|
|
Post by Britney on Jun 28, 2006 21:23:29 GMT -5
Have you ever had a roommate you got along with? Honestly? Every roommate I've ever had (even if we were best friends before living together) always ends up driving me up the wall. Is this just something that happens when you live with other people?
Either I'm better off living on my own, or there are certain things people are just expected to tolerate when they live with others. But where do you draw the line in terms of what you do/don't tolerate? Are fights among roommates normal, accepted and encouraged in today's society? Is that trendy these days?
And on a separate note, do you consider the statement "Bombing for Peace" to be pro-war or anti-war?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 29, 2006 7:18:44 GMT -5
 @ this thread. Ok, first things first, yeah, living with people is horrible. Think back to living with your parents. Horrible, right? Yeah, well, living with others, you sort of have a bit of respect for them if they are your friends before hand, and so, its not quite as bad... Problem with people when they move out is, they look at the new place as the place for them to be that they can do whatever they couldn't do when living at home, so obviously conflicts can occur, because to a certain degree, you don't want your flatmate to be like that. I found this thread funny because you start out on something completely different, I didn't mean to be offensive by the laughing at the thread, just so you know. Now, any bombing is obviously pro-war. Anti-war is diplomacy. |
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 29, 2006 16:30:57 GMT -5
The majority of roomates I've had have been my friends, so I got along with them quite well  But I think that living in close proximity with someone else is bound to cause some issues here and there. And that statement is pro-war. |
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jun 29, 2006 19:09:05 GMT -5
Bombing for peace, I dont consider it either, or I consider it both.
You want peace? You gotta go to war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justice on Jun 29, 2006 19:11:49 GMT -5
Bombing for peace, I dont consider it either, or I consider it both. You want peace? You gotta go to war. Man that was in my personal text for the longest time, it was from Punisher "If you want peace, prepare for war" i love that quote |
|
|
|
Post by Mistress.Nairakarn on Jun 30, 2006 6:27:45 GMT -5
@ Britney
Not yet.
@ Britney
Well I am 99% certain, that would be very Pro-War.
(One of my super short posts, one of my other recent ones, also in the Debate subforum, on the other hand, isn't so short).
|
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jun 30, 2006 10:04:27 GMT -5
Bombing for peace, I dont consider it either, or I consider it both. You want peace? You gotta go to war. Man that was in my personal text for the longest time, it was from Punisher "If you want peace, prepare for war" i love that quote , I guess I'm just an action movie cliche then  In order 2 explain what I mean about 1 needs the other: Lets just say we have 2 tribes, tribe mad thinks murder is ok and tribe happy thinks murder is wrong, tribe happy trys to teach tribe mad their ways so that both tribes can live in harmony. Unfortunately trive mad are a bunch of assholes and kill trive happys princess. Tribe happys king realises that he will forever be hasseled and in fear (thus not peacefull) if tribe mad keeps killing his people, so he trys to rationalise with them but it doesnt work, so in the end the only forseeable way for tribe happy to stay happy, healthy and over all, peacefull is to wage war on tribe mad and make sure they can destroy them so that tribe happy will always be safe. Ofcourse, rationalisation or deterence is the best way to go, but as far as bombing for peace, it is as pro war as it is anti war. |
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Jun 30, 2006 11:00:19 GMT -5
I think controlling/dominant personalities have a harder time with roomies. I'm more of a submissive type, so no problems with people.  |
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 30, 2006 11:34:59 GMT -5
The term "Bombing for Peace" not only sounds pro-war, but it is pro-war.
Ive never had a roommate, but I dont think Id get along with one too well.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Jun 30, 2006 21:30:36 GMT -5
You start a war to stop a war? Seems kinda stupid. It's clearly pro-war. By that same logic, if you kill everyone on Earth there will be world peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Jun 30, 2006 21:51:53 GMT -5
The term "Bombing for Peace" not only sounds pro-war, but it is pro-war. It's sarcasm, so anti-war. I think. It's supposed to show belligerence in Foreign policiy is stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 30, 2006 22:23:10 GMT -5
I dont think its sarcasm when the politicians use it. I think they mean it, not that they really want peace, but that they want a war, and their saying their bombing for peace... Ill stop making no sense now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jul 1, 2006 9:00:50 GMT -5
Who says politions want war? They want money and power... A war is a great way to boost an econemy with arms deals and the like.
As far as say, WWII when germany started invading countries, in order to restore peace, we had to go to war with germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slipper Eater on Jul 2, 2006 11:39:58 GMT -5
Bombing for peace is both pro-war and anti-war, with the pro-war it's used exactly how it seems, yet with anti-war it can often be used in an ironic manner to mock using a war to get peace.
As for the roomie issue, I doubt I'd get along with them unless I could stand them for most of the day. I'm honestly one of those people who has friends, but after awhile they just grate on me because I enjoy my space. There are two or three people I think/know I'd get along with that much. I draw the line at people who never shut up and people with dogs.
Feh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Britney on Jul 2, 2006 15:38:15 GMT -5
I wasn't sure - everyday I pass by "Bombing for Peace!" written on a bridge - its written as graffiti amongst all these other clearly anti-war slogans, and it has peace symbols in the O's... left me confused...
|
|
|
|
Post by Justice on Jul 2, 2006 15:47:04 GMT -5
Thats just the poeple that want to blow up things and dont even follow the war. My friends are just like that
|
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jul 2, 2006 19:40:58 GMT -5
You start a war to stop a war? Seems kinda stupid. It's clearly pro-war. By that same logic, if you kill everyone on Earth there will be world peace. ~Need world-wide genocide, planetary suicide! And when the whole damn world is dead, there's your f***ing peace! Ah, Mudvayne, so knowledgable and insightful  |
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jul 3, 2006 9:14:24 GMT -5
Ah but what about territorial animals like prides of lions or the like, they will still battle each other for peace and power in their own territory. The paradox of power and peace will distroy itself. In other words, untill every living creature becomes 100% apathetic in every way there will be war. Whether it be a struggle for land and power by 2 warring nations or whether it be a struggle for power between the young male and the dominant lion. The only way to create peace is to suppress what challenges your survival and your ability to ensure your offsprings survival. God my own sociobiological crap depresses me some times . |
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 3, 2006 22:51:55 GMT -5
I prefer to live alone. And "bombing for peace" sounds retarded, like "  ing for celibacy" or "killing for life." |
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jul 3, 2006 22:54:25 GMT -5
On the note for "killing for life".
If you could kill 1 person to save the whole world are you saying you wouldnt?
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 4, 2006 22:39:25 GMT -5
On the note for "killing for life". If you could kill 1 person to save the whole world are you saying you wouldnt? Save the world, how? Be more specific. |
|
|
|
Post by Justice on Jul 4, 2006 22:41:46 GMT -5
If someone was going to blow up the whole world.... would you?
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 4, 2006 22:50:44 GMT -5
How does one go about blowing up the world, and what sort of perverse magic would exist which would cause me killing one person to magically disarm the device?
I'll be honest..I detest these hypotheticals. They're unrealistic and leave me scratching my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slipper Eater on Jul 5, 2006 4:50:45 GMT -5
If they had the bomb magically attached to their head with superglue, you'd have to shoot them to get to the device to disarm it. Or maybe he has laserbeams that shoot from his eyes. Mmmhmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jul 5, 2006 8:18:14 GMT -5
How does one go about blowing up the world, and what sort of perverse magic would exist which would cause me killing one person to magically disarm the device? I'll be honest..I detest these hypotheticals. They're unrealistic and leave me scratching my head. If you were in the army over in iraq would you kill an insurgent to stop him from setting off an explosive that that would kill your team? Thats not unrealistic but it still bases under killing for life. You may say "but that is in defence" but so is bombing for peace. If bombing for peace is not done in defence (or prevention) then its not bombing for peace. |
|
