This is 2012, the age of the Internet. Is it finally time that the English-speaking people s come together and decide on one uniform system of spelling? It could be American or British. But do you agree that we should choose one of them to be the correct way?

Is it PC to say "black people"? I'm sorry if I'm repeating the topic, but I tried searching and got hundreds of results, and none in the first couple of pages were relevant. I am an English student from Bosnia and Herzegovina (south-east Europe), and I'm writing a paper on politically correctness, so I need thoughts from Americans... It is my opinion that "African American" is not precise. It is limited to citizens of America with African heritage. What about black people in other countries in the world? What about black Americans from Cuba, the Carribeans and so on? "Black people" encompasses all those groups. Can anyone tell me if it is offensive to use "black person/people", and if so, what is the accepted term which would denote the whole group... Thanks!

here's a good one. is anarchy good in theory? with the recent debates, i wonder on the path of our nation and where it will be in 20 years. in my humble opinion, capitalism is seriously going to destroy the earth, very soon going at this pace... here's a great post to read on this subject, well over 16 pages of ideas and theory. the guy is not that stereotypical anarchist i seemed to have programmed in my brain from school and society. = the guy has great points. i like this for of non-government simply because it sems to me this is the way humans were intended to inhabit earth. not this materialistic bs with greed for money and lust for power. polluting and destroying, and in lack of better words: being a virus. poverty wouldn't be an issue, people could be happy if only we could set aside petty differences and work for a common goal: for the greater good of mankind. not this ego trip on who has more power, money, land, better beliefs on religion, etc. i'm seriously suprised God hasn't unleashed his/her wrath on us for being the way we are today... and even so, i'm still expecting it any day now. to me, government says they're for greater good, but we're trying to explore space already when we havn't even scratched the surface of our own planet. they throw their own people in prison without remorse for the smallest of non-violent crimes not to mention invading our rights as an american, tax us out the *** for something i won't even qualify for in 40 years because it'll be broke (social security), and even the people who fight for this land we all share (it's not even a country...) get thrown in prison for having opinions (the 20 year military officer who might be thrown in prison for a long while due to writing a letter speaking his mind on why the war is a failure - link below for letter he wrote and story on it). i could go on and on... letter: story: government tries to play "mommy" telling people what they can and can not do, and once those temptations are laid out infront of them on a silver platter, people tend to take them. even goes as far as telling OTHER countries how to run their ***. democracy = hypocracy, greed, and lust boiled down. do you really think this is the best way for people to live? having the media manipulate the masses? our lives being controlled by fear? rich get richer, poor get poorer? and most of the rich are miserable, ugly beyond contemplation (karma for their actions) and fake (plastic boobs, noses, brows, faces... we're slowly becomming cyborgs). it's almost like being a "modern day slave" to society. hardest work for crappiest pay while CEOs and large time business mooch 99% of the profits we work for. do something they don't like and you no longer have that equal opportunity to make money. i'd rather have goals relative to something other than money - such as building communities with individuality. all for one and one for all. with anarchy though, some sacrifices to the way we've been growing up will have to be made, and i accept this. materialism for one, would be no problem to me. i don't believe i have to have high class cars, tables, houses to define me as a person. the only thing that does is define how much money i make. i don't believe in attacking the government, i take the ghandi approach by trying to gain a person's understanding rather than fight. "peace cannot be kept by force. it can only be achieved by understanding" - albert einstein -hokum

If you're against it tell me why.

How can English people express social distance? I mean how can you encode into your language that the person you are talking to is superior to you or simple 'out of your circles'? How is 'that language' different from the one you use when you talk to a person who is equal to you or whom you are solidary with? (In the French, Spanish and Hungarian etc. languages there is a distinction in pronouns called T-V distinction (tu/tu/te versus vous/usted/Ön(Maga) and by using one of them we can make social or personal distinctions or similarities.)

About a year ago, two gentlemen from the United Kingdom were visiting the American state of Florida when they were brutally murdered by a teenaged thug. The tourists had unknowingly entered a dangerous neighborhood, at night no less! I, for example, have never been to London, but if I ever were to, I should appreciate being told to avoid certain areas, especially at night. My "controversial" question: Do you think that governments have the moral duty to warn foreign tourists about dangerous areas within their countries? P.S. The American government does advise Americans of countries where political concerns may affect personal security.

What is the world's biggest problem today? 1) Aids 2) Gun crime/gun love 3) Drugs 4) War 5) The WTO 6) The WHO 7) The Beatles 8) Madonna 9) Racism 10) Globalism 11) Global warming/polar inversion/wobble 12) The bad dudes under your bed 13) American foreign policy 14) Knirps

I hesitated a bit befor posting this subject. I have to say that I though this might not be the place to have such a discussion or to pose such a topic. but I figured later that yes, this is the right place. I mean, it's the "controversial topics" section in an english forum that is full of people from outside the islamic world! So the thing is, that the media in the islamic world claims that people in america or europe for example see us as "terrorists"! suicide bombers! killing machines! and after september 11th this image grew to peole! I couldn't imagine that just because some terrorist acts were done in the name of islam, people would fear as! but then I opened my eyes wide to see that even in tunisia, the muslim country since 13 century, there are many people who take islam for some sort of a brutal religion that encourages violence. if you have a beard for instance ( wich has nothing to do with the essence about islam) people would really think that you are going to hit girls who don't were veil or slap boys who don't pray! beleive me this is reality! So, what I want to know is: does people in your country really take muslims for violent fanatic terrorists? and I'm sory I took much to explaine my question

The title says it all. I want to know how do the people from all around the world see it?

Have you seriously considered what lessons we teach our kids next to the curriculum. What ideas on life, the future, respect versus blind obedience, and being critical, independent thinkers versus good citizens who do as they are told are we passing along as we teach them? I am wondering is I am alone in thinking this is as important as anything else. You cannot "just" teach English... or "Are you saying you can “just” teach your subject and be done with it? Are you seriously assuming that telling kids, at the risk of punishment, to sit down, listen when told, speak when told, read this text, do that assignment, eat when and where they are told, read the books we tell them and study these facts by heart is NOT informing them on what behavior, morals, ideas and attitudes are the right ones? Let alone that we grade them, constantly, on skills, knowledge of data, and many times behavior, and tell them that not doing well means their lives will probably suck?" What's your idea?

We sit in our homes safe and sound, (at least we think so), and innocent children are being abducted and raped in the African Continent ... this is the year 2012, this is our world, and the man doing all of this is a criminal called Joseph Koni.

I still can't understand how your voting system works although I read some articles about it. Why do you go to cast your ballots when your elections are indirect? What exactly do you mark on them? Can American people really influence the outcome of the elctions taking into account that Al Gore lost against George W Bush? Thanks in advance. P.S. My question is about the presidential elections.

"So what do you do for a living?" the activist asked me. He was an American Christian, an ordained minister and leader of an interfaith peace organization. I was attending a conference organized by his group. "I produce Islamic videos and programs, particularly for children," I replied. "Oh. Doesn't Hamas produce programs for children, too?" he asked. I was stunned. This exchange occurred shortly before the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections. What floored me though was that this man associated what I do for a living with a group considered terrorist by the American government. It is clear that the ugly tentacles of Islamophobia have penetrated places where Muslims have normally felt safe from it. An interfaith gathering is the last venue I'd expect these comments. I was representing the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago as it's chair, and he knew that pretty well. It's a federation of more than 55 mosques and Islamic organizations serving 400,000 Muslims from the region. The Danish cartoon affair - Europe's latent Islamophobia comes to life The latest example of Islamophobia comes from Denmark and Europe, not the United States. By now, we've all seen and read about the protests against 12 deeply offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. What is critical to know is that it was not some random cartoonist drawing one cartoon and an editor who decided to publish it. Rather, a neo-con newspaper chose to commission artists to draw these images that depict the Prophet as a terrorist. These cartoons were not an ignorant mistake. The intent was to insult and inflame. The concept of respect and honor among Muslims is well-known. So is the potential risk of incitement, especially after knowing what happened when the Muslim world came to know about some American soldiers disrespecting the Quran last year. The Danish embassy in Lebanon has been torched, the country's flags burned, death threats have been issued and some protesters have been killed as a result of police firings. But well before these dramatic images that must have made editors salivate for their sensational qualities made the news, Muslims in the Muslim world and abroad launched peaceful, lawful protests for four months against the cartoons that would have made Martin Luther King Jr. proud. Danish Muslims wrote letters of protest. They were ignored. Eleven Muslim ambassadors in Denmark asked to meet with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He refused to do so. A grassroots boycott of Danish products was launched in the Middle East. That got some attention, but not much until Danish businesses realized how much of their $1 billion business in the region was at stake. The cartoons were printed in September 2005. In September, October, November, December and almost all of January, the Muslim opposition to the cartoons was characterized by peaceful demonstrations of love for the Prophet and restrained protests of how he was being denigrated. Arrogant Response to Peaceful Protests When newspapers in Norway, Germany and France, in their Islamophobic frenzy, decided to republish the cartoons in the name of "freedom of expression," the scale of anger and protest widened. What started off as peaceful opposition spiraled out of control. Now, the situation was out of the hands of Muslims who had made serious attempts to resolve the issue peacefully. They had tried their utmost, but to no avail. From this point onwards, all kinds of people, including those with little knowledge of Islamic rules that forbid harm to foreign emissaries in Muslim lands, had upped the ante. The torching of embassies is wrong. So is stepping on and burning the symbols of Danish pride, their flag. It is Haram and a sin in Islam. Unfortunately, some Iranian newspapers have commissioned the drawing of anti-Semitic cartoons in protest. This is a disgusting form of retaliation that deserves absolute condemnation. It will neither help fight Islamophobia, nor elicit any understanding about why Muslims are upset about the Danish cartoons. The conflic has hit a new low with this move. But the world media, always in search of dramatic images of death and destruction, lapped up the anger and violence with glee. There was little coverage of the peaceful response of the Muslim community to these cartoons in the initial days after their publication. There were no calls for death, there was no fire involved or images of screaming bearded and Hijabed Muslims. Just peaceful bearded and Hijabed Muslims. Yawn. The media was bored. When it comes to Muslims, everything goes Would the media outlet which commissioned and printed these cartoons, as well as those which reprinted them, call for artists to develop grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures to prove that they have the freedom to do so? Of course not. The French even have laws to punish anti-Semitic "speech" and "writings." The current cartoon affair is not about freedom of expression, it's about Islamophobia. Islamophobia is real Islamophobia, or the fear and hatred of all things relating to Islam and Muslims, has become an acceptable form of racism. A sympathetic Jewish lawyer who was representing a Palestinian client in Chicago pre-9/11 said something telling to me in this regard: "Muslims are the new N…ers of America. If you will not fight for yourself, no one will." He's right. But Muslim complaints about Islamophobia continue to be dismissed. More than one fourth of all American Muslims surveyed by more than one public opinion organization stated that they have personally experienced Islamophobia or know someone who has. Over 200,000 American Muslims have been subjected to some kind of law enforcement activity since 9/11. At least 15,000 Muslims have been detained or arrested since that tragedy. Over 16,000 were either deported or are in the process of . The Council on American-Islamic Relations annually issues reports about the state of Muslim civil rights in the United States. Harrowing tales of anti-Muslim discrimination on the job, at schools, stores, restaurants and on the streets fill these publications. The case of Capt. James Yee is a disturbing example of how American Muslims even in positions of authority and respect must endure Islamophobia publicly at the hands of our own government. It is due to Islamophobia fanned by government policies and a media frenzy that a majority of Americans continue to hold negative opinions of Islam and Muslims. And a few thousand bin Laden terrorists contribute to authenticate this negative image. Forty-four percent of Americans queried in a Cornell national poll favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim Americans. Over half of schoolchildren in the Australian city of Victoria view Muslims as terrorists, and two out of five agree that Muslims "are unclean", a survey has revealed. Islamophobia is older than 9/11 and is based on ongoing ignorance The fear and hatred of all things Islamic can be traced much farther back than 9/11. Edward Said's landmark book " Orientalism " outlined how European colonial masters viewed their Muslim subjects with disdain and disgust. This attitude continues to characterize the discipline today. That view of Muslims as bloodthirsty, misogynist and violent savages persists. It is furthered by Bernard Lewis, America's top Orientalist, and his neoconservative students, a number of whom are the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the 1980s, funding was cut throughout the United States for programs that attempted to understand other peoples and nations. With the fall of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and the establishment of America as the world's sole superpower, a fair amount of arrogance towards the rest of the world pervaded America's dealings with other countries and continues to do so. The barring of Yusuf Islam in 2004 and Tariq Ramadan in 2005 from the United States are examples of how we are not only closing our borders to Islam but opening them to Islamophobia. Even worse, we are closing our minds. As Diana Eck, President of the American Academy of Religion wrote in the Boston Globe on February 2, 2006 about the Ramadan case, "Denying us face-to-face access to scholars and theologians who contribute to critical reflection on the religious currents of our world is an intolerable impoverishment of the academic enterprise." The Academy is currently suing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for barring Ramadan entry into the US. Islamophobia harms all of us In my four interfaith interactions in the last two months, I have met a whole lot of very nice people. But I was surprised to find at almost each event I attended, one or two Islamophobic people who seemed to have a high dose of Fox News in their system. I listened to them and prayed for them instead of responding to them. Like racism and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia hurts all of us. In America, it is eroding our civil liberties. In Europe, it is further isolating minority communities and inflaming latent xenophobia. It is perpetuating the neocon wish for a "clash of civilizations" at a time when no country in the world, Muslim or not, can afford it politically, economically or otherwise. Just ask the Danish dairy industry how Islamophobia has hurt its business. Islamophobia is responsible for torture . Islamophobia is responsible for the grave misunderstandings that only serve to perpetuate hatred and demonization . Perhaps we need to learn from Canada, where hate speech is banned despite the guarantee of free speech in the country's constitution. Islamophobia is today's accepted form of racism. It will require Muslims to fight hard against it. Muslims are neither solely responsible for its creation, nor will they be able to fight it on their own. It is a collective responsibility for all bridge-builders of the world. Let us today take a stand to end all kinds of fear and hatred of "the other." I read this article on the following webstie: , and I liked to share it with you....

Do you support that put severe penalties for those who pollute the environment?And why? ...

As we know the world is already dealing with massive problems such as global warming, drouth, the increase in population, the possibility of wars in different countries, and lots of other things. But what do you think would happen if the population of the world reached 14 billion? What if pollution gets out of control? What if there is no more petroleum? What if another world-war breaks out? Yes, technology might one day be able to defeat all of these, but what if that day never comes? For it might take a century before technology will be able to clean up the mess it has already caused. I would be happy to see your opinions being shared here. Because it is us, who would be making that future.

I'm from Asia and I can say that in developing countries like mine, there's not very much laws for the copyright and the illegally distributing copyrighted products. We can download anything, share anything (of course not something that go against the country); from softwares, movies, music, photos, cracks, ... And that's why every shopping sites are always fraid of selling, exchanging with us, maybe even block our IP so that we cannot access to their websites. I think that it is wrong, illegal but our lives is still poor and if we have to spend so much money on the copyright, we are not even be able to live. So, how about your country? What do you think about the Copyright? Share with us.

" I would die without God, the creator, I need him!" Well, I tried to convince my friend, it's not God the creator, it's God, the created! Most people grow, creating a God inside of their minds, due to the religious atmosphere around them. They find peace and joy in worshipping and trusting that God. I understand that centuries ago, people had to imagine a supernatural power, because of lack of knowledge. But now that we know, it is only the world of science that can answer our questions. Isn't it high time that we put this crab aside and get rid of all the trouble they creat for us. All the time and money that is wasted for these things! Alas!

What are we looking for when we Subscripe on any sites OR social networks?!!! ...

An American professor called Jerry A. Coyne ponders in all seriousness whether one can be good without God. He doesn't mention which God he has in mind but I take it that it's the God of Christianity.* There have been hundreds of gods. In ancient Egypt people believed in Amon Ra for 5,000 years and gained salvation that way. Today nobody believes in him. I have quoted a part dealing with Scandinavia. You can read the entire article "Nor should we worry that a society based on secular morality will degenerate into lawlessness. That experiment has already been done — in countries such as Sweden and Denmark that are largely filled with non-believers and atheists. I can vouch from experience that secular European nations are full of well-behaved and well-meaning citizens, not criminals and sociopaths running amok. In fact, you can make a good case that those countries, with their liberal social views and extensive aid for the sick, old and disadvantaged, are even more moral than America. "Clearly, you can be good without God." CB *EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read the boring part of the article. He mentions the Bible all right....

.. Wars cause a lot of pain, suffering , and thousands of dead people .. Wars change the color of life to red color which full of death forms ..Nobody can image what are the wars exept people who attacked and killed by strict soldiers I asked my self : Why people can't live togather what ever their religions ..Their thoughts ,their color and nations ?!What do u think about the war which big countries make against poor people There are a lot of wars around the world In Iraq, Afghanistan,Georgia,Pelstain,Sudan,Africa and other places > Lets see this pics for people who are in the heart of wars ...Lets feel their suffering at least

Many times I hear terms like left-wing politician and right-wing politician . Yesterday this was the headline on BBC world: ''Nine policemen are killed on an anti-narcotics mission in Colombia, victims of left-wing rebels, say the authorities.'' What does left-wing and right-wing mean? ...

Hi all I am doing a research essay on child socialization. My topic concerns examining whether it is the parents who have a greater influence in socializing children or if it is in fact one's peers. It would be lovely if you could share any thoughts on this. Do you feel that your peer group has influenced your personality more, or was it your parents? Or who has had the biggest effect on you in regards of morals and the forming of your identity? Mainly: do you think it is parents or children who socialize children? I'd love to hear your thoughts, FlyFree

What is the nature and concept of strategic studies? What is strategic depth?

Hi. I can think of several idioms for having sex, such as 1. a roll in the hay 2. get your leg over 3. get your rocks off 4. dance without pants I would be grateful if you add more idioms to the above list Thanks

In American school we are finally learning about Europe and about your leader, Hitler. Do you guys still think like Hitler that everyone who doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes should be killed? I also watched the movie "The Pianist" and is there still rubbles of buildings from the war in Europe/Berlin. Is the country still poor and would it be safe to visit? I would like to visit where Anne Franklin was at one day when I come to europe.