Forums > Social Discussion > war and peace
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
a few nights ago my dad got the following poem in an e-mail;
T'WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE, MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.
I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY, WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO, IN THIS HOME, DID LIVE.
I LOOKED ALL ABOUT, A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS, NOT EVEN A TREE.
NO STOCKING BY MANTLE, JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES, OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.
WITH MEDALS AND BADGES, AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT, CAME THROUGH MY MIND.
FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT, IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER, ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.
THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING, SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR, IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.
THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE, THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED, AN AUSTRALIAN SOLDIER.
WAS THIS THE HERO, OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO, THE FLOOR FOR A BED?
I REALIZED THE FAMILIES, THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS,
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.
SOON ROUND THE WORLD, THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE, A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.
THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM, EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS, LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.
I COULDN'T HELP WONDER, HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE, IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.
THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT, A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES, AND STARTED TO CRY.
THE SOLDIER AWAKENED, AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY, THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;
I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS."
THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER, AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT, I CONTINUED TO WEEP.
I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS, SO SILENT AND STILL,
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED, FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.
I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE, ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR, SO WILLING TO FIGHT.
THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER, WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA, IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."
ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH, AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."
This poem was written by an Australian Peacekeeping soldier stationed overseas.
when i read it i was moved in some wierd way. but then i just started to think about the lines "willing to fight" and "i fight for freedom" and couldn't help worring. the very people that are willing to fight could also be the ones causing the problems couldnt they? if everyone were to say no, fighting will bring uneccisary death, then wouldn't there be o reason or need to fight. he very stereotype that is willing to fight for right could be the flipside stereotype to the ones that will fight for wrong, with different values seperating them.
and i have never been able to understand when people try to start a fight for freedom with bullets(and i'm not talking retaliation from opression). it just reminds me of a saying by micheal franti
"maybe with every shell fired, bomb detonated, economy destroyed, family member killed, we are not creating good will and harmoney but simply another generation of children who believe violence is the only was to bring change"
it worries me, tis all
a few nights ago my dad got the following poem in an e-mail;
T'WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE, MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.
I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY, WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO, IN THIS HOME, DID LIVE.
I LOOKED ALL ABOUT, A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS, NOT EVEN A TREE.
NO STOCKING BY MANTLE, JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES, OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.
WITH MEDALS AND BADGES, AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT, CAME THROUGH MY MIND.
FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT, IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER, ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.
THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING, SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR, IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.
THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE, THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED, AN AUSTRALIAN SOLDIER.
WAS THIS THE HERO, OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO, THE FLOOR FOR A BED?
I REALIZED THE FAMILIES, THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS,
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.
SOON ROUND THE WORLD, THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE, A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.
THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM, EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS, LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.
I COULDN'T HELP WONDER, HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE, IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.
THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT, A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES, AND STARTED TO CRY.
THE SOLDIER AWAKENED, AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY, THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;
I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS."
THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER, AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT, I CONTINUED TO WEEP.
I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS, SO SILENT AND STILL,
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED, FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.
I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE, ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR, SO WILLING TO FIGHT.
THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER, WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA, IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."
ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH, AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."
This poem was written by an Australian Peacekeeping soldier stationed overseas.
when i read it i was moved in some wierd way. but then i just started to think about the lines "willing to fight" and "i fight for freedom" and couldn't help worring. the very people that are willing to fight could also be the ones causing the problems couldnt they? if everyone were to say no, fighting will bring uneccisary death, then wouldn't there be o reason or need to fight. he very stereotype that is willing to fight for right could be the flipside stereotype to the ones that will fight for wrong, with different values seperating them.
and i have never been able to understand when people try to start a fight for freedom with bullets(and i'm not talking retaliation from opression). it just reminds me of a saying by micheal franti
"maybe with every shell fired, bomb detonated, economy destroyed, family member killed, we are not creating good will and harmoney but simply another generation of children who believe violence is the only was to bring change"
it worries me, tis all
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
exactly.
exactly.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
the above was from the "Does the US Army deserve praise" Thread. however i didnt want to make that thread go any more off topic than it already was.
so, i looked at the line "I am a Warrior and a member of a team" and thought isn't it teams that help perpetuate an us Vs them mentality? if there were no teams woundt that make humanity one?
*sigh*
Written by: violentlytame
Soldier’s Creed—Warrior Ethos
I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained, and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment, and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
the above was from the "Does the US Army deserve praise" Thread. however i didnt want to make that thread go any more off topic than it already was.
so, i looked at the line "I am a Warrior and a member of a team" and thought isn't it teams that help perpetuate an us Vs them mentality? if there were no teams woundt that make humanity one?
*sigh*
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
Imagine.
Imagine.
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Nah. If there were no teams it would change from "US vs. Them" to "Me vs Everyone." Teams serve to unite us.
Nah. If there were no teams it would change from "US vs. Them" to "Me vs Everyone." Teams serve to unite us.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Any evidence/substantiation for the view that 'no teams'='me vs everyone'?
Personally, i feel that the unification that comes from teams, too often is at the expense of differentiation and exclusion.
How about if 'no teams' led instead to 'Team Humanity'?
Written by: Patriarch917
Nah. If there were no teams it would change from "US vs. Them" to "Me vs Everyone." Teams serve to unite us.
Any evidence/substantiation for the view that 'no teams'='me vs everyone'?
Personally, i feel that the unification that comes from teams, too often is at the expense of differentiation and exclusion.
How about if 'no teams' led instead to 'Team Humanity'?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
There seem to be three possibilities:
1. Allegiance to yourself, to the exclusion of all others (me vs everyone).
2. Allegiance to some, to the exclusion of others (team vs team)
3. Allegiance to all, to the exclusion of none (all).
I think its fair to guess that the elimination of teams (from the family all the way up to the U.N.) is as likely to lead to individualism as it is to collectivism. Knowing humanity, we don’t seem likely to simply form a united humanity once teams are abolished.
At best, you could hope for a totalitarian utopia of like minded people forming one colossal team, and hope that all the people who disagree with the collective also disagree with each other so as not to form their own team. Thus, the collective would only have to deal with individual dissenters that were not cooperating.
There seem to be three possibilities:
1. Allegiance to yourself, to the exclusion of all others (me vs everyone).
2. Allegiance to some, to the exclusion of others (team vs team)
3. Allegiance to all, to the exclusion of none (all).
I think its fair to guess that the elimination of teams (from the family all the way up to the U.N.) is as likely to lead to individualism as it is to collectivism. Knowing humanity, we don’t seem likely to simply form a united humanity once teams are abolished.
At best, you could hope for a totalitarian utopia of like minded people forming one colossal team, and hope that all the people who disagree with the collective also disagree with each other so as not to form their own team. Thus, the collective would only have to deal with individual dissenters that were not cooperating.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Maybe it is as likely to lead to individualism as it is to collectivism- then again, maybe not; again, which is likely to be true is a matter of evidence/substantiation.
Whether, overall, teams are bad or good, is a matter that requires evidence/reason/substantiation rather than simply stating opinion/guesses not backed up by fact or reason.
Where 'teams' are concerned, it sems to me that there are good aspects (eg bringing together a group/shared aims etc) and bad aspects (exclusion of those not in the team, attacking other teams because their aims seem to be different etc).
Whether, overall, the good outweighs the bad is an important question- and one which won't be settled by the common, unsubstantiated assumption, that teams are necessarily good.
I'll point out that I'm in no way calling for anything so extreme as 'elimination' of teams; instead I'm simply pointing out that there are bad aspects to teams and that, IMO, it would be to the benefit of humanity to acknowledge these bad aspects.
Written by: Patriarch917
There seem to be three possibilities:
1. Allegiance to yourself, to the exclusion of all others (me vs everyone).
2. Allegiance to some, to the exclusion of others (team vs team)
3. Allegiance to all, to the exclusion of none (all).
I think its fair to guess that the elimination of teams (from the family all the way up to the U.N.) is as likely to lead to individualism as it is to collectivism. Knowing humanity, we don’t seem likely to simply form a united humanity once teams are abolished.
Maybe it is as likely to lead to individualism as it is to collectivism- then again, maybe not; again, which is likely to be true is a matter of evidence/substantiation.
Whether, overall, teams are bad or good, is a matter that requires evidence/reason/substantiation rather than simply stating opinion/guesses not backed up by fact or reason.
Where 'teams' are concerned, it sems to me that there are good aspects (eg bringing together a group/shared aims etc) and bad aspects (exclusion of those not in the team, attacking other teams because their aims seem to be different etc).
Whether, overall, the good outweighs the bad is an important question- and one which won't be settled by the common, unsubstantiated assumption, that teams are necessarily good.
I'll point out that I'm in no way calling for anything so extreme as 'elimination' of teams; instead I'm simply pointing out that there are bad aspects to teams and that, IMO, it would be to the benefit of humanity to acknowledge these bad aspects.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
What the devil does "Allegiance to yourself" even mean? If you mean "believe in your priciples" then say so. If you mean "Follow your conscience" then say so.
Allegiance derives from "liege" which is French for "Lord". The whole problem is when people see a "team" as their Lord, rather than seeing it for what it is, a collection of individuals who are all similar to them, and are still only human. A "team" is not an independant entity, it is a collection of people. With all of their differences of opinion, backgrounds and objectives that that entails.
As it stands, it is rarely an issue of loyalty, but of convenience. In certain circumstances it is convenient to follow your priciples. In others it is convenient to say what the majority says, whether you believe it or not. In many circumstances it is convenient to be part of a group effort.
Also (Patriarch) you display an unnerving tendancy to think in extremes.
There are other possibilities. Apart from the misuse of the word "Allegiance", then surely it makes more sense to say that people are sometimes self serving, sometimes serve other people and sometimes serve all people? You don't need to think "I belong to team X and therefore I will exclude everyone else". Instead you might work on a case by case basis, without the seperation of people into "teams" or sides. Often there are no sides. More often there are people who say "yay", people who say "nay" and a majority of people who say "I really don't care". It is a very narrow view indeed that the people you happen to agree with are always right, as often as not, they will disagree with you on many other things.
No, at best you could have a utopia of individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest, and who then left that group after they had explored it to their satisfaction and then moved onto another group to explore another of their interests.
On a related note, can anyone please tell me what the American way of life is? Coherently? Thanks
What the devil does "Allegiance to yourself" even mean? If you mean "believe in your priciples" then say so. If you mean "Follow your conscience" then say so.
Allegiance derives from "liege" which is French for "Lord". The whole problem is when people see a "team" as their Lord, rather than seeing it for what it is, a collection of individuals who are all similar to them, and are still only human. A "team" is not an independant entity, it is a collection of people. With all of their differences of opinion, backgrounds and objectives that that entails.
As it stands, it is rarely an issue of loyalty, but of convenience. In certain circumstances it is convenient to follow your priciples. In others it is convenient to say what the majority says, whether you believe it or not. In many circumstances it is convenient to be part of a group effort.
Also (Patriarch) you display an unnerving tendancy to think in extremes.
Written by: Patriarch
There seem to be three possibilities:
1. Allegiance to yourself, to the exclusion of all others (me vs everyone).
2. Allegiance to some, to the exclusion of others (team vs team)
3. Allegiance to all, to the exclusion of none (all).
There are other possibilities. Apart from the misuse of the word "Allegiance", then surely it makes more sense to say that people are sometimes self serving, sometimes serve other people and sometimes serve all people? You don't need to think "I belong to team X and therefore I will exclude everyone else". Instead you might work on a case by case basis, without the seperation of people into "teams" or sides. Often there are no sides. More often there are people who say "yay", people who say "nay" and a majority of people who say "I really don't care". It is a very narrow view indeed that the people you happen to agree with are always right, as often as not, they will disagree with you on many other things.
Written by: Patriarch
At best, you could hope for a totalitarian utopia of like minded people forming one colossal team...
No, at best you could have a utopia of individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest, and who then left that group after they had explored it to their satisfaction and then moved onto another group to explore another of their interests.
On a related note, can anyone please tell me what the American way of life is? Coherently? Thanks
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I can see you have accused me of misusing the word “allegiance,” but I cannot tell why you would think so. You seem to prefer something like “Loyalty to X” or “Serving X,” but both of these concepts are contained in the word "allegiance." When one pledges allegiance to a lord, a nation, a cause, (or, in America, to a "flag" as a symbol), one is promising to be loyal and to serve whatever allegiance is being pledged to.
I can understand having differences over the word “capitalism” but this seems almost absurd. I will need quite a bit more explanation before I can be convinced that I have misused the word. Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase “Allegiance to yourself” conveys nothing meaningful to your mind?
You say there are other possibilities, but you have merely listed my three possibilities using the word “serving” instead of “allegiance.” Since the word “allegiance” signifies the obligations of a vassal to a lord, it would seem that your chosen word agrees in substance with mine.
It was my understanding that a good word to describe “individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest” Would be the word “team.”
Let's put my sentence in context. The question was “If we got rid of teams, would humanity become one.” My response was “perhaps we could get a lot of people to join one big team but we would probably still have people who wouldn’t join, even if they never met to form little teams themselves.” Your response seems to be “we could have a bunch of teams, and people shift back and forth between them.”
I suppose you could make some distinction over whether the teams are permanent or temporary, and I would like to inquire as to whether the “interests” you have in mind would ever conflict. However, we cannot seem to even agree what meaning to give to the words “allegiance” and “team.”
You say that I am thinking in extremes? An extreme question demands an extreme answer. The question dealt with the elimination of all teams, and whether humanity would unite as one if all teams were eliminated. These are extreme concepts. If you want nuance, ask me what I think would happen if we were to eliminate merely a few teams.
@ OWD
You seem to be asking me for evidence that the elimination of “teams” would lead some people to choose individualism rather than to join humanity as one massive team. If you want true experimental evidence, we would have to actually do it. If you want inferential evidence, I would point first to the fact that humans are willing to disagree over such things as the meaning of the word “allegiance” and thus seem unlikely to be able to align their interests to form a likeminded collective (“make humanity one” as Mr Majestik put it).
If the point is to make people cease to identify with any “team” smaller than “everyone,” it would seem that you could accomplish this in several ways. We could either:
1. Get everyone to disagree with everyone on something so fundamental that they would never be able to join in agreement with anyone. Thus, we could have a humanity united in their mutual disagreement with everyone.
Say, for example, that we all disagreed over the meaning of the word "capitalism" so vehemently that we couldn’t stand to form a team to cooperate even on those things of mutual interest. Even though we shared a common interest in finding food, we would never form a team to work together since we couldn’t get past our disagreement over the word capitalism.
Humanity would be “one” in the sense that you could not identify any “team.” Our mutual uniting interest would be in our dislike for each other.
2. Get everyone to agree with everyone on something so important that it would override any differences.
If the earth were about to be destroyed unless we all quickly joined hands in a big circle, perhaps people could be convinced not to care about who they are holding hands with. While people would have different interests, they would not form teams to pursue those interests since there would be an overriding need to abandon any organizational structure smaller than “everyone.” Teams would cease to exist as long as the fundamental issue was strong enough to eclipse any need to form smaller organizations to pursue competing interests.
3. We could redefine our terminology. By this method, we could easily do away with the existence of “teams” through giving that word a particular meaning.
I can see you have accused me of misusing the word “allegiance,” but I cannot tell why you would think so. You seem to prefer something like “Loyalty to X” or “Serving X,” but both of these concepts are contained in the word "allegiance." When one pledges allegiance to a lord, a nation, a cause, (or, in America, to a "flag" as a symbol), one is promising to be loyal and to serve whatever allegiance is being pledged to.
I can understand having differences over the word “capitalism” but this seems almost absurd. I will need quite a bit more explanation before I can be convinced that I have misused the word. Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase “Allegiance to yourself” conveys nothing meaningful to your mind?
You say there are other possibilities, but you have merely listed my three possibilities using the word “serving” instead of “allegiance.” Since the word “allegiance” signifies the obligations of a vassal to a lord, it would seem that your chosen word agrees in substance with mine.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch
At best, you could hope for a totalitarian utopia of like minded people forming one colossal team...
No, at best you could have a utopia of individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest, and who then left that group after they had explored it to their satisfaction and then moved onto another group to explore another of their interests.
It was my understanding that a good word to describe “individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest” Would be the word “team.”
Let's put my sentence in context. The question was “If we got rid of teams, would humanity become one.” My response was “perhaps we could get a lot of people to join one big team but we would probably still have people who wouldn’t join, even if they never met to form little teams themselves.” Your response seems to be “we could have a bunch of teams, and people shift back and forth between them.”
I suppose you could make some distinction over whether the teams are permanent or temporary, and I would like to inquire as to whether the “interests” you have in mind would ever conflict. However, we cannot seem to even agree what meaning to give to the words “allegiance” and “team.”
You say that I am thinking in extremes? An extreme question demands an extreme answer. The question dealt with the elimination of all teams, and whether humanity would unite as one if all teams were eliminated. These are extreme concepts. If you want nuance, ask me what I think would happen if we were to eliminate merely a few teams.
@ OWD
You seem to be asking me for evidence that the elimination of “teams” would lead some people to choose individualism rather than to join humanity as one massive team. If you want true experimental evidence, we would have to actually do it. If you want inferential evidence, I would point first to the fact that humans are willing to disagree over such things as the meaning of the word “allegiance” and thus seem unlikely to be able to align their interests to form a likeminded collective (“make humanity one” as Mr Majestik put it).
If the point is to make people cease to identify with any “team” smaller than “everyone,” it would seem that you could accomplish this in several ways. We could either:
1. Get everyone to disagree with everyone on something so fundamental that they would never be able to join in agreement with anyone. Thus, we could have a humanity united in their mutual disagreement with everyone.
Say, for example, that we all disagreed over the meaning of the word "capitalism" so vehemently that we couldn’t stand to form a team to cooperate even on those things of mutual interest. Even though we shared a common interest in finding food, we would never form a team to work together since we couldn’t get past our disagreement over the word capitalism.
Humanity would be “one” in the sense that you could not identify any “team.” Our mutual uniting interest would be in our dislike for each other.
2. Get everyone to agree with everyone on something so important that it would override any differences.
If the earth were about to be destroyed unless we all quickly joined hands in a big circle, perhaps people could be convinced not to care about who they are holding hands with. While people would have different interests, they would not form teams to pursue those interests since there would be an overriding need to abandon any organizational structure smaller than “everyone.” Teams would cease to exist as long as the fundamental issue was strong enough to eclipse any need to form smaller organizations to pursue competing interests.
3. We could redefine our terminology. By this method, we could easily do away with the existence of “teams” through giving that word a particular meaning.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I know. That's what I said. Allegiance implies an external authority who you swear an oath to serve. Have you sworn an oath to serve yourself? I prefer the use of the word "serve" because it is a temporary thing, as I believe all "teams" should be.
Who mentioned capitalism? What has it got to do with anything?
It conveys a bad choice of words... That's why I picked up on it...
No, I haven't. Read it again. I use the word SOMETIMES which was missing in your original statement.
I know. I didn't say that these groups of people wouldn't be called teams, I avoided the use of the word so as not to confuse two issues.
Yes. Exactly. There is no inherent problem with teams provided that you remember the team is temporary, and that there is more to the worl and more people. It is when you join a team permenantly (i.e. swearing allegiance) and accept the team as being right in all things then teams become bad.
You manage to miss the point with amazing accuracy. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that you cannot form a team with them. Your point of gathering food is ridiculous because it is more convenient to work together to get food than it is to starve because you disagree over something as petty as socio-economic subtleties.
Written by: Patriarch917
You seem to prefer something like “Loyalty to X” or “Serving X,” but both of these concepts are contained in the word "allegiance."
I know. That's what I said. Allegiance implies an external authority who you swear an oath to serve. Have you sworn an oath to serve yourself? I prefer the use of the word "serve" because it is a temporary thing, as I believe all "teams" should be.
Written by: Patriarch917
I can understand having differences over the word “capitalism” but this seems almost absurd.
Who mentioned capitalism? What has it got to do with anything?
Written by: Patriarch917
Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase “Allegiance to yourself” conveys nothing meaningful to your mind?
It conveys a bad choice of words... That's why I picked up on it...
Written by: Patriarch917
You say there are other possibilities, but you have merely listed my three possibilities using the word “serving” instead of “allegiance.”
No, I haven't. Read it again. I use the word SOMETIMES which was missing in your original statement.
Written by: Patriarch917Written by: Sethis
No, at best you could have a utopia of individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest, and who then left that group after they had explored it to their satisfaction and then moved onto another group to explore another of their interests.
It was my understanding that a good word to describe “individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest” Would be the word “team.”
I know. I didn't say that these groups of people wouldn't be called teams, I avoided the use of the word so as not to confuse two issues.
Written by: Patriarch917
Your response seems to be “we could have a bunch of teams, and people shift back and forth between them.”
Yes. Exactly. There is no inherent problem with teams provided that you remember the team is temporary, and that there is more to the worl and more people. It is when you join a team permenantly (i.e. swearing allegiance) and accept the team as being right in all things then teams become bad.
Written by: Patriarch917
If you want inferential evidence, I would point first to the fact that humans are willing to disagree over such things as the meaning of the word “allegiance” and thus seem unlikely to be able to align their interests to form a likeminded collective (“make humanity one” as Mr Majestik put it).
If the point is to make people cease to identify with any “team” smaller than “everyone,” it would seem that you could accomplish this in several ways. We could either:
1. Get everyone to disagree with everyone... Thus, we could have a humanity united in their mutual disagreement with everyone.
You manage to miss the point with amazing accuracy. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that you cannot form a team with them. Your point of gathering food is ridiculous because it is more convenient to work together to get food than it is to starve because you disagree over something as petty as socio-economic subtleties.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Apologies to those who dislike nitpicking. Some of us seem to enjoy it.
One can certainly swear an oath to serve yourself, and I see no reason to restrict the meaning of the word “allegiance” to only refer to an external authority. Some words (“sexual reproduction amongst humans”) seem always to require more than one person. However, I think the word allegiance does not. I stand by my use of the word.
I could level the same criticism against the word “serve” as it also usually implies a two party master/servant relationship. However, if you can refer to “serving” yourself, I think that I should be allowed to refer to “allegiance” to self.
No, I have not sworn an oath to serve myself, but I could easily do so. Would this be enough to prove to you that it is possible to pledge allegiance to one’s self?
In another thread, I described something as being “capitalist.” Someone questioned whether the word could be used in that sense. I replied by citing a dictionary that used it in that sense. The debate then turned from whether the particular thing “was” capitalist into whether that dictionary was a good one, and whether that meaning should be assigned to that particular word.
In other words, rather than debating the substance of the idea, the thread turned toward something you would expect to see among people writing a dictionary.
In this discussion, I have so far refrained from simply citing a dictionary or other works that demonstrate that I have used the word in an acceptable way, as I doubt that it would do any good. I suspect that no one had trouble understanding my meaning, including you.
If you are just looking for non-substantive errers, I will give you one to pick on.
Read my three again, and you will notice a lack of the word “always.” Your distinction seems to be that one person could move between the three possibilities that I identified. Since I never said that you had to stay with one exclusively and forever, it seems our statements are in agreement.
Of course, I did not even say that there are “only” three possibilities. There are more, of course, such as allegiance to a single person, a cause, God, a religion, or sauerkraut.
Now I have really taken liberty with the word. You may chastise me for suggesting that one could swear an oath of loyalty to a fermented vegetable, although it seems no more absurd to me than swearing it to a piece of colored cloth.
I only clarified it because I was about to use it in the next sentence, in which I restate what I believe you to have said so that you can correct me if I have misinterpreted you. I did not mean to suggest that you had disputed the meaning of the word team
Then it seems our minds have met at least.
It seems that my use of the word “allegiance” suggested to you not only that an external authority is required, but that the relationship must be permanent.
I assure you that the dictionaries I have consulted do not require that the word allegiance be used only to describe permanent relationships, and I did not mean to suggest that it did. Neither did I suggest that one had to accept the team as being right in all things (any more than a vassal has to accept a lord as being right in all things).
I’m sorry, but I believe that you have missed my point. If you continue down the page to point “2” you will see that I describe people who disagree, but form a team anyway.
It seems that careful reading will often show that while we appear to be in disagreement, we really agree.
Apologies to those who dislike nitpicking. Some of us seem to enjoy it.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917
You seem to prefer something like “Loyalty to X” or “Serving X,” but both of these concepts are contained in the word "allegiance."
I know. That's what I said. Allegiance implies an external authority who you swear an oath to serve. Have you sworn an oath to serve yourself? I prefer the use of the word "serve" because it is a temporary thing, as I believe all "teams" should be.
One can certainly swear an oath to serve yourself, and I see no reason to restrict the meaning of the word “allegiance” to only refer to an external authority. Some words (“sexual reproduction amongst humans”) seem always to require more than one person. However, I think the word allegiance does not. I stand by my use of the word.
I could level the same criticism against the word “serve” as it also usually implies a two party master/servant relationship. However, if you can refer to “serving” yourself, I think that I should be allowed to refer to “allegiance” to self.
No, I have not sworn an oath to serve myself, but I could easily do so. Would this be enough to prove to you that it is possible to pledge allegiance to one’s self?
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917Who mentioned capitalism? What has it got to do with anything?
I can understand having differences over the word “capitalism” but this seems almost absurd.
In another thread, I described something as being “capitalist.” Someone questioned whether the word could be used in that sense. I replied by citing a dictionary that used it in that sense. The debate then turned from whether the particular thing “was” capitalist into whether that dictionary was a good one, and whether that meaning should be assigned to that particular word.
In other words, rather than debating the substance of the idea, the thread turned toward something you would expect to see among people writing a dictionary.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917
Are you seriously suggesting that the phrase “Allegiance to yourself” conveys nothing meaningful to your mind?
It conveys a bad choice of words... That's why I picked up on it...
In this discussion, I have so far refrained from simply citing a dictionary or other works that demonstrate that I have used the word in an acceptable way, as I doubt that it would do any good. I suspect that no one had trouble understanding my meaning, including you.
If you are just looking for non-substantive errers, I will give you one to pick on.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917
You say there are other possibilities, but you have merely listed my three possibilities using the word “serving” instead of “allegiance.”
No, I haven't. Read it again. I use the word SOMETIMES which was missing in your original statement.
Read my three again, and you will notice a lack of the word “always.” Your distinction seems to be that one person could move between the three possibilities that I identified. Since I never said that you had to stay with one exclusively and forever, it seems our statements are in agreement.
Of course, I did not even say that there are “only” three possibilities. There are more, of course, such as allegiance to a single person, a cause, God, a religion, or sauerkraut.
Now I have really taken liberty with the word. You may chastise me for suggesting that one could swear an oath of loyalty to a fermented vegetable, although it seems no more absurd to me than swearing it to a piece of colored cloth.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917Written by: Sethis
No, at best you could have a utopia of individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest, and who then left that group after they had explored it to their satisfaction and then moved onto another group to explore another of their interests.
It was my understanding that a good word to describe “individuals who joined other groups of individuals to explore a mutual interest” would be the word “team.”
I know. I didn't say that these groups of people wouldn't be called teams, I avoided the use of the word so as not to confuse two issues.
I only clarified it because I was about to use it in the next sentence, in which I restate what I believe you to have said so that you can correct me if I have misinterpreted you. I did not mean to suggest that you had disputed the meaning of the word team
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917
Your response seems to be “we could have a bunch of teams, and people shift back and forth between them.”
Yes. Exactly.
Then it seems our minds have met at least.
Written by: Sethis
There is no inherent problem with teams provided that you remember the team is temporary, and that there is more to the worl and more people. It is when you join a team permenantly (i.e. swearing allegiance) and accept the team as being right in all things then teams become bad.
It seems that my use of the word “allegiance” suggested to you not only that an external authority is required, but that the relationship must be permanent.
I assure you that the dictionaries I have consulted do not require that the word allegiance be used only to describe permanent relationships, and I did not mean to suggest that it did. Neither did I suggest that one had to accept the team as being right in all things (any more than a vassal has to accept a lord as being right in all things).
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch917
If you want inferential evidence, I would point first to the fact that humans are willing to disagree over such things as the meaning of the word “allegiance” and thus seem unlikely to be able to align their interests to form a likeminded collective (“make humanity one” as Mr Majestik put it).
If the point is to make people cease to identify with any “team” smaller than “everyone,” it would seem that you could accomplish this in several ways. We could either:
1. Get everyone to disagree with everyone... Thus, we could have a humanity united in their mutual disagreement with everyone.
You manage to miss the point with amazing accuracy. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that you cannot form a team with them.
I’m sorry, but I believe that you have missed my point. If you continue down the page to point “2” you will see that I describe people who disagree, but form a team anyway.
It seems that careful reading will often show that while we appear to be in disagreement, we really agree.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
ultimately, I can't say whether or not devaluing 'team mentality' would improve things or not for humanity.
My feelings are that it would, but that's just my feelings, ultimately, as far as I know, there's no final evidence/reasoning either way.
What I am doing is simply picking up on a couple of instances where you've posted pro-team statements with no substantiation whatsoever- for example-
because, there does seem to be a universal, almost knee-jerk assumption, that team mentality is good and positive- IMO, there's generaly very little substantiation for this viewpoint.
-------------
Another thing I'd want to say, in response to your concern that absence of teams could lead to an emphasis on self-interest; is to ask if that is necessarily a bad thing- or if there's any evidence/reasoning that it's a bad thing.
it's in everyones best interest to live in a community where wars and greed are absent- to live in a community where people are helpful and friendly.
From that it can be argued that, as it's in everyones best interest to be co-operative, friendly and helpful; that self-interest is actually a fine basis for building peaceful world community.
Let's remember that the view that self-interest is the basis of wars, greed and oppression is yet another of those knee-jerk assumptions that many people accept wothout looking for any actual evidence or substantiation.
My feelings are that wars, greed and oppression are not fed by self-interest, but, more likely, are consequences of humanities current disfunctional attitudes, which, in turn, rest on the foundation of a lot of similarly totally unsubstantiated assumptions.
That's just my feelings, so I'm not going to say that it necessarily is the case, but, if anyone's going to say it's not the case, they're going to need to present some counter-evidence/reasoning.
Written by: Patriarch917
You seem to be asking me for evidence that the elimination of “teams” would lead some people to choose individualism rather than to join humanity as one massive team. If you want true experimental evidence, we would have to actually do it. If you want inferential evidence, I would point first to the fact that humans are willing to disagree over such things as the meaning of the word “allegiance” and thus seem unlikely to be able to align their interests to form a likeminded collective ....
ultimately, I can't say whether or not devaluing 'team mentality' would improve things or not for humanity.
My feelings are that it would, but that's just my feelings, ultimately, as far as I know, there's no final evidence/reasoning either way.
What I am doing is simply picking up on a couple of instances where you've posted pro-team statements with no substantiation whatsoever- for example-
Written by: Patriarch917
Nah. If there were no teams it would change from "US vs. Them" to "Me vs Everyone." Teams serve to unite us.
because, there does seem to be a universal, almost knee-jerk assumption, that team mentality is good and positive- IMO, there's generaly very little substantiation for this viewpoint.
-------------
Another thing I'd want to say, in response to your concern that absence of teams could lead to an emphasis on self-interest; is to ask if that is necessarily a bad thing- or if there's any evidence/reasoning that it's a bad thing.
it's in everyones best interest to live in a community where wars and greed are absent- to live in a community where people are helpful and friendly.
From that it can be argued that, as it's in everyones best interest to be co-operative, friendly and helpful; that self-interest is actually a fine basis for building peaceful world community.
Let's remember that the view that self-interest is the basis of wars, greed and oppression is yet another of those knee-jerk assumptions that many people accept wothout looking for any actual evidence or substantiation.
My feelings are that wars, greed and oppression are not fed by self-interest, but, more likely, are consequences of humanities current disfunctional attitudes, which, in turn, rest on the foundation of a lot of similarly totally unsubstantiated assumptions.
That's just my feelings, so I'm not going to say that it necessarily is the case, but, if anyone's going to say it's not the case, they're going to need to present some counter-evidence/reasoning.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
You interpret the words "teams serve to unite us" to be a "pro-team" statement... as if I meant that being united was somehow a "good" thing. I did not say that, and did not mean to imply it. I meant the statement only as a factual observation, without any value judgment.
If you have seen other instances, as you say, where I seem to be posting "pro-team" statements, I withdraw them. I have endeavored in this thread to make observations about what would happen if teams were eliminated, not to suggest whether that would be a good or bad thing.
Notice, even Mr Maj didn't say whether he considered "us vs them" or "humanity becoming one" to be a good or bad thing. You are the first to explicitly bring up morality, as far as I can tell.
You interpret the words "teams serve to unite us" to be a "pro-team" statement... as if I meant that being united was somehow a "good" thing. I did not say that, and did not mean to imply it. I meant the statement only as a factual observation, without any value judgment.
If you have seen other instances, as you say, where I seem to be posting "pro-team" statements, I withdraw them. I have endeavored in this thread to make observations about what would happen if teams were eliminated, not to suggest whether that would be a good or bad thing.
Notice, even Mr Maj didn't say whether he considered "us vs them" or "humanity becoming one" to be a good or bad thing. You are the first to explicitly bring up morality, as far as I can tell.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Like i said, i'm only responding to what seemed to be some of your statements presented as fact, yet without substantiation: specifically-
which was posted in response to a suggestion that an absence of teams would make humanity one.
Your 'Nah' is essentially dismissing that suggestion, on the grounds that an absence of teams would lead each individual to feel hostile, or in competition with, everyone else.
I personally, see nothing in the absence of teams that would necessarily lead to hostility or competition with everyone else- that is what I was referring to when I asked if you had any evidence or reasoning to back up your claim.
Where morality is concerned, an emphasis on it will likely only muddy the waters further- however, I think most of us can agree that, where 'teams' are concerned, 'good' would be that which leads, on the whole, to friendliness and co-operation; and 'bad' would be that which leads to hostile competitiveness and agression.
As for 'teams serve to unite us'- I'm not necessarily interpreting unification as a good or bad thing- i'm more interested in questioning the extent to which teams do unite.
Obviously, a successful team tends to unite its members, but, on taking into account the exclusion and hostility that often is directed towards non-members (of the team}, i think it's reasonable to question whether, on the whole, teams actually lead to more disunity than unity.
And that's a question that can be dealt with regardless of whether unity=good or bad and without reference to morality.
Like i said, i'm only responding to what seemed to be some of your statements presented as fact, yet without substantiation: specifically-
Written by: Patriarch917
Nah. If there were no teams it would change from "US vs. Them" to "Me vs Everyone." Teams serve to unite us.
which was posted in response to a suggestion that an absence of teams would make humanity one.
Your 'Nah' is essentially dismissing that suggestion, on the grounds that an absence of teams would lead each individual to feel hostile, or in competition with, everyone else.
I personally, see nothing in the absence of teams that would necessarily lead to hostility or competition with everyone else- that is what I was referring to when I asked if you had any evidence or reasoning to back up your claim.
Where morality is concerned, an emphasis on it will likely only muddy the waters further- however, I think most of us can agree that, where 'teams' are concerned, 'good' would be that which leads, on the whole, to friendliness and co-operation; and 'bad' would be that which leads to hostile competitiveness and agression.
As for 'teams serve to unite us'- I'm not necessarily interpreting unification as a good or bad thing- i'm more interested in questioning the extent to which teams do unite.
Obviously, a successful team tends to unite its members, but, on taking into account the exclusion and hostility that often is directed towards non-members (of the team}, i think it's reasonable to question whether, on the whole, teams actually lead to more disunity than unity.
And that's a question that can be dealt with regardless of whether unity=good or bad and without reference to morality.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
My point was that allegiance was a bad choice of word because it implied a permanent oath of service to a socially superior external authority. The vassal swears allegiance to the Lord, not the other way round. The vassal also does not criticise the Lord, because the Lord is in a higher position. That is why swearing allegiance to yourself is a daft concept. There would be no point to it, because all you're saying is "I swear to do what I think I should do" which seems to be how normal people behave anyway.
This sense of permenancy informed my perception of what you were saying, that by having allegiance to something meant that you held a permenant allegiance. When someone swears an oath, does it have a sub-clause saying "Until X/X/XXXX date"? The word "oath" to me implies a permenant commitment. That's why your statement meant to me that you could not change "teams". If you had allegiance to a team then you could not change.
"Serve" as a word is better for the discussion because it is in common usage for referring to the self. "Self-serving" is normal. Swearing an oath of allegiance to yourself is not. "Serving" implies no permenant commitment, and therefore to my mind is a better choice of word.
Explain to me the difference (in casual conversation) of these two statements:
"There are 3 possibilities."
"There are only 3 possibilities."
Both indicate to me the same thing, that the person speaking thinks that there are 3 possibilities, no more, no less. The addition of "Only" is superfluous. If you in fact acknowledged that there were more possibilities in your original post, then please try harder in future to make that clear e.g. "I can think of three possibilities" or "I suggest that there are three possibilities".
Furthermore, you continue to use wildly unrealistic examples to support your points. If what you want to demonstrate is that people can work together despite disagreeing over things then:
1. Why did you suggest otherwise earlier?
I've looked through this post again and again and can find nothing to suggest that you think co-operation with non-team members is viable. (Which is what you're saying now)
2. Instead of "If the world was about to be destroyed..." then why not just say something like: "If someone didn't like another person but they worked together temporarily because it was a two-person job that needed doing". That, I think, is somewhat more useful for demonstrating the point you were trying to make.
In any case, this is all semantics, and while fun, doesn't address the topic. Mr majestik may be getting annoyed... (Sorry!
)
My point was that allegiance was a bad choice of word because it implied a permanent oath of service to a socially superior external authority. The vassal swears allegiance to the Lord, not the other way round. The vassal also does not criticise the Lord, because the Lord is in a higher position. That is why swearing allegiance to yourself is a daft concept. There would be no point to it, because all you're saying is "I swear to do what I think I should do" which seems to be how normal people behave anyway.
This sense of permenancy informed my perception of what you were saying, that by having allegiance to something meant that you held a permenant allegiance. When someone swears an oath, does it have a sub-clause saying "Until X/X/XXXX date"? The word "oath" to me implies a permenant commitment. That's why your statement meant to me that you could not change "teams". If you had allegiance to a team then you could not change.
"Serve" as a word is better for the discussion because it is in common usage for referring to the self. "Self-serving" is normal. Swearing an oath of allegiance to yourself is not. "Serving" implies no permenant commitment, and therefore to my mind is a better choice of word.
Explain to me the difference (in casual conversation) of these two statements:
"There are 3 possibilities."
"There are only 3 possibilities."
Both indicate to me the same thing, that the person speaking thinks that there are 3 possibilities, no more, no less. The addition of "Only" is superfluous. If you in fact acknowledged that there were more possibilities in your original post, then please try harder in future to make that clear e.g. "I can think of three possibilities" or "I suggest that there are three possibilities".
Furthermore, you continue to use wildly unrealistic examples to support your points. If what you want to demonstrate is that people can work together despite disagreeing over things then:
1. Why did you suggest otherwise earlier?
Written by: Patriarch
At best, you could hope for a totalitarian utopia of like minded people forming one colossal team, and hope that all the people who disagree with the collective also disagree with each other so as not to form their own team. Thus, the collective would only have to deal with individual
dissenters that were not cooperating.
I've looked through this post again and again and can find nothing to suggest that you think co-operation with non-team members is viable. (Which is what you're saying now)
2. Instead of "If the world was about to be destroyed..." then why not just say something like: "If someone didn't like another person but they worked together temporarily because it was a two-person job that needed doing". That, I think, is somewhat more useful for demonstrating the point you were trying to make.
In any case, this is all semantics, and while fun, doesn't address the topic. Mr majestik may be getting annoyed... (Sorry!
) After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Then I merely suggest that you look it up. Neither of the top authoritative English and American dictionaries define the word in the way you have. Both of them agree that it can mean merely “loyalty to a person, group, or cause.” One can have allegiance to one’s self either under the “person” category (I am a person, and I will be loyal to myself), or under the “cause” category (self-interest is my cause, and I will be loyal to it).
First, I see no reason to discuss what it might mean in casual conversation, since I did not use it in a casual conversation.
Second, to say “I suggest there are three possibilities” (or “I can think of three possibilities”) does not change the meaning enough to avoid this conflict. You would merely ask me to explain the difference (in casual conversation) between:
“I suggest that there are three possibilities”, and
“I suggest that there are only three possibilities.”
Third, both “I think” and “I suggest” imply that what I am about to say is an opinion or a suggestion. I did not mean to imply either. I intended to make a statement of fact. Thus, I should not have used the words “I think.”
I meant what I said: there are three possibilities. I do not think that the addition of the word “only” would be superfluous. Rather, I think it would change the meaning of the sentence. I know that you are not reading my words casually, and so I have not written casually. My words are designed for a careful reader who wishes to disagree with the substance of what I am saying, not for an English instructor critiquing my style.
Yes, because this is a wildly unrealistic discussion. The issue is “what would happen if all teams were done away with.” Such an unrealistic question virtually demands unrealistic hypothetical situations.
There is a difference between “working together despite disagreeing over things” and “co-operation with non-team members.”
I suggest that all human teams contain some difference of opinion on some subject. Thus, every team consists of people working together despite disagreeing over things. A team can form whenever the interest that they agree on is strong enough to overcome their differences (I picked, as an example of a compelling interest, “saving the world”).
You have found nothing to suggest that I think cooperation with non-team members is viable because I am using the word “team” to mean “people who are cooperating.” Yes, I think that cooperation with non-team members is not viable, since as soon as the start cooperating with you they would become part of the team.
The hypothetical you are referring to was in response to the question “how could we make people cease to identify with any ‘team’ smaller than ‘everyone.’” Unless you intend to suggest that there are only two humans living, your hypothetical does not address this question.
Curiously, your criticism here was over the motive I chose, but your alternative did not supply a motive at all. You didn’t explain what the two person job was that was compelling enough to make the two guys work together. Was it to save the world?
Written by: Sethis
My point was that allegiance was a bad choice of word because it implied a permanent oath of service to a socially superior external authority.
Then I merely suggest that you look it up. Neither of the top authoritative English and American dictionaries define the word in the way you have. Both of them agree that it can mean merely “loyalty to a person, group, or cause.” One can have allegiance to one’s self either under the “person” category (I am a person, and I will be loyal to myself), or under the “cause” category (self-interest is my cause, and I will be loyal to it).
Written by: Sethis
Explain to me the difference (in casual conversation) of these two statements:
"There are 3 possibilities."
"There are only 3 possibilities."
Both indicate to me the same thing, that the person speaking thinks that there are 3 possibilities, no more, no less. The addition of "Only" is superfluous. If you in fact acknowledged that there were more possibilities in your original post, then please try harder in future to make that clear e.g. "I can think of three possibilities" or "I suggest that there are three possibilities".
First, I see no reason to discuss what it might mean in casual conversation, since I did not use it in a casual conversation.
Second, to say “I suggest there are three possibilities” (or “I can think of three possibilities”) does not change the meaning enough to avoid this conflict. You would merely ask me to explain the difference (in casual conversation) between:
“I suggest that there are three possibilities”, and
“I suggest that there are only three possibilities.”
Third, both “I think” and “I suggest” imply that what I am about to say is an opinion or a suggestion. I did not mean to imply either. I intended to make a statement of fact. Thus, I should not have used the words “I think.”
I meant what I said: there are three possibilities. I do not think that the addition of the word “only” would be superfluous. Rather, I think it would change the meaning of the sentence. I know that you are not reading my words casually, and so I have not written casually. My words are designed for a careful reader who wishes to disagree with the substance of what I am saying, not for an English instructor critiquing my style.
Written by: Sethis
Furthermore, you continue to use wildly unrealistic examples to support your points.
Yes, because this is a wildly unrealistic discussion. The issue is “what would happen if all teams were done away with.” Such an unrealistic question virtually demands unrealistic hypothetical situations.
Written by: Sethis
If what you want to demonstrate is that people can work together despite disagreeing over things then:
1. Why did you suggest otherwise earlier?Written by: Patriarch
At best, you could hope for a totalitarian utopia of like minded people forming one colossal team, and hope that all the people who disagree with the collective also disagree with each other so as not to form their own team. Thus, the collective would only have to deal with individual dissenters that were not cooperating.
I've looked through this post again and again and can find nothing to suggest that you think co-operation with non-team members is viable. (Which is what you're saying now)
There is a difference between “working together despite disagreeing over things” and “co-operation with non-team members.”
I suggest that all human teams contain some difference of opinion on some subject. Thus, every team consists of people working together despite disagreeing over things. A team can form whenever the interest that they agree on is strong enough to overcome their differences (I picked, as an example of a compelling interest, “saving the world”).
You have found nothing to suggest that I think cooperation with non-team members is viable because I am using the word “team” to mean “people who are cooperating.” Yes, I think that cooperation with non-team members is not viable, since as soon as the start cooperating with you they would become part of the team.
Written by: Sethis
2. Instead of "If the world was about to be destroyed..." then why not just say something like: "If someone didn't like another person but they worked together temporarily because it was a two-person job that needed doing". That, I think, is somewhat more useful for demonstrating the point you were trying to make.
The hypothetical you are referring to was in response to the question “how could we make people cease to identify with any ‘team’ smaller than ‘everyone.’” Unless you intend to suggest that there are only two humans living, your hypothetical does not address this question.
Curiously, your criticism here was over the motive I chose, but your alternative did not supply a motive at all. You didn’t explain what the two person job was that was compelling enough to make the two guys work together. Was it to save the world?
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com