World News Thread & Breaking News!!

[Equation]

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. I'm sure you've heard of that before. Payback is basically vengeance, or another fool's logic in believing paying them back what they did will make the person stop. It doesn't always stop. If it did, Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have been long over. If both sides of the Cold War world used "payback", we would be born with 3 eyes in a nuclear wasteland. And think about it, do you think the person who committed this act against you, didn't actually know what they're getting themselves into? If they don't, that's because you presented to them with this image prior, and that's something else. Even then, no one use "payback" as a means to deliver a message; it doesn't even make any logical sense how "payback", in itself, will make anyone stop. If I'm the offender and I was hit back and told that's called payback, I'm gonna contempt that person even more, laugh at that person even more, and also now I'm actually irritated.

The only times something even remotely resembling what you're talking about works is called self-defence and deterrence strategy. Self-defence is for the notion of protecting oneself, and using the appropriate amount of force or actions in order to stop the threat. This could include actions strong enough to decommission the other party, and in extreme cases, to neutralize the threat completely because the threat pose no alternative methods (either take them out or be killed). Those are "extreme" circumstances. And even the playground logic "standing up for oneself" is meant as a message of deterrence and self-preservation.

Impulsive behaviours through violence doesn't get you too far in this society, where law and order governs where we live. You can say people don't think about these, but that's why so many people end up in prisons or have criminal records: It's because people don't think before they act, or know to draw distinctions and lines of what they're doing. And while it's true many people don't think about it, once again I'm not going to follow collective ignorance and stupidity and let that be my label as well. Also, these aren't even philosophy; just simply thinking a little bit further to know what you're doing and up to the next time you're about to put yourself in this situation. And if you think that's philosophy, try and tell that to the lawyers and those who write contracts to the most specific wordings. Try and tell the police what you're doing is payback when you get caught curb-stomping someone for stealing. I want to see how that idea of yours work. And you do know there's an adjective people often use to associate this type of behaviour right? Reckless.

Oh and are you going to go 100mph to "payback" someone for cutting you on the road? Payback? I kinda hate the fact I have to literally take apart every single bit of every component in order to explain things to you.

You are swerving to a different argument here. Obviously you have a problem with a Chinese hitting back at someone who had hit them first. It's called self defense, sometimes it requires a little more force depending on the situation. Ever heard of standing your ground? Letting the bully hit you and not hitting back does not make the pain go away. So in your obvious logic the victims should just depend on the goodness and the kindness of the bullies heart to make them stop?

 

[Equation]

Do you have reading or comprehension difficulty or cognitively challenged? I mentioned already very clear it's not directed at anyone personally, and I was simply taking apart the entire thing in different aspects of what they represent and mean for each part.

I also listed that as number 2 in the earlier post:




Let's do an activity shall we? Read this 50 times, understand what it means, before you respond OK? Seriously buddy, learn to read.

No the problem is you see the world in plain black and white and think only your words are golden and everyone else is not. You are taking the issue out of context just to put it neatly into your own perspective.

 

[Air Force Brat]

No the problem is you see the world in plain black and white and think only your words are golden and everyone else is not. You are taking the issue out of context just to put it neatly into your own perspective.

Chill here bros, you're two of my favorite people, and I can agree with you both, and I trust you both to do the right thing, I'd trust either one or both of you with my wallet and to take care of my family. As I said before, we all have a little bias, I hate to admit it, but I do, but you two stand out on this forum as "honorable men", and I'm proud to consider you both friends, and I have read both sets of posts, and you both make fine arguments. brat

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

60 Minutes did a story on the NSA which was essential a pure PR stunt. They gave their spin on all the information Snowden has revealed and goes through explaining what the intelligence they gather is used for. They use a lot of trigger words meant to scare people. They talk about how China is a threat and plans to literally destroy everyone's computers in a cyber attack. Like Stuxnet? The thing is everything they say China is gathering over spying to use in this attack to destroy people's computer is exactly the same innocuous information Snowden said the NSA is gathering around the world. Before Snowden Obama put a target on China over cyber espionage knowing full well the NSA was doing the same. Charge someone for an evil act first, it makes it less serious when you do it. I also love the demographics of the people they interview. They try to make it look like the NSA environment is like working at Google.

 

[airsuperiority]

You are swerving to a different argument here. Obviously you have a problem with a Chinese hitting back at someone who had hit them first. It's called self defense, sometimes it requires a little more force depending on the situation. Ever heard of standing your ground? Letting the bully hit you and not hitting back does not make the pain go away. So in your obvious logic the victims should just depend on the goodness and the kindness of the bullies heart to make them stop?

Look at what you've written. It doesn't make sense.

You are swerving to a different argument here.

-->

Obviously you have a problem with a Chinese hitting back at someone who had hit them first.

When did I even say I have problem with Chinese [insert action]? Don't put words in my mouth. It seems like everything I say, you think I'm taking it out personally against the Chinese. I would really prescribe you to some psychiatric counselling because what you're doing is not healthy.

It's called self defense, sometimes it requires a little more force depending on the situation.

Yes I just said that in my previous post. Now you're adopting my idea, which I'm fine because that just validates what I've just said.

Ever heard of standing your ground?

That's why I suggested self-defence and deterrence strategy.

So in your obvious logic the victims should just depend on the goodness and the kindness of the bullies heart to make them stop?

And I don't even know where this statement comes from.

 

[solarz]

Well you can't expect teenagers to grasp the concepts of gas-mileage, rate of depreciation, service plan, warranty package, product reliabilty and stuff like that...but like the half-joke I once told my uncle when he bought his Volkswagan Pasat - it's German brand so he's safe!

Eh... if cost was a factor, a domestic Chinese car would be far more affordable than a Japanese car. Plus, you don't run the risk of having it trashed when Japan does something antagonistic again.

 

[MwRYum]

Eh... if cost was a factor, a domestic Chinese car would be far more affordable than a Japanese car. Plus, you don't run the risk of having it trashed when Japan does something antagonistic again.

According to that uncle of mine, he did say Chinese brand cars are cheaper sure, but parts wear down faster when compare with other foreign brands, which translate to more pit-stop hours and more repair costs. In the end, what you saved at the dealership will be spent (plus intangible cost like time, and frustration factor) at the servicing and spare parts.

That's why he bought a Volkswagan Pasat. Sure that's a joint-venture version but it was a good car, alas he might need to get a better navigation console - bah, I gave him my Xperia S earlier and iPad2 just a month ago, he should be able to make use of those - the Bluetooth hifi system he got sucks.

 

[broadsword]

I wonder why the Chinese government still don't want to set standards for products. If they had, "crap" would not apply anymore.

 

[MwRYum]

I wonder why the Chinese government still don't want to set standards for products. If they had, "crap" would not apply anymore.

China's problem is always more of "enforcing" then "setting up" when comes to standards and stuff. Sure, with an enforced standard "crap" will be history, but for the producers it takes investments and huge mindset-tinkering to comply to standards (properly trained staff with the proper mentality, proper tools and equipment, management that no longer cut corners).

Thus, the society needs to demerit the mentality of cutting corners.

But most importantly, consumers who'd reward brands and producers who don't cut corners, by willing to pay more for quality...while the educated and middle-class moving into this category, most of China's population still stuck in the "cheap and quantity" era.

 

[airsuperiority]

No the problem is you see the world in plain black and white and think only your words are golden and everyone else is not. You are taking the issue out of context just to put it neatly into your own perspective.

Lol take an issue out of context? How am I even taking it out of context? Prove to me how I am doing that.

I think you should seriously learn to read:

no different than my grandmother who participated in the boycott of Japanese cigarette in Shanghai after Japan invaded Manchuria. a grass-root economic mean to achieve a just political end. whether such boycott is meaningful or not is a different question.

2. If action is meant to be a punishment, sanction, deliver political message or economical message, or to stop, or not to support a war effort, then again that's legitimate and morally correct.

Equation, put down your pen and read the instruction carefully before you begin. Only proceed AFTER you have completed the instructed task.

1. Read the following:

In other words, I never said shen's grandmother's action is wrong. Her action applies to# 2. I was merely taking the original action into 3 analysis because of the article in which the girl seemed to do this action for more than just #2, but also #3.

Finish reading that? Say yes and proceed to 2.

2. Read the following:

____________________________________________________________________

Why are you accusing me of all the crimes you're committing? That's very funny of you. You're the one that's trying to over-simplifying things without looking into them deeper, while failing at it. The world has many grey areas, but those are usually when the stakes are so close that it's hard to take apart the utilities and impacts in terms of cost/benefits. Those are usually when the many will be affected, and the weights of both stakes are comparable. Personal attributions, on the other hand, sometimes can be much easily defined. There are also many situations, on the other hand, that are not even hard to identify and distinguish just by looking at the premises and intentions, purposes, natures of actions in order to prescribe them. It's not my fault that you're unable to distinguish right and wrong. If you get a headache from thinking, it's not my fault neither. Putting the blame on others doesn't make you smart, if not expose the severity of your weakness.
____________________________________________________________________

Finish reading? Proceed to 3.

3. Read the following:

____________________________________________________________________

I also never said my words are golden. Do you have OCD when it comes to putting words in people's mouths?

____________________________________________________________________

Finish reading? Proceed to 4.

4. If next time you say or reply something that I had already gone over several times, or simply because you can't read, I will just ignore you.

Please take instruction #4 with you on your way out. Thank you