Gosh, well if that's the case, then Weedz lost the argument from the very beginning of this thread when he called me "fucking stupid." Not sure why i'm wasting my time here talking about history and world politics with a bunch of clueless Goys.People start to name when they lose making a point. When they can't respond properly to another argument that has just been said they get frustated and angry and resort to name calling. How can you be taken seriously in an argument when you resort to that. A proper argument should be respectful and being open towards another opinion. If you resort to name calling you're not open to another opinion and your own faults wich makes it not an argument anymore so yeah it does, you lose the argument because it's not anymore.
well yeahGosh, well
Gosh, well if that's the case, then Weedz lost the argument from the very beginning of this thread when he called me "fucking stupid." Not sure why i'm wasting my time here talking about history and world politics with a bunch of clueless Goys.
Not always. Frustration can come from other things not necessarily from not having anything good to say. Like for example someone accusing me of something I didn't say and I cuss at them from frustration.People start to name when they lose making a point. When they can't respond properly to another argument that has just been said they get frustated and angry and resort to name calling. How can you be taken seriously in an argument when you resort to that. A proper argument should be respectful and being open towards another opinion. If you resort to name calling you're not open to another opinion and your own faults wich makes it not an argument anymore so yeah it does, you lose the argument because it's not anymore.
Oh, and yeah, it's primarily banking and lending, or lack of, that causes the rise and fall of nations.Something has to make the region so influential to make it responsible for the rise and fall of nations. It's not their booming first world tech, or arsenal of weaponry. Are you saying god is behind it?
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Christ, this threads been totally highjacked.. I'm sorry
An argument doesn't need to be wrong or correct. That's a bad argument or a good argument. But resorting to name calling doesn't make it an argument anymore but an attack. Maybe it has to do with language differences and cultural differences wich also changes the meaning with how you view a word and maybe ''having an argument'' slightly has a different meaning here but sorta similar to your meaning but not quite. Atleast that's how i view it.Not always. Frustration can come from other things not necessarily from not having anything good to say. Like for example someone accusing me of something I didn't say and I cuss at them from frustration.
A respectable argument is typically what you would aim for but doesn't always happen. Not being open to another's opinion does not invalidate good points that you make. A bad argument does that. If we were talking about what states are in the US and I said, "Idiot, California is a real state in the United States," does that invalidate my argument because I said the word idiot. Does that make me loose the argument? Thats that mean I'm automatically wrong. Does that mean California doesn't exist. No it doesn't, cussing doesn't invalidate my points which is why its a fallacy.
What I meant was debate. Sometimes I use those words interchangeably even though I shouldn't.An argument doesn't need to be wrong or correct. That's a bad argument or a good argument. But resorting to name calling doesn't make it an argument anymore but an attack. Maybe it has to do with language differences and cultural differences wich also changes the meaning with how you view a word and maybe ''having an argument'' slightly has a different meaning but similar then what it means to you. But that's how i view it atleast.

Well to me personally an argument is lost as soon as people resort to name calling since that person is not being assertive but agressive and there's no point having an argument to someone who puts themselves in an agressive stance. Atleast that's how it is to me and could be different for other people. And i don't mean that when argument is lost that it makes it so that the other person automaticly has won. But gonna stop talking about this since i'm also hijacking this thread now it seems lolWhat I meant was debate. Sometimes I use those words interchangeably even though I shouldn't.
Even attacks doesn't invalidate a point. You may not like the attacks. So criticize the person for attacking you, and the attacking words they use, but don't say that it invalidates the entire argument especially if its a good one. Separate the argument from the attacks. Because a good argument stands with or without attacks.
There are arguments that are wrong and correct, like fact based ones. The names of states for example. Not everything is subjective opinion. There are many arguments that are objective.
Yeah like i previously said. A system like this creates less poverty, less sickness, less crime and in the long run because of that it is cheaper for the entire Union then to commit money for homeless, crime, sickness and so forth. You Always have bad apples in every construct and system but a system like that creates more good apples then bad apples so it benefits people in the long run. Because if you do it differently, you get more bad apples and a large amount of bad apples do more harm then good ofcourse to everything. People are Always complaining about Europe but that doesn't take away that over 50 percent of the top 20 gdp countries are European, the euro is growing stronger each year and topping other first world currencies, less crime, less poverty, less difference between poor and rich and less debt then other first world nations in the world while leading in social Healthcare, education and green energyhey buddy, it is not just Germany , there are quite alot of EU coutries who run this way, i have mixed feelings about it.
nevertheless it is a good thing, especially the health insurance stuff.
i believe even in canada they have this kind of thing.
Then its you not wanting to deal with the frustration so you check out. But checking out, leaving the argument, doesn't mean a person is wrong or an argument is lost, because thats a huge fallacy your saying right there, because how can an objective debate be wrong. All it just means is that you don't like to be around angry people. So with you, anyone that attacks you, you just zone them out and ignore them. So if someone wants your continued attention in a debate then they would have to be more calm about and not attack you. But going back it doesn't mean they lost if they do attack on an objective debate and you're totally wrong on that.Well to me personally an argument is lost as soon as people resort to name calling since that person is not being assertive but agressive and there's no point having an argument to someone who puts themselves in an agressive stance. Atleast that's how it is to me and could be different for other people.
Again to me an argument is not an argument anymore since the other person resorts to attacking. I only have an argument with people that take an assertive stance and not an agressive stance. To you that is backing out but to me it isn't plus this is not what this thread is about and it seems to me you're not accepting my opinion. I'm accepting yours, i don't agree with it but i can see what you're saying and i acknowledge some of your points. Don't get why you're not doing that with mine and that i solely have to resort to your opinion wich in a way is sorta an agressive stance. Oh well this is me backing out then.Then its you not wanting to deal with the frustration so you check out. But checking out, leaving the argument, doesn't mean a person is wrong or an argument is lost, because thats a huge fallacy your saying right there, because how can an objective debate be wrong. All it just means is that you don't like to be around angry people. So with you, anyone that attacks you, you just zone them out and ignore them. So if someone wants your continued attention in a debate then they would have to be more calm about and not attack you. But going back it doesn't mean they lost if they do attack on an objective debate and you're totally wrong on that.
Yeah like i previously said. A system like this creates less poverty, less sickness, less crime and in the long run because of that it is cheaper for the entire Union then to commit money for homeless, crime, sickness and so forth. You Always have bad apples in every construct and system but a system like that creates more good apples then bad apples so it benefits people in the long run. Because if you do it differently, you get more bad apples and a large amount of bad apples do more harm then good ofcourse to everything. People are Always complaining about Europe but that doesn't take away that over 50 percent of the top 20 gdp countries are European, the euro is growing stronger each year and topping other first world currencies, less crime, less poverty, less difference between poor and rich and less debt then other first world nations in the world while leading in social Healthcare, education and green energy
It's hard to know if the person in question is sick or not. You can probably fake a mental illness and enjoy the advantages of hartz IV money.
I have a friend (ex-friend really) who haven't worked more than a month their whole life and claims that their illness is preventing them from working. Their illness is mostly digestion related and very easily managed by eating the right food and completely avoiding some food all together. They would often use this for not eating out with us if we went to eat somewhere nice, however seemed to really like horrible cheap food that made them ill. Always complained about having no money, yet would always seem to be able to afford expensive equipment that related to their hobbies. All the while, would switch between unemployment and sickness based benefits every X amount of months, no doubt because each of them told them they had to get a job.
People like that give genuine claimants a really bad name.
Well corrupt politicians and people also exist in Europe. Where there is money and power there will Always be people who are corrupt. That is human nature and you will Always have that in every political system and nation possiblewell put my dude, i wish iraq had a system like germany's haha..
iraq is so rich yet so corrupt , god knows where the money goes to.
if there existed only '1' government and it was non corrupt or at least much less corrupt they could probably implement such a system.
but iraq is a sad case in many ways.
again well put, human why you so greedy .. *sigh*Well corrupt politicians and people also exist in Europe. Where there is money and power there will Always be people who are corrupt. That is human nature and you will Always have in every political system and nation possible

