Purpose

[Guest]

Can one's purpose in life be to not have a purpose???

[Guest]

Can one's purpose in life be to not have a purpose???

Who says there is any purpose to life anyways.

Billions have lived and died ... and thats all folks !

Similarly for all forms of life.

[Guest]

No it cant be because then the person has a purpose!!! :S maybe

[Guest]

in the words of the great band "Rush," if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

I agree with maximus.

[Guest]

It cannot be, because the person has a purpose

[Guest]

Deep thought

It's am matter of opinion as ones purpose is not always known. As individuals on this planet or in this universe, do we or even one of us have a purpose?

Can one fight for peace?

It's been tried without success.

[Guest]

Can one fight for peace?

It's been tried without success.

I think so

You can fight, so that there will eventually be peace

or fight orally

like MLK Jr.

[unreality]

LostInSpace, think of it like an investment. Would you say losing money so that you can gain money later (hopefully, lol) is impossible? It's not. It happens every day (and more often the money is lost hehe, but that's relevant to the finances, the basic idea is what I'm talking about here). As Ploper said, you can fight the people that are breaking the peace- yes there will be even less peace for a bit, but after that, peace. (If all goes according to your plans that is, but this isn't a discussion about military statistics or anything like that )

[Guest]

I think it is more complicated than you realise - WRONG + WRONG = ? or FIGHT + FIGHT = ?

If there is a victor - and that is a big IF, then others will not be happy with the controlling force. Ther are only loosers especially as it cost a lot of money as well as lives. Britain has still not paid it's financial and moral debt for WW11 and Britain was not under threat. Multiply thst by the amount of wars there has been and you get larger and larger losses. War bankrupts countries, so the moment you start you loose.

There will always be someone that thinks it is wright to ocupy another country or take to it it's knowledge, belief, aid etc and interfere when it is not requested. I am not saying what is right or wrong other than the swlower route through mediation and negotiation. Too much damage is done by war on so many levels.

It's a difficult subject, and ther are many ways to look at it. Who is the authority on the subject of peace. Would it not be great to feel perfectly free from danger where ever you go. A full on friendly approach from and too all would be ideal.

Trouble is idealism is a perspective based on your point of views or beliefs. so does that mean realism is the better theory, accepting peoples differences and just trying to fit together. The first step would be to live by a code that shows others there is a true path. The moment you argue with very young children you find that it esculates into a bigger and bigger argument (oral fight you called it). That teaches argument rather than reasoning, so it's not about winning an argument it's about achieving a goal with no confict in anyway.

I can't stop you fighting if that IS your choice - you won't find me retaliating, I won't have anything to do with war. If you wish to act friendly then you are welcome here or anywhere I would say.

The first casualty of war is the truth.... That makes war a difficult problem once it starts. ie WMD.

[Guest]

Unreality,

I have posted a reply to Ploper if you want to read, I don't subscribe to the idea of fighting or trying to win a no win situation. There is never going to be peace while someone has to clench a fist first, and gambling does not help either. Your "plans" don't appear that solid - "speculate to accumulate" is ok for gamblers if they want to afford it, but going into huge debt so you can maybe come out a winner, and then a winner of what. Someone else might try while you are in debt or retry - perhaps it's a case of the richest can survive. Now that's a thought, lets just measure the true wealth of a country before we beat it into the ground or submit to the wealthy adversary.

Live and let live - Love and let love.

You and Ploper can fight each other and leave the rest of us in peace. Please try to find a better way though cos I think you both have a great deal to offer the world if you allow youselves to focus on other issues which are important.

[Guest]

okay your first post made sense Lost In Space

but your second post has me scratching my head

it doesn't seem to match anything unreality said

unless he edited his post afterward, I didn't check

could you explain it to me as if I were a small, stupid child?

[unreality]

I didn't edit my post.

And "Lost in space" don't talk to us like we want to go starting wars. I'm a pacifist. I'm wholeheartedly against war. I was trying to support Ploper's post about how there are other ways to fight that don't involve violence... like what MLK did with words. etc. Fighting doesn't necessarily mean bombing another country. So don't attack us repeatedly and dont say we "are fighting each other and are gamblers and would have a lot to offer to the world bla bla bla", I'm just as anti-war than you, maybe even more so

EDIT: i just reread your post and it seems even more rediculous now. Nowhere did I ever say that I advocate war or fighting. I am against such things, though sometimes I acknowledge that it has been successful (some guerrilla war campaigns have brought peace, I think, though I'm not sure), and that was part of my post, though most was about how "fighting" is a loose word, and fighting WITH peace, such as what Ghandi and Martin Luther King did, and this actually works and can bring about peace, which is what me and Ploper were saying. Are you against that? Are you against resisting a forceful government? Are you against the things that people like Ghandi and MLK did? I'm not, and neither is Ploper, and that's what we meant by our posts. You have no right to criticize and call us 'unfit for society' and other things that you implied when you know NOTHING against us! I dont know about Ploper, but I am strongly anti-war.

Lost In Space, it seems like YOU are the one who is fighting. But I'm gonna let this go and you leave you be, and I hope Ploper does the same and forgives you too, and let's hope you don't say anything else so distressing to people you don't even know

[Guest]

You and Ploper can fight each other and leave the rest of us in peace. Please try to find a better way though cos I think you both have a great deal to offer the world if you allow youselves to focus on other issues which are important.

I don't get it

in what way were Unreality and I fighting? Quite the opposite really

I stated that you could fight for peace, and he backed me up

that would be the equivilent of me saying "The red Jelly beans can beat the yellow ones any day of the week" Unreality saying "true that" and you telling us to stop bickering.

as to "I think you both have a great deal to offer the world if you allow youselves to focus on other issues which are important."

where does this come from?

It's not like Unreality or I have spent and devoted our whole lives to making these few posts

I don't make post then follow it like a code either

we said things, but it's not our "focus" in life

Lost In Space, it seems like YOU are the one who is fighting. But I'm gonna let this go and you leave you be, and I hope Ploper does the same and forgives you too, and let's hope you don't say anything else so distressing to people you don't even know

Yeah, let's not make a big deal of it, man

I just hope he doesn't tick off anyone who will

I dont know about Ploper, but I am strongly anti-war.

ditto

[Guest]

I take on board what you said but can't relate to the jelly beans though, far removed from the subject. Many friends and family have ended up on different sides fighting each other, US civil war to name one if not all.

You both jumped in ready to fight/defend and this is where you could try a different view or thinking outside the box. I have had to find other ways to deal with conflict.

I'm not ticked off by your ideas or thoughts this forum does not seem the right place for such debates - where the subject is as big as and diverse as it is, and I hope you are not by mine - let it go if you want, no one said forums are about being on the same page. Debate is healthy, input is important.

It seems I have offended you.

I wish you both peace and good karma.

[Guest]

Unreality,

You did comment that I should think of it as an investment . That does not seem to ME to be a reason to march off to war, especially as you seeem to advocate mediation in your next post, and to be anti-war. These are conflicting views - perhaps the use of HAHAHA and LOL meant you were not taking the subject seriously, that's up to you on how you post your comments and it's up to me how I interpret them! I now take them to be a quick reply where more thought should have gone into it, SYMANTECS?

Also Unreality, you don't seem to be sure if you posted something about guerilla campaigns - perhaps you did on another post, I would have picked up on that one. Have you rushed in again? Guerilla tactics are an interesting theory. Do you suggested that they are pacifist tactics or fighting tactics?

I am not fighting or being contradictory for the sake of it. I simply see confict as a no-win situation. I also thought from your response that I should take on board the cost against gain as an agrument put forward by you, as supported by you, and thus I thought you were ready to go to war. Further your support of Ploper in his defence stance, meant that you were also ready to defend with arms. Did I misunderstand that? Since you both implied that fighting was a possibility, I took it to me that you could be drawn towards conflict in a given situation and therefore a battle would be inevitable in the circumstances. Thus you would both be fighting - seems true to me - How do you contradict that

Where did I say YOU were or are unfit for society? Will appologise now if I did.

Also I appologise if i have distressed you, I only want a healthy debate.

I will start a new topic as this has deviated from the original post.

[Guest]

I know I should talk about this on your other thread

but I guess my quotes of things you say need to be on the thread you posted them in

so here goes

I take on board what you said but can't relate to the jelly beans though, far removed from the subject.

um... it's called a metaphor

you yourself use them

defence stance

no thank you, I am comfortably seated

defend with arms

nah, I type with my fingers, and think with my brain

you used the words stop fighting each other

and I used a metaphor to explain how we were doing quite the opposite

I have had to find other ways to deal with conflict.

like what?

Unreality, you, and I have been dealing with our conflict with words

and seeing as you are anti-war, as are Unreality and I, I'm trying to think of a third way to do it

there's the unpeacefull way, and the peaceful way, the way I see it.

this forum does not seem the right place for such debates - where the subject is as big as and diverse as it is,

you yourself have participated in "Religious debate" where the subject is about as big and diverse as can be, yet no one claimed this ws not the right place for it.

I simply see confict as a no-win situation.

why so?

Edited February 24, 2008 by Ploper

[Guest]

I know I should talk about this on your other thread

but I guess my quotes of things you say need to be on the thread you posted them in

so here goes

Maybe we move on to WAR AND PEACE but you posted comments so here is more to think about.

um... it's called a metaphor

you yourself use them

So you agreed on jelly beans(armies) in conflict but what was your point - I was hoping for more imput, that's all Ploper. We can move on to other Forum and not hang up over this.

no thank you, I am comfortably seated

nah, I type with my fingers, and think with my brain

I did't see the pacifist stance on your original comment..

""I think so

You can fight, so that there will eventually be peace

or fight orally

like MLK Jr. ""

Did YOU mean ME. I already know my own feelings. I took your comments to mean what you would do or at least agree with (support violence/conflict). Not act as a consultant where you suggest a list of choices that you are not involed in choising - this may have been your input but I did not take it as non-personal, perhaps I should have. Sorry if I ws meant to get it that way and did not.

you used the words stop fighting each other

and I used a metaphor to explain how we were doing quite the opposite

I don't get it with out the full context and if you are not bothered to quote it all Ploper, nor can I. Please bring it up in more detail and debate with more input to go further on what ever your real point is - and I do want to know!

like what?

Well, I have been in some bad situations, two of misplaced road rage, one of being with a girl who antagonised a serious amount of bikers, had a knife held to my throat by a "show off" who i had never met and had all his mates around to egg him on!

It would be boring to go into the stories other than to say, I posed no threat to these people and lived to tell the tale without injury. i can mediate out of tough situations. There are a few other situations similar to above where i could have run and let someone else deal with an esculating problem that they could not have survived, which included a shotgun. AND I LIVE A SIMPLE QUITE LIFE. Perhaps i was destined for ... who knows?

Unreality, you, and I have been dealing with our conflict with words

and seeing as you are anti-war, as are Unreality and I, I'm trying to think of a third way to do it

there's the unpeacefull way, and the peaceful way, the way I see it.

This is not conflict it's debate Ploper. And the way you see it appears (to me) to be black or white where as the real situations are so much more than that, religion and greed, defence are big factors. Simple soloutions aren't there but Fight or mediate ( I have more power than you why should i mediate, we are having a bad harvest this year so we will just come and take yours - the have and the have nots) Third soloution or fourth needed. I'll take it up in WAR AND PEACE if that's ok?

you yourself have participated in "Religious debate" where the subject is about as big and diverse as can be, yet no one claimed this ws not the right place for it.

why so?

I prefer tete a tete debate with more than one other person. I felt the forum has been used to argue rather than debate and some topics are "played" (devils advocate) by some of the members. I don't have the right to say that it should be taken seriously nor do i demand it. Suffice to say that i will continue in WAP to see if it has any legs or mileage in it. I'll drop it people want to play it.

The universe and god theories are all worthy of debate as well as others. But the size of the subject may take up resources that people don't have time for. QUALITY and CLEAR input take more than a quick post to get in the "action" (debate)

so

[Guest]

Maybe we move on to WAR AND PEACE but you posted comments so here is more to think about.

I posted everything on my last post in war and peace, but Martini had me move it here because I can't quote something you said in another thread

So you agreed on jelly beans(armies) in conflict but what was your point - I was hoping for more imput, that's all Ploper.

my point WAS

(and I have said this very clearly, at least two times before)

Me and unreality were AGREEING

you told us to stop FIGHTING EACH OTHER

which we WEREN'T

so I was adressing your MISTAKE

(look at the words in capitol letters, they emphasize certain points so you won't need to ask me what I mean again.)

I did't see the pacifist stance on your original comment..

""I think so

You can fight, so that there will eventually be peace

or fight orally

like MLK Jr. ""

Did YOU mean ME. I already know my own feelings. I took your comments to mean what you would do or at least agree with (support violence/conflict). Not act as a consultant where you suggest a list of choices that you are not involed in choising - this may have been your input but I did not take it as non-personal, perhaps I should have. Sorry if I ws meant to get it that way and did not.

first of all, just from the way I talk (and MANY others do this too) when I say "you", it's just a general comment of anyone who wishes to solve a conflict

you say, in your next quote, that you can solve conflict without violence

yet when I say it

fight orally

you seem to say that there cannot be conflict without violence

Well, I have been in some bad situations, two of misplaced road rage, one of being with a girl who antagonised a serious amount of bikers, had a knife held to my throat by a "show off" who i had never met and had all his mates around to egg him on!

It would be boring to go into the stories other than to say, I posed no threat to these people and lived to tell the tale without injury. i can mediate out of tough situations. There are a few other situations similar to above where i could have run and let someone else deal with an esculating problem that they could not have survived, which included a shotgun. AND I LIVE A SIMPLE QUITE LIFE. Perhaps i was destined for ... who knows?

you solved conflict without voilence

something you seem to contradict when I mention it

I don't get it with out the full context and if you are not bothered to quote it all Ploper, nor can I. Please bring it up in more detail and debate with more input to go further on what ever your real point is - and I do want to know!

okay, here you go

You and Ploper can fight each other and leave the rest of us in peace. Please try to find a better way though cos I think you both have a great deal to offer the world if you allow youselves to focus on other issues which are important.

you told us to stop fighting when we weren't,

is that simple enough?

because it should be

my real point is exactly what I've been saying

yet you don't seem to understand the point of my metaphor (which is, again, simple)

I'll take it up in WAR AND PEACE if that's ok?

I would like to, but I also need to quote your exact words to answer questions

which I can only do on this thread

Edited February 24, 2008 by Ploper

[Guest]

my point WAS

(and I have said this very clearly, at least two times before)

Me and unreality were AGREEING

you told us to stop FIGHTING EACH OTHER

My two quotes re fighting

You and Ploper can fight each other and leave the rest of us in peace.

I can't stop you fighting if that IS your choice - you won't find me retaliating.

As you both offered into the debate to fight in certain circumstances, - you may actually end up fighting over symantecs or other differences. it's not unusual for people with common interests to end up on opposing sides. I took it to the edge by saying you to go ahead and fight this unknown foe/senario where you don't have (in my opinion) enough facts. At the point where you both had more info then, you might actually find your selves as enemies - it has happened before! Good luck to you if you are true supporters of each other. May you never disagree (spoils good debate though).

My opinion.

For the record. If you are willing to fight or support someone in a fight, then you are not a pacifist simply because you gave the amunition but did'nt pull the trigger. Can you as judge pass sentance and say that the criminal hung himself the moment he broke the law. I think not. - Maybe that is a seperate debate.

Well, we can debate it further but I don't think the three or us will be "fighting" in this life or the next if there is one - lets move on please, or offer it up another way. Perhaps a scenario in WAP will work. Though I am offering to stay with it if you want.

[Guest]

Good luck to you if you are true supporters of each other. May you never disagree (spoils good debate though).

we don't just blindly support each other

I don't know about unreality, but I won't agree with something he says unless I actually agree with it.

I don't see how it spoils good debate

we just simply find each other on the same side of a debate

and perhaps this won't always be

but when we do find ourselves on the same side, we just debate with others

As you both offered into the debate to fight in certain circumstances, - you may actually end up fighting over symantecs or other differences. it's not unusual for people with common interests to end up on opposing sides. I took it to the edge by saying you to go ahead and fight this unknown foe/senario where you don't have (in my opinion) enough facts.

see, it might've helped if you would've explained this

rather than addressing something that hasn't happened yet, and could very well never happen, as if it had already happened

Edited February 24, 2008 by Ploper

[unreality]

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

[Guest]

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

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