Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Small towns
Thread: Small towns This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 10:16 PM

Quote:
"Should"? Why would you decide, if they don't demand it?
They do demand it. Subsidies, tariffs, etc. And I don't want that. Are there alternatives that would satisfy both them and me?

Quote:
Some can ask, who benefits from change and education?
People who are able to get jobs after losing their old ones.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
friendofgunnar
friendofgunnar


Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
posted January 04, 2009 10:19 PM

I'd have to say I agree with you Mvass.  I grew in Noplace too.  Moving to a city was like a liberation to me.  

It's hard to seperate nature and nurture but the only assessment that I can come to is that believing in a 6000 year old earth in this day and age is a product of low intelligence.  If a community continually exiles intelligent and creative people through it's culture, eventually the community's genetic intelligence is going to get lower and lower and the only thing they'll be good for is brainless peasant work.
Haha, everybody reading this should watch "Idiocracy" if you haven't done that already.

Quote:
and has stated that the 9/11 attacks were divine retribution for the United States not being supportive of Israel enough.


Turn on a Christian channel here in the USA and you'll hear follies such as this on a daily basis. Meh.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 04, 2009 10:22 PM

Quote:
It's hard to seperate nature and nurture but the only assessment that I can come to is that believing in a 6000 year old earth in this day and age is a product of low intelligence.
Which ironically, it has nothing to do with intelligence
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 10:24 PM

FoG:
Yeah, I agree. It's nice to see someone who thinks the same way.

TheDeath:
It is if you believe it because Church leaders say so.

And it may interest you that it is because of these people that I became a socialist in the first place.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 04, 2009 10:28 PM

Quote:
It is if you believe it because Church leaders say so.
Still nothing to do with intelligence
May be ignorance (then again, something else, but let's assume ignorance for a moment). An ignorant can score 160+ on an IQ test you know?

What you are talking about is completely unrelated to intelligence, ironically I thought you would know that (well FoG, since he judges others' intelligence). Information has nothing to do with intelligence, for one, and isn't necessarily knowledge, for two.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 10:30 PM

It's unintelligent to be so stubbornly ignorant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 04, 2009 10:38 PM

I wouldn't say "unintelligent". It's common for people to say others are 'idiots' (many examples, including 'Bush' for example), and 'idiot' is a measure of IQ (it is classified below 70 if I remember correctly).

You can be stubbornly arrogant for MANY cases. Many people are stubbornly arrogant. Most philosophers, though, are not, and even though this isn't connected to wisdom, they usually are a bit wiser. However, MANY intelligent people are stubbornly arrogant when it comes to some matters. Just because you don't find those matters as 'important' as these ones, does not mean someone else doesn't find them stubbornly arrogant for that something else (which you don't notice in other 'intelligent' people).

In reality, though, it's just nothing to do with intelligence. And if you were a bit more neutral (and intelligent , ok joking, that has nothing to do like I explained, just playing your game), you would probably realize.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 10:40 PM

I'm not saying that their IQ is below 70. I'm using "idiot" in the colloquial sense.

But no intelligent person would ever say that reading is gay.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 04, 2009 10:44 PM

Quote:
I'm not saying that their IQ is below 70. I'm using "idiot" in the colloquial sense.
I know.
I was just being sarcastic

Quote:
But no intelligent person would ever say that reading is gay.
I could, if I wanted. (or because someone tells me to)

Of course I didn't mean that ALL of them are intelligent, they might as well not be. I meant that doesn't relate to intelligence -- whether they are or not is out of my scope, I have no idea.

You meant: "X decreases intelligence" (well something like this of course)
I said: "X has nothing to do with intelligence"

That doesn't mean I said they are all intelligent. In fact, they could just as well be as dumb as a monkey.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SwampLord
SwampLord


Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
posted January 04, 2009 10:54 PM
Edited by SwampLord at 23:10, 04 Jan 2009.

Quote:
I'm not saying that their IQ is below 70. I'm using "idiot" in the colloquial sense.

But no intelligent person would ever say that reading is gay.


Believe it or not, I live in a large town in a very different part of the country (New England, as far as I can tell people don't really care if you're atheists here, it's largely Democratic, etc) and reading is still looked down upon in high school. Not a ton of guys do it, and the ones that do don't do it a lot. We've got a great educational system but we still get a lot of people who like to do that; reading isn't necessarily popular. But it doesn't have to be. There's nothing wrong with not liking to read; calling it gay is a bit extreme, but disliking reading itself is not grounds to be called "idiotic". Gay, unfortunately, has become a colloquial insult much like you have used "idiot"; it's used in a lot of places where it doesn't really make sense, but there you have it. Or think of "stupid" or "dumb"; we all use those words. Saying that "this book" or "this job" is stupid/dumb doesn't make any more sense than saying "this book is gay", but we do it anyways. Gay shouldn't be a general insult, but it has become one at this point.

I consider not liking reading more a problem of our generation's ready access to computers and other electronic things than a problem of any part of the country in particular. There are many more easily accessible alternatives to reading and as such, it's done a lot less.

Plus, that's high school for you; you've got people who are arrogant jerks about everything.  I've got them here too. It is not fair, however, to look down on people just because they believe in God or have religion. While that religion may cause them to disagree with you on scientific things you find blindingly obvious, it's not fair to call them idiots. The whole point of religion is faith despite what others may say or do. As such, they're not going to listen to your arguments and to be fair you shouldn't really expect them to have to. They're listening to the priest, you're listening to the scientist, and either side trying to conclusively prove the other wrong isn't going to end well. The best thing religion and science can do to each other is to let each other alone, but this probably won't happen.

One other thing to consider, at least in the "separation of church and state" business, is that we do have legal separation of church and state, but not really practical separation. It's impossible to keep religion out of politics here; you can't do it. The church and the government are thus still very much intertwined even if the church is not allowed to actively attempt to influence government. Religion still plays a pretty large role in politics.
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 11:12 PM

Computers aren't an alternative for reading. When I'm on the computer, what do I do? I go to HC and read.

Quote:
The whole point of religion is faith despite what others may say or do. As such, they're not going to listen to your arguments and to be fair you shouldn't really expect them to have to.
Not listening to people's arguments is being an idiot. And the concept of faith is just

But I don't really know to what extent religion is related to such behavior, though. I mean, all of my friends are Christians, but they all accept evolution and other things of that nature. They listen to arguments and take them into account. And so on. I'm not asking them to give up their religion. I'm asking them to think and listen. Is that too much to ask?

And we should have practical separation of church and state.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SwampLord
SwampLord


Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
posted January 04, 2009 11:28 PM
Edited by SwampLord at 23:28, 04 Jan 2009.

Quote:
Computers aren't an alternative for reading. When I'm on the computer, what do I do? I go to HC and read.

Quote:
The whole point of religion is faith despite what others may say or do. As such, they're not going to listen to your arguments and to be fair you shouldn't really expect them to have to.
Not listening to people's arguments is being an idiot. And the concept of faith is just

But I don't really know to what extent religion is related to such behavior, though. I mean, all of my friends are Christians, but they all accept evolution and other things of that nature. They listen to arguments and take them into account. And so on. I'm not asking them to give up their religion. I'm asking them to think and listen. Is that too much to ask?

And we should have practical separation of church and state.


First off, why should people have to read books? Again, it's not fair to say that "if someone doesn't do this, they are wrong." While I wish everybody read, it's certainly not required. If you'd rather talk to your friends, drive a car, play sports, go ahead.

Regarding faith, that's what I'm talking about. You get frustrated with them for dismissing outright your beliefs, but you're doing the same to them. It's hard, but both sides need to have respect for one another. While I agree that it is necessary to consider scientific positions on things, people have a right to disagree with you if their faith says so, and the right thing to do is to respect their decision on that. You have every right to disagree with them, but if you attempt to convince them that they're wrong you're probably going to hit a brick wall. It's very hard to make people believe that they're wrong and you're right, as you no doubt know.

Practical separation of church and state cannot happen as long as there is a large religious population in the United States. While the religious population is still significant, they will continue to influence elections and as such religion can't really be divorced entirely from affecting government, in my opinion.
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 11:39 PM

Quote:
First off, why should people have to read books?
They don't. What I don't like is the mistrust, dislike, and hostility of those who do. And they pass it on to their children.

As for the discussion about faith, that belongs in a different thread. Suffice to say that faith is inherently illogical. It's like a blind guy walking up to a river and saying, "I can clearly see that this river is flowing uphill."

As for practical separation of church and state, you may be right. But people should not vote on a religious basis. If they think that something is good or bad based on their religion, then they should abstain from voting on that subject. (Ex. same-sex marriage, the War in Iraq, etc.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 04, 2009 11:40 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 23:42, 04 Jan 2009.

Quote:
Practical separation of church and state cannot happen as long as there is a large religious population in the United States. While the religious population is still significant, they will continue to influence elections and as such religion can't really be divorced entirely from affecting government, in my opinion.
Actually what you said makes perfect sense. It's what democracy is about. It may not be true "non-separation" but if people vote for it, isn't that the concept of democracy? There are so many "alternatives" to 'religious' stuff, mostly on defense budget (and bio weapons, heck), but also including NASA and what-not. Probably because people voted for that, why would religion be different?

No, I don't agree with democracy myself, but I'm just pointing how it is, not how I would like it to be. In fact my opinion is democracy is "tyranny by majority"


Quote:
They don't. What I don't like is the mistrust, dislike, and hostility of those who do. And they pass it on to their children.
Freedom of expression?

Quote:
As for the discussion about faith, that belongs in a different thread. Suffice to say that faith is inherently illogical.
Maybe, I call it "allogical". That doesn't mean irrational however.

Quote:
If they think that something is good or bad based on their religion, then they should abstain from voting on that subject.
What about defense? Bio-weapons research? NASA? Stuff like that, they can consider it "good", but religion not on their vote?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 04, 2009 11:42 PM

Democracy is tyranny of the majority, which is why there must be firm protection of minority rights. But a tyranny of the majority is better than a tyranny of the minority.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 04, 2009 11:44 PM

Hmm well that would require a different thread (not that I'd post my (probably biased) views, it would take a while), but what I wanted to say is, I am not 100% for what I mentioned in the post. Just outlined that it makes 'sense' in a democracy so to speak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 05, 2009 12:06 AM

Quote:
Freedom of expression?
I'm not suggesting making it illegal. I'm suggesting somehow organizing social pressure so they wouldn't do it. It's not illegal to sit on the street and babble nonsense - yet very few people choose to do it.

Quote:
Maybe, I call it "allogical". That doesn't mean irrational however.
I didn't say irrational. I said illogical.

Quote:
What about defense? Bio-weapons research? NASA? Stuff like that, they can consider it "good", but religion not on their vote?
That's fine. As long as their vote is not based on their religion, I have no problem with it. For example, if there was to be a worldwide referendum on the legality of abortion, I would have no qualms with you voting to make it illegal (other than my disagreement). On the other hand, I would have qualms with the average pro-life person voting "no", because many of them just base it purely on religion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 05, 2009 12:26 AM

Quote:
I didn't say irrational. I said illogical.
Yes, and isn't that what I said?

Quote:
That's fine. As long as their vote is not based on their religion, I have no problem with it.
And here's where you're biased. Most certainly, "defense" or bio-weapons are used for... eh something regarding some civil rights (in other nations most probably). Then, if you can vote for that if you think "that's good", why can't you for religion, thinking that X is good (because of religion)? How is that different?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 05, 2009 12:33 AM

Because we have separation of church and state.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 05, 2009 01:11 AM

What about separation of defense and state?
Why would church be so different?
Because democracy sucks as many will vote for religion? (which partly, I agree)
Why defense?

(NOTE: the defense thing is ONLY an example: replace it with whatever else you want!)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1008 seconds