Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Purpose


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#21 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 10:57 PM

This is kind of interesting reading this ;D

LIS is saying all conflicts can be solved without "fighting", though he never actually defines fighting. So if he is against the actions of Gahndi (sp?) and MLK, than he thinks nobody should fight with words. Which is what he is doing right now. I believe some kinds of fighting are both okay and necessary, because "fighting" is such a broad word with a broad range of meanings. Debates, for example, are okay and necessary. Same with protests, rallies, even riots sometimes (though usually they get too out of hand). Me (nor Ploper I think) are for things like war and invading other countries to impose your way of thinking. It's just not the right choice. And I think all three of us are together on this, so nobody's really debating anybody here, except semantics of things we've said earlier. In essence, it seems that all three of us agree on the same thing. So I fail to see where this topic is going. If anyone has anything new to add to this, I suggest doing it in the other topic :D
  • 0

#22 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 11:24 PM

This is kind of interesting reading this ;D

LIS is saying all conflicts can be solved without "fighting", though he never actually defines fighting. So if he is against the actions of Gahndi (sp?) and MLK, than he thinks nobody should fight with words. Which is what he is doing right now. I believe some kinds of fighting are both okay and necessary, because "fighting" is such a broad word with a broad range of meanings. Debates, for example, are okay and necessary. Same with protests, rallies, even riots sometimes (though usually they get too out of hand). Me (nor Ploper I think) are for things like war and invading other countries to impose your way of thinking. It's just not the right choice. And I think all three of us are together on this, so nobody's really debating anybody here, except semantics of things we've said earlier. In essence, it seems that all three of us agree on the same thing. So I fail to see where this topic is going. If anyone has anything new to add to this, I suggest doing it in the other topic :D


I guess we can all be guilty of not defining more, though and was not asked to clarify fighting until the debate heated up i thought that people would read the question as literal. At least a punch or two, otherwise i would have asked what is the best way to find peace withaout aggression under the opression of a war mongering monster. I dont see the point of opening a debate that expects a long thread of information that should be semantically correct so that it can't be argued, discussed or debated - Have no rissues over Ghandi or MLKiing, (it's in the past - my concern is for the future) would favour any peaceful lawful protest, none aggressive non rioting etc, Good call to switch channels

Am moving on to WAR AND PEACE and CODE
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users