Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and log in to join the CFC discussion! ×

Dion

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,692

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

  • Country

    Brazil

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dion

  1. Dion
    I maybe could have voted Iseah if he wasn't a competitor for Axelle's affection and a brazilian hater
  2. Dion
    Clearly a trap because everyone knows the answer is 4) the Mjölnir. Or in an emergency, a kitchen meat hammer.
  3. Dion
    Couldn't have said it better myself.
  4. Dion
    Honestly, from the games I've seen, I'd say he was misused a lot in Barcelona as of lately. He would often be played as a false nine (specially when Messi was injured), which doesn't fit him at all. And the Barcelona team from last season was way too disjointed. There were players still on the tiki-taka mentality while others were playing with a more direct approach, which proved to be a failure and a mess. Despite being raised in their youth team, he did look as if he was more comfortable with directness rather than with tiki-taka bullshit.
  5. Dion
    That's why mediators are invaluable in order to solve problems when hatred is involved. It blinds both parties and makes it difficult to compromise, because it requires both sides making concessions, and none of them want to be the first one to do it because they feel it would be a sign that they were losing or conceding defeat. Why would you back down if you were winning? What's difficult to see is that none of them is winning, both are losing. I've had a personal experience with that when my parents got a divorce. My parents are some of the smartest people I know. Specially my dad. But damn, I swear they were behaving more childish and stupid than my little brother who was 9 at the time. It requires a lot of wisdom and composure to be able to clearly assess the situation when you're directly involved and affected.
  6. Dion
    Avoiding the majority, a.k.a hive mind.
  7. Dion
    I'm going to elaborate an analogy to showcase more or less how I see the situation. And forgive me if it ends up sounding a tad simplistic or if I got something wrong. You see, I have been living in this house for quite some years now. Then one day, out of the blue, someone knocks at my door and says that this dude who is 6'6'' tall (while I am 5'10'') has the right to be living in my house. Of course I don't like it and I want to fight him and take him out. But in the end he's stronger and wins - as I don't have anywhere else to go, I stay in the house and try to keep my losses at a minimum. However, this dude now has decided half of my house is not enough for him and he takes by force the second bathroom too, leaving me with none. And then he keeps taking more and more until I'm left to live in my backyard and sleep in the dog's house. Can you blame me for taking my rockets I used to hide below the dog's house and wanting to blow his face? Unfortunately he has a force shield and I can't hit him directly, he only takes minor injuries from the explosions around, and he comes in the backyard and beats the shit out of me whenever I try it. He says he's only defending himself from me and asks me to stop. He claims he doesn't understand why can't I just accept and live in the place where he left me to live. How different could it have gone if after settling in my house he offered to discuss which part I wanted to keep and which part he wanted, or better, if everything was shared as common space? If he offered to split the costs for internet and cable tv? If he volunteered to take turns for taking the clothes to the laundry? I mean, it's true I lost some freedom and space and I'm still pissed about that. But I can't take him out by force and his stay here has increased my quality of life despite everything. Maybe I'm willing to compromise, maybe it could be good for both of us. However, had he took the place I consider mine with all my stuff to himself by force and left me to live a miserable life I'm pretty sure I would be more willing to kill him than to make any kind of deal. The first situation is what happened in simple terms. The second is what Choulo19 proposed and that may or may not be out of reach at this point.
  8. Dion
    Then explain it to me. I'm trying to understand what the problem is.
  9. Dion
    Wouldn't it be good for economy to work in a state of peace and being able to have a commercial partner that lives just by your borders? Wars are wonderful for the economy. For the economy of the countries supplying you, because your labor force is occupied fighting the enemy, not producing any trading goods, thus making a case for importing weaponry, more food etc. Good for them, definitely not good for you. Achieving peace with your neighbors is a good way to improve your economy.
  10. Dion
    If you took the leap of faith and ceased fire wouldn't you guys be saving some money in weaponry? I would think so. From what I've heard wars are expensive.
  11. Dion
    That's why Stingray said there must be a leap of faith. Nobody can assure Israel it will happen. What can be assured is if you continue "defending" yourself it won't stop until either side is completely destroyed. You guys could start using the money which will be saved from not spending in military actions to help reaching the goal of peace.
  12. Dion
    I think we can promise you that it has a better chance to achieve peace than killing palestinians and making their lives miserable, this is a way I know for sure won't bring peace. As corny as it sounds, violence only generates more violence.
  13. Dion
    Oh, don't be so pessimistic! There are little victories. Just look at women rights. I know muslims see it a bit different. But women have come a long way on equality with men in the western world, which I find it amazing. In Brazil homossexual individuals have been acquiring a lot of rights lately as well. It may be happening slower and in smaller steps than I would like but it is happening. I gotta go to the dentist now though. Cheers.
  14. Dion
    You see, that's one of my main problems with pretty much every religion. Speaking as a law student, nothing but problems and injustice can come from following a set of rules that leave margin to a lot of different interpretations. I didn't mean it in evolutionary sense, but in progress sense. Can't it have that meaning in English?
  15. Dion
    You see how difficult it is to accept a power above your national state when even european countries have their struggles within the european union. And have in mind that european countries are very much alike culturally and even economically if you compare their situation to the discrepancy between every nation in the whole world. We're way too far from being able to solve international conflicts in a peaceful and righteous manner. Like Muzchap said, it's like we haven't evolved at all from those medieval times.
  16. Dion
    Ideally, the best course of action would be having a neutral unified superior power to resolve conflicts between different countries according to a set of international laws agreed by every nation. It's the same concept as we have inside every country with our courthouses. The state acts as a neutral superior power and is represented by the judge who will solve those disputes with as little bias as possible according to national laws. Unfortunately we're a long way from that kind of organization. United Nations doesn't even come close to that yet. They're a step in the right direction but as of right now they're a joke at dealing with those kind of conflicts. Long story short, most countries won't accept any decision imposed to them because none will like the idea of losing their indisputable sovereignty in their affairs and will be skeptical about how neutral any decision by the superior organization is. In addition, that organization should have more coercive power than any country individually or else we would see what happens nowadays. UN is against X action but it can't do jack shit, so Y country will do X anyway. All the punishment we have in International Law today is related to economical or political restrictions which is simply not enough for dealing with the utmost difficult situations. Add to that UN is biased as heck because it is controlled by the most powerful countries in the world, more often than not the decisions will go in their benefit, so there is also that.
  17. Dion
    HAHAHAHAHHAHAAH. So you know what I mean.
  18. Dion
    What can I say. I will never forget that day, Choo Choo and Liquidator in the hotel room, the sun was rising on the horizon, the sunlight starting to reach our bed. Choulo making train noises... You had to be there to understand.
  19. Dion
    No offense to the others, but Stingray wins this for his gifs knowledge alone. In addition to that he can maintain a level-headed conversation in many different subjects. He has a broad spectrum of knowledge - from kinky gifs to football, psychology, history, politics etc.
  20. Dion
    Another tough decision. Going for TOPTB because although I don't always agree with him I can respect his reasoning to think the way he does. And in doing that, he often brings new perspective that I would not have thought of otherwise.
  21. Dion
    Skipper for me. I find myself agreeing with so much of what he says that sometimes I have to double-check if I wasn't the one to write it.
  22. Dion
    Spike because aussie humour.
  23. Dion
    Every staff member deserves it but I'm sorry, Choo Choo has a special place in my heart
  24. Dion
    Tough decision. Going for Barbara to make up for the fact she was not nominated for best newcomer and because if I recall correctly I voted for The Skipper last time and he has already won it. ps: what am I even doing there? I thought I got like 3 nominations
  25. Dion
    There can't be any other winner than Lord Assburner.
×
×
  • Create New...