Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

Oh yeah?

Übereil

Unfortunate <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />

I concede that it is not a controversial, emotionally loaded topic. But what is the purpose of this thread? Writing rants, or an excercise of arguing pros and cons of a random topic, which - even if one does not think much of it - could be challenging to think about?

Actually, your topic gave me an emotional inner reaction, Glance <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> - Why? Because I suffer under a boss who wants to be loved.

Personal opinion regardless of topic => it trains the brains (if existing) to look at pros and cons - or look at the differing opinion posted here to get new impulses (is so in my case).

Further opinion regardless of topic => it bores me if a topic turns into meaningless spam - large quotes are used to express nothing (except post amount increase?)

So, I'll continue looking in this thread, even if I don't have an opinion to all topics <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

I do have a topic on my back burner => [color:"yellow"]why is the thought of homosexual marriages so controversial that planned laws lead into endless fuss amongst people? Where is the threat? What is endangered? Which beliefs are hurt? What is the original sense of marriage, leaving religion aside? And all these questions should NOT be answered by quoting passages out of a book that represents a society as it was 2000 yrs ago (the bible).[/color]

Would have Kris's sex, might be emotionally challenging - by excluding religion as I have phrased it, maybe new arguments pop up <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

quoting the bible (i.e for those who do it) as never been anything but a way to preserve a certain social order, IMO

... aren't your words a bit exceeding your thoughts kiya...

i may understand that but you seem linked it somehow with having a brain or not...
well having a brain has never refrained anyone here from spamming from time to time...

you seem very angry and a bit sad... sad thing!

Glance's topic: [color:"orange"] Is it desirable that a leader (= boss, chief, head of whatever) is "loved" by the work force [/color]

I'm feeling a wee bit testy this morning, so I'll say "No!". It's bad, bad, bad.

Why? Because the leader should be concentrating on making sure needful things are done, and done properly, for the ultimate benefit of the organization. If members of the work force need to be "handled with kid gloves", as the saying goes, they probably should be working elsewhere. The leader needs to be setting an example of hard, dedicated effort, and ensuring his or her staff receive the rewards they deserve for their own efforts -- only way to keep good staff; and for poor workers, they don't need motivating, they need firing! The goal is the organization's "bottom line". If the organization doesn't do well, everyone loses.

And further: if a leader is "loved", that can create an emotional need to continue to "be loved", which means the leader can be controlled and manipulated by the workers. Respect is good; "love" is bad.

A-M-E-N!!!

Kyra_Ny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Exactly, its not a popularity contest!

A good leader should make sure things are done properly, organised and efficient. Feeling the desperate need to be 'loved' by co-workers sounds to me like the person has an underlying attention-seeking problem and should seek help. Or they shouldn't be in charge.

Testy or not, Rincewind has a great knack for accurate and well put posts - ones that don't go on and on like mine do. Nice post wiz. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

P.S.
Keep that topic on your back burner Kiya, that would be a great one to have a go at some time. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> True, I'm angry - and sad when I see that a beautiful and very interesting thread such as this one turns into meaningless spam - having brains does not include being meaningless at times. So, I don't link being brainless at times with spam automatically, there is a difference. This thread here had wonderful passages, some making me laugh others bringing up thoughts of my own - and then... passages again, where I ask myself, why did he write that? Where is the sense? So, I'm talking about 2 pairs of shoes. Übereil is very good at that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" />

A lot of threads turned into witless spam (I don't mean the funny off-topics in this case)- and this one here is in constant danger - a real pity IMO! This one here is one of the last threads really interesting me on this forum. So, can you understand my anger? My sadness? Me being fedup and expressing it clearly? Heavens, if someone has no opinion to a topic => why not simply remain silent then? What's the point in saying this? (If there is no further addition - so, my rant now doesn't apply to you, Janggut).

The rules as I understood them in this thread were => winner chooses topic, people debate, in 2 days the new winner is claimed - rinse and repeat. Off-topic is ok, but spam? Nope!

Thank you, MG, for helping me to see clearly why I remain more and more silent in this forum. I'm angry and sad the way it heads to - not only in this thread. And why my motivation to spend time/efforts goes down the drain.
Kiya

Allright, knock it off both of you!

Kiya: Chill out! Sometimes people just break into spontaneous chat. It happens but we'll try to keep it to a minimum in this thread. The chat may be meaningless to you but it can sometimes bring humour to others. Language differences are painful sometimes.

MG: Don't go provoking anyone either! This is an arguing thread i.e. point, counterpoint, point etc. not a making fun of Ubereil thread. (tempting though it is <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />)

Glance: pick a winner please!

For myself I have summoned it up in saying:

Ideally a leader earns the human AND professional respect of the wokforce.

Those having neither are limited to what their position provides - that ain't enough, but more than one in my professional lifetime made a career on that.

Those that gain only professional respect, have expertise in their field, but achieve sub-optimal results as managers of human issues.

Those with human respect only can actually be successful, as part of the respect is due to their ability to accept the superior expert knowledge of others, and they may have the quality to use the (human) resources to the best of their abilities.

"Everybody's darling" has no function in that.



That said (outside competition, of course), your contributions still helped me in making up my mind on a related issue I have on hand. The thesis of "we are all a team of friends", "Boss be primus inter pares" is not totally off the agenda of consultants.


The task of naming the next topic is herewith assigned to - Rincewind - for giving a concise, direct and founded answer to the question.



P.S.: spam contributions are IMHO best handled by ignoring, not by quoting, questioning or commenting them.

the trouble with the last topic was that you all said the same thing .... baaad sheep! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

all Glance had to choose from was whose word arrangement he liked best. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

i've arrived too late to compete here - but when I get to be the boss I shall DEMAND to be loved! not just loved, but fawned upon, given regular ego massages, presented with gifts of goods and money, granted sexual favours, and generally worshipped as an all powerful being.

what the heck's the point of my kicking and kissing my way to the top of the greasy pole if i can't exploit the position when i get there?

practice puckering up peasants, i'm on my way up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />


(just a little light relief while everybody waits for Rincewind... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

true Womble, true. i enjoy Ubereil's posts more because he is so erratic - sometimes breathtakingly rude, and sometimes making good points and being kind.

being a teenager can mean big swings from side to side at times. so i like Ubes, koz he makes me feel calm and balanced by comparison. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> contrast is good - the angry make the calm look calmer, and the good make the bad look a bit more evil <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

i take a few hits on the net, but it's all part of the game. i'd rather a bit of drama now and then, then all just sipping tea and talking about the weather....

not meaning to offend, just saying don't take what others say and do too personally. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Post deleted by Kris

Right you are, Koz ... and if I hadn't been stuck at the office for another 14- hour day, I'd been planning to contradict myself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> ... Oh, well... too late now.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, thanks Glance. And on to the next subject...

Since I'm totally braindead at the moment, and Kiya's topic sounds like a really good one for discussion and debate, I hope she will not object if I set it to launch right now: why is the thought of homosexual marriages so controversial that planned laws lead into endless fuss amongst people? Where is the threat? What is endangered? Which beliefs are hurt? What is the original sense of marriage, leaving religion aside?

And please follow her rules: all these questions should NOT be answered by quoting passages out of a book that represents a society as it was 2000 yrs ago (the bible). ... hmmm, I wonder if I asked really really nicely whether she would join the judges panel, too... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Kiya?

Gits away!

On second thoughts I think I'll withdraw from this one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

Nono, I won't join the judge - I want to debate myself, Rince <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> - as I really don't understand why this topic is so controversial.

My thoughts starting with the original sense of marriage as I see it:
1. IMO it was originally a mere bond, meant to care for each other and the young ones (food, shelter, protection etc.)
2. To make if more official and not back off from this mutual promise, this bond was then made "legal" by going to authorities (clan leader,later on religious authority, as society advanced, legal authority).
3. (Old and new) Authorities announced rules (laws) as how this bond had to be filled - taxes, rent, birth rights (all laws dealing matrimony). Thus protecting this kind of bond and the outcome (possession, kids, name etc.)

If I take my 3 pts and look at homosexual/lesbian marriages => I see no difference. 2 get together and agree to bond, care for each other, share their money, responsibility for their kids from former marriages - or from their single life as Mom/Dad. They have advantages by pension, taxes, can be heirs. I you simply agree to live together, the law standard is different, they don't have the same rights as a married couple and this leads to problems (what happens to the kids if one partner dies? What about their possessions?)

Threat => hm, difficult for me to see, but we had these issues here in Germany a few yrs ago until marriage became legal. The conservative parties argued with => our constitution put the family under a special protection and they saw this protection endangered (I failed to see that).

Hurt beliefs => "laws" from religion, as this kind of staying together was/is considered "unnatural". Maybe because reproduction was only possible if the gender is male/female - not male/male or female/female. But due to in-vitro-fertilisation, former marriages where kids are there, adoption etc. this thinking has outlived itself IMO.

Maybe because there is seen harm for the kids if they grow up in an environment where Mom/Dad are not of the opposite gender. (Old traditional way of gender role IMO).

Maybe because sexual preference is still seen in a strictly reproducal way (hm, religion again?) - science has advanced. Society as well. There are so many patchwork families (you know this expression? It's common in Germany => 2 marry and bring in their children from former marriages).

So, the problems society has (in some countries) is this IMO => marriage and the advantages you have due to the laws is still seen under a conservative, traditional way. Pity. I think, if 2 get together and want to share their responsibility, care for each other, share and make that "legal", because they feel an inner bond, society should respect that the same way for all gender combos.
Kiya

Might be a bit abstract as I see it - but IMO the point I want to make is => why should gender determine who may marry or not? A family is a family IMO, parental care is not restricted to gender only, but should be seen more in a social way => producing kids is a biological thingie - but parents include more => the social responsibility. So, 2 males or 2 females can do this the same way as the usual combo. If 2 think, they belong together and want to show it by marriage => why not?

Post deleted by Kris

Later I will read Kiyas and Kris (second) monsterposts, and then I will go back to the-
source!!!

(Geeze, this is serous $hit!)

Übereil

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> just for a while anyway, so DON'T SHOOT PLEASE!!
@ kiya -> thanks for the assurance. i think posting my experiences may help in strengthening arguments.

now back to the show ...

"why is the thought of homosexual marriages so controversial that planned laws lead into endless fuss amongst people? Where is the threat? What is endangered? Which beliefs are hurt? What is the original sense of marriage, leaving religion aside?"

wow! this is a new line of thought for me as i always think in line of religion. kiya, your topics are always very deep.

Law, since its conception, has always been in the light of religion. major religions abhor (please excuse the extreme term but that is the reality) homosexuality for the fact that perpetuating humanity has always been the union of man & woman. same sex unions are frowned upon most probably because it's unfruitful (that is in the eyes of religions, not able to bear children) & of course compatibility in anatomy for child bearing. sex has always been a tool of population & thus, the view & concept & act of sex is limited to that. most probably limitations on sex in view, concept & act is to control humanity from acting 'like animals', meaning not cohabit out of base instinct, rather with deliberation, planning & consideration of consequences.

fear is almost always the basis of desire to control. i believe that fear may be also the factor that limits the idea, concept of sex into what general society accepts today. what if same sex union is allowed? what's next? inbreeding? fear of opening one door that leads to too many doors open may force those who are/were in control or at least direct influence of people & their opinions to take control of the definition, explanation, limitation etc of sex.

in retrospect, i can almost say religions come about as basis to control & form a certain mind & behavioral pattern of society & therefore will be, in a way, undermined if there is liberty on sex. meaning, religions have no more say/influence on what is to be or not to be in the realm of sex. hence religion will be rendered significantly more useless by liberal thinking. in short, YES, religions in general will be hurt by liberty in sex.

sexual unions are thought to be biological rather than religious, if one studies our earth ecology system. there are many animals that practise monogamy, which is sexual union approved by all religions. may be sexual aspects in religions are formed by such observation?

for conclusion, it is controversial only when u feel that it is. the term controversy merely means a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. & dispute is another word for argument. if one has no wish to argue about the subject & just let it be (doesn't mean the person has no opinion or thought on the said subject), then there is no controversy. in another words, the word 'controversy' is overrated, & as such blows up things which aren't that all big in the first place.

my point in this is that if it might irk u, it will. if not, then nothing will happen. until i experience sexual union & the consequences that come with it, i cannot see well into the subject & so, i rest my case.

thanks. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />