once the whole revolutionary warfight mindset disappears from the palestinians, I would support them 100%, till then, go Israel.
Poll
They steal your home: what would you do?
| I would leave in silence | 3% | 3% - 4 | ||||
| I would fight them and recover my home | 49% | 49% - 57 | ||||
| I would ask the police to evict them | 39% | 39% - 46 | ||||
| Other | 7% | 7% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 116 | ||||||
Good, then we agree that both polls are crap for the same reasons.sergeriver wrote:
Well, you are missing the other option, but I guess I would take things into my own hands coz I'm a bad neighbor.
But my poll starts earlier in time. So, technically I wasn't a bad neighbor until my neighbor stole my home.Pug wrote:
Good, then we agree that both polls are crap for the same reasons.sergeriver wrote:
Well, you are missing the other option, but I guess I would take things into my own hands coz I'm a bad neighbor.
hmmmm i would burn down the house
Ahh, but you added the bad neighbor part, and this is a completely different poll. I specifically said that no other information or interjection was allowed.sergeriver wrote:
But my poll starts earlier in time. So, technically I wasn't a bad neighbor until my neighbor stole my home.Pug wrote:
Good, then we agree that both polls are crap for the same reasons.sergeriver wrote:
Well, you are missing the other option, but I guess I would take things into my own hands coz I'm a bad neighbor.
You get my point. Oversimplification. Changing the components in order to get the result you are looking for. Attempting to control the answer. Omitting major issues that could actually impact a person's answer choice.
This is why I asked you if I had free will. I was not referring to the free will of the person who is involved in your poor analogy.
You are specifically asking to lay everything that's ever happened aside for a specific issue. Like isolating a man smacking his dog with a newspaper "for apparently no reason". What led up to the dog getting smacked? So I produced a mirror of your logic, where we are not allowed the benefit of knowing why the dog got smacked.
And why did the dog get smacked?Pug wrote:
Ahh, but you added the bad neighbor part, and this is a completely different poll. I specifically said that no other information or interjection was allowed.sergeriver wrote:
But my poll starts earlier in time. So, technically I wasn't a bad neighbor until my neighbor stole my home.Pug wrote:
Good, then we agree that both polls are crap for the same reasons.
You get my point. Oversimplification. Changing the components in order to get the result you are looking for. Attempting to control the answer. Omitting major issues that could actually impact a person's answer choice.
This is why I asked you if I had free will. I was not referring to the free will of the person who is involved in your poor analogy.
You are specifically asking to lay everything that's ever happened aside for a specific issue. Like isolating a man smacking his dog with a newspaper "for apparently no reason". What led up to the dog getting smacked? So I produced a mirror of your logic, where we are not allowed the benefit of knowing why the dog got smacked.
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Let's continue to pick sides and focus on the past. After all, it's been an overwhelming success so far.
Key phrase: "hardships [he] has been through". The "hardships" aren't just in the past, and the "hardships" include being murdered. If your neighbor is being chased by people who want to kill him for no good reason, it's a very different situation--legally and morally--if he takes your house to defend himself.Bertster7 wrote:
How is that in any way relevant. It makes no difference what hardships your neighbour has been through, they may come into play when he is being tried after being arrested, but they would not be of any interest to me.san4 wrote:
The point isn't the justification of the firing, the point is that the nature and persistence of the series of incidents that brought the neighbor back has a huge impact on how the question should be answered. "He was fired" minimizes both the nature and persistence.sergeriver wrote:
He was fired without justification, but you didn't fire him. And FYI the same company that fired him, fired my ancestors.
buttsechs him?
Ignorance is the main reason of conflict. You need to focus on the past in order to avoid repeating it. Forgetting the past has been an overwhelming success so far.Pug wrote:
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Let's continue to pick sides and focus on the past. After all, it's been an overwhelming success so far.
Both sides are hardlined. Its time to look beyond the past.sergeriver wrote:
Ignorance is the main reason of conflict. You need to focus on the past in order to avoid repeating it. Forgetting the past has been an overwhelming success so far.Pug wrote:
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Let's continue to pick sides and focus on the past. After all, it's been an overwhelming success so far.
BTW, didn't we just do this last week. Use the search button.
Sue his ass off.sergeriver wrote:
You had a neighbor who left his home a few years ago. He got a good job and moved to another city. But he was fired. Now he is back and there's a Pakistani restaurant where his house used to be. So he decides to settle in your home while you were at work because he likes that block. He changes the keys, but he lets you stay in the backyard.
What would you do?
Forgetting cannot be done without forgiving (see Chile). It hasn't worked there, it wont work in Palestine.sergeriver wrote:
Ignorance is the main reason of conflict. You need to focus on the past in order to avoid repeating it. Forgetting the past has been an overwhelming success so far.Pug wrote:
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Let's continue to pick sides and focus on the past. After all, it's been an overwhelming success so far.
-konfusion
Exactly
But I doubt you can forgive someone if they build a wall around you, and if the whole world pretends its your fault that it's happening to you...Pug wrote:
Exactly
-konfusion
Last week is the past.Pug wrote:
Both sides are hardlined. Its time to look beyond the past.sergeriver wrote:
Ignorance is the main reason of conflict. You need to focus on the past in order to avoid repeating it. Forgetting the past has been an overwhelming success so far.Pug wrote:
Ignorance is bliss I guess. Let's continue to pick sides and focus on the past. After all, it's been an overwhelming success so far.
BTW, didn't we just do this last week. Use the search button.
Exactly again Konfusion
Last edited by Pug (2007-03-28 14:50:35)
So your purpose is to argue as much as possible and to bait people instead of trying to build a bridge between the gulf. I'm already on the bridge. You are not.sergeriver wrote:
Last week is the past.Pug wrote:
Both sides are hardlined. Its time to look beyond the past.sergeriver wrote:
Ignorance is the main reason of conflict. You need to focus on the past in order to avoid repeating it. Forgetting the past has been an overwhelming success so far.
BTW, didn't we just do this last week. Use the search button.
Call the police. If that doesn't work, I'll get him out by negotiation. If that doesn't work, he's out by force.
I want to be on the bridge, but the bad neighbor doesn't want me there. You are taking this issue personal, and I'm not against you, I just have a different view.Pug wrote:
So your purpose is to argue as much as possible and to bait people instead of trying to build a bridge between the gulf. I'm already on the bridge. You are not.sergeriver wrote:
Last week is the past.Pug wrote:
Both sides are hardlined. Its time to look beyond the past.
BTW, didn't we just do this last week. Use the search button.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-03-28 14:58:08)
Two words:
Scorned Earth
Scorned Earth
Stick to the hard line stance then and continue arguing fruitlessly in order to generate more violence.sergeriver wrote:
I want to be on the bridge, but the bad neighbor doesn't want me there.Pug wrote:
So your purpose is to argue as much as possible and to bait people instead of trying to build a bridge between the gulf. I'm already on the bridge. You are not.sergeriver wrote:
Last week is the past.
Continue arguing and widen the gulf between the two sides. Generate more violence.
Suit yourself.
Just to make sure: I was talking about Palestine.Pug wrote:
Exactly again Konfusion
-konfusion
I generate violence in a games forum? Israel and Palestine won't deal coz of my viewpoint? I don't think so. I hope they sort things out some day, but allow me to express my opinion. I don't like extremists from both sides. So, don't tell me a hardliner.Pug wrote:
Stick to the hard line stance then and continue arguing fruitlessly in order to generate more violence.sergeriver wrote:
I want to be on the bridge, but the bad neighbor doesn't want me there.Pug wrote:
So your purpose is to argue as much as possible and to bait people instead of trying to build a bridge between the gulf. I'm already on the bridge. You are not.
Continue arguing and widen the gulf between the two sides. Generate more violence.
Suit yourself.
Konfusion:
I knew you were. Either both sides are damned or both are not in my book.
I knew you were. Either both sides are damned or both are not in my book.
Last edited by Pug (2007-03-28 15:05:19)