jjkoggan Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 To be more philosophical about it, it's better to observer than judge. If you start judging a person of a "race", then it becomes easier to judge the entire group in a whole. We are all members of some race or another, even if the person being observed is the of the same race. In my view, it is very important to judge others to protect oneself. The key, though is to judge everyone individually and to judge them only after developing a deeper understanding of them and to use a similar objective yardtstick for everyone. It was very important for caveman to judge other creatures for protection. If he/she did not pre-judge and stereotype dangerous animals he might get eaten early in his life. This natural impulse today, will only create an uncivilized society full of unnecesary conflict. Luckily we also have the natural ability of self-reflection and rational thought. The only way for us to move forward is to use the latter instincts more than the former. Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Judging vs Judgemental? One who is always judging others is a judgemental person. Simply observing is also not particularly wise, since we need to be able to judge when dangerous people intend harm. Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 (endret) I personally would never be friends with someone that has brown eyes. I have always seen that they are evil. I can see when people are psychopats by looking att their eyes. Some of the worst psychos in history had brown eyes Stalin, rosa parks, caligula, idi amin, pol pot. Their has never been a single scandinavian dictator. Endret 17. januar 2011 av Eysteinn inn illráði Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 (endret) I personally would never be friends with someone that has brown eyes. I have always seen that they are evil. I can see when people are psychopats by looking att their eyes. Some of the worst psychos in history had brown eyes Stalin, rosa parks, caligula, idi amin, pol pot. Their has never been a single scandinavian dictator. I think psychological treatment is something you should look in to if you are truly serious. BTW I think you have forgotten some of scandinavias earlier medieval leaders, and the mass murder inflicted by vikings. Endret 17. januar 2011 av jjkoggan Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 I was making an example of how dividing people into groups can go to extreme lenghts. Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Scandinavia has been civilized since 1300. Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Scandinavia has been civilized since 1300. But claiming that genetic descendants of vikings predisposes scandinavians to peaceful inclinations is patently wrong. Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Asatro is a peacfull religion. Viking violence has been greatly exaggerated. All storys from scandinavia from that time period has been exaggerated. Storys tell of icelandic kings splitting millstones with axes, norweigans throwing 20 spears at once and swedish kings burning people to death just to get their land. Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Asatro is a peacfull religion. Viking violence has been greatly exaggerated. All storys from scandinavia from that time period has been exaggerated. Storys tell of icelandic kings splitting millstones with axes, norweigans throwing 20 spears at once and swedish kings burning people to death just to get their land. Exageration or not, Vikings were not a peaceful lot no matter how you minimize their savagery. THey were not content to live peacefully among themselves and leave other lands alone. Peace and reconciliation were not viking traits. Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 (endret) Asatro is a peacfull religion. Viking violence has been greatly exaggerated. All storys from scandinavia from that time period has been exaggerated. Storys tell of icelandic kings splitting millstones with axes, norweigans throwing 20 spears at once and swedish kings burning people to death just to get their land. Exageration or not, Vikings were not a peaceful lot no matter how you minimize their savagery. THey were not content to live peacefully among themselves and leave other lands alone. Peace and reconciliation were not viking traits. Give me one historical source to support that! "Dealing with Scandinavian affairs, Adam of Bremen relates in the 11th century that the Sueones hospitality was an important virtue and refusing a wanderer to stay over the night was considered shameful. The visitor was even taken to see the hosts' friends. "Tacitus wrote in AD 98 in Germania 44, 45 that the Suiones were a powerful tribe (distinguished not merely for their arms and men, but for their powerful fleets" When people think of savage vikings they are most likely reffeing to the danes. The danes where very primitive and brutal. Further up north people where more civilized. Endret 17. januar 2011 av Eysteinn inn illráði Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 When people think of savage vikings they are most likely reffeing to the danes. The danes where very primitive and brutal. Further up north people where more civilized. Lindisfarne Lenke til kommentar
( ) Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 It suddenly struck me that with an American in the thread, I might get an answer to something I've been wondering about for years. But before asking, I should point that I am not interested in sports, I simply observe its existence. And the question is: Why do you call it "Football" when you hardly ever kick the ball, only carry or throw it around ? Inquiring debaters would like to know... Lenke til kommentar
Slimda Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 You could have just googled it, and stumbled upon this answer on answers.com. Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Google is smart. I saw on the TV that they where talking about why football is called soccer when you use the feets. Lenke til kommentar
Gjest medlem-1432 Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Oh man, he have wondered about something for years when he just could have googled it.. Lenke til kommentar
Slimda Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 It's kind of humorous, but think about it. 10 years ago, we didn't google things we wondered. Lenke til kommentar
Getingar Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 I was the first in my school to use google, and the first to buy and mp3.player. My teacher thought that their where small casset tapes inside them Lenke til kommentar
Gjest medlem-1432 Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 (endret) It's kind of humorous, but think about it. 10 years ago, we didn't google things we wondered. No, then we had a big book called...encyclopaedia. That we looked stuff up in. Endret 17. januar 2011 av medlem-1432 Lenke til kommentar
Slimda Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Del Skrevet 17. januar 2011 Yeah, those things. I didn't check those though. I just asked my dad. He knew everything back then, unlike nowadays when I know everything. Lenke til kommentar
Anbefalte innlegg
Opprett en konto eller logg inn for å kommentere
Du må være et medlem for å kunne skrive en kommentar
Opprett konto
Det er enkelt å melde seg inn for å starte en ny konto!
Start en kontoLogg inn
Har du allerede en konto? Logg inn her.
Logg inn nå