've created many, many things thanks to competition, but even with that, all the things humans have created over time wouldn't have come to be without the cooperation of a group of people. It's not just one person who creates computers, machines, etc. There's a whole process involved in the creation of anything, and some people are better at a certain process than others.

It's when people work together that they truly excel at what they do, and it is when people don't push themselves so hard through competition that they can be more productive over longer time periods. Always trying to push beyond the limit of what people are capable of have negative effects on society as a whole as well, and that's part of the reasons why wars take place.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Competition encourages progress.
Why play if not to win.

Just have fun

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Competition encourages progress.
Why play if not to win.

Competition also breeds a lot of things, not just "evolution"

I don't need to think England is the greatest in order to defend it. As you can see I have enough national pride in me to take issue at being told we're "hopelessly misguided"

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Just have fun

That, and to deny the winner that "winner rush". GG... and it's another day.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Competition is one way to breed evolution, but at the same time, it tries hard to push for it, force it out in people to a point where it's not natural for them to be so productive.

Being able to accept differences or varying pov's is another way to evolve as human beings. We've created many, many things thanks to competition, but even with that, all the things humans have created over time wouldn't have come to be without the cooperation of a group of people. It's not just one person who creates computers, machines, etc. There's a whole process involved in the creation of anything, and some people are better at a certain process than others.
It's when people work together that they truly excel at what they do, and it is when people don't push themselves so hard through competition that they can be more productive over longer time periods. Always trying to push beyond the limit of what people are capable of have negative effects on society as a whole as well, and that's part of the reasons why wars take place.:

all of it very very true.
for PEOPLE.
but the topic was about countries.
very large groups of people working together.
its true that pushing individuals too hard can have a damaging result on them, but we're not talking about individuals here.

Countries in competition allocate more resources to things that they wouldn't otherwise allocate them to.
think of how much the space race was effected by the US and USSR's dick waving contest.
and how much it faltered since the end of the cold war (they just shut down the shuttle program, and there's no replacement in sight).
once the race was over, why bother.

Just have fun

the people who have fun fly kites.
the people who want to win create planes.

Originally Posted by Haak

Competition also breeds a lot of things, not just "evolution"

I don't need to think England is the greatest in order to defend it. As you can see I have enough national pride in me to take issue at being told we're "hopelessly misguided"

accepting the idea that you aren't the best means giving up on the race.
i find it misguided.
the UK used to be the empire that the sun never sets on.
when did you just decide that you should aspire for less ?

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

accepting the idea that you aren't the best means giving up on the race.
i find it misguided.
the UK used to be the empire that the sun never sets on.
when did you just decide that you should aspire for less ?

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Why play if not to win.

For the excerise. To keep fit and stay in shape.

We were left brankrupt because of the second world war.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Haak

For the excerise.

We were left brankrupt because the of the second world war.

are you brankrupt now ?

[Haak]

Pretty much yeah...

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Haak

Pretty much yeah...

anymore so then any other country in europe ?

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

all of it very very true.
for PEOPLE.
but the topic was about countries.
very large groups of people working together.
its true that pushing individuals too hard can have a damaging result on them, but we're not talking about individuals here.

Countries in competition allocate more resources to things that they wouldn't otherwise allocate them to.
think of how much the space race was effected by the US and USSR's dick waving contest.
and how much it faltered since the end of the cold war (they just shut down the shuttle program, and there's no replacement in sight).
once the race was over, why bother.

It's true for people. But people are what make countries. The experience of one passes on to the other, and so on. What one person does will affect the other, spreading through the population of people that they work with, which in turn will affect all other populations it has connections with. And the aspect of pushing for evolution isn't limited to the inidividual, it can easily be applied to countries as well.

For example, looking at the race of competition in the US, one can understand how it affected the labor market, and there's various reasons why a lot of business activities were outsourced from the US to other countries were finding the same or similar quality labor is easier due to pricing differences. The same can be said for other developed countries, namely in Europe.

Much of modern competition and innovation doesn't revolve around innovation in the classical sense anymore, but around marketing, how well you can advertise yourself or what you make or do. Competition in organizations, companies, governments, is more about making sales than real and genuine innovation. Competition in the larger scale is more about getting more people under your wing by encouraging them to buy your goods.

Evolution, by definition, is the growth of a certain body, be it individual or a group of individuals, as a result of experience gained from survival. If you take a really close look at the sort of breakthroughs that have occurred since the cold war, much of the competition and innovation has encouraged the production of goods that do not neccessarily have a huge effect on people's evolutions. Machines being created to ease people's lives. As a collective body, a country, it makes people more reliant on these machines or computers and less able to work on their own. In the long run, it inhibits people's ability to grow and as a result, evolve, and this in turn affects the country's ability to evolve.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

anymore so then any other country in europe ?

I don't know. Germany maybe?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

It's true for people. But people are what make countries. The experience of one passes on to the other, and so on. What one person does will affect the other, spreading through the population of people that they work with, which in turn will affect all other populations it has connections with. And the aspect of pushing for evolution isn't limited to the inidividual, it can easily be applied to countries as well.

For example, looking at the race of competition in the US, one can understand how it affected the labor market, and there's various reasons why a lot of business activities were outsourced from the US to other countries were finding the same or similar quality labor is easier due to pricing differences. The same can be said for other developed countries, namely in Europe.

Much of modern competition and innovation doesn't revolve around innovation in the classical sense anymore, but around marketing, how well you can advertise yourself or what you make or do. Competition in organizations, companies, governments, is more about making sales than real and genuine innovation. Competition in the larger scale is more about getting more people under your wing by encouraging them to buy your goods.

is that acceptable ?
I want my flying car damn it.
maybe if China started producing them, the US will get its ass into gear.

Originally Posted by Haak

I don't know. Germany maybe?

being brankrupt means you don't have enough money right ?
why not simply make more money then ?

make a flying car.