Jump to content

Excalibre

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Excalibre last won the day on July 5 2015

Excalibre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

39 Respected

About Excalibre

  • Rank
    Right into the Danger Zone!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Exams
    May 2015
  • Country
    Qatar

Recent Profile Visitors

1,546 profile views
  1. Sadly I would have to agree with you, my country continues to elect officials that would be better off not even seeing the light of the cameras. We are already looked down upon as the fools of the world, but we are also the warmongering capitalists. That will be the legacy we leave behind, noisy idiots who care nothing for anyone else. Though I could mark up the whole situation with saudi arabia as attempt not to get oil prices raised to unbearable prices, our country runs on oil, so without it everyone (including corporations) suffer. However I would like to see proof or statistics that indicate that the US is funding ISIS. To me that is a bit of a leap, none of our future leaders want to go down as the Bush disciples, and the US as a whole is agaisnt another war. I don't have the proof that the US is funding ISIS, and frankly no one else does either. Yet. But the weapons that ISIS is using are almost 60% American. And that claim has more than enough proof. In fact, there has even been one case where a supply drop (full of American weapons) landed right in the hands of the ISIS group. The Pentagon accepted the claim publicly, but blamed it on the wind (yes, the wind). But where did the rest of the military vehicles, tanks, missile systems and thousands of guns come from, you ask? The USA. Indirectly, though. Remember the infamous Iraq War, well the US had left behind a trove of costly military hardware, including U.S.-made armored Humvees, trucks, rockets, machine guns and even a helicopter once they decided that playtime was over. The grand total is estimated to come to $656 million worth of weaponry and equipment. You might say that it was the Iraqi Government's fault for letting it get in their hands, which is true to a certain degree. However, the fact that there are weapons there in the first place, not to mention for all the wrong reasons (need i mention "weapons of mass destruction"), is clearly the USA's fault.
  2. Excalibre

    I need help and its really urgent!

    Well to be fair both Chemistry and ESS are science courses. ESS is a hybrid though, being part of both Group 3 and Group 4 subjects. Since I took Chemistry HL, I found there to be a heck ton of memorization. And I'm speaking from experience, so take note. In Chemistry, your Option topics will determine how much memorizing it is you'll end up doing. I did Medicine and Drugs and Further Organic Chemistry (HL only, as far as I can remember), both were largely based on learning facts, formulae, structures, etc. So I wouldn't say that "memorization never works," but that's not what this post is about. Also I find Group 4 subjects to be relatively easier compared to Group 3 ones. There is more room for improvisation if you have an overall understanding of the topics, also the usage of case studies/real-life examples allows you to personalize some of the things you do end up having to memorize.
  3. Excalibre

    Functions

    I think you want us to provide you with questions, right? If so, then PM me and I can help you out. Because at the moment, I'm not 100% sure of what exactly it is you're asking for/about.
  4. Interesting topic indeed! It won't make for much of a debate though since everyone will be focusing on the negative impacts on the younger generation, but it will allow for decent discussion. Also, IMO, this topic will one day become the most talked about topic as society moves deeper into an age of reliance upon gadgets and other electronics. Anyways, I think what you (the OP) have experienced is exactly similar to what I experience on a daily basis. I have siblings with a pretty large year gap in between and many of the everyday scenes involve my youngest siblings (aged 3 and 12) on their iPads watching nursery rhymes or game-plays and whatnot. Eating dinner always involves an iPad to distract the 3-year old so she can be fed without too much of a fuss. And many of my younger cousins, all of whom are receiving their phones for the first time, are getting involved in all the negative activities associated with apps like Whatsapp, Facebook, Twitter, etc. The constant updating of statuses, the selfies, the sharing of app data, game invites, and so on and so forth. The most realistic representation of what the future holds for the generation that is so deeply engrossed in gadgets and the internet, is a very explicit, X-rated animated clip titled, "PM me for the name, cause it's really inappropriate." Although, the clip isn't focused on the younger generation, it's more to do with the otaku culture that is ever so prevalent in today's society. BTW, I'm not talking about anime addicts, I'm talking about internet addicts. Which is a little off-topic, so I won't get into any details. It still is a pretty accurate representation of what might become of this younger generation, if things go unchecked. To answer some of the questions you have posed, I do think technology is becoming a problem for the younger generation. However, we're also seeing a handful of children become "tech smart," which is turning out to be another problem in extremely less (but still present) percentages. Because 14 year-olds with the knowledge to access highly classified information are in fact a major security issue. Obviously the majority of children are taking away a lot of positives from all the exposure to tech at an an early age. Kids are now tech literate, can type at a younger age, the link to education is pretty strong in a large number of schools (and the numbers are growing), even toddlers are benefiting from watching semi-educational videos on numbers, shapes, colors and alphabets. But since we're focusing on the negatives, I believe this will suffice for now. Another con of technology is that it has made it ever so easy to access age-restricted material like p0rn. There aren't any direct studies on the impact of p0rn on the younger generation but there are indirect ones. And many of them point to a degradation in the moral fiber of the community, as well as the normalization of things related to p0rn like prostitution. Now, the solution to the problem is just as complex as identifying how much of a problem this advancement in tech really is. I don't think regulation of the medium works, because it has been proven time and time again that partial censorship of the internet will always fail. That means that time management is, at the moment, an effective solution and its efficacy lies in the hands of the parents. That's just my 'two cents' on the matter, feel free to ask for clarification if need be.
  5. Excalibre

    DP Subject Choices -- Thoughts?

    I'm guessing you school doesn't offer Geography either, because it does fit in rather nicely with your proposed majors. As for Chemistry (can't talk about Econ, since I never took it) it really is a difficult subject at the Higher Level. And it's not easy at SL either. So, unless it'll really boost your chances or you have some sort of personal attachment to the subject then I'd advise against it. Obviously, there are a lot of other factors, like good teachers and competitiveness that you might have to take into account before making a final decision, so take your time and think it through. On the other hand, what I have heard about Econ is that it's an easy subject to do well in, unlike any of the Science subjects (which require a lot of understanding of concepts). So have a look at the syllabus and maybe talk to former and current students taking the subject regarding course difficulty and whatnot. English A: Lang and Lit HL was personally one of my favorite subjects throughout the diploma, if you enjoy reading, writing or analyzing texts, then this is the subject for you. Obviously, you don't have to like it to do well in it, there needs to be a strong basis in essay writing to score well in assessments and exams, so make sure to practice that on a regular basis (as I'm sure your teacher will make sure you do that too). The language part is in fact what I liked most about the subject, so if you're not into literature then all hope is not lost, you can still enjoy half the lessons and assessments. The rest are either subjects I have never taken or heard of, in which case, my helpfulness ends here. Best of luck! (You'll need it, just like the rest of us did/do.)
  6. Of course, none of us would group the all encompassing concept of love to include every type of relationship. That would be absurd! And that is why I have tried to be specific in my initial post, where I have used the quote that very much relates to love as an emotion of desire and added a little addition specifying the definition that I would like to focus on in this debate/discussion. The rest of what you say is all well and good, except that the point isn't the fragility of love or the fallout which is inevitable in over 3/4th's of loving experiences. The point you make about experiences and memories, there are countless of other ways to experience events that are both memorable and teach you life lessons. However, the crux of the matter isn't availability of alternatives, it's the idea that love is non-essential for living a 'good' and worthy life.
  7. Excalibre

    Is there such a thing as free will?

    I think there definitely is such a thing as free will. Based on your conclusion that "our lives are purely deterministic," because of their "dependence on external stimuli (and so forth)," I have arrived at a point where basic chemical reactions aren't the sole commanding force in our lives. Certainly there is no doubt that we do not control all of the external stimuli, we can simply influence them and lead to alteration. However, one can definitely control their exposure to these stimuli. Surely, all stimuli aren't a result of our active thoughts. Most accidents are most definitely not a result of anyone's thoughts (or as you like to refer to them, chemical reactions in the brain), they are based on a plethora of factors (most of them uncontrollable) and chance/probability/luck. Obviously you can argue that your presence itself in the area of the accident is a result of your thought, but is it really? Out of the thousands, possibly a million, of people present nearby, you happening to be there at an exact spot, at an exact time, under certain exact conditions and experiencing one of the most unlikeliest of events on the entire planet, can not just be simplified down to having a chemical reaction prompting you to be there. Take your birth for example, certain people will argue that the conditions of your birth determine your future to the type of jobs you get, your annual income, your family size in the future, your access to opportunities and tons of other things. But you still see, that everyday there are more and more people lifting themselves out of abject poverty against all the odds in the world. How could they do that when they do not have the external stimuli to even think about ideas like progress, growth, affluence, change, etc. etc. Also the sheer complexity of the exposure to external stimuli we experience everyday is beyond epic proportions. Browsing a news website like BBC for 5 minutes alone would expose you to hundreds of different ideas, thoughts, opinions, facts, objects, situations and more. (No, I'm not sponsored by anyone.) Thoughts?
  8. I just want to throw some things out there. Firstly, a big thanks to all those that took their time to reply and add something meaningful to the post. It was originally meant to be a sort of discussion, but that might have changed a little. It's still cool because some interesting viewpoints are being brought to light in the newly-turned debate. Second, the views I was supporting in my posts aren't actually mine to start with. I wanted to hear both sides of the argument on the topic of voluntarily not choosing to love because I have a friend who fits well with the mindset I was representing. And I really just wanted to prepare myself for a long, intense discussion with him on the topic, so I'd thought it'd help if I could hear other's opinions and experiences to improve my own arsenal of arguments and counter-arguments. So, I hope you don't mind if I incorporate elements of your arguments in a very local setting. I'll try to minimize the plagiarism as much as possible. That is all. Cheers!
  9. Excalibre

    Help selecting HL Subjects- English or Psychology?

    I really don't know what type of person you talked to regarding taking up English A HL, because as of now you have 3 individuals (including me) that found English to be one of the most interesting subjects in their course of study. Obviously, I'm not undermining that person, since it's been mentioned by both posters that difficulty in a language subject (in this case English HL) is quite subjective (I'm sure ShootingStar16 has done justice in explaining why). The specific course that I took was English A: Language and Literature HL, and it was definitely one of the most interesting subjects. Like avalinelegato also mentioned, The language part of the course includes a wide range of texts, some of which make for interesting analysis. I even found WT1 and the IOP to be fun! Mainly because you are awarded a lot of space for free thought and given some level of freedom in choosing the topic (though this may vary from school to school). So I'd second the suggestion to have a look at the syllabus and decide for yourself what it is you want to do. Oh and if you're good at writing essays and have an interest in the subject, then you'll most likely not find English HL to be difficult. I had both attributes to some moderate extent and I got away with a 6 by the end of it.
  10. They aren't. That's a very simple way to look at emotions. If you understand what I'm saying, why are you drawing conclusions that I'm not making? I'm not saying that people who haven't experienced love are inferior or lead a lesser life. Love is an important thing for many people since it's the basis for a lot of relationships. A good marriage isn't just based on the fact that some one has nice hair or they're simply a cool person to be around. There are many conceptions of what is the good life and love can be part of some and removed from others. I don't see how those two statements are opposites either. You don't need love for all close relationships but it's still very important to them. Lastly, why are you using asexual to mean a person who doesn't want to experience love? Asexual just means you don't have sexual feelings. You can love without sex. Sex can be an expression of love but it isn't a necessary one. I only made conclusions based on what you had said, and I tried to indicate where it is I was drawing conclusions from. As for the rest of the things mentioned, I agree with them 100%. Well, I got it wrong again. Not definite opposites, but far apart to say the least. You say you don't need love for all close relationships, yet you say it's still very important for them. I'm not too sure of what that means because of the ambiguity of the reference to "them." Is it the close relationships that hold importance for love? (This is not an argument, I'm just asking for clarification.) You definitely have won the last argument. No further comment(s). If only it was as simple as that. I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc. And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.) Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.) I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer. You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed. However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me. Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious. I didn't. I just wrote a counter-argument. And I don't want to be associated with intoxiant usage under any conditions. Okay, it's just that your counter-argument was full of flair and seemed almost vindictive in nature. Oh, and I'm certain I did NOT associate you with the usage of any substance.
  11. If only it was as simple as that. I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc. And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.) Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.) I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer. You nailed it, I'm an absolutist indeed. I have no reason to poison my liver and blurr my neural systems with widely used toxin known as ethanol. From there you can propably conclude I don't use hallusinogenes.I indeed avoid social situations with people of my age. That's where I get flustered indeed. However I do not avoid classes. I'm usually the one to raise my hand to answer question actually. If teacher asks and I don't know I say I don't know. Its no shame. Interviews can be overcame by choosing always rational answer and preparing carefully. Why should I use a roller-coaster since I don't enjoy those? And I bear no interest to law, since its human-made thing and human-made things tend to be irrational. Irrational tends to be boring to me. Hey, you seem to have taken offence at my little comment. It was only meant as a light-hearted jest, nothing serious.
  12. If only it was as simple as that. I mean if you avoid things on the basis that they make you less rational, then I'm certain you avoid alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens, 'strong' analgesics, etc. And what if being asked questions in front of a group of people gets you flustered, do you avoid class participation or skip class altogether? (Just a possible example.) Interviews? Roller-coasters and the like? Occupations like Lawyer? (Also possible examples.) I mean, it's a fair point. Just not really a no-brainer.
  13. I'm glad you can relate so closely to the quote, it makes for an interesting partner to talk this through with. So, to start, the main assumption I'd like to highlight here is that you think not loving is equivalent to "constantly being at the bottom." Which you've made very very clear in your counterexample as well (to love is to ride the roller coaster above the ground). Simple question: why? Why do you feel as if the act of not experiencing love leaves you less satisfied than those that do experience it? Is it due to the experiences during the time of love? Because if that's the case then all IB students should be happier than A-level students due to the differences in experiences between the two programs. Surely IB students face a much longer 'roller-coaster ride' in comparison. Yet, that isn't the case because both batches of students go on to lead regular, happy lives. P.S. I like your little post-script additions.
  14. I understand what you're saying, however, what you're talking about is based on the pretext that many people choose not to love out of fear (of fallout). Which is indeed true most of the time. However, that's not exactly what my post is about. What I have tried to ask is based on someone choosing not to love simply because they don't want to. No feelings or emotions attached, just some sort of understanding that love isn't essential to live a fulfilling life. Like there isn't any reliance on love to deliver a memorable experience, because you can experience things equally satisfying without it. (I hope that makes sense, because it's really difficult to explain a sort of mentality/way of thought.) In your penultimate paragraph, your first sentence is kind of a summation of what this post is really about, that is to say "you don't have to open yourself up enough to fall in love with someone." Yet, you end with the statement "love also becomes important," which is pretty much the opposite of that. You, yourself, say that you don't need love to form all relationships (or you hint towards it) and that's exactly how I see it too. So why is it so important? I feel like as if you find those that avoid love, to be living incomplete lives. Because you find it to be pretty important, meaning those that don't find it important are not as well off as those that do. Why is that so? I'm certain not all the asexual beings on this planet die slow, painful deaths because of a lack of GFs or wives. They probably live equally happy lives as those that do love. But the main point is, what if you're not asexual and still don't find love to be all that beautiful of a thing? Does that mean you're abnormal? (I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just trying to highlight what this is really about.)
  15. Greetings fellow survivors! (As well as those that are currently trying to survive.) I have below a quote from the renowned poet and novelist, C.S. Lewis, on his take on the subject of Love. I, personally, find it a little dark, since it points to a negative outcome regardless of what path you choose (i.e. to love or not to love). However, he views the act of not loving at all leading to "damnation." Do you agree? If so, please state your reasons (they don't necessarily have to be based on pure logic alone). Speaking from my experiences so far (age 18), I don't understand why love is made out to be such an important factor of life. I mean I understand the role of affection when it comes to family (e.g. parents and siblings), but what I do fail to see is how infatuation with a stranger of the opposite sex (or same sex, no discrimination) is such an important part of life. What about all those individuals that simply don't have any interest in these things. Asexual, the term coined for people that have no sexual feelings or desires. Are they considered 'broken' by the rest of society? Or are they thought of as simply being different? And what if you simply choose NOT to pursue the abstract concept of love? I mean, it's all cool to have feelings and desires, but do you necessarily have to fulfill these desires to live a normal life? I'd like to hear your opinions/views on the subject, so feel free to express yourself. Also, I apologize in advance for any misinterpretation from my side and also if I have unknowingly said something offensive to somebody. Just let me know if that is the case and I'll edit/remove it ASAP. EDIT: The concept of 'Love' which I am trying to refer to is best defined as, "a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone)."
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.