The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: FounDit
User Name: FounDit
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Interests: Psychology, philosophy, thought-provoking discussions
Gender: Male
Home Page
Joined: Monday, September 19, 2011
Last Visit: Sunday, August 18, 2019 1:28:25 PM
Number of Posts: 11,429
[1.20% of all post / 3.95 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Nationalism an Evolutionary Dead End
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 1:25:17 PM
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
On the opposite extreme is the Utopian dream of unlimited cooperation with no competition.

No one I have ever heard who seriously considers the future would see one where all competition was eliminated as anything other than a dystopia. As you have noted it would be contrary to human nature. The elimination of nationalism would not cause competition to cease, nor would it even eliminate the notion of nations, only the nonsense that is propagated by slogans such as "America First", which honestly, is very close to another slogan from history, "Deutschland uber Alles."
A couple of points: First, when I said there would be the Utopian dream of unlimited cooperation with no competition, that was in reference to competition between peoples/nations, which was the central theme of your post.

Secondly, you choose to judge it as "nonsense" that people would choose their own culture and country/nation as deserving to be put first when compared to other nations. It should be obvious that there are some nations in which many of the peoples of earth would not want to dwell. These would especially be those limited in resources and individual freedoms, something many of us have enjoyed for quite some time. So there is nothing nonsensical about wanting to live in what you believe is the best place on the planet.

Thirdly, the idea of Americans putting America first is no different than putting family first because our culture is seen as family. I seriously doubt that many, if anyone, would trust, or so rapidly defend a stranger more quickly than a family member. This natural instinct begins with family, expands outward from it to neighbors, onward to community, and then to culture.

I don't see that ending anytime soon, despite the desire of some to try to eliminate it. This is especially true since culture is a combination of laws, rules, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, and behavior that is unique to each group. There is too much difference in cultures for all humans to forsake these things, no matter how noble the idea of doing so. As we have just recently seen, there are some cultures that believe all others should be destroyed who are not like them. Good luck with trying to convince them to abandon that goal. They would kill you for simply proposing such an idea.

FounDit wrote:
A world-wide Utopia without borders or nationalities, where all peoples get along cannot happen because of human nature. There simply will always be some people who want to dominate others, and there will always be people who will resist that impulse in others. It is a fantasy in the minds of those who do not like reality as it exists.

So were airplanes at one point in time. (You aren't seriously saying the desire to dominate others can be eliminated are you? How would you do that? And wouldn't that invalidate the ability to have a world-wide mass of humanity ruled over by central government? Because with no borders/countries/nation-states, there would have to be some kind of governing body)
Also, I did not say there would, or even should be a world-wide polity with no nations or borders, only that we needed to stop viewing nation-states within the us/them paradigm of thought. After all, in the U.S.A. there are 50 states and yet we are all Americans, why can we not similarly all be Terrestrians?

Because, as you just pointed out, we are 50 states, but a common culture. That cannot be said for all the peoples of the Earth. And this brings up what I see as invalid arguments, or premises, in your OP.

Quote: "Nationalism is an artifact of our coevolutionary history no longer adaptive in a fully populated world with modern warfare abilities."
You say it is no longer adaptive, that there has never been a "positive outcome". I assume by "adaptive" you mean beneficial to us, but that isn't born out by the evidence. All humans have continually benefited from the on-going National evolution of our species. Our lives are vastly improved as a result of that evolution.

As for our modern warfare abilities, they have increased exponentially over the last 70 years, but we are still here, so it cannot be said we have misused them to the detriment of our species. The fear you and others express will hardly be sufficient motivation for most of the peoples of the Earth to abandon their sense of national identity. In some places, you might run the risk of being put to death for even suggesting such a thing.

You say, Quote:

"It is unlikely that we would do away with countries anytime soon, or even if we ever would entirely. The necessity, however, of seeing ourselves as the human race and that our sense of kinship should be worldwide rather than in the ancient notions of tribal competition and rival kingdoms is obviously the adaptive path to the future.
Why is it obvious? Because you, and others like you, feel fear? This will hardly be sufficient evidence to motivate the majority of humans to abandon their cultural identity.

We ignore this principle to our peril, (According to who?)but why do we ignore it? (Because it is instinctive within us)Who is it that promotes this divisiveness? (Well, here in the U.S. today, it is the Socialist Democrats promoting divisiveness, but many others promote it in other countries for their own political purposes also)Is it the majority of most of the populations of countries in which this malignancy exists? It most certainly does not seem to be. (Right. It is usually the ruling power because it is easier to rule when people are fighting among themselves)When honest polling is done it turns out that the majority of people wish for more cooperation and less strife in the world. So whose interests are served by the promulgation of us/them mentality? Answer that question and perhaps you'll see just how much of a false narrative it is." (I repeat: It is usually the ruling power because it is easier to rule when people are fighting among themselves. And the narrative of Nationalism isn't false if it is practiced by all the people of the Earth.)

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: last vs continue
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:59:29 AM
ullas84 wrote:
what is the difference in meaning between ''last'' and ''continue''?

A1)The meeting lasted until lunchtime.

A2)The meeting continued until lunchtime.

B1)The trial lasted for six days

B2)The trial continued for six days

Are sentence A1 and A2 and B1 and B2 in the same meaning ?(even in nuance?)

Are they interchangeable?

In AmE, both are often used interchangeably with little to no difference in meaning.

In B1 and B2, however, it would be understood that there would be pauses for such things as meals and sleep during the six days.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: What causes air pollution? / What cause air pollution?
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:47:09 AM
onsen wrote:

A. What causes air pollution?
B. What cause air pollution?
(self-made sentence)

One who supposes there’s one cause may use A while one who supposes there are more than two causes may use B.
Which will one use if one doesn’t have such knowledge as one cause or more than two causes?

Thank you.

It doesn't make any difference if there is one, or if there are many causes. Both of these ideas can be covered if you ask, "What causes air pollution?" The answer can be one thing, or many things.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: to exploit
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:44:43 AM
navi wrote:
Which are correct:

1) He was killed to keep him silent. Okay.
2) He was killed to be kept silent. No. It makes little sense because he can't be actively "kept" silent once dead.

3) He was killed to keep silent. Needs "him".
(meaning: He was killed so that he would keep silent)

4) He was killed in order to keep him silent.
5) He was killed in order to be kept silent. No. Same as above. Once dead, he can't be "kept" silent because "kept" is active and on-going.

6) He was kidnapped to toil as a slave.
7) He was kidnapped to be worked as a slave. Okay because you have stated the purpose.

8) He was kidnapped to exploit as a slave.
No. This says he is a slave who exploits others. He isn't to exploit, he is to be exploited.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: as/like/what
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:29:49 AM
zhonglc2020 wrote:
Hello everyone,

1. Twelve is to three _______ four is to one. (1998)
A. what
B. as
C. that
D. like
Key what
2. Intellect is to the mind ______ sight is to the body. (2001)
A. what
B. as
C. that
D. like
Key what
Source: they are from test papers for English majors, China.

I think the keys to both 1 and 2 are,

What do you think?

I would use "as" most often, and perhaps "like", but I don't like "what" and wouldn't use that word.

Many many thanks.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Flaw
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:23:36 AM
Atatürk wrote:
Colonists thought the ecosystem “badly flawed” because it lacked the wildlife to which they were accustomed, and so stocked the country with deer, rabbit and pheasant to provide favorite foods, foxes for hunting, and a wide variety of other species for sheer familiarity.

Should it not be "was badly flawed"? Can flaw be used as an intransitive verb?

In the sense that it is judged to be imperfect. A flawed diamond has imperfections in it. But a flawed diamond is not thought of as being deliberately flawed as an action.

Saying the ecosystem "was badly flawed" could be thought of as being deliberately damaged by action (although most native speakers would understand this is not what is meant). Saying the colonists thought the ecosystem "badly flawed" would be understood to mean it was found to be in this condition naturally.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: The growing level
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 11:16:27 AM
Jigneshbharati wrote:
Thanks thar! I am sorry but I am still confused. If we say "a growing level of concern", would it be ungrammatical in the original? How would it change the intended meaning?

Since thar seems to be absent at the moment, I'll take a moment to comment.

"a" growing level of concern would be an example of concern but is unspecified. Using "the" growing level of concern specified the level of concern and is tied to the CDC.

It is possible to say "a" growing level of concern in the CDC, but again, that is as unspecified example of concern. It conveys a more vague level of concern than saying "the" level of concern. Using "the" makes it more specific. This particular level of concern motivates the CDC.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: the this
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 10:53:59 AM
Atatürk wrote:
Some stars are paid hundreds of millions of dollars every year. I believe that the/this amount of money that they receive is not fair.

Are both correct? Why?

Both are correct, but are used in different ways. When you say "the" amount of money that they receive, you are referring to any amount of money.

When you say "this" amount of money, you are referring to the amount already mentioned. Since you have stated 'hundreds of millions of dollars', this is the amount referred to, and is the word to use in this sentence.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Endemic
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2019 10:48:09 AM
Atatürk wrote:
Australia’s native wildlife is almost entirely endemic, having evolved in virtual isolation from the rest of the world.

How would you paraphrase "endemic" in the above, please?

Since "endemic" means "native" or "common", describing the native wildlife as endemic is redundant. It's like saying the native wildlife is native.

"Unique" fits better: "Australia's native wildlife is unique, having evolved in virtual isolation from the rest of the world".

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: The reasons for the recent mass shootings
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 5:37:18 PM
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
It seems FounDit is taking a page out of President Trump's book: While he has us all responding to his posts and many unfounded accusations, he still hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that:
No, I haven't taken any pages out of Trump's book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

- Democrats hate America, the Constitution etc (full list here)
- Hope supports illegal immigration
- Far more people die of car accidents than they do gun violence
- Women who want to kill their own kids before or at birth are hypocrites for having empathy for kids in cages
- Women who want to have an abortion essentially want to kill their child when it has become inconvenient
(I read FounDit's one article about abortion at birth, I also read the act it refers to and it says "24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health." - so essentially, not at birth unless the mother is going to die or if the fetus isn't viable anyway. So hardly because it's inconvenient.)
- Having empathy for kids in cages means you want the US to let in any immigrant, illegal or otherwise
- Donald Trump is a good president
- All of us with different opinions to FounDit's are Leftists
- Hope and I are clairvoyant

I'd like to add to the list:
- Supreme Court has made foolish decisions
- The Democrats hope to be able to interpret the Constitution as they wish (and, presumably, the Republicans have the True Interpretation)
- Trump and his supporters have saved the republic.
- The socialists are assaulting the republic.

So far, though, not a single shred of evidence.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention, or choose not to see. Your mental scotoma is not my problem to solve.

Just for the record then, where is that evidence I'm not paying attention to? I checked all your posts in this thread and other than the one article that you wrongfully used to support your demonized opinion on abortion (and the one example BobShilling pointed out,) they're all evidence-less.
Demonized? I don't know what you are talking about. What is "demonizing" about stating a fact: that women demand the right to abort their babies whenever they choose? I pointedly named Roe vs. wade. It is a law here in the U.S.

Evidence from other threads teaches me that you'll turn to more ad hominems, strawman arguments and deflection through some variation of "you people are so HILARIOUS, which really means I don't have to explain myself, somehow".

Even when I do explain myself, you all choose to ignore it and claim no evidence. There are none so blind...etc.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.