876 Forum Posts by "night-watch-man18"
At 6/26/06 01:14 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Really the U.S. needs to stop this "us" vs "them" polarized political think and your third party needs more teeth.
Precisely.
I have been a "Liberal" voter since I was of age. This past election, I decided to vote for a third party that coincided with my views a bit more. Yes, we have a Conservative government now (not my ideal), but I have no regrets about how I voted, and who I voted for.
Personally, I think that by not voting, you aren't protesting corrupt/inept governments, you're simply being lazy; that is, if other parties are available other than the ones you have grief with.
If you hate em all, and have experienced what they are capable of once in power... then I suppose you're at a loss.
At 6/23/06 01:10 AM, AccessCode wrote: If the situation calls for it, I certainly do hope we use them...but you being the typical liberal will oppose.
So let's see. America threatens to invade Iraq against the UN's wishes. America then invades Iraq.
Now, if a country threatened to invade America against the UN's wishes, then proceeded to do so, do you think that's just cause for America to use WMD's?
If the answer is "yes", then why is it NOT okay for Saddam to do the same?
... I do hope you're not going to be a hypocrite.
I didn't say we wouldn't crack pipe.
Oh? I must have misread this:
"We dont use em' do we?! Dur, dur dur (Carlos Mencia style)"
Your words, are they not? And I believe it's in response to someone saying that America possesses WMD's? Hmmmm...
Key word: Past. Im suprised you didn't say our US troops were massively slaughtering Iraqi's.
And Saddam committed terrible acts in the past... P.A.S.T. Well, I suppose it all depends on how we define the word "past". I'm sure your definition would put the word "past" far back enough to make America look good and Saddam look bad. So how far back do you want to go? 5 years? 10 years? 30 years? Well, we have to omit Vietnam right. Ummm, okay, and the selling of arms to other countries in exchange for oil so that those armies could commit genocide with American arms. Well, and the present with the whole "Fort Benning, Georgia" training Latin American Military the means of harming their own citizens, that I learned about in University.
Oh, what's that? Sources? Glad you asked!
"School of Assassins" by Jack Helson-Pallmeyer
"Against Empire" by Michael Parenti
"Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions Since World War 2" by William Blum
"Torture in Brazil" by Amnesty International
... but seeing as you'll never read those (no doubt):
http://www.soaw.org/new/
As for the whole "American's slaughtering Iraqi's"... well, I thought I'd let that one incident out of hundreds slide. What can I say, I'm a generous man.
The only "progression" today's liberals have made is their own sexual freedom.
Yeah, you're right. I'm heterosexual and damn proud! What, you're not proud of your sexuality? How sad. Oh wait! I forgot! Liberals are gay right? Why is it that I always forget to stereotype individuals?
You should read my posts a little better before stating that I said that we (the US) would never us WMDs again in the future.
Oh, I do believe I read your post quite well. But if I may, I will impart you with some advice: Read your own words before you make an ass of yourself.
"Dur, dur dur (Carlos Mencia style)"
There's a part in the article which makes me think it's not just the wealthy who are "cowards":
"It's enough of a shame that less than 1 percent of the 300 million Americans are charged with protecting and defending all the rest of us."
So, yes, since 1971, the stats for rich militants has dropped, but I'm sure the same can be said about those who are not wealthy. It seems that overall, the military isn't favorable... surprise surprise.
If the progress is continual, in that the patients don't relapse, this could bring hope to the scientific community. I completely agree about witholding for now though. As we've seen with new technology, if it is released too early and a disaster occurs, that innovative new means, suddenly can become negative and unfunded.
At 6/22/06 02:49 PM, AccessCode wrote: We dont use em' do we?! Dur, dur dur (Carlos Mencia style)
You posses weapons, you've used Nuclear Weapons in the past, what makes the world think you won't use them again?
And we've gone to war for A LOT less (or battles as well). Remember battles like Somalia? Haiti (sp) ect.?
And this strengthens the world view that you won't use WMD's.... ummm how? Also, is this a justification worth pointing out? In the past, America committed acts of genocide, does that mean it's right? I guess progression is not on the menue today.
Honestly, you people are so damn weak.
Wow, someone sure is cocky *expression of pure shock*.
At 3/7/06 10:59 PM, furball1 wrote: Well newflash: our military doesn't kill people for no reason; TERRORISTS DO.
Oh, I beg to differ. I think they have their own reasons as to why they are killing innocent people, just as the American military has it's reasons for killing innocent civilians. It's all about perspective.
The phrase "war with Iraq" is quite misleading, it is true we went to war with Iraq, but not the civilians, we went to war with Saddam Hussein and his army, people the population did not support. When was the last time someone saw a video of Americans randomly killing people?
Well, I wouldn't say that it was "random". More like, "They bombed a city block that they believed held terrorist groups, but in fact, held a greater ratio of innocent people to terrorists... if not contained only innocent people". So yes, it isn't random, just accidental. Of course, from the lives of the innocent that are taken, you could argue that many "once innocent" men would then take up arms against the US once their families have been blown to shreds from these "accidental bombings".
NOTE: This thread is not about how "unjust" anyone thinks the war is, I am just telling people that the United States doesn't kill innocents.
Ah phew... I'll take the word of a 13 year old CA boy-penguin who most likely can't point out Iraq on a map none-the-less ever traveled there, over the reporting experience of credible news organizations anyday!
Anyways, I find it rather odd that you slander people who state that America purposefully kills innocent civilians, and then turn around and make a statement like "the United States doesn't kill innocents."
http://hrw.org/engli..3/10/21/iraq6467.htm
http://www.mirror.co..LIANS-name_page.html
At 10/10/05 11:33 PM, CadillacClock wrote: Some thing completely different: It was Canada's Thanksgiving mmm mmm that's good pumpkin pie :)
I just had some leftovers tonight from it (our fam celebrates a day early for convenience purposes). Damn I missed a good home-cooked meal... I really need to learn to have a healthier diet lifestyle other than crap. Sure, you can prepare crap in a few different ways, but when you come down to it, you're still eating shit.
I also now have a 1.85L container of Salsa and two 545g bags of Tostito's chips. I blame Costco for my bad eating habits. I should sue; if only they didn't pay me so well.
At 10/10/05 04:59 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: What would you define globalizationis or how would you measure it? Africas GDP overall is stagnent growth or negative growth over the past 30 years. If you measure it in terms of communications, they have nearly no internet, TV and cell phones are a rarity. If you measure by freedom of movement then things have become harder, now you need passports, visas and in some countries fingerprinted and your picture taken. If you measure it on social factors, there are mroe people starving or relyihng on food aid than 20 years ago.
Well, that's one of the reasons why I asked you near the beginning of this thread, "How do you define Globalization". Personally, as you mentioned, I define it through many venues, though most of them are social. Communication, Understanding, Cultural Adaptation, etc.
And it only makes sense that regions like Africa are experiencing a problem with finance. Population rate, mixed with AIDS, afflicted by war... although these problems existed 20 years ago, they have become more prevalent today. My issue is, that you seem to believe that in the global sense that Globalization is suffering (not JUST Africa, as you seem to have applied to the situation as of late). I mean, I think as time passes we're becoming a lot more knowledgeable and connected to other countries that we would have barely any idea about 20 years ago. Yes, of course hate, bigotry, violence and indifference are still a major problem, but I don't ever really see a world without these things sadly. To say that they are worse, well, I think we're seeing a turn around from more recent events (within 5 years in the past).
Also, there's the fact that the rich benefit from the largest advancements in technology, while the poor are left without access to these advancements. Yes, I agree. However, does that then mean that the poor in the country are regressing? I think it means that previous technological advancements then become cheaper, which then become available to the poorer populace.
Now, before this statement gets trampled on, yes, I am aware of the statistical information about what percentage of the world owns PC's, and what percent owns the greatest amount of wealth in the world. You also have to look at the global population though, which adversely affects these statistics. The world population is at, what, 6 billion-ish now? 20 years ago, it was around 4.4 billion. I think if we continue with this trend, then yes, in the future we will see a lot more suffering, a lot more poverty, and a lot more starvation, but as it stands we're still growing, and on average IMO, we are also becoming more connected with each other. Africa is just a window to our possible global future I believe (Resources... yeah... yeah they won't be lasting forever... hrmmm. We're boned).
At 10/9/05 01:39 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The G-8 bail out of Africa is a horrible plan, one it doesnt go far enough and second you bail out the bottom 20 countries, what message does that send to the 21st country? It provides almost an incentive to borrow more and go deeper in debt in anticipation of a bail out.
Between 1970 and 2000 Africa "grew" approx -15%.
Right, I was giving the G-8 summit as an example of progressive Globalization, not to determine the effectiveness of their plans. Although I agree with you on your sentiment, I would say that it is an attempt to aid other countries, as opposed to doing nothing.
And when you say "grew", you're talkling about the GNP I assume? What does that have to do with Globalization? Is a countries profits necessarily determinant of it's global relations?
At 10/8/05 05:53 PM, DamienK wrote: Eh, it's pretty unfair for me to judge without having even watched it. It looked very soap opera-ey to me. Though the way you describe it, I could be (and most likely am) wrong.
You know, I thought the EXACT same thing. Then I watched it. I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed the show. I haven't seen it lately (months), but that's mostly because the only shows I actually make a point of seeing are BBC news, Family Guy, and the Daily Show.
At 10/7/05 10:13 AM, thelordofcheese wrote: Which one is first?
Pretty funny, but you could walk around anywhere and find people who are willing to give their *intelligent* opinions about pretty much any issue. I mean, just look at Jaywalking with Leno. Doesn't shock me in the least, especially with the map labeled wrong... idiots are everywhere. Do I condone their stupidity by saying this, nope, which makes it worth a chuckle.
At 10/6/05 09:48 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Source
Right, but does all of this translate to "the world is becomign less globalized then ever before"? I mean, you speak a lot about Africa, but on a global scale Africa isn't exactly representative of "global regression" in my opinion. Either way, according to the site, Africa is currently expressing a positive growth. Even though the growth is small, there is still progression, not regression. Also, the part where it was on the decline (negative growth), well that only lasted 5 years.
You express an interest in poverty (which I share), but does poverty = regression of globalization, as well? If you're speaking purely on an economical platform, you could say that it is happening in some parts of the world, while it is flourishing in others (most others I would say).
Then there's the fact that with the G-8 summit, there were negotiations to the national debt of Africa, and many countries have agreed to curb the amount that Africa is in debt by. Even our Prime Minister wishes to reach a higher target of aid for Africa, which I think would show a progression in Global-relational mindset.
At 10/6/05 05:52 PM, Nitroglys wrote: they may be in the bible but most of that is just plain common sense. we didnt need a god to tell us that rape, theft, and murders are bad.
Yeah, my examples were pretty broad. I was thinking more along laws such as, I dunno, Incest and whatnot. The laws were made and then we discovered the whole "gene pool" thing, which only strengthened the rule. There's others that aren't common sense necessarily... age of concent too... hmm, so far all my examples seem sexual lol
well thats what im saying. there is a difference between law and religous law period. and if a country is under religous law then nore aspects of their lives will be controled, beacuse religoun just goes too far. Im not saying muslim law is the only religon that has bad ideas about law. The arian's(which is based on christianty) want to expell all blacks, asian, arabians, all races, and "mud people."
Right, I'm a big fan of Mill's "harm principle", as opposed to Devlin's principle of legislation of morality, no doubt. I was trying to give another side to the argument, but I guess it's kind of hard when I personally don't believe in legislating religious beliefs. I'm sure there are some people on this site that could form a better argument than myself *shrug*
At 10/6/05 02:40 PM, red_skunk wrote: Otherwise, don't miss any of you. Or the internet for that matter. I wish I could sell my plane ticket back to the states, and just kick around central and eastern europe.
Gotta love how he rubs it in near the end lol
At 10/5/05 11:27 PM, Nitroglys wrote: there is a difference between religon and law. for example when afganistan was put under muslim law by the taliban they saw a sharp decline in their economy. not to mention the demolishment of the worlds biggest buhhdas. i just think that religon of any type is a very bad way to govern anything.
See, that's the point... Muslims view Law differently from us. Because they see Divinity in EVERYTHING, then it is impossible to seperate God from Law, because God IS law. And frankly, can you not say that law is something that is built upon common beliefs? Most of what we have today in Western society is based on faith, is it not? Murder. Rape. Theft. These are all things that are viewed as bad in almost any religion, and is the basis of what created our laws today.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from. Frankly, I'm an Agnostic, and I don't believe that religion should have impact on certain aspects of society (such as homosexuality for an example), however, that is all based on my social upbringing and based on where I grew up in the world. People from other regions and other walks of life may view the world differently, and if they seem to want to follow those laws/beliefs, then I say so be it... who am I to impose my life experience on another, telling them how they should live because of some inner belief that "I'm right". What makes me "more right" than them?
Now if they are causing unneccessary harm to many people, than yes, I think there is a universal shared thought that harm is to be avoided.
At 10/5/05 04:33 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Not in all businesses... think mafia; the head of the family answers to no one, not even the law (unless he gets too careless to buy a judge before a trial, that is).
You even say it in your post, even Mafia bosses answer to someone. They sometimes even have to answer to one another. And then, even the most powerful people in the world then have to answer to others. Nobody is exempt from their actions.
Most forms of blackmail are illegal, but it is a neccisary skill to get ahead. Just because the law forbids it doesn't mean you shouldn't know how to do it.
No it's not. Just because some people use blackmail to get ahead doesn't mean it is "necessary" for all. And as for your second comment, does that apply to all laws, or just the ones that help out your argument. Cause I mean, lynching black people is against the law, but we should know how to do it? And you could argue that by doing this it is "furthering your progression". Almost anything can be twisted around to seem beneficial when you think about it.
who are you talking about? I've never heard of anyone becoming a begger by choice before...
Notice where I say "great wealth"? You make it sound like people strive to be on top, when that's not necessarily the complete truth, given that some people are happy just having the basics in life.
Who says they don't? In the past few years, zoological researech has shown evidence of social animals having distict cultural characteristics. Perhaps culture (in some other form) existed before humans did. With that in mind, remember that the cubs in question were spawned from a male of another culture than the new master. Genocide looks like a reality here now...
Actually click on the link I provide. You'll see that they speak of "Ethnicity" as being an invention of man.
As for what you're describing, I think you're talking about adaptation. Hell, you're the lion expert it seems. You should know then that the reason why the males sometimes kill the cubs, is to make the female lions ready for reproduction again, so they can spread their seed. They don't do it out of a need to cleanse the species, which is the basis of genocide (if you even bothered to check out THAT link too).
But for all of our differences, we are basically the same! Let me use this analogy: if you take an SUV and strip off the body, replace it with kevlar, put in bullet proof glass,mount RPGs and automatic eapons on top, and fly a flag titled "Death Machine" on top, at the core of its design it's still an SUV!
I think the part where I said, "I'm not saying humans aren't animals" covers this. And your analogy, although "interesting", is kind of off basis IMO. Placing metal parts upon metal parts just doesn't have the same impact as what sentient thought on Earth creates.
All I'm trying to say is that there is that there is more similiarity to the other animals than unique traits.
I suppose so, if you're comparing animals and humans to let's say, rocks and air. Then yes, I would say in that context that we're pretty much identical on the surface, and biologically speaking (even socially speaking, seeing as rocks and air aren't social whatsoever).
Actually, you did infer a connection between STDs and sex with children. Secondly, contrary to popular belief, the act does have benefits: it shortens generation gap (allowing populations to replace themselves faster) and forces the young to become self-sufficient earlier in life (in more primal cultures, males can start families as early as twelve).
Well, that wasn't my intention. I first stated STD's as one aspect of something that we benefit from in having knowledge about, then I went on to list other things, such as sex with children. I suppose it appeared that I was linking the two, simply because they both are sexual in nature. But know that I wasn't, because as I said, that would be completely rediculous to pose such an idea (geez Punisher, I'm not THAT stupid, thank you very much).
As for your second thought, you have to look at the context (something I try and stress repeatidly when it comes to many issues). Having sex with children (and when I first said "children", I meant before puberty, but if you want to go in the direction of young teenagers, that's fine too) or to put it more appropriately here, youths, was beneficial in the past, simply because of the higher death rates. In todays society, it serves no function. In fact, having children at a young age increases the risk of birth deffects, so in essence, yes, it does weaken the species. Generally, to have the "healthiest" of babies, human females should give birth around the time of consent (late teens) to their late 20's. That's the most prime time to have offspring.
Like I said, I wasn't even confronted on that basis; I was simply issued an ultamatum.
And that was...? What.. "Stop formulating elaborate, well articulated and educated theories that may make sense and contradict what we know to this point, or we'll flunk your ass?" This story is starting to sound a little fishy.
I wish to return to a more animalistic state because I know that that's how we got to the top of the food chain! Our ancestors utterly decimated all their competition and took their spoils to grow strong, but I fear that we are losing this ability. WE have become complacent in our dominence and may fall a couple of notches on the chain if we weaken ourselves more.
I would say that it was our ability to adapt that has progressed us up the food chain. Even now, in a society where we care for the "weak", we allow them to adapt to survive. Amputees are given prosthetic limbs. Paraplegics are given machines to live off of, to live a life where they can still contribute to society. For every negative aspect, we use our intellect to engineer a means of getting beyong that impairment.
And like I said, living that way may be appealing to you, but as for the majority of the human race, it just isn't suiting. I would also like to know what we'd lose to. Your lions perhaps?
OK, point taken... but the question still remains: at what point DOES a lifeform assume more responsibility than the others?
If it comes to that point, I suppose it would be up to that lifeform to decide; that is, if it becomes sentient like us. It would impose it's own values, morees and norms upon itself, and live life as it see's fit, just as we do.
At 10/5/05 05:44 PM, Nitroglys wrote: but putting people under islam law isnt a good idea cause their is a lot of ideas in it that arent good.(women have to wear the things on their heads.)
Well, to be Muslim, you understand that God has to do with everything, even politics and social norms, because of Divine Unity. Everything in existance has a connection with the Divine. As for women having to wear head-dresses, it all depends on what type of Muslim you are. A woman (I forget her name) had an interview with Barbara Walters where the issue came up. Basically, the Muslim woman was not wearing any kind of head-dress, and Barbs asked about it. The woman replied that the Qur'an states that she is to be covered, but in a society such as the one she is in (Washington), she would draw more attention to herself if she were wearing a head-dress, thus, "uncovering" her... so she doesn't wear one in the States.
At 10/5/05 05:46 PM, LoneSnakeX wrote: You seem to know alot about muslim religion, but I have a question do you think Zarathushtra belong to that list of prophets to?
Well, speaking as a non-muslim, I don't believe he is recognized as one of the prophets, nor should he be. Given that his time of existance on Earth isn't even know, it could mean that he wouldn't be given the right to be called a Prophet if his time is after Mohammed (Mohammed being the last prophet until "judgement day"... that's when Jesus comes back). Also, from the VERY little I know (given that I had to look up this guy's name lol), I'm not sure if he completely follows under Muslim beliefs. I'm sure that not even all Muslims would agree on the issue if you asked them, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be considered one overall.
At 10/4/05 11:50 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: This is a pretty sweet site.
A whole hell of a lot of good pictures on Chernobyl 20 years later. It is freaky as hell to see pictures of that ghost town.
Yeah, in highschool we had people who go to the region yearly to drop off aid and donations to the people that still live in the area. So many broken homes and people left with an unfortunate situation. Then again, it's like that in many parts of the world.
Sorry for the double-post
=\
At 10/5/05 09:21 AM, LoneSnakeX wrote: Ow btw the other islam propeths dont have a own sects, so you cant dount those :/
Of course, that would mean that there would be 124,000 different sects. How confusing would that be. Also, just so people know, here's a list of some of the prophets of Islam, just to name a few:
- Abraham
- Adam
- Noah
- Moses
- Jesus
- Mohammed (of course)
... you guys sure that Muslims are so different from yourselves (if you're in another religion)? When I actually began to study the religion, I was shocked at all the information I never knew. The history is insightful, the messages are inspiring, and I found out that I was more of a Muslim than a Christian when it came to the faith (and I'm not religious at all, though my family heritage is Anglican). Honestly, if people just took the time to look at Islam, it's a religion that actually makes a lot of sense. They even use a naturalistic means of explaining the world and existance, so long as there is a belief of Divine Unity. I can dig it.
At 10/5/05 09:18 AM, LoneSnakeX wrote: Dude there arent more then 2 sects, if you still believe so then name them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam
The 13 categories are summed up by Four different schools of thought:
1) Kharijites (radical Conservatives)
2) Murjiites (Conservatives)
3) Sunni-Shiite (Traditionists)
4) Mu'tezilites (rationalists)
The Sunni and the Shiite are the most predominant in the middle east, that's probably why you have only heard of them. Notice how the link says "the three most distinct". There are others.
Anything else I can help you with on the subject?
At 10/4/05 02:51 PM, punisher19848 wrote: I've heard it in my sociology courses and I find them lacking: although we manifest our primal traits differently from cuilture to culture, those traits are a constant.
Right, and until the moment that somebody has some sort of scientific breakthrough that determines either Nature or Nurture, then it is still an unknown. The majority today believe it's a combination of both. Due to the fact that we're such a complex species, seperating our Natural instincts and Social functionings is nearly impossible.
So, your one of our future thugs in uniform (yeah, yeah... you prefer the term "peace officer" but your just a thug for the those in power over you). Also, not all forms of "cheating" are illegal (look at soft money for more info.): were it not for our ability to improvise, no one would hold the reigns of power at all.
I would never use the term "peace officer" or "thug in uniform", but if you have to slap a positive or negative label on the job to acknowledge it, than that's your business. And of course there will be someone in power over me, try finding a job where you won't have that hierarchy. Even independant businessmen/women have to answer/obey someone.
And I never said all acts of cheating are illegal, I was responding to your comment:
"the only way to succeed is to cheat, blackmail, and subdue all that would stand in my way;"
Blackmail is illegal, and you made it sound like it was necessary to succeed.
Know how says "money isn't everything?" Poor folk! Once they actually HAVE money, they quickly change there tune.
Of course. And some people are poor by choice, simply because they focus their energies on the other aspects of life that make them happy and hold no interest in great wealth.
But it is the same thing: the cubs that are slaughtered in these exchanges are of a different ethnic group; the ethnicity of the lion who spawned them! All sharing an ethnicity requires is a bloodline, and those cubs are of the wrong bloodline. So, they die.
...Again, look at the meanings of the words you're saying:
http://dictionary.re..m/search?q=Ethnicity
http://dictionary.re...com/search?q=Ethnic
Humans have different Ethnicities, animals do not. Please stop imposing humanistic traits on animals, it doesn't help your argument.
This is your problem: you look at it as a rationally planned act; I don't. It's a desire that manifests in several forms. but it all stems from those primal motivations I described earlier. *sigh*
I can't help it if you don't know what revenge means. If you choose to ignore the real meaning of the word and place your own beliefs in what the word means upon it, then again, that's your business.
And of course it stems from primal motivations, I never denied that fact. However, that is not ALL of what "revenge" is. Retaliation can be argued to be possesed by most creatures (including man), Revenge cannot.
Why would you want to? But my point remains the same: for all their advanced cognative abilities, they are still animalistic, as are we. Like I said before, if we wished to look up their dirty laundry we'd see that they have the same primal traits we do (just less publicity).
Dear sweet Jebus... I don't believe that humans are seperate from animals Punisher. I'm saying that we have defined characteristics that seperate us from other species. The same can be said for EVERY species, hence why they are categorized as being seperate from one another. However, for us to deny the things that make us unique are impossible, because it's part of who we are (biologically, socially, and yes, spiritually).
I didn't say it was "right," (ammoralist, remember?) all I said is that it was accepted once (and may become acceptable again? Who knows!). Also, sex with children doesn't neccisarily cause STDs either; in fact, in SE Asian prostitution rings they seek out kids specifically because they don't have STDs. Once agian, I neither affirm nor condemn these acts: I'm just observing.
No, but you were acting as though living through primal instincts would be beneficial, I was presenting examples where primal activities creates problems for our species. And I think you're confused, I never said that having sex with children causes STD's, that is sheer idiocy. I was saying that having sex with children is harmful (ie "wrong" or "negative", so you can understand). I don't think I need to tell you the negative aspects of what having sex with children is, do I?
It's not shame that stops me, but rather a fear for my grade. I will open;y preach again, but not until the time is right.
Like I said, as long as you are able to give evidence behind your beliefs, then you should have no fear of your grades. Obviously that is something that you are missing.
Your right, we are more like them than we first thought...
Okay... that's not the point I was making, but sure, you're right by that statement as well. lol
Plants are ofetn the victims in nature's little game (seeing as how 90% of them die premeturely): they are at the bottom of the food chain and I have no desire to be there.
Humans can be said to be at the top of the food chain, why would you want to regress to an animalistic state if we're already on top?
Do we now? I don't think so! Saying man isn't an animal is like saying chimps are not animals: we are both about 98% similair genetically speaking, so shouldn't we both be considered "not animals?" At what point does a species stop being an animal and become "special" like us? There is no such point; it only exists in our heads!
I never said man was not an animal. I said we have distinct traits that seperates us from other species.
At 10/4/05 03:24 PM, The_Tank wrote: Muslims don't like non muslims, and terrorists view non muslims as evil.
Your first remark about Muslims not liking non-Muslims is purely your opinion and has absolutely NO factual background.
You do realize there are 12 different sects of Muslims, and even a 13th that is beginning to grow in North America (where women can lead prayer). You have to stop looking at the Fundamentalists and putting their vision to all other sects of Muslim belief. That's like taking the KKK's beliefs and saying, "Look what all the Christians think!".
So long as a faith believes in Divine Unity (which is many of them), than a true Muslim will respect and support your beliefs.
At 10/4/05 03:13 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: It was interesting, and quite surprising.
... and? Well what did they tell you man?!?! That kinda ticked me off when they removed the freeze. I mean, usually when you make a promise to the public, you should keep it (laughs to himself).
I *heart* politicians. I really do.
May as well keep this thread alive.
Ottawa, the very heart of the country. Not a bad place to live, though Quebec has a MUCH better party atmosphere... I must admit.
From Orangeville/Barrie area originally, so shout out to all of ya down there!
At 10/3/05 11:15 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Ok, but are there any sugegstions of songs to use? I want to be funnier than Aicha, Titanic Pimp and a host of other videos.
I try and avoid crappy music.
So what's the deal with the idea Rugby? You fixing to get recognized and this is an easy means of doing it? Well, it's gonna have to be damn good if you're looking to top these people, but if/when you get it done, I'll spread the word for ya around Carleton. You'll be locally famous at least.
At 10/3/05 12:03 AM, Wyrlum wrote: As for them wanting us to go into Iraq and Afganistan. Well, there is something to that perhaps. Action in the Muslim world tends to get them more volunteers. Something along those lines, but otherwise I don't see why they would have wanted the reaction we gave.
Well, seeing as Osama was part of a very small group of Muslims (Fundamentalists), perhaps a war was his plan after all. The Fundamentalists were getting tired of Western penetration into their lands, which if you read the Qur'an strictly, it states that it forbids anyone other than Muslims to rule the holy grounds. If you heard any of what Osama had to say, he stated that this was a war that was sparked from 60 years ago. Do the math and find out what he's talking about. It was around that time when Westerners began penetration, which was not welcomed at all by the majority of the people back then.
So, in order for Osama to gain others to share his view more, he decided to have the Americans start a war. He knew that if Americans started invading their lands, killing innocent lives, that new recruits would join him in his beliefs, and they would become a powerful, united force.
Just an idea.
At 9/30/05 12:54 PM, punisher19848 wrote: I said that we should eliminate the weak, but not attempt to artificially control our own breeding (not yet anyway) because there could be a change in the natural environment that could make these engineered beings vulnerable.
So where do you draw the line as to who we deem "fit enough" and those who are "weak, so should die". This is what I wanted from you.
This is a desire built into the biological makeup of all lifeforms: to continue the line. Why do you think life forms spend so much energy in reproduction? They want survive after they die (offspring provide an immortality of sorts) through continueing the passage of their genes forward! In a sense, immortality is the goal of all life.
Know that I agree with you on this point, we as humans have a brain that would question this process. I'm sorry to break it to you, but this cannot be undone, it is all part of our evolution. I cannot even fathom as to what would cause us to go back to primal instincts, simply because it would be a regression from what we are now. Whatever would cause this, would go against the very fabric of evolution. The closest thing I can think of, is either some sort of degenerative disease or virus. If it were a disease, through mating we would eliminate it. If it were a virus, it would be a marvel to see how it would only attack the pre-frontal lobe and not the rest of the brain.
I guess that makes some sense, but it still doesn't explain why you kling to an idea without any proof that it's real.
What else can I say, but humans don't always make sense.
Not true: most phsychologists believe that even though these thoughts originate in the same hemisphere, there is a segment of the brain just for issues related to the metaphysical (the defect I call it).
Though there is a "main area" where it resides, it is also powered by other parts of the brain, and controls other behaviours/traits other than "just metaphysical". Most sections of the brain are "multi-purpose". Seeing as you like the medulla oblongata, you might controls many functions:
1) controls autonomic functions
2) Processes info for sound localization
3) Acts as a relay station for neural network
If you eliminate the "defect", you may be eliminating other aspects of our functioning that are vital to our well-being and survival.
Yes: if much of your study is guesswork (which can be argued 'til the end of time), as opposed to solid experimentation, then you can always question the legitamacy of the conclusions they reach.
Technical... sheesh. I guess observations mean nothing... which makes me wonder why you hold onto the belief that animals have "revenge" when that's merely an observation. Well, I guess your beliefs only apply to certain aspects and not others, right?
I don't play online games, but I do believe that these endevores are more important than pondering questions with noi solutions.
I think we explore to find solutions. Just because they haven't been discovered yet, doesn't mean they don't exist (believe it or not, we have not met our full potential in knowledge yet).
That's one defenition, but "good" is defined culturally (in other words, there are many definitions as to what this concept is).
If you are aware of this, I don't see why you need to bust my balls over semantics if you understand the concept.
A simple word with many meanings...
And so I simplified it down for you to remove that word so the phrase holds basically the same meaning behind it.
So I did; something had to always exist.
So there are no origins of the universe, despite the fact that we theorize that it is constantly expanding. In other words, everything has always been here (try and find a scientist who will back that theory up and have proof behind it).
Lesson one: there is no freedom of speech on a college campus. Only veiws and opinions sanctioned by the board of directors can be expressed (this is why you don't see things like KKK rallys or minutemen conventions on campus).
Your view, as I see it, holds no harm nor does it encite hatred against other peoples. It is merely another theory to explain the human condition, which IMO holds very little scietific evidence to support it. In fact, I think there is a LOT of scholarly proof that counters your arguments, whether it be a hard science or a soft one.
Untrue: animals in zoos due scrape with each other over percieved recourses (territory, mates, etc). In fact, just a few months ago, I read of a zookeeper that was tramppled to death by an elephant because he came to close to a female he had his eye on. Although they don't fight as often, it still exists.
Exactly, that zookeeper was in the elephants territory, so he was perceived as a threat. The elephant did not trample the person out of a need for conflict. Other animals do not scrape with each other out of the need for conflict, it is out of basic instinct for survival with the reasons you had listed.
This is only half true: average longevity is up in the industrialized world, but it's fallen everywhere else... Because the resources we use to maintain our quality of life are taken from the suckers in the third world!
You sure?
http://www.ilsi.org/
http://www.pbs.org/n..cience/unhealth.html
The only country you could really have a case with is Africa, and one of the main contributors is the AIDS epidemic due to lack of knowledge to the people (the belief that having sex with a female virgin will rid you of AIDS does not help the situation).
Our survival means their death and vice versa, but the pro-ethics crowd hasn't figured that out.
Only if people act on basic instincts to gain their wealth, by having no consideration of the people they are taking advantage of. Capitalism can work without the deaths of others, even I can believe in this (socialist-liberal leanings).
You know this for a fact, do you? I'll bet that dinosaurs thought something similair before the asteriod hit them...
Nope, but the odds of it happening are PROBABLY rare. Though, you seem pretty damned sure that this will happen:
One day, this entity will die and I (at very least) want to keep this insticnt alive so I can cope without this third party.
How do you know the entity will die and we will remain?
Point is, they are both opinions and not to be taken as fact.
At 9/30/05 12:22 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Or it could have been a cheap psychological suggestion dropped by an extraordinary pack leader that has become the template for modern society. There is nothing divine about it, nor is it inherent in our biology (even those softies at the anthro. and sociology departments acknowledge this).
I care to disagree. Any Psychologist will tell you that it's a possibility that people such as psychopaths may be hardwired to commit negative acts. There is no hard scientific proof to determine either argument as complete truth. Ever heard of the "nature vs nurture" argument? Well, it's still prevalent today, and has not been solved.
The question is "bad" for whom? These moral systems kept me from doing things that would have benefited me in the long run (cheating to get ahead in the game of life, blackmailing witnesses to certain deeds not to talk, etc...) and my life sucked as a result of this! It later dawned on me that the only way to succeed is to cheat, blackmail, and subdue all that would stand in my way; and my religious and ethical devotion was holing me back! I've rejected these things and have been happy ever since.
Happy... for now. That may resume for the rest of your life, but sooner or later, it might come back to bite you in the ass (literally, if you end up in jail and become someone's luv muffin). One day it'll be my job to put criminals behind bars, and there's plenty of us out there, so it's not like there isn't something that may stop you.
And I think you'll find that some people can be extremely successful without breaking the laws/norms to a large extent. It also all depends on your view of what "success" is, and every individual has a different view of what that is. Not everyone is happy with wealth and luxaries.
Watch the nature channel every now and then and you'll see that this is not true: when a new lion takes over a pride, he kills all the children of the forerunner he trhat he can get his jaws on! And the same is true of changes of the gaurd in other pack animals: hyhenas, chimps, and, in some breeds, canine species. This is basically small-scale genocide! Also, animals wage territory wars too! How do you think these mini-genodcidal rampages start in the first place?
Oh by all means then, by your definition of "genocide", a single murder could be considered genocide.
http://dictionary.re..om/search?q=genocide
Like I said, animals do not commit genocide. It's a very distinct humanistic act.
These instincts you describe are the primary motivations for vengeance! If they kill each other for past transgressions that happen to involvethe above- territory, resources, or just plain fear- it's still vengeance because the other party was the first offender. Also, just because the don't understand this concept doesn't mean they don't have it; you may not know what a medulla ablongata is, but you have one- your heart wouldn't function without it.
Okay, you've basically repeated yourself without considering what I have said (or so it appears anyways). You even used the medulla ablongata example a second time. I'm sorry punisher, but I don't think you understand entirely what the brain can and cannot process. "Revenge" is an action that is determined, devised, and acted upon by beings that posses a pre-frontal lobe when the opportunity arises. An animal does not hold spite or vindictiveness towards other creatures, but can fear a specific animal. It does this through it's memory, and recognizes the animal that has done it harm in the past through it's senses. If that animal comes into it's territory or threatens it, it may retaliate because it can remember the harm that was done to it the first time, and does not wish for this to happen again. It will not seek out the animal to hunt it down, it will only attack when threatened. This is an action of self-defense for self-preservation, not an act of hate or revenge.
The reason for this is because they get better press than we do: no one follows them around 24/7 and records all their dirty laundry like we do to ourselves.
Those sneeky dolphins. Do tell me more about their corrupt ways. We'll bring them down for the liars they are one day Punisher!
Once again, this isn't entirely true. Some cultures in the past did have inter-species intercourse and treat is as acceptable: I know for a fact that some Norther European tribes allowed it for religious purposes...
Yes, and that's before we even knew about STD's. Early Europeans also used to have sex with children, and it wasn't against the law back then. Even some cultures supported marrying/having sex with children. Does that make them right? Today, we can see the damaging effects it can have, through knowledge.
I believe I explianed this in the other thread...
As I see it, if you're bold enough to live this way you shouldn't be ashamed of it unless you know it's wrong.
Your right to some extent: dogs have a more limited capacity for communication than animals with pre-frontal lobes, but the need itself is a primal thing. Sure, we have developed this instinct into an artform, but at its core it's still a basic need among pack animals (but not so much among solitary animals, though).
And your point is moot. Guess what else we share with animals. We're carbon-based, we breathe, we eat, we drink... my god, that must mean we're EXACTLY like them and should live as they do.
Come to think of it, plants breathe and drink (like us!). They pose relatively no harm to other creatures. Seeing as they seem so wonderful, we should live as they do.
This is what separates "us" from "them". We are distinct and unique. We have traits that are purely human-based. We should live as humans do, and not deny the things that differentiate our species from others.
At 9/30/05 05:32 AM, fli wrote: But look, it seems that you're experiancing sexual frustration.
And this is stemming from several factors. And I think this maybe because you've haven't been in a sustained relationship, or experianced not enough of them.
*lays down on the couch*
OH! Do me next!
and uh...
*take it as a compliment, and nothing else...*
Very well said fli. You'd make a pretty damn good psychologist IMO.
Right, sorry I didn't give a response to this. I remeber writing half-way through then I had to rush off to my Crim Soc class so I just deleted what I wrote and forgot to come back. I hate when people don't respond to a long written post, so I hope I didn't leave ya hangin. Then again, we're pretty much discussing most of this in the other thread lol
At 9/23/05 12:03 PM, punisher19848 wrote:At 9/22/05 03:19 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:Or perhaps it was just a tool (a very powerful and useful one, but a tool noetheless) to control the populace that surrounded the creator of these concpets. It's not that I don't grasp these concepts of "good" or "evil"(...) If what I know about these concepts is true, then it all really is in our heads and I want nothing to do with them.
It still does not explain where the concept came from if the notion of good and evil don't actually exist, but are merely social. Obviously the concept had to be given to us somehow (or to the originator) either through a biological means or through a Diety if it is not inherant in man. And if the idea was protected, it means there must have been a great social consensus if we still agree (as a majority) that there is such a thing as "good" and "evil" or bad.
I won't go back to being a slave to the system again.
It's a shame that your past experience was a negative one. For most, I think the aspects of good and bad can be positive, given that it is a means of self-preservation. If we know that certain acts will result in "bad" outcomes, and if they usually do result in bad outcomes, it's probably a positive thing that they are avoided.
The "good" ones or their own? We argue the definition of good all day long, but you can't argue with the fact that those who commit such acts always have the benefit of themselves and their own in mind. This is the mentality of a pack animal: man is a pack animal! Although you can try to reason such acts away by slapping lables on the other side or claiming that "god made you do it" and other such nonsense, the motivations behind them are VERY primal.
As for your genocide comment, you have to ask yourself why do people commit genocide in the first place? What is thier motive? It's usually to create a common "good", is it not? To make something "better" out of the situation? To conquer the "evil" ones to allow the "good" ones to benefit?
Yes, of course they commit genocide to benefit themselves, but most pack animals (humans aside) do not commit genocide. In fact, man is the only creature that will purposefully attempt to kill off another species (or race, for humans) to achieve this goal. Pack-animals will attempt to take over the necessary territory for survival, and will only attack competitors that enter the territory. Man however will attempt to conquer beyond what is necessary. You can try and slap the label "pack animal" on us, but that does not encompass our being or what we are, given that we are composed of many labels. So really, genocide is beyond primitive motivations, it is also motivated by hate and greed (which are concepts not in possession of other pack animals).
Just because other pack animals may not understand the concept doesn't mean they don't exhibit it. You might not know what a medulla ablongata is, but you still have one nonetheless (your heart wouldn't beat without it).
What I was saying is that you're imposing a human quality (revenge) on an animal that is not actually killing for "revenge", but is killing out of instinct. So it may appear that it kills for revenge, but is actually killing out of fear, for territory, or for resources. It does not target the other animal purposefully like we do.
Your post made them sound as though they were harmless, but they are not. I see now that you know this, but your words implied otherwise.
Yes, sorry if it came out that way. I was trying to point out that although dolphins are not perfect (nothing is), they seem to possess more positive behaviours than humans, and yet we both possess a pre-frontal lobe.
Yeah...
Hah, well the point of the link was to show that animals act on instinct and impulse. They even go as far as to attempt intercourse with other species. Man does the same, yet we put restrictions on it because it can lead to the spread of disease if we did not view it as a "bad" act.
A basic need amongst pack animals (humans included) is that of communication; I can communicate things on this forum I can't openly come out and say at other places (my job, my university, etc...). Even the lowest members of a pack of wild dogs has the need to make itself know, you know.
First of all, why can't you discuss these issues openly with the people around you?
Second, the internet is no means of open communication in the sense that wild dogs need to be recognized. I would say this is more of a place to discuss issues, and has relatively no strength over physical recognition as is needed in social creatures. This is a place to think, to express ideas, to be philosophical with others, etc... which is needed more in human beings than any other creature. It serves another need that animals don't need.
Geez... alright, I gotta get running again, so I hope this short, rushed response is better than no response at all.
