Total servers: 4
107.185.22.128
Unknown
Unknown – 0lt
IP: 107.185.22.128
Game Mode:
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 0
Version: LieroX 0.56b
Players:
109.240.32.186
Unknown
Unknown – 0lt
IP: 109.240.32.186
Game Mode:
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 0
Version: LieroX 0.56b
Players:
DE nonstop + voting
Liero v1.0 – 100lt
IP: 144.76.67.162
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 15
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5
Players:
M0rtsHeaven
Modern Warfare1.0 – 20lt
IP: 84.251.82.159
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 12
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5
Players:
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Greenpeace sucks  (Read 16115 times)

Sakmongkol

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #100 on: August 29, 2010, 08:23:19 pm »
Yeah, that's how the world works. You finally noticed how cruel place this is to live? Though, here in Finland our awareness should be clear.
The world is only as cruel as we make it. At least in the west we would have a chance to change it, and I think we should because it's all our fault really. You don't seem to have any problems with that and it disgusts me.

Nah, the majority of the people realize that for example Katainen's budget success is the only rational solution in this situation. Hundreds of Finnish economists also share this fact. For example, for you Sakmongkol, read the last "Suomen kuvalehti". You, and some other blind people, who hate capitalists and National Coalition Party just because of different happenings of the history, and who wont check the facts in this tough situation seem not to understand that this is a real solution. In the next government they probably extort the taxes and so on, what comes to the debt.
Yet more bullshit. "They probably extort the taxes" and that is OK for you? I thought you liked low taxes. Also the word 'probably' bothers me. It means that you don't have any idea what is going to happen. They could do all kinds of fancy things they have promised, or not. And even if it turned out that they have been lying all along (which they have), you would probably come back here saying 'oh yes now this is the only rational solution, this is how it should be done'. Think on your own for a change and stop calling this situation tough just because Katainen has told you it is tough. It's nothing compared to parts of the world like Africa where people have real problems. Suomen kuvalehti is not any form of authority either, they can write anything they want, or what they are told to write which is more likely.

The 'fact' that hundreds of economists share your 'fact' doesn't mean anything to me. Economists are some of the most useless people, and it wouldn't be the first time when the majority is wrong. In the end, most people are greedy and they only think of their own good when deciding about things, others are simply ignorant and don't really care about any important decisions. And quite a lot of people, unfortunately even those who are allowed to make important decisions, are simply idiots.
Logged
"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"

~ Miles Davis

Rakkula

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #101 on: August 30, 2010, 06:02:05 pm »
The principle of science is attempting to explain everything.
Yesyes. In theory the way you explained feelings and human behavior is correct.
But in practice, does such an all-encompassing theory exist? I haven't heard of any.
Well there isn't one and there never will be. It's just that evolution is a very good theory and can be applied widely.
I don't believe that everything could be explained with science either, although the scientific knowledge is on quite a good level already. Old theories are frequently discarded or defined better, while new ones are invented all the time. How do you know if the job is ever going to be done? If you don't, how can you realistically believe you could ever attempt to explain everything?
Everything can't be explained. In fact, the more we know, the less we know we know. Thus, we can't explain everything but we can widen our knowledge and get as far as we can. I correct what I said about the principles of science: Science is about creating new information and refining it. I don't expect us the explain everything. Nevertheless, trying has given us some pretty cool applications.

Logged
Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they usually stink.
I started playing LX while you were on your mother's stomach

Thor

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #102 on: August 31, 2010, 10:28:37 am »
The world is only as cruel as we make it. At least in the west we would have a chance to change it, and I think we should because it's all our fault really. You don't seem to have any problems with that and it disgusts me.

I've never said I don't see any problems. However, the point is, that we here in Finland are quite incapable to influence these things. Also, we Finnish people have deserved our welfare by hard work. The finnish industry constructs elements that are sold to other countries, that's called export and that's for what we live for. So, the argument that we finnish people exploit poor people and poor country is very wrong. Of course somebodies also here in Finland buy material that are made in ambiguous circumstances, but it wouldn't really change anything if we finnish people stopped buying those, because there always are people in the world who would buy.

The question is: Why should we decrease our welfare for nothing? We are already helping poor countries best by different collections. But, if a real change is wanted to happen, should big economic countries like USA, China and Germany begin the change. It really doesn't help if we finnish people make us way of living bad while way of living actually doesn't increase in poor countries.

Also I would like to remind: A human is a selfish bastard pig, was he capitalist, socialist, kid, or whatever.

The 'fact' that hundreds of economists share your 'fact' doesn't mean anything to me. Economists are some of the most useless people, and it wouldn't be the first time when the majority is wrong. In the end, most people are greedy and they only think of their own good when deciding about things, others are simply ignorant and don't really care about any important decisions. And quite a lot of people, unfortunately even those who are allowed to make important decisions, are simply idiots.

Heh, you pretty much made your grave in this discussion. Watched yesterday the news, and the leading banks of Finland are already waiting for economic growth, employment increasing and so on. If we would have left EU and so on like stupid people said, this wouldn't happen. Now it's a 100% fact.
Logged

Jage

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #103 on: August 31, 2010, 11:04:59 am »
Of course somebodies also here in Finland buy material that are made in ambiguous circumstances, but it wouldn't really change anything if we finnish people stopped buying those, because there always are people in the world who would buy.
And if finnish people would stop buying e.g clothes from developing countries the people in there would just lose their jobs and they wouldn't get any money. I'm not saying this is the right way to go but my personal opinion is that Finland can't really help those countries alone.
Logged

Sakmongkol

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #104 on: August 31, 2010, 11:53:52 am »
I've never said I don't see any problems. However, the point is, that we here in Finland are quite incapable to influence these things. Also, we Finnish people have deserved our welfare by hard work. The finnish industry constructs elements that are sold to other countries, that's called export and that's for what we live for. So, the argument that we finnish people exploit poor people and poor country is very wrong.
Seriously, do you bother to read what I write at all? At the present moment, Finland doesn't particularly exploit any poor country, but the reason we have this kind of welfare is the fact that the whole western world, Europe and North America, have exploited the rest of the world for hundreds of years. Finland didn't deserve the welfare alone, it happened along with the industrialisation of whole Europe, which in turn was led by United Kingdom which was strongly involved in colonial exploitation. So, indirectly but evidently, Finland was part of that exploitation too. And that is the reason for our modern welfare, not hard work. Hard work has helped keep the welfare in modern times, but it shouldn't keep us from helping those countries which don't have the same kind of base to build the hard work on.

Of course somebodies also here in Finland buy material that are made in ambiguous circumstances, but it wouldn't really change anything if we finnish people stopped buying those, because there always are people in the world who would buy.
Not just 'somebodies', but everybody. Now think for a moment, if everyone thought like that, nothing would ever change. That's the worst kind of blindness and ignorance I know of. It's like saying 'oh it's no use to stop killing people, because someone will always kill people'. So killing people is OK because stopping it wouldn't change anything. Of course the killing wouldn't stop completely as long as there is even one person who thinks like that. That is why pacifism usually doesn't work in practice, but it shouldn't be a reason to reject change altogether. Of course you can't expect the whole world to change for the better at once, but someone has to make the initiative.

The question is: Why should we decrease our welfare for nothing? We are already helping poor countries best by different collections. But, if a real change is wanted to happen, should big economic countries like USA, China and Germany begin the change. It really doesn't help if we finnish people make us way of living bad while way of living actually doesn't increase in poor countries.
I suppose by different collections you are referring to charity. If so, let me repeat what I said about it ealier, in case you missed it: "Charity as practiced by such ridiculous institutions as the Christian Church is not a solution to anything, it just makes people like Thor feel a little better when they can think they have done something to 'help' people in Africa and other poor parts of the world." If you seriously believe charity really helps someone, I think it proves that the bolded part there holds true, which is really sad. That's about all I have to say about charity.

If a real change is wanted, it shouldn't matter who makes the initiative. Ideally it would be USA, but it could as well be Finland. Of course no-one really wants to decrease their own welfare, but I think in Finland we could well afford to do it. Seriously, our standard of living is ridiculously high. No-one really needs as much wealth as an average Finn has, not to mention what the richest bastards have. Even I can live a pretty prosperous life, and I have never done much real work. Of course I am grateful that this is possible in Finland, but I wouldn't mind giving up some of this welfare either.

Also I would like to remind: A human is a selfish bastard pig, was he capitalist, socialist, kid, or whatever.
Admitting the problem is the first step towards solving it. A fascinating thing about the human being is the ability to think. Any other animal is mostly driven by its instincts, but a human being can choose to act against his instincts and desires. So even if your greedy and selfish nature tells you to gather as much money as possible and oppress others to further your career, you can choose to lead a life of modesty and consideration instead. All it requires is a little thought process.

Heh, you pretty much made your grave in this discussion. Watched yesterday the news, and the leading banks of Finland are already waiting for economic growth, employment increasing and so on. If we would have left EU and so on like stupid people said, this wouldn't happen. Now it's a 100% fact.
Regarding the bolded part: how can you know? Now let's think about it a little: the government made decisions, and some time later economic growth happens. It is easy to think that the economic growth results directly from the government's decisions, that's how it is probably, but it isn't just that simple. The economic growth might have happened totally independently from the government's decisions, in fact it could have happened even after totally opposite decisions. To be able to say 100% certainly that the growth is a result from the decisions you would have to understand all the mechanisms that work behind the whole economy. I really doubt you, or anyone else for that matter, would understand all of them, so you are not really qualified to say what you just said. You could've said 95% or some other estimated percentage. If you have watched the news before yesterday, you might have noticed that economists and other such people, even ministers, rarely say "I am 100% sure that if we do this, that will happen". Usually they are clever enough to admit that they don't completely understand everything about the decisions they're making.

You failed at so basic logical thinking that I really wonder who 'made his grave' here.
Logged
"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"

~ Miles Davis

Thor

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #105 on: September 01, 2010, 10:31:37 am »
Finland didn't deserve the welfare alone, it happened along with the industrialisation of whole Europe, which in turn was led by United Kingdom which was strongly involved in colonial exploitation. So, indirectly but evidently, Finland was part of that exploitation too. And that is the reason for our modern welfare, not hard work. Hard work has helped keep the welfare in modern times, but it shouldn't keep us from helping those countries which don't have the same kind of base to build the hard work on.

You forget the fact, that Finland was one of the last countries in the Europe where the industrialism arrived. We weren't linked to Great Britain or any country, we had our own raw materials like wood. And our finnish wood is why the industrialism began in Finland. That's why we have our welfare nowadays.

Not just 'somebodies', but everybody. Now think for a moment, if everyone thought like that, nothing would ever change. That's the worst kind of blindness and ignorance I know of.

Now wake up in the reality. If a change wanted to be happen, it would take a hell of a massive plan and massive changes also in the welfare states. The biggest risk is, what also most of states' leaders think, is the states going to inequal position.

About the massive changes, who would be so stupid for example in Finland, who would want that our welfare would be destroye which would mean unemployment, public health decrease, criminality incrasing. When in the same time the welfare wouldn't actually change in poor countries. Also, we finnish people hell no owe anything to poor countries.

And why wouldn't the welfare change in poor countries? Because there are many of criminals that would steal the money and concrete help that is given to poor countries. The Christian Church isn't the only institution in Finland that practises the charity to the poor countries, but their main ideology is good. But it won't help anyone very much because of the biggest problem in the poor countries which is the huge level of criminality. The criminality, drugs, and so on should first to be eliminated from poor countries. Also building infrastructure is possible only after when the criminality and other bad things are eliminated.

Seriously, our standard of living is ridiculously high. No-one really needs as much wealth as an average Finn has, not to mention what the richest bastards have.

No one needs high quality of public health, for example? And one of the best education in the world? Seriously, if money that are invested to those elements that make us welfare decrease, it would be a hell of a disaster here in Finland. Just think if here was no enough psychiatrists (well, there aren't probably now either). What would for example that cause? Who the hell wants more school massacres here in Finland, or youngsters alienation? And other sanity problems. Which actually is a problem in Finland nowadays, but who the hell wants its increasing? That was the only element that would suffer from less money, which is caused because of giving money to poor countries.

The economic growth might have happened totally independently from the government's decisions, in fact it could have happened even after totally opposite decisions

You forget that the question is about how we get our  benefit of the economic growth. If we weren't in EU, we wouldn't have get any benefit of the growth. Also, everything is about the export. If we weren't in EU, but the other trading partners were, our export would have been made a lot more complicated that would have caused higher taxes and so on. About the trading partners, Russia indeed is the most important to us and it's not in EU. But, Russia has thousands of contracts with EU that of course would link us to it too, even we weren't in EU.  Anyways, no one can say that the Finnish government did the wrong decision with for example Greece, because no one really has no valid arguments against it. And now, when the economic growth happened, it tells that atleast something has been done right in this tough global economic situation.

I agree that we probably shouldn't join the EU in the first place, because even it has many good sides, it also has a lot of bad sides. Things indeed wouldn't be so complicated nowadays if EU didn't exist. But it's too late now.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 12:37:59 pm by Thor »
Logged

Sakmongkol

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #106 on: September 01, 2010, 06:41:06 pm »
You forget the fact, that Finland was one of the last countries in the Europe where the industrialism arrived. We weren't linked to Great Britain or any country, we had our own raw materials like wood. And our finnish wood is why the industrialism began in Finland. That's why we have our welfare nowadays.
And you forget the fact that you don't get industrialisation with just raw materials, you need technology too. The Finnish industrialisation relied heavily on sawmills which were steam powered, and the steam engine was a largely British invention. So in that sense our industrialisation was quite strongly linked with that of western Europe.

About the massive changes, who would be so stupid for example in Finland, who would want that our welfare would be destroye which would mean unemployment, public health decrease, criminality incrasing. When in the same time the welfare wouldn't actually change in poor countries. Also, we finnish people hell no owe anything to poor countries.
You seem to be willing to draw causal relations where they don't necessarily exist. For instance, if we raised taxes slightly and devoted a reasonable amount of money from the government budget to helping developing countries, who's to say that would cause unemployment? Or decline of public health or increasing criminality for that matter. You'd have to be quite an oracle to accurately predict anything like that. Also, I think we owe almost everything to poor countries, for the reasons I have stated several times in this topic.

And why wouldn't the welfare change in poor countries? Because there are many of criminals that would steal the money and concrete help that is given to poor countries. The Christian Church isn't the only institution in Finland that practises the charity to the poor countries, but their main ideology is good. But it won't help anyone very much because of the biggest problem in the poor countries which is the huge level of criminality. The criminality, drugs, and so on should first to be eliminated from poor countries. Also building infrastructure is possible only after when the criminality and other bad things are eliminated.
Now you're getting somewhere. Of course a high level of criminality is always an obstacle for any kind of development, but like I have said before, in many countries resorting to crime is the only way to achieve an acceptable standard of living. It wouldn't have to be so if people could make their own living with honest work. That in turn won't happen as long as the western world continues the exploitation of developing countries by having all the dirty work done cheaper in there. However, this can be changed but an initiative from the developed countries is most likely needed.

No one needs high quality of public health, for example? And one of the best education in the world? Seriously, if money that are invested to those elements that make us welfare decrease, it would be a hell of a disaster here in Finland.
I wasn't talking about public health or education, I was talking about wealth as in valuable material possessions and huge piles of money which no-one really needs.

Just think if here was no enough psychiatrists (well, there aren't probably now either). What would for example that cause? Who the hell wants more school massacres here in Finland, or youngsters alienation? And other sanity problems. Which actually is a problem in Finland nowadays, but who the hell wants its increasing? That was the only element that would suffer from less money, which is caused because of giving money to poor countries.
And again a very absurdly imaginative causal relation, this time between psychiatrists and schools shootings. There have been three (3) schools shootings in Finland. 22 people died in those, including two of the shooters themselves. There are some 5,4 million people in Finland, and 1400 psychiatrists. The number of psychiatrists per person here is the highest in Europe along with Switzerland. Just how many do you need?

My view on mental diseases and other such problems is that their numbers and severity are greatly exaggerated in media. They are not a real problem, and 1400 psychiatrists are more than enough to treat them. Depression, for instance, is not at all as common as you might think when you hear about it in the media. This is because people claim they are depressed to get sick leave from work when they are in fact only exhausted. KELA doesn't accept exhaustion as a reason for sick leave so people lie to get a diagnose for depression instead. How convenient.

Anyways, no one can say that the Finnish government did the wrong decision with for example Greece, because no one really has no valid arguments against it. And now, when the economic growth happened, it tells that atleast something has been done right in this tough global economic situation.
All right, I won't say they made the wrong decision, I'll just say that it wasn't the only possible realistic solution. I won't give any arguments for this before you understand what I said about logical thinking before and give at least one valid argument for your view first.

I agree that we probably shouldn't join the EU in the first place, because even it has many good sides, it also has a lot of bad sides. Things indeed wouldn't be so complicated nowadays if EU didn't exist. But it's too late now.
It's never too late. We could leave EU anytime if the majority of people voted correctly. And we could still be in EFTA and/or any number of other trade agreements and organizations after that. Some people just don't seem to realize this, or maybe they don't want to admit it was a mistake to join EU in the first place. It shouldn't be shameful to learn from you mistakes and correct them, but unfortunately that can't be expected to happen anytime soon.
Logged
"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"

~ Miles Davis

Thor

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #107 on: November 22, 2013, 11:36:28 am »
A Finnish hippie called Sini Saarela was captured in Russia because she with other Greenpeace's criminals violated a Russian oil platform.

Well, it has been a big mess here in Finland because of her case. "OMG WHAT HAPPENS TO SINI" and so on topics on the Finnish media.

I really couldn't care a less. She should be judged in Russia, because she broke law there. Simple as that. If she will be released back to Finland she will anyway continue her crimes with her other Greenpeace hippies and criminals.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 11:39:04 am by Thor »
Logged

Mooray786

Knoxville landscaping
« Reply #108 on: November 27, 2013, 06:19:31 pm »
Landscape lighting really enhances attractive landscaping, and can make ordinary landscaping stand out and turn into attractive landscaping. Adding landscaping isn't necessarily all that difficult or even terribly costly, but the curb appeal which good landscape lighting adds is undeniable. Knoxville landscaping

Thor

Re: Knoxville landscaping
« Reply #109 on: March 04, 2014, 10:54:11 pm »
Landscape lighting really enhances attractive landscaping, and can make ordinary landscaping stand out and turn into attractive landscaping. Adding landscaping isn't necessarily all that difficult or even terribly costly, but the curb appeal which good landscape lighting adds is undeniable. Knoxville landscaping

Thank you for your opinion.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 

anything