GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Sytze]
If I would wish for one thing, that single thing which would enlighten my very existence, it would to be honestly, truthfully, entirely, and deeply be loved by the women I love with my own heart and soul.
[/QUOTE]

Hear Hear.

Oh and also I wish I could do hardcore breakdancing hahaha.

[QUOTE=The Z]Oh and also I wish I could do hardcore breakdancing hahaha.[/QUOTE]
Oh God you're so right!

[QUOTE=The Z]Hear Hear.

Oh and also I wish I could do hardcore breakdancing hahaha.[/QUOTE]

My brother could teach you. He's broke, pay him and he will. :laugh:

I know what I want right now: alcohol. Vodka, preferably.

I could use more rum myself, vodka is cool too. I have one drink made, and enough for one more stiff rum and coke. Stiff, meaning at least 5-6 shots per cup. Psshhtt. Jop was right, I need to get my own equipment to distill my own vodka. This is crazyness. 10 rum and cokes out of a handle of rum before it's gone? They need to make bigger bottles!

To be actually truthful =p

It's a throw up between:

1: To keep my memories and thought process and go back to childhood so I could do everything I ever wanted to.

2: To remove everyone stupid (you know what stupid I mean?) from the U.S. Then we would actually be able to move on with progress instead of being slowed down.



@World peace = remove everything that creates conflict o,o

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Peace on earth is such a cop out. No, seriously though. Conflict is what drives the world, both in nature and humanity. Conflict, fighting, competition, war... on the surface, such things have dire consequences, but good things invariably come from these, as well. Without conflict, we wouldn't be where we are today.
[/QUOTE]

[quote="JonIrenicus]
@World peace = remove everything that creates conflict o"]

First, it a misunderstanding of human behaviour to believe that war and conflict are synonymous. War is one violent strategy to solve conflicts - there are many other strategies to solve conflicts. Furthermore, it would be interesting if you @Chimaera could develop you reasoning that "Conflict is what drives the world, both in nature and humanity. Drive how? Do you mean evolutionary or do you mean technical development or something else? For instance, evolution is "driven" by selection pressure, which can consist of many things but the major factor is probably climate.

Second, if you @Chimaera mean that "we wouldn't be where we are today" without war, I certainly question two basic assumptions behind this statement.
1. What is so good with where we are today that would not have been achived without war?
2. What exactly do you think mankind has achieved to date, and which of these achievements would have been impossible or severely hampered by war, or conflict for that matter.

Sure the WWII and the Cold War competition between the US and the Sovient Union led to technological advancement that gave us nuclear weapons and put man on the moon. I don't however think this is an advantage to mankind, or has any value as an achievement. Do you?

In my opinion, great achivements are those which have made the world a better place in terms of decreasing suffering. However, to take some examples, the discoveries that led to vaccination and antibiotics were not at all related to war or conflict. I don't know of any discovery that has decreased suffering significantly that was developed dependent on war or violent conflict solving.

Finally, to answer Magrus question:

I would wish for end of all violent conflict solving methods and all injustice. For myself personally, I can't really think of anything...I am very happy with my life. I can't think of anything I'd like to be different.
Maybe like you, I wish back some dead people who died prematurely and whom I loved much and did not have enought time with.

Now, if I could have any TWO things, that's different.

A degree in Sodomy and a Sodomobile.

[QUOTE=Siberys]Now, if I could have any TWO things, that's different.

A degree in Sodomy and a Sodomobile.[/QUOTE]

:laugh: Depending on your definition of the former, I have of one of those! As for the latter, you need a car with an incredible suspension and shocks in order to avoid tearing and chaffing.

@ CE, Hmm, interesting views, all of what you've posted. I would have to say, my reasons for wanting Cassie back are almost completely selfish. I am almost positive that I may be the only person who was close to her that truly appreciated who she was as person, the rest in her family and all treated horribly. Frankly, whether I ended up with her or not is irrevelant for me. The fact she could know someone cared about her enough to simply appreciate her presence, and appreciate who she was would mean a whole great deal to me. She never truly got that beyond me in her lifetime, and I think that's why she ended up in the situations that resulted in her dying.

Siberys: that's so my new sig right there.

[QUOTE=JonIrenicus]1: To keep my memories and thought process and go back to childhood so I could do everything I ever wanted to.

2: To remove everyone stupid (you know what stupid I mean?) from the U.S. Then we would actually be able to move on with progress instead of being slowed down.[/QUOTE]
If I could do the first one, I'd probably be a whole lot nastier as a child than I was; I was a perfect angel back then. Of course, if I was nastier, then the adults wouldn't believe me over the other kids, like they did when I got in trouble as a kid.

As for the second one... everyone stupid in the U.S. would be like 98% of the population. I'm game if you are. :laugh:

@Magrus: oh, I got vodka and rum both. Happy time for me.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]First, it a misunderstanding of human behaviour to believe that war and conflict are synonymous. War is one violent strategy to solve conflicts - there are many other strategies to solve conflicts. Furthermore, it would be interesting if you @Chimaera could develop you reasoning that "Conflict is what drives the world, both in nature and humanity. Drive how? Do you mean evolutionary or do you mean technical development or something else? For instance, evolution is "driven" by selection pressure, which can consist of many things but the major factor is probably climate. [/QUOTE]
War generates conflict and is itself a result of conflict; it isn't conflict itself. I know this. And yes, I do mean both evolution and technologically. Selective pressure, such as climate, is a conflict in itself. How an animal adapts to a climate change and solves the question of surviving such a change is a conflict.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Second, if you @Chimaera mean that "we wouldn't be where we are today" without war, I certainly question two basic assumptions behind this statement.
1. What is so good with where we are today that would not have been achived without war?
2. What exactly do you think mankind has achieved to date, and which of these achievements would have been impossible or severely hampered by war, or conflict for that matter.[/QUOTE]
What is so good about where we used to be? It's a myth to believe that the "good ol' days" were somehow more pure or better than the way things are now, so really, why would things be better of then than they are now? And did you mean in question two, "which of these achievements would have been impossible or severely hampered by lack of war?"

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Sure the WWII and the Cold War competition between the US and the Sovient Union led to technological advancement that gave us nuclear weapons and put man on the moon. I don't however think this is an advantage to mankind, or has any value as an achievement. Do you?[/QUOTE]
WWI also brought the first use of tanks, air power, gas. The U.S. Civil War saw the first--last time I checked, anyway, please prove me wrong otherwise--use of iron rather than wooden ships. And the technology which helped put the man on the moon came originally from Germany's development of rockets, like the V1 and V2. As to whether these things are any achievement, though, I agree with you; they're the superficial achievements to make a species feel it has somehow earned its greatness.

But it's not just nuclear power or rockets to the moon, either. We got the Jeep, the SUV--which is really the opposite of achievement there--as well as refrigeration (not just talking about WWII, in case my examples get bizarre); during WWII, when Germany's atrocities--and those of Japan--were made known to the world, we learned what we considered true evil and we fought it. We achieved a sense of triumphing over evil, and saving lives--although the way the liberation of concentration camps was handled is still debated today--and most would consider such things to be achievements. We came face to face with what mankind was truly capable of, and we overcame it. Such would not have been possible without conflict.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
In my opinion, great achivements are those which have made the world a better place in terms of decreasing suffering. However, to take some examples, the discoveries that led to vaccination and antibiotics were not at all related to war or conflict. I don't know of any discovery that has decreased suffering significantly that was developed dependent on war or violent conflict solving.[/QUOTE]
I recall learning that penicillin was one such achievement. I'm going to look it up to be sure, though, but feel free to correct me all the same. And what about Morphine? Amphetamines? The Nazis used amphetamines to get their troops going faster, so they wouldn't have to fight even longer and increase suffering; the rapidity of the troops decreased the amount of suffering and damage which could have occured, which I think does fall into your quote above. And the fight against disease is a conflict itself. You're starting to make war synonomous with conflict now.

Chimaera182 wrote:

War generates conflict and is itself a result of conflict; it isn't conflict itself. I know this. And yes, I do mean both evolution and technologically. Selective pressure, such as climate, is a conflict in itself. How an animal adapts to a climate change and solves the question of surviving such a change is a conflict.

How is climate change a conflict? Certainly, it is perhaps the foremost problem currently confronting the human species, and yes we can associate climate change with conflict, but how is it a conflict in and of itself? Ditto for species adaption, I don't think it is inherantly a conflict, not necessarily.

...during WWII, when Germany's atrocities--and those of Japan--were made known to the world, we learned what we considered true evil and we fought it. We achieved a sense of triumphing over evil, and saving lives--<snip>
We came face to face with what mankind was truly capable of, and we overcame it. Such would not have been possible without conflict.

By dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I'll just break in here...the disbanding of German control over concentration camps was no wondrous phenanominon. This was war. Plain and simple. Allied forces out gunned Axis forces in WW2 in order to see to it this happened. Granted, if war was not a problem in the history this would not have happened, any of it. However, war is something that occurs when some ideal is forced on some group of humans that isn't accepted and is met with aggressive refusal.

Chimaera: I'll post more later, but can you explain to me how on earth you mean that climate change is "conflict"? If your opinions are based on the idea that "war is conflict, climate change is also conflict, everything is conflict and thus everything good (as well as everything else) must come from conflict" the discussion is non-sensical. Can you explain to me how you define conflict,and also give and example of what is not conflict according to your defintion?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]First, it a misunderstanding of human behaviour to believe that war and conflict are synonymous. War is one violent strategy to solve conflicts - there are many other strategies to solve conflicts. Furthermore, it would be interesting if you @Chimaera could develop you reasoning that "Conflict is what drives the world, both in nature and humanity. Drive how? Do you mean evolutionary or do you mean technical development or something else? For instance, evolution is "driven" by selection pressure, which can consist of many things but the major factor is probably climate.

Second, if you @Chimaera mean that "we wouldn't be where we are today" without war, I certainly question two basic assumptions behind this statement.
1. What is so good with where we are today that would not have been achived without war?
2. What exactly do you think mankind has achieved to date, and which of these achievements would have been impossible or severely hampered by war, or conflict for that matter.

Sure the WWII and the Cold War competition between the US and the Sovient Union led to technological advancement that gave us nuclear weapons and put man on the moon. I don't however think this is an advantage to mankind, or has any value as an achievement. Do you?

In my opinion, great achivements are those which have made the world a better place in terms of decreasing suffering. However, to take some examples, the discoveries that led to vaccination and antibiotics were not at all related to war or conflict. I don't know of any discovery that has decreased suffering significantly that was developed dependent on war or violent conflict solving.[/QUOTE]

War is for the weak, personally. There is a difference hitting someone in the face verse going to war, if you know what I am saying. I could NEVER agree with a war because most of them are over very stupid reasons and are a HUGE waste of money. People think tech gets better with every war but that's not true. The government only releases that tech at those times.

But my point about conflict was it can not be lived without unless you removed all the variables. See that x-files episode with the sexy genie.

Hmm, conflict seems the wrong word but to me another one applies.

Change/movement. War as a lot of other things generates changes and from that comes movement in different areas, including prosperity of some sort, including the human condition. Without change and movement ...

My take.

U2's Bono's voice.

Takes care of the financial aspect so that I can focus more on being of help to others.

[QUOTE=Maharlika]U2's Bono's voice.
[/QUOTE]

THIS guy came to Brazil and started talking all sweet about our president, who is really not a good cash administrator. Bah! So much for social causes.

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]THIS guy came to Brazil and started talking all sweet about our president, who is really not a good cash administrator. Bah! So much for social causes.[/QUOTE]
One can have talent and still have little to no brains at all. Why, take Britney Spears, for example. Oh, wait, bad example, she has no talent. :laugh:

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]One can have talent and still have little to no brains at all. Why, take Britney Spears, for example. Oh, wait, bad example, she has no talent. :laugh:[/QUOTE]

*coughbonohasnonetoocough*

lmao @ Luis I was gonna imply the same thing, actually, but figured someone would get offended if I did. Whereas, Britney Spears' ineptitude is universal, of course. lol :laugh: