Turkey |
Thread locked by a moderator or admin. |
|
|
|
|
UNIVERSITIES
|
| 30. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 12:50 am |
|
Quoting AlphaF: Your interpretation of the Academic Council's statement brings a whole new light on the issue.
I did not know they were worried about public sex or alcohol abuse on the campus. |
Well I never linked it to that statement as I didnt read it, it was just a consequence of your first statement, saying personal freedoms (religious, political and SEXUAL) should be PRACTİSED FREELY.
So thats all. I dont think he was worrying about that 
|
|
| 31. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 01:18 am |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: Quoting thehandsom: are you serious DK? |
About what  ? |
About (no wonder people think its divine! What kind of human writes such a book ) comment?
just curious..that is all..not insuniating anything.
|
|
| 32. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 01:21 am |
|
Quoting thehandsom: About (no wonder people think its divine! What kind of human writes such a book ) comment?
just curious..that is all..not insuniating anything. |
Well, as I also said, I dont believe a word of it, so for me its just a genious who wrote it. But I can imagine that in that time, when nearly nobody could read and write at all, this language must have been magnificent! I can only imagine its Arabic version...
For example, the Bible, when you read it, you can clearly feel its written by a human. But from Quran, I did not get that feeling as strongly. (İm only at third surah so maybe Ill think about this differently later).
|
|
| 33. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 01:40 am |
|
as it was said here, statement number 2 is correct.
Deli Kizin, first statement did not emphasize on sexual practices, as you did in the end, it was just an example, perhaps more eloquent in pointing the difference between practicing and freedom of speaking.
In my opinion,considering segregation, it is not a good choice to wear head scarves in any other forms of institution.
Even statement number 2 in the first post enumerates topics related to personal freedom, which includes religion.
i think that the headscarf issue appeared in universities first as in the highest form of education. could be a first step in separating religion from public life in a healthy way.
Regarding what you said, deviating the initial post, if freedom of speech is accepted, that is valid for any subject, not just subjects which are subjectively favored. freedom of speech does not limit the subject of discussion, but the concept of discussion (and dialog) in itself limits the ways of addressing, requiring assertive communication.
I will not follow here all the course of this thread, but you have deviated with your first answer, in which you said that number 2 is correct, and this freedom of speech should have been extended (which is true, and added a plus to your answer, but was not the object of question). But stating after that number 1. thus implying logically number 3 is incorrect is redundant. If following the logical course, number 2 being correct, 1 and 3 are not. But the question was which is correct (not which is not correct).
Thus you entered into the "alogical" realm, and the lack of correct answering lead you to incorrect statements and in the end to an unclear emphasizing on the sexual freedom, which might have been the starting point for you in delimiting the correct answer (number2).
AlphaF pointed you the mistakes, but in the way to face you with them, does enhancing the "logical uncertainty" behind your affirmation.
AlphaF, I disagree with the way you lead (by questions) your discussions with Deli Kizin because I think it is sometimes harder to learn this way, because this method is dual, either cristalize, or confuses even more, not according attention to the undesired mistakes in thinking and aiming to find eventual hidden tendencies as being hided, but true.
This is the method I would use for a candidate at an interview, a selection, for example. Aiming to find out what a person actually desires, but not aiming at the fact that a person maybe desires/needs a healthier way of thinking. The latter can be practiced along with illogical realms such as jokes.
|
|
| 34. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 01:46 am |
|
I am sorry but I surely refuse to believe you have written this all by yourself. The PMs you sent are not only of lesser English, but also a different approach and style. This is a mixture of something I cannot think of...
I did not emphasize on sex or whatever, and did not mean to. I only pointed out that, in case we allow free practice of ALL freedoms, this could be a consequence too. Something people loose out of eye-sight many times.
As for AlphaFs way of questioning. He is not at all interested in what people are to say, nor does he really give his own opinion. He just wants to stir up a bit and İm totally ok with that!
ps Portokal, I think I accidentaly pmd you, anyway it was meant for the forumç Sorry!
|
|
| 35. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 01:55 am |
|
As it is in the forum too, i shall quote my PM answer:
Sorry, i wrote this by myself.
The pms i write might be more different, the subject is different also in the way that i count, express my opinion in relating. It has a higher emotional support, to say in a way. but i think when evaluating, one has to be objective.
You did, even without wanting. Thus showes the capital letters also. And sex is the most obvious (and mostly recognised as having disastrous repercussions (out of tabu))))) example which can crisalize as a pro example of why freedom of practice is not a good option.
AlphaF gives/try to give-reflect the interlocutor's opinion.
He does not stir up.
the interlocutor does.
where the trick lies? because there is one.
but i shall discuss this in forum or with him personally.
You speak up quite strongly and convinced on his behalf. 
|
|
| 36. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 02:00 am |
|
Quoting portokal: as it was said here, statement number 2 is correct.
Deli Kizin, first statement did not emphasize on sexual practices, as you did in the end, it was just an example, perhaps more eloquent in pointing the difference between practicing and freedom of speaking.
In my opinion,considering segregation, it is not a good choice to wear head scarves in any other forms of institution.
Even statement number 2 in the first post enumerates topics related to personal freedom, which includes religion.
i think that the headscarf issue appeared in universities first as in the highest form of education. could be a first step in separating religion from public life in a healthy way.
Regarding what you said, deviating the initial post, if freedom of speech is accepted, that is valid for any subject, not just subjects which are subjectively favored. freedom of speech does not limit the subject of discussion, but the concept of discussion (and dialog) in itself limits the ways of addressing, requiring assertive communication.
I will not follow here all the course of this thread, but you have deviated with your first answer, in which you said that number 2 is correct, and this freedom of speech should have been extended (which is true, and added a plus to your answer, but was not the object of question). But stating after that number 1. thus implying logically number 3 is incorrect is redundant. If following the logical course, number 2 being correct, 1 and 3 are not. But the question was which is correct (not which is not correct).
Thus you entered into the "alogical" realm, and the lack of correct answering lead you to incorrect statements and in the end to an unclear emphasizing on the sexual freedom, which might have been the starting point for you in delimiting the correct answer (number2).
AlphaF pointed you the mistakes, but in the way to face you with them, does enhancing the "logical uncertainty" behind your affirmation.
AlphaF, I disagree with the way you lead (by questions) your discussions with Deli Kizin because I think it is sometimes harder to learn this way, because this method is dual, either cristalize, or confuses even more, not according attention to the undesired mistakes in thinking and aiming to find eventual hidden tendencies as being hided, but true.
This is the method I would use for a candidate at an interview, a selection, for example. Aiming to find out what a person actually desires, but not aiming at the fact that a person maybe desires/needs a healthier way of thinking. The latter can be practiced along with illogical realms such as jokes. |
portakalfa..
I hope you will accept my critisism..
I have never seen so much common ideas, squeezed into 'forced uncommon words' to be honest..
|
|
| 37. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 02:02 am |
|
Quoting Deli_kizin: I am sorry but I surely refuse to believe you have written this all by yourself. The PMs you sent are not only of lesser English, but also a different approach and style. This is a mixture of something I cannot think of...
I did not emphasize on sex or whatever, and did not mean to. I only pointed out that, in case we allow free practice of ALL freedoms, this could be a consequence too. Something people loose out of eye-sight many times.
As for AlphaFs way of questioning. He is not at all interested in what people are to say, nor does he really give his own opinion. He just wants to stir up a bit and İm totally ok with that!
ps Portokal, I think I accidentaly pmd you, anyway it was meant for the forumç Sorry!
|
unlike you, i am very suspicious and i do not think in terms of accidents. but they do happen...
if it was an accident, the apology should have been made in PM, not in forum.)))
since it was made like this, i would like to ask you that, next time we exchange PMs, which i like and i am in favour of, let us try to delimit better the spheres of discussions between private and public.
|
|
| 38. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 02:02 am |
|
Quoting thehandsom: [
portakalfa..
|
 You definitely crackd me up here! (No this is not Catatürk entering my account!).
I thought the same about these common ideas. Well anyway, its too late to bother for simple minds,
Goodnight everyone!
|
|
| 39. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 02:05 am |
|
Quoting portokal: let us try to delimit better the spheres of discussions between private and public. |
I accidentally hit private message instead of quote. When I sent it and then looked inside the forum, I did not see my message. I then found it in the sent-mail and posted it again quickly. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I would not mind publishing any pms with you anyway, so for me it doesnt really matter
|
|
| 40. |
31 Jan 2008 Thu 02:09 am |
|
Quoting thehandsom: Quoting portokal: as it was said here, statement number 2 is correct.
Deli Kizin, first statement did not emphasize on sexual practices, as you did in the end, it was just an example, perhaps more eloquent in pointing the difference between practicing and freedom of speaking.
In my opinion,considering segregation, it is not a good choice to wear head scarves in any other forms of institution.
Even statement number 2 in the first post enumerates topics related to personal freedom, which includes religion.
i think that the headscarf issue appeared in universities first as in the highest form of education. could be a first step in separating religion from public life in a healthy way.
Regarding what you said, deviating the initial post, if freedom of speech is accepted, that is valid for any subject, not just subjects which are subjectively favored. freedom of speech does not limit the subject of discussion, but the concept of discussion (and dialog) in itself limits the ways of addressing, requiring assertive communication.
I will not follow here all the course of this thread, but you have deviated with your first answer, in which you said that number 2 is correct, and this freedom of speech should have been extended (which is true, and added a plus to your answer, but was not the object of question). But stating after that number 1. thus implying logically number 3 is incorrect is redundant. If following the logical course, number 2 being correct, 1 and 3 are not. But the question was which is correct (not which is not correct).
Thus you entered into the "alogical" realm, and the lack of correct answering lead you to incorrect statements and in the end to an unclear emphasizing on the sexual freedom, which might have been the starting point for you in delimiting the correct answer (number2).
AlphaF pointed you the mistakes, but in the way to face you with them, does enhancing the "logical uncertainty" behind your affirmation.
AlphaF, I disagree with the way you lead (by questions) your discussions with Deli Kizin because I think it is sometimes harder to learn this way, because this method is dual, either cristalize, or confuses even more, not according attention to the undesired mistakes in thinking and aiming to find eventual hidden tendencies as being hided, but true.
This is the method I would use for a candidate at an interview, a selection, for example. Aiming to find out what a person actually desires, but not aiming at the fact that a person maybe desires/needs a healthier way of thinking. The latter can be practiced along with illogical realms such as jokes. |
portakalfa..
I hope you will accept my critisism..
I have never seen so much common ideas, squeezed into 'forced uncommon words' to be honest..
|
i accept your criticism. as a person opened to dialogue.
what i wrote here was not meant to be extraordinary or un-common, it was just pointing out -not step by step, true, the points of our discussions. As for the uncommon words... i am sometimes a gourmand.  And this answer reflects your post, which was not ment to deal with my post more than at the level of criticism.
PS thank you for including me among the buggers, but what i like as being fair is to criticise but answer at the addressed questions, too. like i asked you what i did to bug you.
i can accept criticism in that answer, as well.
portokalfa sounds perfect, i accept this name only as a deeper symbol and after discussing this with Alfa.
|
|
|
