Not exactly, or better, this is only part of the answer to your question. I just don't think that this particular mentality applies only to the U.S.A., although the conscience of having huge firepower abilities helps a lot.
But this would be a long, troublesome explanation that would hurt the feelings of too many people here and would be just blindly dubbed as antiamericanism. I'm generally fed up of the abysmal ignorance of people who still believe that Al Qaeda had strong ties with Saddam Hussein, there's no use in talking to them, so I'll let the IEDs talk and convince them with the onlly language they understand.
Not exactly, that's the nature of an asymmetrical war, or tipical guerrilla, if you like. The ones with lesser firepower resort to means that are usually criticised by the ones who previously overwhelmed them with a rain of bombs. Read the funny comments about cowardice posted by viewers of those clips, they remind me a lot of people have no brain.
Or try disabling sound acceleration with dxdiag. Nforce2 chipsets are known to have problems with hw accel.
My notion of nation is neither sentimentalistic nor idealistic, studying Friulian history would help. Anyone there's no use to talk about this again, it's far from being useful, and far from being philologically correct. Hence, I stay out, since you like attributing me characteristics I can't recognise while changing (to my eyes) the original denotational notion of Nation, resorting only to connotation. This is far from being a correct use of the term. I agree with most of Pasolini's conclusions but I don't have his sense of opportunistic unity when it comes to times where political action is needed. This is a bad habit of the Italian left, and Pasolini, while critic, never realised completely its fallacies. Nevertheless some critics say that Pasolini owes many of his political and literary beliefs to the Gramscian concept of national-popular, the biggest Gramscian heritage in literature. Now I call it quits.
Borgata is just a quarter. Borgatari is the correct definition, or Gente di Borgata.
Borgata is just a quarter. Borgatari is the correct definition, or Gente di Borgata.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Again, you're mistaking a philosophical concept with an administrative one. A nation must not necessarily have political or economic meanings, and this is by definition. Look at the Ambiguity in usage section in Wikipedia at the voice Nation.
As for the usage of the word 'cafoni', unfortunately using in such a context is far from being correct as it's closer to the derived derogatory term than to its original meaning, lacking all the philological depth. As such, Pasolini wouldn't have used it, or would have used it referring to southern Italian peasants, not to Roman suburban people. Words have a meaning, or better, they have denotations and connotations. The word 'cafoni' is used in its proper meaning by Ignazio Silone, and in Italian literature and critique it's used only when referring to Silone's works, with no derogatory meaning. No one would dare calling the Ragazzi di Vita 'cafoni': it's imprecise, derogatory and extremely far from the mentality of Pasolini.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Pasolini's ideas about dialects and cultures to preserve were more cultural than simply political. Pasolini had much a broader vision than simply contrapposing bourgeoises to pre-bourgeoises, along with a deep understanding of the Italian society which is - historically - multinational until recent times. I find much more interesting the fact that you refer to Pasolini interested in 'cafoni', all the references to 'cafoni' I can find - related to Pasolini - are in English language. This is the first reference I can find tying that word critically to Pasolini, and I read some of his books and watched some of his movies, along with some critical stuff... Interestingly enough the word (which has a precise meaning) is used completely out of context when related to Ragazzi di Vita in an English article I saw on the 'net.
Even more interesting is this concept:
This early interest in native nationalism and agrarian culture is also a central element in Pasolini's politics.
Mmmm. I perfectly understand the concept and the context, so this sentence is, to my eyes, correct.
For instance I am an Italian who lives in the Nation of Friuli, which is part of the administrative region called Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Few people would argue that Friuli is a Nation, but then again Friulian nationalists are quite rare and mostly focused in preserving the Friulian culture rather than fighting futile political battles.
Besides that, I would argue once again that the concept of Nation is very different from what we generally think, and this confusion is partly due to political manipulation that generates a wrong idea of a concept.
Even more interesting is this concept:
This early interest in native nationalism and agrarian culture is also a central element in Pasolini's politics.
Mmmm. I perfectly understand the concept and the context, so this sentence is, to my eyes, correct.
For instance I am an Italian who lives in the Nation of Friuli, which is part of the administrative region called Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Few people would argue that Friuli is a Nation, but then again Friulian nationalists are quite rare and mostly focused in preserving the Friulian culture rather than fighting futile political battles.
Besides that, I would argue once again that the concept of Nation is very different from what we generally think, and this confusion is partly due to political manipulation that generates a wrong idea of a concept.
Estonia has all the rights to self determination. Being an EU country, EU fellow countries should express anger at what's happening, not urging restraint. This is an extremely bad atmosphere.
I can't see anything contrasting to what I've said in what you say, nihil. I just happen to recognise that the familiar and cultural climate surrounding me, including everything related to the places I've lived in, has had a huge impact on my formation. I had lots of possibilities, and that's part of my evolution. I see the positive side, you see the negative one. I thought I had been clear about it in my previous post, but maybe you wrongly mistake me as a blind nationalist while, in reality, just like Pasolini, I believe in the preservation (but not forcible) of cultural values without transforming them into matters of dispute.
Edit: if you focus on the budget you won't see the brilliance, Becky. It's not a tribute, and it's not a mockery. It's political satire.
Edit: if you focus on the budget you won't see the brilliance, Becky. It's not a tribute, and it's not a mockery. It's political satire.
Last edited by Albieg, .
In reality, the concept of nation is quite different. You're confusing the definitions of Nation and State, the latter one having an administrative meaning which is lacking in the former.
And one should never confuse pride in one's origins with hatred; totalitarianism sometimes begins there, and sometimes receives unconscious totalitarian answers. Want proof? Read here.
One man one goal one mission
One heart one soal just one solution
One flash of light yeah one God one vision
One flesh one bone
One true religion
One voice one hope
One real decision
Wowowowo gimme one vision
No wrong no right
Im gonna tell you theres no black and no white
No blood no stain
All we need is one world wide vision
Apparently Queen's lyrics point to a perfect world in their vision, but it screams totalitarianism. Total dullness. No wonder Laibach covered it in one of their funniest and most intelligent videos.
Learning to appreciate differences is one of the best things I can do in my life. At the same time I consider myself lucky, I'm quite proud of my origins. But you seem to be more than me, judging from your avatar.
While I'm happy science tries to deal with these matters in a scientific way, I'm quite convinced that an investigation about the existence of God cannot be performed with some sort of human measurement. Science as a whole can be taken as a system that is constantly adapted during centuries. Many theories have been proved to be false or incomplete and have been dissed and replaced, or corrected and completed. But this happens, always, only to the extent of our knowledge. That is: I am unwilling to put so much faith in human abilities. I'm, overall, an optimist, but that doesn't make me a blind believer in science.
Last edited by Albieg, .
There are two small and simple freeware applications you could use to test your hard disk in windows, HDD health and HD Tune. I recommend using the latter, but it sometimes gave me some false positives about SMART parameters, so a few times I used HDD Health to additionally check them.
IN HD Tune you can benchmark the performance of your HD, do a SMART check, do a full scan to see if there are surface faults.
In absence of major problems or additional disk access there should be a fairly consistent performance, SMART parameters within the norm, if they're not HD Tune shows them in yellow or red. Yellow is a warning (sometimes even a false alarm, there are some bugs at least in older versions) and red is definitely critical, indicating the need for a replacement.
A full surface scan should give no damaged sectors at all, while having damaged sectors (especially in the very first section of the hard disk) would suggest immediate replacement or at least extreme caution and future checks to see if the situation deteriorates.
Generally I go for a hard disk replacement if there is something wrong, even minor (except obviously for false alarms). I like sleeping safe, when I can.
As long as data and files aren't compromised (or are easily fixed) you can use applications such as Norton Ghost (or whatever it's called now) or Acronis Migrate Easy to make an image (snapshot) of the entire hard disk without having to reinstall completely, if the situation is still fine.
As additional note, for hard disk failure or pre-failure analysis unfortunately there's a rule: it's never 100% safe. Tests could say everything's okay, but it isn't, or could say there's something wrong: for instance some temp sensors on some hard disks are prone to severe errors, indicating impossible temperatures, but everything is nonetheless fine.
IN HD Tune you can benchmark the performance of your HD, do a SMART check, do a full scan to see if there are surface faults.
In absence of major problems or additional disk access there should be a fairly consistent performance, SMART parameters within the norm, if they're not HD Tune shows them in yellow or red. Yellow is a warning (sometimes even a false alarm, there are some bugs at least in older versions) and red is definitely critical, indicating the need for a replacement.
A full surface scan should give no damaged sectors at all, while having damaged sectors (especially in the very first section of the hard disk) would suggest immediate replacement or at least extreme caution and future checks to see if the situation deteriorates.
Generally I go for a hard disk replacement if there is something wrong, even minor (except obviously for false alarms). I like sleeping safe, when I can.
As long as data and files aren't compromised (or are easily fixed) you can use applications such as Norton Ghost (or whatever it's called now) or Acronis Migrate Easy to make an image (snapshot) of the entire hard disk without having to reinstall completely, if the situation is still fine.
As additional note, for hard disk failure or pre-failure analysis unfortunately there's a rule: it's never 100% safe. Tests could say everything's okay, but it isn't, or could say there's something wrong: for instance some temp sensors on some hard disks are prone to severe errors, indicating impossible temperatures, but everything is nonetheless fine.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Yes, I know, trust me.
Sometimes I hurry posts, so stuff like that happens when your brain is sssllllooowweerrr than your fingers or your tongue
It is true. I'm no greek scholar either, but I've done my share of linguistics.
Antithesis is by definition derivative, but it's in no way logical in this case. It's purely theoretical. You cannot apply a certain logical value to sentences like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist". Logic - at least binary logic - wants certainty, either true or false, and this isn't exactly the case.
Antithesis is by definition derivative, but it's in no way logical in this case. It's purely theoretical. You cannot apply a certain logical value to sentences like "God exists" or "God doesn't exist". Logic - at least binary logic - wants certainty, either true or false, and this isn't exactly the case.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Semantically the greek suffix 'a' defines absence, not negation; as in moral, amoral, immoral. Therefore atheism resolves in a system of thought devoid of the presence of God, not in its derivative negation (with or without implied acceptance of the existence of a system with subsequent opposition). That's called antitheism. Anyway the formulation of an antithesis doesn't exist as a formal acceptance of the validity of a thesis, but rather as a formal acceptance of the existence of a thesis whose validity isn't accepted.
Last edited by Albieg, .
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God. But as long as there is free speech (something you don't seem to like) no one here is going to burn you or torture you for that.
Glyphon, the only less than civil interventions were on topic, unfortunately.
Edit: time to go out and have some good time with friends. I'll try to keep up when I come back. Happy whatevertimeofthedayiswhereyouare to everyone.
Edit: time to go out and have some good time with friends. I'll try to keep up when I come back. Happy whatevertimeofthedayiswhereyouare to everyone.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Exactly, they were not absolute. They just claim to be so.
Go back and read my previous post about contractualism. It's your right to believe laws descend from above, but there's no evidence about it. On the contrary, there's a lot of evidence about laws being contracts between men, even when they are religiously asserted. The main difference between you and me is that I don't go looking for the absolute truth: I've seen too many of them, and they always clashed with each other.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Reason : Fixed a horrible typo, quoted below :)
Ball Bearing Turbo, while I perfectly recognise your attitude isn't imposing or negative in my opinion, you're still willingly failing to understand that a law can perfectly work as an agreement between men, if it's enforced by laws or moral beliefs, and history is full of changing moral and religious beliefs. Laws, either written or felt, can perfectly work without a supernatural enforcement. Or, if you like, can perfectly fail with or without it.
Sophisms, wheel4hummer. It was an attack, and it failed. Now quit stereotyping yourself.
Last edited by Albieg, .
I've finished worshipping the Sun.
Augustine of Hippo believed in such premise.
An agnostic would believe that the ability to recognise God is simply a possible outcome of an unresolved question that generates a theory, possibly false, possibly true.
Originally the term Animism is used to describe primitive religions where the notion of an immaterial soul was absent (so objects were worshipped as gods), but now defines generically every religion, more or less. This change of meaning is extremely interesing: the original meaning (lacking the possibility to recognise immaterial beings) explains perfectly the possible rationale for the theorisation of God and traces it back to the material world.
Edit: I like to think about mankind as a "measuring species", because we have to measure things to live. We need to reduce everything, including God, to something we can comprehend. A priest once told me every religion is a tentative measurement of God, a reduction. "The start of all things, call it what you like: it's Big Bang for someone. I just call it God". He was one of the few priests I've ever respected and loved in my life, because he was tolerant and he didn't believe the rules he obeyed to should apply to others. It was the free choice of a free man.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Not so much. Religion has always been - historically - a great escape and a great resource for those who had no explanations for some phenomenons. Look at Zoroastrism: explain the unexplainable, organise society, give hope. It was all there, and in my opinion it's still here. Now I'll stop posting, I need some time to worship the Sun
Here I see some concept that was debated in the 19th century, and that is: does the law come from above (as French spiritualist philosophers such as De Maistre believed) or from below?
In the first case, if you believe law descends from above, you're a spiritualist. If it comes from below - a social contract between men - you're a contractualist.
In the eyes of contractualists there's nothing wrong in moral subjectivity. Contracts vary, and so does law (luckily).
By the way, it would be fairly easy to reduce all spiritualists to contractualists: if you take a look at the history of religions you'll see that every occidental religion has interpreted differently the sacred books accordingly to the beliefs of the time and to the achievements of scientific progress. For instance Martin Luther wouldn't have started his reform if he agreed to the interpretation of the Catholic Church... So, if all goes down to human interpretation, can we still say that the law descends from above? Until I listen directly to the voice of God telling me I'm wrong, I'll remain a contractualist. So far, it hasn't happened. But then again, you may believe God doesn't care about me (or anyone else) knowing for sure, or simply that he's a non-intervenionist... So I guess we'll all have to wait. Unluckily we won't be able to tell, in either case.
That sentence is interesting from many points of view: it's an exceptionally witty paradox which is perfect for an agnostic (literally: a person without knowledge)
Socrates knew better
Socrates knew better
That doesn't make you an atheist, you just show a tendency towards anticlericalism, which is a completely different thing since it's not related to transcendency, but to ideas against some or all aspects of organised religions.
For the rest, you're right about agnosticism, at least from my point of view.
As attributed to Socrates:
One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Reason : Removed needless caps.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG