Vagabond Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 MJ, either post according to the very simple rules I've specified above, or expect each and every one of your posts to get deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafia_Jabba Posted December 11, 2001 Author Share Posted December 11, 2001 omg you deleted my post that "ACTION' was pretty stupid and self centered. I Totally think that was inappropriate for I was NOT saying ANYTHING about ANY member of this COMMUNITY DIRECTLY WAS I! Nooo...see that's what Im talking about. Its hard not to curse and scream and yell with people, "PEOPLE' (not directed at ANYONE) who form stupid opinions or base stupid opinons on their own personal formations of the "truth" its its GOD its so FRUSTRATING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 I would stop digging mafia jabba. You're gonna be up a certain creek without a certain paddle soon.. wardz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Jabba, Just stop with the flames. I have the utmost confidence that Vagabond's action was warranted, not "stupid and self centered." Here's a better rule for posts on this thread: Don't reference any other lucasforums.com member, or his/her opinions in your post. As this is a political argument, you shouldn't have any trouble with the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafia_Jabba Posted December 11, 2001 Author Share Posted December 11, 2001 ok ok ok ok...since you guys just don't get it...I'll just quit if it's that impossible for you to see ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 MJ, just because someone can understand how Bin Laden could theoretically be named the most influential person of 2001, this does not imply that such persons in any way admire Bin Laden. Conceiving a concept and agreeing with said concept are distinctly different. I urge you to appreciate these subtle differences. Even so, if one did happen to admire Bin Laden, which would be difficult for me to imagine, but for the sake of argument let's just pretend, then that person is entitled to that opinion. In fact, I'd be very curious to hear someone explain such a position. By discussing a topic with a cool, even-tempered head, one can possibly learn and or teach something to others in the process. By going on the attack, your message gets lost among one's rantings and behind the defensive barriers that people automatically put up when being personally attacked by others. Something for you to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafia_Jabba Posted December 12, 2001 Author Share Posted December 12, 2001 MJ, just because someone can understand how Bin Laden could theoretically be named the most influential person of 2001, this does not imply that such persons in any way admire Bin Laden. Conceiving a concept and agreeing with said concept are distinctly different. I urge you to appreciate these subtle differences. Even so, if one did happen to admire Bin Laden, which would be difficult for me to imagine, but for the sake of argument let's just pretend, then that person is entitled to that opinion. In fact, I'd be very curious to hear someone explain such a position. MAN! I can't explain it anymore. Mabe i'll try one last time. Anyone who "supports" this man isn't worth the conversation! A desert island is the best we can do to cast him from society. Enough said. Don't even try to rebut because it would be wrong. Influential, indeed. First, I am not ARGUEING that they should put him as most influential person of the year simply based on the fact that the title is just for most influential. Titles and recognition based on "influence" should be based on humanity. I'm sorry the news media is so IGNORANT to conceive such a possibility and to distinct between the two. Most "news Maker" mabe. Then change the title to "BIGGEST NEWS MAKER" of the year! Person of the year. Human of the Year. hmmmm... take a wild guess. NO! Simply put. Don't argue. Don't rebut. This is why I can't debate because there is nothing to "DEBATE" about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argath Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 What's your point? You repeatedly insist that you're right and everyone else is wrong, yet you still haven't provided a single cogent reason for why bin Laden shouldn't be Man of the Year. You even admit that Man of the Year is based on influence, which, by definition, can be good, bad, or indifferent, and has absolutely nothing to do with "humanity". If your definition of "most influential person" is "person who shows the most humanity", I suggest you take a trip to your local library, pick up a dictionary, and look up "influence". I don't see how Time is being ignorant by clearly defining a title and then giving it to a person that clearly meets the criteria for receiving it; according to Time's definition of Man of the Year, bin Laden is candidate, period. No amount of whining and ranting will change the fact that bin Laden has effected a major change in world politics, making him eligible to receive the title. If you think the title should be renamed to something else, you're arguing nothing more than semantics. If you want to continue arguing that naming bin Laden Man of the Year is "wrong", make an attempt to at least provide a logical reason why, and please refrain from suggesting "history checks" and insisting that others jump off bridges. FYI, an irrefutable argument is based on fact and reason, not emotion, and certainly not incoherent babbling and mindless insulting. You can insist that you can't be argued with for all eternity, yet people will still disagree because you've not provided a single convincing reason for why you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafia_Jabba Posted December 12, 2001 Author Share Posted December 12, 2001 at not point did I say it should be the person who shows the most humanity...I said it should be to a HUMAN being! God read my POST all the way not half way MAN! By definition the person who wins has to be a man, or at least the title suggests that. A human has to have humanity almost like a lightbuld gives off light. All lightbulbs give off light. There are no lightbulbs that don't give off light (dont give me any crap about burnt light bulbs). Just like all humans show humanity. What are we if we are not humans. We are animals if we have no humanity, therefore we are not men. Hmmmm. And sadly you are referring to "history checks and jumping off bridges" which absolutely have nothing to do with this subject, they were sidenotes to different things. Hmmmm..... *must stop fingers from curs ***** sadly, that post was pointless and you've just lost because you clearly haven't understood anything I've been saying...mabe YOU need a lesson in how to read and understand! I told you, there is no debate so stop trying .......hmmm...sorry "dude" lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 at not point did I say it should be the person who shows the most humanity... Titles and recognition based on "influence" should be based on humanity. I won't bother adding anything else...but if not mistaken, that's you contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argath Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Learn how to write coherently and people will have an easier time understanding you, and although being instructed to take an English comprehension course by someone a step up from illiteracy is rather humorous, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd lose the hostile attitude and stick to the subject. As has been said countless times, if your argument had any substance it would be able to stand on its own without the assistance of petty flames. You said: First, I am not ARGUEING that they should put him as most influential person of the year simply based on the fact that the title is just for most influential. Titles and recognition based on "influence" should be based on humanity. To start, that makes no sense. Secondly, it says nothing about how the person who is influental has to be human, it says the title should be based on humanity. Basing a title on humanity is different from basing it on influence, since that only allows positive influences on the world to receive the title, something Time obviously does not want to do based on the definition it has created for the title. If you require all candidates for the title to show humanity, the title ceases to refer to the most influentual person and becomes more of a "nicest guy award". Additionally, the title has been given to inanimate objects in the past, as well, which clearly discredits your assertion that Man of the Year must be a man, although bin Laden is a human, anyway (this actually has to be said?). I don't see how you can possibly argue that he isn't human because he's a bloodthirsty murderer; his actions don't change the fact that he's still part of the same species as all other humans, much like broken light bulbs are still light bulbs. Being a human isn't a choice; even if it was, bin Laden would still be a candidate for the title, since it has been given to non-humans in the past. Furthermore, your entire argument against bin Laden receiving Time's Man of the Year title is completely irrelevant; the title is clearly given to the person who exerts the most influence each year, and while you may want it to only be given to positive influences, that's not how it works. Even if you disagree with a title being given to the most influental person, good or bad, you must acknowledge that, using Time's criteria for the title, bin Laden is a Man of the Year candidate. Argue against the institution of Man of the Year, not the fact that Man of the Year is being given to someone you don't like. bin Laden is a Man of the Year candidate by Time's criteria. Again, nowhere in any of your posts have you fielded a cogent and relevant explanation of why bin Laden doesn't deserve Time's Man of the Year title. If you admit that Time bases it solely on influence, there's nothing more to argue about, because you've already admitted that you have no argument against it. If you disagree with Time's criteria for the title, argue against the title itself, not the fact that bin Laden meets all the criteria for it and rightly deserves to be a candidate. If you're going to reply again, please make an attempt at civility. Everyone here, especially the moderators, has been incredibly patient with you, even though you sophomorically lob insults if someone so much as disagrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Originally posted by Mafia_Jabba Dude computers and EARTh have been chosen...**** man choose the ****ing sun or something or Mars....who gives a crap just not him for crying out loud he's not even HUMAN! ITS A MAD HOUSE! A MAD HOUSE!!!!!!! Extending on what Argath said. About "Man of the Year" has to be a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafia_Jabba Posted December 12, 2001 Author Share Posted December 12, 2001 I won't bother adding anything else...but if not mistaken, that's you contradicting yourself. humanity=human...a human...is different from my pont of view..a human is not a homo sapien per se...a human stands above the "animals" and a man has honor dignity and respect. Calling it "Man" of the year degrades people of such stature everywhere. And I can't stand them calling him a Human. Sure we are all homo sapiens, but are we all HUMANS? Do we all share that love and emotional bond that separates us from the ravages of ignorance. Without cursing I will now try to explain it to you in mathmatical forms. All Humans are homosapiens. Not all Homosapiens are Humans. All Men are Human. Not all Human are men. Men being a term describing a respectable person, as we use in our society. But, then, what is a man. Is a man a person who shows respect and dignity. Yes, that is a man. I, sadly, am not a man because I cannot respect other conflicting views as you have seen. However, I do recognize people of such status. The title is infact one of influence. But it says "Man", in laymans terms everyone is a man. But a man, a man of true quality is something different. Calling the title "Man" of the year and choosing such a thing would totally degrade all other "Men" such as FDR and I believe Einstein that have been chosen and all other men of respect. To recognize such a vile creature to be on the status of Man, or Human, is tottaly degrading to decency of people. To recognize him at all for anything he has done would be political murder, and to see him as a figure of influence, however he may be, wreck our society. I would hope to be influenced by more prominent leaders. Perhaps he has influenced us, but should it be recognized. An animal, a thing, however influential, should not be recognized in a society of civility. Bin Ladin is not a man not a human but an animal. If the title is given to animals, murderers, ravegers, rapers, vaporizers, conspirators, then by all means give away our country's (USA's) respect and dignity. Freedom of the press, sure. Freedom of thought, sure. I am a person of much thought, but also a person of concrete thought. I usually cannot change, and for this I can't. Its an emotional thought, one affected dearly and personally to me on a day when he "influenced me" the most. Acknowledging his influence is a political right, but does it contain political and moral dignity. Is acknowledging him good for us, for our country, for our world, for our future and the future of all. Im sorry for all disruption but I cannot discuss this anymore. My feelings of hatred and sorrow have overwhelmed me, and I cannot bear the pain in thinking of his "influence" now. Thanks for your input and your gernerosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsbuckeye21 Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 MJ, about your human and humanity argument... there is none. A human is a homo sapien [sic?] which is you, me, and Bin Laden. Humanity is just a good quality of a human to have. Time's title is given to a human, and not something that possesses the quality of humanity the most. One more time... Bin Laden = Man. (<-- that's a period) I guess all of your rage just boils down to your misunderstanding of the title and the qualifications for it. Anything else about your argument here is pretty much nicely explained above. Also, the angrier person isn't more righteous. It really does come across as you being less intelligent. I don't know how many more people you have to hear that from, but it's the truth alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nob Akimoto Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Thank you Mr. Chamberlain for proving my point. Now could you please resign and let me, Winston Churchill take over? Thank you very much. I'm giving this thread enough life for you to make one final sermon on humanity. Then you must resign, and let real men look at the world. Respectfully, One of the Management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argath Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 No dictionary makes any differentiation between "man", "human", and "Homo Sapiens", and I see no reason why Time should have to alter its title or the criteria it bases its title on because you create your own arbitrary definitions for words. The differences you see between "man", "human", and "Homo Sapiens" are not recognized by any dictionary I've ever read, nor are they generally accepted connotations of any of the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Buckeye, don't say that he's unintelligent. His last post made some sense. He's thinking in a more philosophical way...more than anyone else on this board...even though he displays it in an odd manner I'm with Nob, one more final reply, and this debate is officially over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Once MJ cooled down and presented his thoughts in a more concise manner, we were better able to understand his position, which was what I was hoping he would do. Let me congratulate you on expressing yourself, MJ. Regarding the closing of this thread, I just know that Aristotle has expressed, on occasion, that he is very much in favor of free speech - correct me if I'm wrong in this, Aris - so since this topic seemed perfectly legitimate, I reopened it, along with the provided caveats that the discussion must stay on topic. If a thread's topic was about something entirely offensive or inappropriate, that would be a thread I would consider closing or even deleting. So long as the discussion here stays civil and intelligent, as it seems to have finally done, then ending the dialogue - just as it's actually starting to get good - seems unncecessary, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nob Akimoto Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 I don't see how it's gotten any better. He simply went from flaming people, to simply calling everyone ignorant. As an aside to add to the main arguement. Humanity has many faces, and blind idealism isn't going to make those facets go away. Saying that bin Laden is not a civilized man, nor that is he one who should be vindicated for his actions is one thing, to dismiss as inhuman will simply compound the current problem. That of non-understanding, and one of a "us vs them" thought process. While naivity and optimism have their place, accepting a facet of humanity that we may not like is one way to start solving a problem. Namely one of creating more of his ilk, and of blinding everyone to what creates such people, and the fact that he IS a man, not a virtuous one, perhaps not a sane one, but a man nonetheless. Something that all of us have the potential to become. And much like history, ignoring negative aspects of ourselves is the way to doom ourselves to repeat past mistakes. It's simple enough to say that bin Laden "isn't human" because of his blind fanaticism. It takes humanity and conscious thought to accept these traits as those belonging to humans, and to remind everyone just what a wrongful path can create. As such, Bin Laden as the "Man of the Year" not only due to his influence on world affairs and history, but due to his influence to reexamine ourselves, our beliefs, and how we attempt to show others our beliefs. He is a man in that we're all men, with faults, with beliefs, and with irrational longings. Only through remembering the negative can we improve upon the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Personally, I like where this discussion has gone - it's very philosophical and thought-provoking. On the topic, do I belive that bin Laden is a legitimate candidate for Person of the Year, a person who has most affected the news, or our lives, for good or for ill, during the course of this year? You bet. Consider for a moment that this man is responsible for orchestrating events, which prompted the mobilization of the world's most powerful military into actively waging war against his organization, at the cost of billions of dollars. And we're talking about a military that has historically been quite squeamish about committing troops, ever since Vietnam. If one person was able to get the U.S. military machine in high-gear, despite its traditional trepidation, then I'd say that such a person has had a great deal of influence over world affairs, and is a perfectly logical candidate for the Person of the Year. Now then, regarding whether he's a Homo Sapien, or a Human, or Man, these things can be an entire debate unto themselves, and I won't address these things here as they are irrelevant to the criteria of Person of the Year. Should they be? Debatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsbuckeye21 Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Originally posted by matt-windu Buckeye, don't say that he's unintelligent. His last post made some sense. Yes it did, but I didn't say that he's untintelligent. I just said that he (like anyone else) can come across that way if they post with rage. I don't like being lied about - especially in a bad light. But you probably just read it quickly so np. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Oh...sorry buckeye. I should have known better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardz Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 this is quite a good thread, N1 for keeping it open. Shame he couldn't act with a little more decorum. An otherwise good topic has been slightly marred by a certain person not being able to restrain himself. We should have these discussions a lot more often. It is always interesting trying to see people convince others that their way is right... wardz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agen Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 My first post in this thread.... Why are yous all Argueing ok not argueing discussing this... i mean he gets Time Man of the Year... Big Deal, does that make u suddenly drop to the floor dead because he get's an award.. it's like this...... You're friend gets his windows washed... is it gonig to harm you.. no ... is it going to do anything.. no i mean time can give the award to anyone they want... here give me the award.. look i got the award.... are any of yous going to go into a deep depressin because i got a stupid award that means nothing directly to your lives? I could go into it more deep but i can't be bothered so i rest it there for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt-- Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 HEY YOUR GET THE AWARD!?!?!?!? :swear::swear: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.