What would you want if you could have any one thing?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:53 pm

I'll step in again. "Talent" for Britney Spears is purely of a physical nature in the minds of most fans, mmk? She is wretched, spoiled brat, with mediocre talent in dancing and singing who happens to be attractive to a large number of people. For reasons I cannot fathom....

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:58 pm

@Chim: Bono is not a total loss as a singer, but he's not as good as he was in the days of Zoo TV Imo. And I prefer hardcore, so his style is like hypocrisy to me.

Phreddie · Post by **Phreddie** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:02 pm

If I could have anything I wanted? hmmm...... A box set of fairly tale items, including: A coinpurse that refills itself forever, a cup that never empties or spills, and a knapsack of bread that never runs out of bread. It would take forever to pay for a hotel room, but I would never be hungry, thirsty, or broke.

Alternatively, Ill take a juicy-juice, a mountain with good skiing, all equipment for skiing, and somebody's jugular.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:24 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]I'll step in again. "Talent" for Britney Spears is purely of a physical nature in the minds of most fans, mmk? She is wretched, spoiled brat, with mediocre talent in dancing and singing who happens to be attractive to a large number of people. For reasons I cannot fathom....

[/QUOTE]
Oh, c'mon, why was that step-in even necessary?

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]@Chim: Bono is not a total loss as a singer, but he's not as good as he was in the days of Zoo TV Imo. And I prefer hardcore, so his style is like hypocrisy to me.[/QUOTE]
Aww, c'mon now. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions; I figured I'd settle on the mindset of the anti-Spears brigade, who I figured was a majority on this board, whereas I wasn't going to comment on Bono--which you did, and I said what I did after that--for the reason that I wasn't sure about the mindset of people here on Bono. Whether Bono is good or not is immaterial, seeing as I know so few songs by U2.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:29 pm

Michael Jackson ruled, point. Now the throne of king of pop is abandoned, in need of a new leader. That's it.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:34 pm

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Oh, c'mon, why was that step-in even necessary?[/QUOTE]

Boredom called, and I answered?

ch85us2001 · Post by **ch85us2001** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:39 pm

I would settle for a dash of (emotional) courage. Drag Racing, Roller Coasters=Fun. Girls=Death On Two Legs.

Barring that, an Ice cold Dr. Pepper, and a fried Bologna sandwich would do me right fine.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:48 pm

I could go for a used breath mint.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 9:03 pm

Why a used breath mint?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:22 pm

This reminds me of the first time I came into contact with those breath strips that came out a few years ago. My bi-sexual female friends found a naughty use for them during play time. Clever, dirty, wonderful girls they are. :laugh:

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:49 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]This reminds me of the first time I came into contact with those breath strips that came out a few years ago. My bi-sexual female friends found a naughty use for them during play time. Clever, dirty, wonderful girls they are. :laugh:[/QUOTE]
That's just grody. And I feel sick enough as it is.

Demortis · Post by **Demortis** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:27 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]I suddenly became curious as to what others would want if they were given one chance to have something they wanted, anything. Eh, like a wish. Money? Power? Fame? Anything at all, but just 1 thing. [/QUOTE]

Mine would have to be, several million dollars. Not so I can buy what I want, I would use it to live off of, to make sure that when I do have a family that they are supported and that my SO is taken care of, that nothing should happen to her or my child/children. Then heavily invest in a stocks that will give me more cash then I could spend

But it would mostly be used to make sure my girl was taken care of. So yea, nothing selfish, I think

Ashen · Post by **Ashen** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:16 am

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Michael Jackson ruled, point. Now the throne of king of pop is abandoned, in need of a new leader. That's it.

[/QUOTE]

I actually liked him in the days of Thriller and Billy Jean

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:27 am

[QUOTE=Magrus]This reminds me of the first time I came into contact with those breath strips that came out a few years ago. My bi-sexual female friends found a naughty use for them during play time. Clever, dirty, wonderful girls they are. :laugh:[/QUOTE]

LOL. I never thought of those strips that way but now that you said it..... I'ma have some fun =p~

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:00 pm

Ok, this has developed into a spam thread, but I do recall I owe Chimaera a reply. I'll try to keep it brief.

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.

This statement reveals a fundamental difference in semantic definition of the word "conflict". I would define was as a very specific type of violent conflict, a type that does not bring anything of general value.

If we look at a lexical definition of "conflict"...

con·flict (knflkt) n.
1. A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.
2. A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.
3. Psychology A psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.
4. Opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot.

...I take this as meaning a fight/struggle between opposing, internally contradictive mutally exlusive forces. This means that stuff like climate or evolution is not generally conflict, it is balancing of forces that can co-exist simultanously but perhaps only in certain relative proportions.

However, in my wish for an end of all violent conflict solving methods, I am referring to violent conflict as war and war-like states, I am not counting tectonic plate movements as "violent conflict". Thus, there is no contradiction to climate changes or evolution. So in my wish-world, we only need to focus on what good stuff we get out of war that we will now miss.

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?"

Strawman!

I have not stated there was something good with the old times. I questioned "1. What is so good with where we are today that would not have been achived without war?. Not a word about things being better in the old days. Now, my personal opinion is that the world was neither worse nor better in the old days. On group level, it was better 20 000 years ago when there was no technology to kill masses of innocent people and no technology to disrupt whole eco- and climate systems with pollution. On the other hand, at individual level, it was worse because people suffered and died from disease and injury that are easily cured now. So, my question to you was: what is good (ie better than the old times) today and what of this have been achieved thanks to war?

My second question is as you think 2. What exactly do you think mankind has achieved to date, and which of these achievements would have been impossible or severely hampered by lack of war, or conflict for that matter.[/quote], ie if you list all the things you view as acheivments, which of those have been significantly dependant on war for their development.

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.

Here I disagree with you. I don't see any evidence that mankind learn at all from the atrocities like the European colonisation, the world wars. The scale is bigger nowadays, but the general behaviour patterns that result in a preference for violent conflict solutions have been evident in mankind of thousands of years and is still - just look at all the wars going on right now. At the 2002 American Psychology Association meeting, there was an excellent thematic presentation of all research done on violent human conflicts so far. A pity I don't know how a layman can find this material know, it was very interesting and telling for how little has actually been learned from WWII. However, if you believe humanity is developing into something better - good for you, I won't spoil your day

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.

Penicillin was discovered in the late 1920's. Englands war against Germany hampered the production of penicillin for clinical use. Morhpine was first synthesised in the beginning of the 19th century, and got widespread use by the mid 1800s. Amphetamine is IMO not a constructive achievement, it has caused more destruction than it has had helpful use.

Fight against disease is for me like climate - it is not what I mean with violent conflict and thus, it is not included in my wish for an end of violent conflict solving strategies!

Personally, I believe people like to think war is necessary, or brings some good, because otherwise the behaviour of mankind is just too bloody miserably unacceptable in its meaninglessness.

shana · Post by **shana** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:10 pm

Wow, CE, I'm glad you kept that short!

I would like to have the ability to read people's minds.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:14 pm

I want to be able to make people happy.

Myself included.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 pm

Used breath mint, because someone elses saliva adds just that much flavor, mmm mmm good!

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:27 pm

[QUOTE=Siberys]Used breath mint, because someone elses saliva adds just that much flavor, mmm mmm good![/QUOTE]

You can just taste the germs!

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:27 pm

[QUOTE=shana]Wow, CE, I'm glad you kept that short!

[/QUOTE]

Hrm, it was my intention at least. Well, I can view it in a subjective relativist way and defend myself by saying "it is short compared to what it could have been if I had developed my reasoning about causes of war, alternative strategies for conflict solving and results of those compared to results of war".

I am happy to see Sibery's is adding to the discussion