OmegaRacer

48 minutes ago, Keeps said:

I believe in God selectively. If I am in a spot of bother I will offer up a little prayer - "If you get me out of this sticky situation I promise I will never again XYZ" If I've backed a horse and it is running second "If you make the one in the lead fall at the last I'll give 10% of my winnings to the next homeless person I see" etc. 

 

Never give "him" another thought any other time. Makes me a complete hypocrite only believing when it suits me and for personal gain. 

 

As a result of that I would summarise that I don't believe (and that on occasions, I am a selfish, shallow individual).

LOL
At least you're honest with yourself. 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Not my story, not my religion. 
I don't follow any religion, yet I'm not an atheist. 
Actually, I don't really like organized religions and their dogmas, but I don't ridicule them. They are necessary for certain people and help them make sense of the world and themselves, and for that they deserve respect. 
Pointing out the obvious shortcomings of certain religions is fair, but without acknowledging also the good sides, is shortsighted and dishonest.

There is no need to believe in a personal God to be aware of a Higher Force.

54 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Much, much wiser people than me have answered that question already, and much better than I ever will.

 

My point exactly. And what I said in my post.

If I want to ponder questions of the existence of god I won't be looking to ASEANNOW.

See ya.

Where will you be looking?

1 hour ago, cdemundo said:

"the first time it was asked, I gave a proper answer"

 

This is known as the "unshakeable certainty of the half educated".

Who would have the combination of ignorance and egotism that would allow them to think they had given "a proper answer" to a problem that has been discussed by humanity's greatest minds for centuries.

Oh yeah, a guy in a discussion group about SE Asia travel and visa problems.

You must have a very narrow view on life. Your loss.

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

well, it's mostly a hunch on my part. 

but I re-read the quotes and maybe they're all "out of context". 

so this exercise is a failed attempt on my part.

technically, i would have to read the entire books.

which i will not do.

hey guys, i'm taking a break from this thread.

take care!

I just had a strong episode of deja vu. ????????

1 hour ago, Cherrytreeview said:

More nonsensical deflection.

The only thing more pathetic than someone apologising for Russia's actions, is someone who can't see they're doing it.

 

 

You know what even more pathetic? People who clearly have reading comprehension difficulties while trying to find a scapegoat to vent their frustrations.

Please find me one sentence where I condoned Russia's actions. Just one.

I remember explicitly saying the opposite. 

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

It called "projection" and is a form of pejorative.

So instead of promoting open discourse, you guys prefer to go on ad hominem attacks, questioning morals and values of a person without knowing anything about him, instead of arguing his points? 
Whatever, you drama queens can debate among yourselves. I have better things to do. ta taaa
 

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No knee jerk reactions from a paranoid Putin got the whole world into this. If you think I have more in common with Putin then I agree with @ThailandRyan you are unhinged.

Oh if the world were all just black and white, wouldn't that be nice... ????

27 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

You are completely unhinged if you believe anyone is preaching for that to be done.  Supporting a country which is being invaded and it's people being killed by agreeing to sanctions and monetarily hurting the aggressor (Russia) is the way things are being done.  Your friend Putin is mental and all over the board with his lies and reasoning as well as the denial they are targeting civilians.   So try again.

The one who's unhinged is you if you think I'm condoning what's going on. 

6 hours ago, Cherrytreeview said:

Turn on a TV, watch the latest drone footage of cities being flattened and stop making any excuses for Russia.

No if's or but's just condemnation.

 

So, I should get all emotional about it like you. Anything else means one doesn't care, right? What have you changed so far by watching TV and being indignant? 

Are we in kindergarten or what?

21 minutes ago, Cherrytreeview said:

Clear head and not getting carried away by the mass slaughter of innocents by banned cluster bombs.

Now the Russian thugs are surrounding cities, cutting off electricity supplies and are going to starve and freeze Ukrainian citizens into submission.

Maybe you could explain the "background and motivations" for a democratic country being brutalised and butchered against its will?

What part of barbaric murdering scum don't you understand?

How people like you can sleep at night is beyond me.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60585603

What do you suggest I should be doing then? Assault Russian holidaymakers in Pattaya? Just to show em who's boss?

Would that make you feel better?

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I perfectly understand Russia's motives.

Sure you do.

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Without some support for your assertion that the name changed was forced, etc, I'm not taking your post too seriously. For my part I could care less where my surname originates, I have no clue. I am not a nationalist. Not that I am accusing you of being one.

I'm not going into details about my family history. And I'm neither a patriot or even less a nationalist. I love my homeland with all my heart...not the country it got annexed to, though.

I want to make it clear that I don't condone Russia's actions in the slightest. I do however try to understand the background and motivations for the actions. And you can do that only by keeping a clear head and not get carried away in emotional reactions. 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's perfectly reasonable for any country to protect it's national language in official affairs. The UK Queen's family changed their surnames too. No biggie.

Tell that to my family....no biggie. You have no idea.
And bringing the Queen's family to support your point makes you look very dim indeed.

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You confirmed that Russian is not banned in public life. It is not unreasonable that Ukraine wants to teach kids to speak Ukrainian in schools. The regional language law again did not involve ordinary citizens speaking Russian in their daily lives.

I may have used the wrong word "banned", but fact is that an ultra-nationalistic wave introduced measures to undermine the cultural identity of the Russian minority in Ukraine. 

My homeland had the same issues. We were annexed to another country (100 years ago) and at first we were prohibited to use our language in public offices, then forbidden to attend school in our language, then "gently encouraged" to change our names and family names so they would sound "better". Our culture and traditions were curtailed at every chance. It took 30 years of fighting to have our rights as a minority reinstated. 

What you consider a small matter is actually a big matter for them.

15 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Russian is not banned in Ukraine

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR3Gp1llVyhtkALXQyv7UGt-wwVWZ8TB2VkBoOxiuPJeJbk8nevlJyQzcmQ

LANGUAGE LAWS
“[Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk] also made a personal appeal to Russian-speaking Ukrainians, pledging to support…a special status to the Russian language.”—US Secretary of State John Kerry, April 24, 2014

Ukraine is extraordinarily multilingual: In addition to the millions of Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians, there are areas where Hungarian, Romanian, and other tongues are prevalent. These languages were protected by a 2012 regional-language law.

The post-Maidan government alarmed Russian-speaking Ukrainians by attempting to annul that law.

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So he'll invade a sovereign nation and kill thousands of innocents rather than let that happen.

 

So, it must be right then. One person in Ukraine said so. The second article is three years old and talks about some extremist nationalists who aren't the government banning anything. Can you see why the Russia apologists have a credibility problem?

Talking to an intelligent person who has eyes and ears on the inside is in my opinion worth more than 10 pages of forum chatter by clueless people.

It doesn't matter if the article is 3 years old. The language laws have not changed in this time. Have you even read that part?

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Can you provide a credible link that supports your claim that Russians in Ukraine were not allowed to speak Russian?

For one, I've talked to a very good Russian friend of mine who is currently in Moscow and has many family members in Ukraine. He confirmed this.

Here is a pretty good article about the (alleged) motivations for Putin's invasion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/making-sense-of-vladimir-putin?fbclid=IwAR3RZXOtws-kmb6Hk1cQb99ZEHj3u6Rl2GnXkUDU3_LoBVlVpewztPtJmlQ

Towards the end of this article you'll find the language laws:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR3Gp1llVyhtkALXQyv7UGt-wwVWZ8TB2VkBoOxiuPJeJbk8nevlJyQzcmQ

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Thanks, so I'll just stick to the apparently erroneous assumption that it was because a power hungry fascist has dreams of returning to the good old days when everything was so much better.

There are other reasons (like defending the 17% of Russians in Ukraine, which were not allowed to speak their mother tongue and follow their culture, as well as growing NATO military presence in the buffer zone countries). This doesn't mean that your assumptions are incorrect however, it just means there is always more than what meets the eye.