forum franco-hispanique / foro hispano-frances
>bacause there is not any serious sanitary information to tell to people hao to eat correctly [Griper]
Ridiculous. There's plenty of information about health and dieting. It's hard to escape. Food in the stores carries labels that tells the number of calories, amount of cholesterol, fat, and other information. If I ever become fat, it won't be because I lack information.
>some of the US states still use the DEATH PENALTY. [Griper]
In some cases life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is more cruel than the death penalty (a penalty that some persons amply deserve).
>I forgot the fact averyone can get a weapon, what a great freedom! [Griper]
That's not a fact. Everyone cannot get a weapon (if by "weapon" you mean a gun -- knives and other objects commonly available everywhere can be used as weapons too). There are laws aimed at preventing convicted felons from getting firearms. It's impossible, though, to insure that they or other dangerous persons will not get them illegally. With felons arming themselves illegally, many law-abiding persons appreciate the right to possess firearms to defend themselves.
>the fact some of your politicians used the uclear bomb in Japan and do not want the others to get nuclear stuff.... [Griper]
The politicians who ordered the use of the nuclear bomb have been dead for a very long time. Truman is the one who actually made the decision. And is there anything in the conduct of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, or the Stalinist USSR that would lead anybody to believe that these (morally superior?) countries would have refrained from using the bomb if they had gained sole possession of it first? In my opinion the consequences for the world would have been far worse.
The dropping of the nuclear bomb was a terrible and tragic event. The people killed then, though, were just a very small part of the many MILLIONS of persons killed in that war. The use of the bomb must be judged in the context of its time. The scale of horror that already existed in that war is hard to comprehend. For instance, the Allies killed more persons by conventional means in the bombing of Dresden alone. Also millions of innocent persons were massacred in both Asia and Europe by Germany and Japan. We can talk about the numbers, but the scale of the horror can't really be felt (fortunately -- it's hard enough for us as individuals to live with the tragedies that we witness ourselves without taking upon ourselves the tragedies of humanity as a whole).
By using the bomb the US ended World War II, a war that it had tried to avoid as long as possible (unwisely – in retrospect it's clear that the United States and Western Europe should have confronted Hitler early when he was less of a threat) and a war that it entered only when it was treacherously attacked. The use of the nuclear bomb saved the lives of all the persons -- Allied and Japanese -- who would have been lost in an invasion of Japan, perhaps a number greater than were killed by the bomb itself (there's no way of knowing for sure). Also the fact that half a century ago the United States used the nuclear bomb does not mean that Americans of this generation should stand by and let dangerous fanatics obtain nuclear weapons. Nor, of course, does the dropping of the bomb half a century ago mean that Americans living now – who had nothing to do with it -- deserve to have nuclear bombs used against them.
The more closely that the American use of nuclear weapons in World War II is associated with Americans now, the less unthinkable it becomes for people to consider using those weapons against them. It's very foolish for the haters of this country to imagine that it will be good for the world if more of this country's enemies obtain nuclear weapons. This would increase the possibility that terrorists will obtain these weapons and use them against American cities. If that happens, the United States will retaliate. The time for precision strikes will be over, though. I expect it to retaliate with large-scale nuclear attacks, taking out cities, and if the terrorist attacks continue, entire countries.
Once a nuclear exchange starts and begins to escalate, there's no telling what will happen. No person on earth will be safe (and I include those in the Southern Hemisphere). There are steps that could be taken -- besides the use of ordinary nuclear weapons -- that would result in the end of human life on earth within a generation. As much as some persons may be titillated by the thought that the mighty United States could be attacked in this way, if you think that this would be good for you or for the world, you are out of your minds. Keep stirring up hatred against the United States, and making the thought of using nuclear weapons against it seem less reprehensible, and you may live to regret it (or not have time to regret it).
>Yes sure, i must be bad educated and you must be brainwashed. [Griper]
As for my brainwashing, I've been exposed to a wide range of ideas all my life and heard these simplistic anti-American charges many times before. I learned much of my Spanish from listening to shortwave radio broadcasts from Castro's Cuba. It was one of the stations that I could receive most clearly, and I listened to thousands of Cuban broadcasts (that's not an exaggeration). I know better than to accept what I'm told in an uncritical way.
As for your being badly educated (not "bad educated"), what I said was "The mistakes in your writing show that English isn't your native language (unless you're very badly educated)." "Unless" -- so are you now claiming that English is your native language? That's the only way in which what I said could be interpreted to mean that you're badly educated. You may be badly educated, of course, but I didn't make that charge. I assumed that English wasn't your native language.
It's hard to believe that a native speaker of English would make the mistakes that you have. For example, "the fact there is not right to be syndicated in USA". "The fact that there is not right" is not idiomatic English (it should be "the fact that there is no right..."). Your choice of words appears to be a reflection of the wording used in another language. In Spanish there's "no hay derecho" (the verb itself is made negative, which might lead somebody to write 'is not' instead of 'is no'). Also it's not true that people can't be syndicated in the USA (for example, writers of columns, producers of shows). You may be referring to labor unions, though (which are actually more free in the United States than in the countries controlled by its enemies). If so, your choice of words probably reflects the use of the Spanish word 'sindicatos' (or French 'syndicats') or a word from some other language that has a cognate typically used that way.
>the fact the politicians need to use the bible to send to death some young people. [Griper]
Our politicians don't need to use the Bible, and the young people aren't sent "to death". The armed forces of the United States is made up of volunteers who are willing to risk their lives to defend their country (risk! -- some die, but unlike their enemies they aren't fanatical dupes who become suicide bombers). Both religious and non-religious persons can find many reasons for opposing our enemies.
>the rights of black people in USA there is not so many time [Griper]
That sentence doesn't make sense as it's currently written. If you mean that the United States was slow to guarantee rights to its black citizens, then I have to agree with you. Great progress has been made, though. Also many other countries have had trouble with racism -- and continue to have trouble with it. (In another thread we've just been discussing how the word 'indio' [Indian] is sometimes used as an insult in Mexico.) Also I agree with Sander that there are racist implications to some of the comments that people have made here against speakers of English, against 'gringos', against the Germanic peoples, and some of the silly claims about the superiority of "Latin" culture. Obviously people aren't talking about the English speakers of Jamaica. The main targets seem to be the persons who live or have emigrated from northern Europe. It's hard not to be reminded of Hitler's Nordic stuff but with a Nietzschean transvaluation -- everything turned upside down.
I don't see much validity in this distinction between "Latin" and "Anglo-Saxon" cultures, even in its milder and inoffensive embodiments. We English speakers absorbed a great part of the Mediterranean cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. The Italian Renaissance is a part of our heritage too. Also individuals to a great degree create their own culture by the choices that they make in their reading, in their travel, in their recreation, in whatever they choose to do. Neither race nor nationality determines culture. I as an individual have read innumerable Spanish and French writers. They have become part of my individual culture. I have far more in common with Cervantes, Bécquer, and Unamuno and with the French authors whom I've quoted recently (La Rochefoucauld and Voltaire) than I do with the author of Beowulf. Note that these authors span a wide range of thought. A culture isn't something simple that can be summarized in ideological terms.
Americans such as Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, and William James have influenced me -- along with countless others -- but they are merely part of the cultural mix. You could throw in Germans such as Schopenhauer too. My culture is neither "Anglo-Saxon" nor "Latin". It's not even exclusively "Western". It has been influenced by the ancient writings of the Middle East, by the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita, by Chinese and Japanese writings, by all kinds of stuff.
I see nothing wrong with calling attention to the contributions of the people who speak your native language. Somebody in one of the threads said that he thought that Cervantes was a better writer than Shakespeare. That''s debatable, but I wouldn't deny that Cervantes is a great writer, and if that's his opinion, fine. I see nothing wrong with a little rivalry in these matters. I even get a chuckle out of some of the conflicts that take place here. (The ones that don't involve matters of life or death.) It appears to me, though, that most of these claims about the "Latins" and the "Anglo-Saxons" are simplistic stereotypes, and I believe it would be naive to put much faith in them.
Some corrections:
"labels that tells" -- "...tell"
"The armed forces of the United States is" -- "...are".
"I know better than to accept what I'm told in an uncritical way" -- "I know better than to accept in an uncritical way whatever I'm told"
"Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, and William James have influenced me -- along with countless others --" -- "Jefferson, Emerson, Thoreau, and William James -- along with countless others -- have influenced me"
"That"s debatable" -- "That's debatable"
"these claims about the 'Latins' and the 'Anglo-Saxons' are simplistic stereotypes" -- "...are based on simplistic stereotypes"
I never said i was a native english speaker.
I never said latinism was better than anglo-saxon culture but i think the way the other cultures must speak english is bad. The reason is simple, many english speakers (or anglo-saxon speakers) are wainting from the others to speak english directly), and i hate that. When some people can't, most of the english native speakers think it's bad. Because, when a native english speaker use english without asking to you if you know that language, i think this is unpolite and a kind of colonialism. When you become a wee bet rude because of that, they think you are rude. I don't say this is your case, but it is most of the time the case for many americans and british.
When thye come to a foreign country, they are wainting from the people to speak english, it is unfair and shows how is their mentality, a colonialist one.
About the death penalty, how can you say to someone : you will be killed because you have killed someone. You do the same thing.
Why Bush, and in thribes, do they need to swear on the bible? Why they have to speak in the name of god. This is fanatic too.
About food, you can read of course the information written on the packages, but when i see what you can eat at school, what is written in school books. I just see which companies have the power and why they prefer to make money instead of having an healthy food for the childrens.
About weapons, this is the only country where some teenagers have killed some other students at school. This never happened in Canada.
About the use of nuclear weapon in Japan, i have to admit i agree with you. But i am not sure, a day could happen one of your fanatic politicains will use for an other reason.
About the election of Bush, the 1st time, it has been really democratic for sure.
...
Apart a few other contries, i have never seen a country where teenagers have to speak every about their great nations, with american flags everywhere, movies where some actors need to give a speech about USA whish is freedom. What is it if it is not fanatism?
Of course, i am not the one who think Cervantes is better than Shakespeare, or vice versa. I agree on that point.
USA are or is a big and powerfull country which has a lot of great intellectuals and scientists. But but they (US people) should not forget the fact all the world do not speak and think the same as they do.
Of course, i have read a lot of cliches about USA people, french, spanish...
I don't pretend it is better where i am from. I just think US are going to far and will to assume more and more criticism.
¿De dónde sacaran fuerzas estos dos, para poder escribir tantos posts tan largos y llenos de refutaciones?
Solo de verlos me canso.
"Solo de verlos me canso. "
What does it mean?
Cucaracha ???????
Great nick By the Way
Que creativo resulto este individuo que con singular alegria se ha dado por pseudonimo "cucaracha".
People who appreciate the French heritage of New Orleans can be thankful that hurricane Katrina landed slightly to the east. The damage was great but not nearly as bad as it might have been. Just a short time before landfall Katrina had been a category 5 (175 miles per hour). Fortunately it weakened before hitting the coast.