I do not like humans.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Bardock42
Humans are better than other animals. Fact.
chillmeistergen
It's nature, it's happened and will happen for millions of years. Get used to it.
inimalist
lets hear it for the green movement brainwashing our youth!
EDIT: and he's from Canada... man that makes me look bad. On principle I am assuming he is a Starhawk sock
Victor Von Doom
Newsflash: people are idiots.
Fact of the day: the Earth, although it seems flat when you walk along, is actually spherical.
Schecter
Originally posted by General G
Please read all before posting
thats a tall order for this forum, unfortunately
allofyousuckkk
Humans have potential to do something benefit the world, and to say our life is nothing compared to an animal is ridiculous. Obviously we need to do more to preserve wildlife, but that is way too extreme.
If rhino's ruled the world, odds are we would be going extinct too. Have you seen those s.o.b's charge at someone?
The hunter should have gone to jail, he had no right to kill another man. He could have reported him and the authorities would have dealt with it.
botankus
Call me brainwashed, but why do I think of Michael Vick when I read this?
miss_swann
I love Humans, all humans everyone has their own reasons for what they do. I also love all animals on all levels. Humans can be retards at times when they kill each other and drive animals to extinction, but animals can also be retards. They eat one another and lionesses can have pretty brutal fights.
Personally I think the problem with humans is that they know too much and have too much power. If Otto Hahn had never made the accident of spliting the atom then there would be a lot more people in Japan, and the dude that first invented bombs has a lot to say for himself, if I could go back in time I would have blown them up with their own bombs. They are two of the biggest retards in history along with who ever decided al queda was a good idea and Hitler and Karl Marx.
But then there are people, like naturalists that love the world, I'm not suggesting we all become nudists but they look after everything. And people like William Wilberforce that stopped the trans-atlantic slave trade and the American president carter that built houses for poor people and Dr. Barnardos that opened the first orphange in London. Those people are human but lovely humans.
Funkadelic
I kinda dig humans, they sometimes remind me of myself.
inimalist
why can't violence just be natural?
things kill eachother, its not that big of a deal. As a society we have to prevent it for social reasons, but as far as nature goes, stuff kills stuff.
Species protection is such an abstact and anthropic idea. Look at the massive deforistation problems in Africa associated with an abundance of elephants in non-suitable environments. Because the environment changes animals have to go extinct. If that environment includes humans and pollution, the animal kingdom will have to, and will, adapt. Think about the generations of insects and rodents that have the behavioural tendencies to live inside of human dwellings. Their offspring's offspring's offspring's.... offspring will undoubtedly be almost parasitic to human construction.
miss_swann
Originally posted by Funkadelic
I kinda dig humans, they sometimes remind me of myself. you kinda look like them too.
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by General G and edited by Czarnia_Czarina, please see orginal post by General G for the accurate quotation
Please read all before posting, this is my first visit, let alone post in here, this may get closed, but what do I care, I got to say it.
Back on topic:
I hate people and our arrogant ways, that just because we can blow each other up with (Czarina_Czarina's annotation): {blank} and {example}.
we do nothing good.
Anyways, I am done now.
Read the thread about the idea of wanting to see someone down, after rising that person up.
And the example of someone being publically harassed after a history of blessing and helping people who cried "oppression" and "racism", and just to find they are without a bank account b/c of fraud charges done recently or a job, using ego and jealousy and envy to decide the amount of pleasure in seeing that person fall or descend.
I can see why some love their pets more then humans.
Also, watch the clip about Liberty, and just b/c you help humans, doesn't mean they won't later try to screw you up and laugh at you fall, even if you expressed issues with particular cultures and even stated that you are mystical and expressed your mystical aspects of life and the soul, and expressed a seperation in the group in question, just to find out that you are now being harassed, and had effected the ego structure of the same folks who degrade women for money and kicks, and their liberty isn't effected. Again, I can see why some think that their pets are better option then human friendship. I questioned our true liberty in speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCVlfTIOwaM
It's not long, about 8 minutes, but ask yourself, if people really practiced that, would you still hate humans? If they followed just the basics? Even if they prayed for others in times of hardship?
For the ones who have been so negative, I don't even read their comments anymore, i see their screen name only.
You are right in thinking there is something wrong. Again, pls read the thread about how some LOVE to see others fall.
your ego structure isn't my ego structure, i do not own your mind, you think whatever and say whatever, hopefully, it's constructive and positive. if you are inclined to a cause or race (same or different) or class or whatever, I can state my opinion, but to bother you about it...I can only pray for you based on my religious faith, but not to try to heckle you into my mindframe, esp. if you aren't violanting another person's body, mind, spirit, property. if all you are expressing is your thoughts and opinions, even if it's kinda borrowed, it's YOUR liberity to do so, but freedom, hum, we still don't have full freedom of speech without someone commiting fraud.
Robtard
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Read the thread about the idea of wanting to see someone down, after rising that person up.
Why must you make everything about yourself? You even edited yourself into his quote.
Czarina_Czarina
try reading our constitutional rights and what "liberty" actually means...
Wanted to ask you to please pray and think of the good things, even get a pet to care for.
Here's info on Freedom of Association (you don't have to tell someone to be friendly with someone who you don't want to be associated with, and if that person only wants to be friends with certain people, as long as they don't abuse you/your liberty, you can't tell that person that they must associate with the folks that have cost them their liberty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
"...the premise that it is the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit..."
And not that I love B. Spears, but see if it were better that she wasn't even well known, I can care less to see her down or on her way down, it's sad, it's sad. W. Houston was another one. Sad. Very sad.
Czarina_Czarina
''A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."
I wonder why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_society
miss_swann
I'm really confuse who was talking about britney spears?
inimalist
Originally posted by miss_swann
I'm really confuse who was talking about britney spears?
she is having a nervous breakdown
Bardock42
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
''A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."
I wonder why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_society Because it is defined that way.
Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
she is having a nervous breakdown
So we all must suffer?
inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
So we all must suffer?
ive reported it
I don't think there is anything that the royal "we" can do beyond that
there is an ignore function, but those small bursts of indignation and hillarity that I get from reading her posts are butter.
miss_swann
I tend to skim long posts...
Bardock42
Why would you tend posts? They can take care of themselves
inimalist
Is it important to maintain biodiversity at the expense of human civilization?
inimalist
sorry bout the DP
Originally posted by General G
On average, about 1 species goes extinct every 18 minutes, whether that is a particular plant or bacteria,
so, if you are against the killing of bacteria...
what do you do when you get sick? stop your white blood cells for fear of violating the inalienable rights of the microrganisms?
Czarina_Czarina
I wanted to mention:
Remember that issue about B. Spears and W. Houston; well, guess what? Most people have parents that would NOT want their child or teen or adult in that entertainment industry, and I think both had either one or both parents of these singers ilike them in it....wonder why??
Robtard
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I wanted to mention:
Remember that issue about B. Spears and W. Houston; well, guess what? Most people have parents that would NOT want their child or teen or adult in that entertainment industry, and I think both had either one or both parents of these singers ilike them in it....wonder why??
Why do you insist on bringing your thread into this one? This has nothing to do with your "down/fall" thread.
Edit:
Since you're intent and fixated with bringing Britney Spears into every debate. There is a thread already about her, why not go rant in there. Here's the link:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f64/t17102.html
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
Is it important to maintain biodiversity at the expense of human civilization?
To a certain extent...yes. Humans need to stop reproducing so much.
We need a large plague that wipes out a thrid of humanity or something. Humans are so smart that all the time we are circumventing mother nature's natural population controls.
Pandemoniac
Originally posted by Strangelove
Yeah, people suck.
If you feel that way, then why don't you just give up and kill yourself? I don't mean that in a nasty way. If you hate people, then by extension you much hate yourself to some extent. Your existence requires the sacrifice of the animal kingdom, and the planet, so if you truly feel that way, why don't you just off yourself?
Give it some more thought please. As 'superiour' as us humans are, we are born in a society that pretty much demands us to assist in the destruction of nature in order to survive for ourselves on a individual basis. We just have little choice, but that doesn't mean you can't disagree on how we handle the planet.
Stating suicide as an answer to criticism just reminds me of the worst that human history has to offer, and I do think you have more sense than that.
General G
Some of the posts here have been very well thought out which is more than I thought I would get, so I appreciate it. When I have more time I will comment on them.
But before I go, I have to clear this up, my last line was not referring to me committing suicide, just that my rant for the time was over.
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by General G
Some of the posts here have been very well thought out which is more than I thought I would get, so I appreciate it. When I have more time I will comment on them.
But before I go, I have to clear this up, my last line was not referring to me committing suicide, just that my rant for the time was over.
I understood you weren't suicidal, (i've learned that people can think things so powerful, you would think it were true, and it's sad when the thinking is on the negative, it's sad, esp. if an empath might be able to tell the difference) but I felt the energy of others thinking that about you. It's funny, the labels we put on things: suidicial, crazy, unbalanced. When really, if we take the time to listen, we could understand more about each other. And yes, I felt the energy that you were suicidal so much, I was going to cut and paste a web site for help, that's how strong the thoughts were about your post.
I had a guy (white) tell me that he was with a dark black lady, and she had her baby with her (not his baby, her husband and her), and they were on some sort of work (nothing romantic). Well, he had to stop at an area in which the folks there just stared at them both, and the air was thick (they couldn't see the baby, just that she was holding one), and he said that the thought there was that he was her husband and while they ate, he said he was even thinking he was her husband b/c the thoughts about their situation was just that strong, careful about the mind of men, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's false. each of us has to be stronger then the group mind, esp. if it's out of jealousy, hate, envy, bitterness, and lastly, false assumptions and negativity, each of us has to do that.
Bardock42
Originally posted by General G
Some of the posts here have been very well thought out which is more than I thought I would get, so I appreciate it. When I have more time I will comment on them.
But before I go, I have to clear this up, my last line was not referring to me committing suicide, just that my rant for the time was over. I think people meant you should kill yourself if you loath humans so much.
inimalist
omfg.....
Czarina_Czarina
pls take the time to watch the video clip on Liberty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCVlfTIOwaM
And I am not advocating any party line at all. Just the basic concept of liberty, and how we are suppose to treat each other and how we esteem ourselves with respect to our ability to respect others. And I am not advocating drugs or other stuff, or even objectivism, not hardly. btw, there are a lot of things i would not recommend, but out of political correctness, i don't tell another person not to smoke cigerates, etc. and b/c freedom of speech could cost a person's job, it's better not to talk too much.
Violent2Dope
Humanity will destroy itself, we are really the evilest animal on Earth.
inimalist
thats a tautology
we are the only animals capable of evil because evil is a human concept
Robtard
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
Give it some more thought please. As 'superiour' as us humans are, we are born in a society that pretty much demands us to assist in the destruction of nature in order to survive for ourselves on a individual basis. We just have little choice, but that doesn't mean you can't disagree on how we handle the planet.
Stating suicide as an answer to criticism just reminds me of the worst that human history has to offer, and I do think you have more sense than that.
You should really have more sense... the thread starter didn't pose his stance on "humanity is destructive, 'we' should rethink our views", which is true. He posed his stance on "humanity is horrible; I'd be better if 'we' all died".
So, if he really thinks that, then lead by example, kill 'yourself' and make the world just a little bit better.
Darth_Erebus2
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It's nature, it's happened and will happen for millions of years. Get used to it.
That's exactly how I view Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, the Holocaust, etc. etc.
chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
That's exactly how I view Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, the Holocaust, etc. etc.
Really? You're missing the point then.
Robtard
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Really? You're missing the point then.
He's a total "bad-ass", that was his point.
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I understood you weren't suicidal, (i've learned that people can think things so powerful, you would think it were true, and it's sad when the thinking is on the negative, it's sad, esp. if an empath might be able to tell the difference) but I felt the energy of others thinking that about you. It's funny, the labels we put on things: suidicial, crazy, unbalanced. When really, if we take the time to listen, we could understand more about each other. And yes, I felt the energy that you were suicidal so much, I was going to cut and paste a web site for help, that's how strong the thoughts were about your post.
I had a guy (white) tell me that he was with a dark black lady, and she had her baby with her (not his baby, her husband and her), and they were on some sort of work (nothing romantic). Well, he had to stop at an area in which the folks there just stared at them both, and the air was thick (they couldn't see the baby, just that she was holding one), and he said that the thought there was that he was her husband and while they ate, he said he was even thinking he was her husband b/c the thoughts about their situation was just that strong, careful about the mind of men, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's false. each of us has to be stronger then the group mind, esp. if it's out of jealousy, hate, envy, bitterness, and lastly, false assumptions and negativity, each of us has to do that.
labels and after we finish destroying, we look around and wonder (why is that person's life destroyed, why is our neighbhorhood destroyed, why is the company going down the tubes, why is that entertainer's mind going wild, why, why, why, what's wrong with humanity....what's wrong with not hurting others?
Violent2Dope
Originally posted by inimalist
thats a tautology
we are the only animals capable of evil because evil is a human concept Exactly, evil did not exist before us(unless you believe in the Devil).
Darth_Erebus2
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Really? You're missing the point then.
Not even. It's only "nature" when it's animals or humans/animals. People have been waging war ever since our beginning but suddenly in the last 40 or so years it's suddenly "wrong". War and killing each other is "nature" for humans also.
Inspectah Deck
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I had a guy (white) tell me that he was with a dark black lady, and she had her baby with her (not his baby, her husband and her), and they were on some sort of work (nothing romantic). Well, he had to stop at an area in which the folks there just stared at them both, and the air was thick (they couldn't see the baby, just that she was holding one), and he said that the thought there was that he was her husband and while they ate, he said he was even thinking he was her husband b/c the thoughts about their situation was just that strong, careful about the mind of men, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's false. each of us has to be stronger then the group mind, esp. if it's out of jealousy, hate, envy, bitterness, and lastly, false assumptions and negativity, each of us has to do that.
Czarina_Czarina
what's wrong with not hurting others?
Czarina_Czarina
All of this is going to sound like a rant, but please bare with me. And I really want you to think about "what's wrong with NOT bothering or hurting someone?" That means, "what's wrong with forgiveness?" (don't let the karmic folks hear that, as they think it's crazy to ask for forgiveness, as they want negativity to keep recycling around and around, if one forgives, the negativity is "out of an application" for that other person and doesn't get to be passed around).
Ok, here's the rant...
here's a great movie to watch: StarDust
It's a movie about how people who are in the "know" about gifts and use it for their own selfish objective or punish the person for being born of it (jealousy envy).
See, if everyone wanted negativity or enjoyed seeing others as less then them, guess what you have? A growing epidemic of folks who are without, and those who aren't part of that culture may happen upon that area or people who you knew (that you were so jealous of that you had to see them in a lower position in life), and galk at the destitution, sure "you" are together, but at the sake of what?
Another point is that, let's say a person's gift is like gold. And people who are jealous hearted or envious are upset you own that gift, so they want to degrade your gift/worth for the world to see. So, they want you essentially under their feet. Let's say, another group sees the spec of gold under your feet and asks to look at it. You think, it's under my feet and I have control now, so let'm see it or use it. The other person or group, sees the spec, figures out it's properties, finds out any mutual association with the group, and works out a complimentary deal in which it uses that gift for the positive and which benefits both parties. Guess what the jealous hearted person is going to do? guess? It's one thing to have a gift, it's another to be around others who want you under their feet b/c of it, and it's even more when they label that person in such a negative way, NO ONE SEES THE VALUE of the gift.
And if they can accomplish this one person at a time, they can put themselves in the same seat of power that they claim is so evil and elitiest.
And they can try to hide the fact that anyone else outside of their cultural mindframe will galk at the idea of total destitution and lack of ingenuity, b/c the ones with any sort of gift are busy being under a foot.
And they can visit other cultures in amazement, asking themselves "why are they in a better condition?"
Humans, the mind, the collective mind, objectivism, selfishness, alturism, love, liberty, and constitition.
Look up the meaning of the word "constitution", it means "established" or "composition". Think about what makes man so evil or unlikable. What's the composition, in thoughts? In the collective mind? In objectivism/selfishness? In alturism (too kind)? In liberty (too gracious)? What aspect of man is the problem.
And in order for someone to be an empath, the would be more toward an altruist then objectivist (that should be very obvious by now).
debbiejo
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Exactly, evil did not exist before us(unless you believe in the Devil). Evil really is a label we give to "what we like and what we don't like." Everybodys evil is different.
Someone who is known as an empath is very empathic..ie empathy. If the whole world was this, then we'd understand what we do and say with more control, because it hurts. Empaths are known to hurt a lot because they take on feelings of others and are more careful not to do it to others. They are the helpers, healers, of humanity, they say. Imagine a world of these sort of people. People who really feel and care. It is said that these people suffer from "helping, make everyone better/happy syndrome".
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
Evil really is a label we give to "what we like and what we don't like." Everybodys evil is different.
Someone who is known as an empath is very empathic..ie empathy. If the whole world was this, then we'd understand what we do and say with more control, because it hurts. Empaths are known to hurt a lot because they take on feelings of others and are more careful not to do it to others. They are the helpers, healers, of humanity, they say. Imagine a world of these sort of people. People who really feel and care. It is said that these people suffer from "helping syndrome".
I am an empath, and I understand. And yes, we do feel and sometimes, we do end up with folks who amplify the negative, empathy is a gift,and some folks do not like gifts in other people, and yes, even an empath can feel that and maybe worse, experience their negative actions in life b/c of it.
there was a real story that was on some crime channel, it was about a lady who was an empath/psychic and she was going crazy, come to find out, her neighbor was channeling her and, uhm, messing with her mind, so, she "heard" weird things that didn't make sense and saw things that were totally strange, and they did end up figuring out it was him, but it took awhile. A person can figure that someone can "hear" and they can take that great gift, as it can be a gift and not a peeping-tom issue, take that same gift and drive that person batty for a bit, but those things do come around too, not to focus on karma, but they do end up coming around in a way that the person with the gift never has to bother one bit, as that gift is from God, and so, as a person of God, that person doesn't have to ill wish or do anything at all but go on with life. But these things are found out, esp. if that person was abused for "owning" or "having" a gift.
debbiejo
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I am an empath, and I understand. And yes, we do feel and sometimes, we do end up with folks who amplify the negative, empathy is a gift,and some folks do not like gifts in other people, and yes, even an empath can feel that and maybe worse, experience their negative actions in life b/c of it. Empaths can go into a mall and suddenly feel uncomfortable and not no why. Empaths are really prone to strong emotions of Empathy, sorrow, saddness.
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
Empaths can go into a mall and suddenly feel uncomfortable and not no why. Empaths are really prone to strong emotions of Empathy, sorrow, saddness.
Empaths can also feel intentions online, and can have "insight" into clever ways in which their gifts are distorted into something crazy, no wait, that's logic.
Seriously, an empath is like any gift, some are stronger in intinsity then others.
And it's one thing to read and another to interprete.
See, reading (as empath's read energy) requires interpretation.
And from the little I know about gov'n laws and religious laws, both end up with various interpretations, using logic, but it's a matter of perspective.
So, an empath may interpret something, but depending on maturity, intensity, etc., these interpretations could be inaccurate, as they may feel FEAR if someone puts that out that energy hard enough for that empath to feel, but it may be just a trick, a game to drive that person crazy for a moment, if that feeling is too intense, depending on the gift, I doubt that person will be able to pick up intent (joke), I think they are going to pick up on DANGER. So, people can take gold, even a spec, and put it under their feet out of whatever motivation (ego, jealousy, envy) and someone else can take that same gift and with mutual concent, turn both lives into something constructive and of value. It's never just about the gift, it's also about how others are willing to apply it, for the negative and amusement, or for the positive and contruction/productivity? When someone has a gift like that, they are in a relationship with the energies of others, so the success of both parties depends on the application of the gift, for the negative/amusement or for the positive/construction/productivity. Drive that person crazy or see if they can't help solve a crime, ops, maybe that person did, and now, they are to be driven crazy for a moment b/c of it, or their gift or name in a degraded form b/c of it. Life, never so simple is it?
debbiejo
Well there is a difference in reading things on line compared to being amongst people. There are also differences in cognitive thinking and up bringing, though upbringing can make one have more empathy. Empathy is the soreness of an empath. They usually do not enjoy it. From what I have read, they don't absorb anger at all. It is too intense in the feelings of being able to put themselves in the others shoes. They might see something as envy, etc as what it is doing to a person....but what they feel is the sadness of the person mostly, not the anger....The name empath comes from Empathy. They can usually walk into a room and pick up on the feelings there. Usually the one that is hurting.
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
Well there is a difference in reading things on line compared to being amongst people. There are also differences in cognitive thinking and up bringing, though upbringing can make one have more empathy. Empathy is the soreness of an empath. They usually do not enjoy it. From what I have read, they don't absorb anger at all. It is too intense in the feelings of being able to put themselves in the others shoes. They might see something as envy, etc as what it is doing to a person....but what they feel is the sadness of the person mostly, not the anger....The name empath comes from Empathy. They can usually walk into a room and pick up on the feelings there. Usually the one that is hurting.
The idea of not having anger or getting hot is not a good thing, as anger is a form of defense. So, the bad part of being an empath is that you can end up used like a old rug, it's a tricky world.
debbiejo
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
The idea of not having anger or getting hot is not a good thing, as anger is a form of defense. So, the bad part of being an empath is that you can end up used like a old rug, it's a tricky world. Yep that is a problem of an empath..
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I had a guy (white) tell me that he was with a dark black lady, and she had her baby with her (not his baby, her husband and her), and they were on some sort of work (nothing romantic). Well, he had to stop at an area in which the folks there just stared at them both, and the air was thick (they couldn't see the baby, just that she was holding one), and he said that the thought there was that he was her husband and while they ate, he said he was even thinking he was her husband b/c the thoughts about their situation was just that strong, careful about the mind of men, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's false. each of us has to be stronger then the group mind, esp. if it's out of jealousy, hate, envy, bitterness, and lastly, false assumptions and negativity, each of us has to do that.
I forgot to mention this...after he told me that story of feeling as if he was that lady's husband, I asked him "do you see how that works?" a person can drive another BATTY, even a group that doesn't like another, if he could for one second, start to take on their thoughts of himself, imagine what else they could do?
Re-listen to the video on liberty, esp. the part that talks about the BRAIN/MIND:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCVlfTIOwaM
debbiejo
All an empath could say is if they felt, sad, happy, angry, ...etc.
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
All an empath could say is if they felt, sad, happy, angry, ...etc.
Well, ok.
Lana
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Not even. It's only "nature" when it's animals or humans/animals. People have been waging war ever since our beginning but suddenly in the last 40 or so years it's suddenly "wrong". War and killing each other is "nature" for humans also.
...that made no sense.
First of all, where did you come up with this thing that war's only been considered 'wrong' in the past 40 years?
dadudemon
Originally posted by General G
Some of the posts here have been very well thought out which is more than I thought I would get, so I appreciate it. When I have more time I will comment on them.
But before I go, I have to clear this up, my last line was not referring to me committing suicide, just that my rant for the time was over.
I look forward to it.
Captain REX
War has been wrong for only forty years? Damn, I must have missed something. The Civil War must not have contributed to Abe Lincoln's low popularity rating...
Czarina, really, can you not post off-topic rants? I understand the aims, but I must remind you, you should just make a LiveJournal...
Lord Melkor
Well, even in Middle Ages Church made some effort to stop the wars in Europe- one of the reasons for Crusades. But indeed, while the 40 years statement is very inaccurate, wars weren`t considered immoral for the most of the history of humankind- the main way for ruler to be considered great was victory in war.
vivando-loca
i actually have to say that i agree with most of what you're saying here. its despicable that we think we own the planet just cause we have opposible thumbs and can recite the alphabet. and it's stupid that the animals have to suffer for it.
nature did equip it, but humans, being the intellectual beings that we are, invented chain saws and pesticides which we proceeded to spray all over the place. Nature's way of fighting back is the numerous diseases that have popped up out of no where, and that we can't seem to find a cure for, but we try and come up with billions of medications, which no one would need if we didn't cut down so many forests in the first place.
i disagree with you there. many try to do the right thing, and that's something. they can stay here, and the rest'll move to mars.
Bardock42
We should remember that nature is not a person. And does not actively fight back.
Czarina_Czarina
arsonists are humans, right?
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t462479.html
Pandemoniac
Originally posted by Robtard
You should really have more sense... the thread starter didn't pose his stance on "humanity is destructive, 'we' should rethink our views", which is true. He posed his stance on "humanity is horrible; I'd be better if 'we' all died".
So, if he really thinks that, then lead by example, kill 'yourself' and make the world just a little bit better.
Got abit ahead of myself in my own thoughts, but after a re-read, I must admit you're right. Sorry about the rant!
Bardock42
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
arsonists are humans, right?
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t462479.html Why are you advertising your stupid threads in other threads?
http://piv.pivpiv.dk/
Robtard
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
Got abit ahead of myself in my own thoughts, but after a re-read, I must admit you're right. Sorry about the rant!
No worries, it happens to all of us (except Robtard, of course).
dadudemon
Originally posted by General G
es they did, in a natural way, we are killing them in unnatural ways, we are shooting them, destroying where they live unmercifully. If they were still going endangered and extinct in a natural manner, I would not have wrote this.
One could also argue that the actions of man are natural; we are animals too. Why aren't the things we do natural too? (Though I do not agree with that idealology, I am just playing devil's advocate.)
Originally posted by General G
I must start off with the fact that I really enjoyed your post, it was a nice read and I actually had trouble commenting on some of it.
What do you expect from a fellow Star Wars fan?
Originally posted by General G
But those animals will basically be clones of those older animals, and there are obvious problems with that. And Terraforming will be a long time coming, we are as far as I am aware nowhere near being able to terraform another planet.
1. All organisms are basically clones, though.
Scientists have been aware of the extremely minute genetic differences in one specimen of species to another of the same species for many years. The very very tiny differences are what make each organism not an exact replica of its progenitor/s. In order to successfully "replicate" a species from just data, scientists would have to master the ability to create these very very minute differences so that the species could procreate successfully. Of course, in a few decades, I am very sure software will be able to do all of that and eliminate the need for the geneticist to think that much about that organism's genome.
2. I agree, we are very far from being able to terraform a planet. We were looking 300 years into the future and 300 years from now, terraforming should not be an issue. My point was not the ability to terraform a planet, but to introduce the idea of terraforming a planet just to put our planetary species on that planet that we have replicated just from data alone. I guess I just used it for novelty only.
debbiejo
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why are you advertising your stupid threads in other threads?
http://piv.pivpiv.dk/ Why do I have to click on thingssssss....
Czarina_Czarina
Originally posted by debbiejo
Why do I have to click on thingssssss....
well, my best guess is that if it's from Braddock, it's probably really positive and encourable. I could be wrong.
Bardock42
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
well, my best guess is that if it's from Braddock, it's probably really positive and encourable. I could be wrong. You throw around positive and negative as if it were absolute standards.
Even worse, you assume that your repeated stupid posts are not negative.
Something's terribly, terribly wrong with you.
Oh, and try to get my name straight, it's not that hard.
J_M
Who ever said "I don't like humans" was pretty wise to have said that.
Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Who ever said "I don't like humans" was pretty wise to have said that.
That would depend on ones definition of wisdom.
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
So, I'll answer the point that was addressed to me before hitting on a couple of other things
I will say I think it is tragic how poor of a view members have of humanity, as if we should feel guilty for the fact that we have industry and civilization. Oh, but the matrix said.... get a ****ing life /sigh
Grumpy grumpy aren't we?.
Originally posted by inimalist
And you prove the hypocracy of your argument
killing bacteria is wrong unless it is I who is killing the bacteria
Calling that hypocrisy is to miss his entire point. He was saying that he doesn't take antibiotics or other things that he considers unnatural and he allows his body to fend off the "infection" like all of the other animals do. You know, along the same lines of only breast feeding you babies, or only eating natural unprocessed foods...some people are like that.
Originally posted by inimalist
And finally, since animals are (re: ARE) adapting to human civilization and learning how to use our habits for their benefit, what if there were a predatory animal that learned to "knock" on a door. Now, lets pretend that this is a highly evolved mammal, and that there are only 16 of them left. Is it more important to save the humans who that animal will kill or to save the animals who are killing humans?
You make a good point. I wanted to say that same thing earlier but I chose to wait for someone else to say it first so people wouldn't get as angry at me. Intelligent and thrifty animals are getting along just fine with humans being all up in their business. Animals like that will have an excellent future on our planet. Some animals are so well adapted to surviving-like we are-that they may never become extinct.
Originally posted by inimalist
why is a gun unnatural?
If it is, so are beaver damns and chimpanzee tools. All of a sudden we must rise up against the immoral beavers who have DELIBRATELY flooded valuable grasslands.
I've made that point already...
Originally posted by inimalist
So, you have just admitted to fudging statistics to make a more convincing argument. Boy does that sound intellectually honest
Look at my math. I cited sources. Your above point is moot. I've already showed that his math is good by working his numbers in reverse...despite that fact that he did some rounding.
Originally posted by inimalist
Why is biodiversity important to human society in anything but an aesthetic or abstract way?
I have already addressed that as well..from a scientific approach. Even IF the first generation of lab created species were perfect clones of each other, mutations in subsequent generations would increase their chances of independent survival. However, it is likely that the gene sequence/s used to recreate an expired species would have an intelligent design...to prevent breeding failures due to "inbreeding".
Violent2Dope
Originally posted by debbiejo
Evil really is a label we give to "what we like and what we don't like." Everybodys evil is different. Osama Bin Laden and Hitler don't think of themselves as evil, yet they are.
General G
Originally posted by dadudemon
One could also argue that the actions of man are natural; we are animals too. Why aren't the things we do natural too? (Though I do not agree with that idealology, I am just playing devil's advocate.)
Well, if you already realise, then there is not much point stating stuff already known to us both.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What do you expect from a fellow Star Wars fan?
I should have known.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. All organisms are basically clones, though.
Scientists have been aware of the extremely minute genetic differences in one specimen of species to another of the same species for many years. The very very tiny differences are what make each organism not an exact replica of its progenitor/s. In order to successfully "replicate" a species from just data, scientists would have to master the ability to create these very very minute differences so that the species could procreate successfully. Of course, in a few decades, I am very sure software will be able to do all of that and eliminate the need for the geneticist to think that much about that organism's genome.
2. I agree, we are very far from being able to terraform a planet. We were looking 300 years into the future and 300 years from now, terraforming should not be an issue. My point was not the ability to terraform a planet, but to introduce the idea of terraforming a planet just to put our planetary species on that planet that we have replicated just from data alone. I guess I just used it for novelty only.
1. OK, I will start off with this, lets say that we are cloning the extinct Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine if you will), first off, we would need the DNA, which can be hard to come by when they finally perfect cloning. Second, that species went extinct once, what is stopping it from doing so again? Poachers will still hunt and forests are still being cut down at alarming rates, there will be nowhere to put them. And we are much closer to cloning then terraforming, so we can't just put them on another planet.
2. Alright.
General G
Originally posted by inimalist
In the case of elephants, they are causing mass damage to the environment where they are held (nature preserves). It is clearly objectively beneficial to move or cull the population, however, given that they are endangered, this is not allowed. What is your solution?
If humans would stop killing them for their tusks and whatnot, they wouldn't have to destroy a nature preserve made for them.
Originally posted by inimalist
And finally, since animals are adapting to human civilization and learning how to use our habits for their benefit, what if there were a predatory animal that learned to "knock" on a door. Now, lets pretend that this is a highly evolved mammal, and that there are only 16 of them left. Is it more important to save the humans who that animal will kill or to save the animals who are killing humans?
Perfect then, a slight taste of our own medicine perhaps? There is lots of room for the human population to decrease quite dramatically.
chithappens
Originally posted by inimalist
why can't violence just be natural?
things kill eachother, its not that big of a deal. As a society we have to prevent it for social reasons, but as far as nature goes, stuff kills stuff.
Species protection is such an abstact and anthropic idea. Look at the massive deforistation problems in Africa associated with an abundance of elephants in non-suitable environments. Because the environment changes animals have to go extinct. If that environment includes humans and pollution, the animal kingdom will have to, and will, adapt. Think about the generations of insects and rodents that have the behavioural tendencies to live inside of human dwellings. Their offspring's offspring's offspring's.... offspring will undoubtedly be almost parasitic to human construction.
Agree with this for the most part.
The original poster just wants some attention - "This is my first post and I don't care what you say."
A new Czarina?
chithappens
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Osama Bin Laden and Hitler don't think of themselves as evil, yet they are.
WTF are you talking about?
dadudemon
Originally posted by chithappens
Agree with this for the most part.
The original poster just wants some attention - "This is my first post and I don't care what you say."
A new Czarina?
No, this guy comes from the Star Wars forums. When it comes down to serious discussion, he has some good posts.
Czarina_Czarina
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070829/ap_on_fe_st/helmsley_s_pooch
inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Grumpy grumpy aren't we?.
lol. After you posted this I read a part of the Fountainhead where a group of pretentious individuals (who also write newspaper columns as art critics) are talking about this bad play that they were going to give great reviews to, so that the people who see it will think they need to enjoy it as much as the play of a good writer. It goes something like:
Now, the bad author knows he cannot win in a real competition of artistry with the talented author. However, if the critics write that people "in the know" are the ones who think the bad author is the next talented author, people will believe it, and eventually they will no longer be able to tell who the talented authors are. And thus, art will be equal opportunity, open to everyone, not just those with "talent", it's so discriminatory.
Thats what I think of the Matrix.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Calling that hypocrisy is to miss his entire point. He was saying that he doesn't take antibiotics or other things that he considers unnatural and he allows his body to fend off the "infection" like all of the other animals do. You know, along the same lines of only breast feeding you babies, or only eating natural unprocessed foods...some people are like that.
That kindof misses my point. It is natural for one thing to kill another, you have no control over your body killing living things.
He was the one who put bacteria and microorganisms on the level of mammals. And in a very strictly genetic evolutionary perspective, microorganisms and mammals are the same thing, meaning that, if killing an animal is "immoral", the same would be true for your body's immune response.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You make a good point. I wanted to say that same thing earlier but I chose to wait for someone else to say it first so people wouldn't get as angry at me. Intelligent and thrifty animals are getting along just fine with humans being all up in their business. Animals like that will have an excellent future on our planet. Some animals are so well adapted to surviving-like we are-that they may never become extinct.
absolutly, I couldn't agree more. A lot of what I would call environmental nonsense is based on a worldview that holds that the way the world is today is the way that it must be, or even more nonsensical, the way the world was before is the way it should become. It kinda ignores the history of life and the world itself.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've made that point already...
it is a good point. As winston churchill said "If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Look at my math. I cited sources. Your above point is moot. I've already showed that his math is good by working his numbers in reverse...despite that fact that he did some rounding.
not questioning the math, more the "I made it more real for people" attitude. I might have been too harsh, but "fudging" or "usefull rounding for comprehension" is notorious in the green movement. I saw your figures, I didn't question the stat.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have already addressed that as well..from a scientific approach. Even IF the first generation of lab created species were perfect clones of each other, mutations in subsequent generations would increase their chances of independent survival. However, it is likely that the gene sequence/s used to recreate an expired species would have an intelligent design...to prevent breeding failures due to "inbreeding".
You said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
To a certain extent...yes. Humans need to stop reproducing so much.
We need a large plague that wipes out a thrid of humanity or something. Humans are so smart that all the time we are circumventing mother nature's natural population controls.
And maybe I should have been more clear. I completely understand that we are making species go extinct. I am wondering why that is as big of a problem as we make it out to be. Like, people lament the Dodo, but I don't think its dissapearance has affected human society or the lives of people at all.
I anticipate the "what gives us the right" or the "what about the dodo's rights" argument, but all I can say to that is that it is nature. Things go extinct. We are a part of nature, our guns, our technology, our pollution, our hunting, our criminals, and even our environmental protection programs. It is all part of the environment. If animals cannot adapt to their environment, they go extinct.
Originally posted by General G
If humans would stop killing them for their tusks and whatnot, they wouldn't have to destroy a nature preserve made for them.
Killing elephants is illegal, governments police it fiercly. It is so difficult to kill elephants that there has been no culling of the heards, which would seemingly be necessary for them to have a habitable environment.
The vast majority of humanity are against the eradication of the elephant population. A small group of criminals are willing to continue killing them. People are so determined to save the elephants that they may be over-protecting them. Can you please explain to me how these facts are congruent with a worldview that proposes that humans are trying to destroy the elephants? Explain to me how the elephants would benefit more from not having humans around...
Originally posted by General G
Perfect then, a slight taste of our own medicine perhaps? There is lots of room for the human population to decrease quite dramatically.
thats pretty gross, but I would actually rather you comment on the morality of causing a deadly virus to go extinct.
Originally posted by chithappens
Agree with this for the most part.
The original poster just wants some attention - "This is my first post and I don't care what you say."
A new Czarina?
I doubt it, he seems to have some sense
Just seems to be a youngster with some angst, and the environmental gangsters have got to him with their oh so salient memes
Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Look at my math. Okay.
You missed a 0. 876600 should be 8766000
Funkadelic
Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
''A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."
I wonder why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_society
'Freedom Is Free From The Need To Be Fee' - George Clinton
JacopeX
If this quote was said by a human, it is ironic and hypocritical.
Nuff said.
Robtard
Originally posted by JacopeX
If this quote was said by a human, it is ironic and hypocritical.
Nuff said.
Obviously it was said by a human...
chillmeistergen
Originally posted by JacopeX
If this quote was said by a human, it is ironic and hypocritical.
Nuff said.
Wow, Jacope, how very profound.
Robtard
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Wow, Jacope, how very profound.
I do fail to see the irony and hypocrisy in a person hating people though; is self-hating "ironic" or "hypocritical"?
Violent2Dope
Originally posted by chithappens
WTF are you talking about? Someone said something about evil is only a point of view or sumthin, so I decided to refute that by choosing two clearly evil men who do not view themselves as evil.
chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Robtard
I do fail to see the irony and hypocrisy in a person hating people though; is self-hating "ironic" or "hypocritical"?
I was being sarcastic. The day Jacope writes anything truly profound will be the day I vote conservative.
Robtard
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I was being sarcastic. The day Jacope writes anything truly profound will be the day I vote conservative.
I know you were, a chimp wouldn't think that of him and you're of at least average intelligence.
I was agreeing with you/asking the question.
chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Robtard
I know, a chimp wouldn't think that of him, and you're of at least average intelligence.
I was agreeing with you/asking the question.
Good chap.
Yeah I thought you might be, just wanted to make it clear to everyone reading that was definitely not said in earnest.
There's very little irony in it and I'm rather at a loss, to see how self loathing is hypocritical.
dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
not questioning the math, more the "I made it more real for people" attitude. I might have been too harsh, but "fudging" or "usefull rounding for comprehension" is notorious in the green movement. I saw your figures, I didn't question the stat.
Fair enough. I apologize for jumping the gun then.
And to the rest of your post...Fair enough.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay.
You missed a 0. 876600 should be 8766000
That is obviously a typo rather than a mathematical error...But in all fairness, though.......you are right and thanks!
Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by General G
I hate people and our arrogant ways, that just because we can blow each other up with nuclear weapons and kill each other with guns, we are therefore better than any other species and have the right no totally wipe them out.
Well, it would appear you just distilled the entire study of culture, history, ethics and so forth into 4 lines.
Humanity has had a negative impact on many species, true. But it isn't quite the same as saying "arrogant man purposely set out to make them go extinct". Ignorance and carelessness did. Which is why proper, educated conservation work will be important in the future, and not knee-jerk reaction from vegetarians one step away from para-militarism.
So at what point will we be making ourselves extinct in that period? Or ants or rats or jellyfish or grass? The trouble with such projections is that they fail to take into account numerous variables. As if there there is some set, dated and stamped extinction time table.
There were these two lions lying in the sun right, and one says "personally I only eat antelope because I value the lives of Zebra far more then the lives of antelopes".
It seems you are applying a moralistic code and gross generalities.
Actually, legally, if a man shot a robber dead as he ran out of the bank it would have to be for a justifiable reason, as in the robber was a threat to safety and all the rest. You know, the law and all. If he just shot the guy in cold blood he would be just as much the murder as the guy who killed the hunter. If he didn't give the guy chance to surrounded before he shot him the same. Thus it is a bit silly this guy trying to twist legality to make himself appear a martyr.
So out of interest - the aliens come along with a bunch of euthanasia needles saying humanity has to submit to termination - you would gladly line up to get the first shot while telling everyone "hey, it is for the good of the planet, look, I'm happy to be removed, so you should all follow my example."
Or do you mean we get picked up and dumped on a whole new world?
JacopeX
Originally posted by Robtard
I do fail to see the irony and hypocrisy in a person hating people though; is self-hating "ironic" or "hypocritical"? I say mostly hypocritical and I can debate on and on against those who are against their own species.
But what proves any of that true ( to The first post and among others) if you are speaking primarily about soul and evolutionary status being false?
You are stating a belief, yes. But how so? Who else is on earth if it is only people and living things? Do you loath yourself?
Yes I see where you are coming from. Basically the world has gone to a whole new low, but that should not cause yourself into hating your own race. Because you are who you are and that is it. Humans are not made into this earth into destruction, nor any motives of imperialism and what not. Humans are in this world for many other reasons. Plus, I think it is very ironic for one human to hate his own species.
Bottom Line....People make mistakes, but it seems that you don't really have that in your head yet.
We still stick to our natural roots like hunting, Learning, making, etc. Veterinarians are humans. They help to cure animals. And we are still cruel? My father killed a rat the other day. Imagine if he let the rat enter the house and spread all sorts of diseases? I stand correct on that part.
Anyways, we still have to live like cavemen? I'm sorry but that is a horrible idea.
I mean, why do we have to live like cavemen for the rest of our lives? Because some people fear that they will somehow become selfish and greedy? I mean, it is true, but trying to say that the prehistoric times with no electricity, no medicine, no help, no enforcement, no manners, no proteins, no vitamins is better than today because in modern days, people are alot more assertive with electricity and money is just ignorant. We always have been a creation of nature, and that is because we are born naturally. We still use nature in many ways with survival. Animals have done the same, that you explained. And I am not saying as in herd of animals, I mean one by one.
As times go by, we will learn and learn, just how our prehistoric ancestors did to survive. Isn't that what we have been doing through out generations? People made mistakes through out history, not because of modern society, but because they are humans. You hate humans because they are not perfect? Because Perfection does not come within everyone.
If we lived in a world with no type of leader, imagine how violent this world will be with hate and murder without being arrested. It happened back in pre historic times accordingly to archaeologist and historians, and it happens today. We are no different than our ancestors. Today, the only problem is that we just don't agree with one another. I can debate forever on why HUMANITY WILL NEVER unite. But saying that humanity is much better in pre historic times have some big flaws in that theory.
As a catholic, I believe God created us with flaws for a reason and that is for us to learn from mistakes and use our tools (Actions) wisely.
And one more thing, is anyone here in favor of PETA? Please tell me, because I feel like I am caught in a middle of a cross fire here
Robtard
Originally posted by JacopeX
I say mostly hypocritical and I can debate on and on against those who are against their own species.
"Self hating" and/or "hating others" isn't hypocritical in of itself. Care to enlighten me on how you would debate that it is?
leonheartmm
i dont like em much either.
chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
"Self hating" and/or "hating others" isn't hypocritical in of itself. Care to enlighten me on how you would debate that it is?
Willie Lynch all over again
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
Willie Lynch all over again
Huh? What does an Internet hoax about "mental slavery" have to do with what JacopeX claimed and the question I asked of him of it?
chithappens
What makes you believe it is a hoax?
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
What makes you believe it is a hoax?
Because it contained modern/more modern words that didn't exist in the 18th century.
Edit: So, what does it have to do with what JacopeX and I said? I don't understand the reference you made, real or fake being irrelevant here.
Here's a decent dispute on it, if you're interested.
http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/willielynch.htm
dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Because it contained modern/more modern words that didn't exist in the 18th century.
Edit: So, what does it have to do with what JacopeX and I said? I don't understand the reference you made, real or fake being irrelevant here.
Here's a decent dispute on it, if you're interested.
http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/willielynch.htm
I see what you mean. It uses terms like "psychologically weaken" which is well beyond the current studies of the time. He would have said something closer to "break their spirits" which was used at that time and meant the same thing. This is obviously a hoax. (It also had reference to implementing programs...I highly doubt they had a PMP certification back then.)
chithappens
1) I mentioned Willie Lynch because I was being facetious.
2) The "Willie Lynch" speech in book form is all I am aware of and I do not recall that specific language.
Czarina_Czarina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5xRj9bMjLA
If horses could talk, what would they say? deliver us from humans!
Czarina_Czarina
This one is better, mankind, man-kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJiCKDj6xjA&mode=related&search=
Deliver us
inimalist
alright, the hypothetical spaceship
*please note, this is a question of morality, and not of technicality or feasibility*
So, You know the Earth will be destroyed tomorrow. You also happen to have a spaceship that can take a set number of living things, only once, to a nearby habitable planet.
This spaceship has enough room for either all of the people on the planet, or 2 of every species on the planet (one if sexual reproduction is unnecessary). You can mix and match, but each animal takes the place of a person.
What do you do?
I asked this to a group of my friends, and I was shocked to find that I am yet the only person who would not feel any remorse blasting off with a full ship of 6 billion people.
Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
alright, the hypothetical spaceship
*please note, this is a question of morality, and not of technicality or feasibility*
So, You know the Earth will be destroyed tomorrow. You also happen to have a spaceship that can take a set number of living things, only once, to a nearby habitable planet.
This spaceship has enough room for either all of the people on the planet, or 2 of every species on the planet (one if sexual reproduction is unnecessary). You can mix and match, but each animal takes the place of a person.
What do you do?
I asked this to a group of my friends, and I was shocked to find that I am yet the only person who would not feel any remorse blasting off with a full ship of 6 billion people.
Make the stipulation, that they have to be the first human replaced. See where their convictions stand then.
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
1) I mentioned Willie Lynch because I was being facetious.
2) The "Willie Lynch" speech in book form is all I am aware of and I do not recall that specific language.
I understand that is was meant as a joke; I fail(ed) to see the punchline though, so?
Words like "self-refueling", would not have been used in the 18th century, Dadudemon also pointed one out (above). The site breaks it down, if you're interested.
SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Bardock42
Humans are better than other animals. Fact.
Humans are animals. Fact.
Bardock42
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Humans are animals. Fact.
Good thing that was part of my statement. Thank you for repeating my points, I really need a cheerleader
SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Bardock42
Good thing that was part of my statement. Thank you for repeating my points, I really need a cheerleader
I have the legs to be a cheerleader
chithappens
Sigh you make a well cited and detailed post and it gets skipped over. Last time I even bother with that.
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh you make a well cited and detailed post and it gets skipped over. Last time I even bother with that. hug
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh you make a well cited and detailed post and it gets skipped over. Last time I even bother with that.
I did read it... I found nothing to respond to, you posted your opinions (some of which I agree with), still doesn't change the fact that the Willie Lynch work is a fraud.
But since you responded that one one responded... who first "sailed" to America?
Also, it's no real "secret" that Columbus was little more than a pirate.
chithappens
Debateable but no one debates Columbus was not the first
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
Debateable but no one debates Columbus was not the first
No, there's proof that Scandinavians went before Columbus and settled for a short time. So, if it wasn't them, or Columbus as you say either is "false", who was it then?
Columbus is celebrated for it, because he made history. i.e. he had a huge impact.
chithappens
If you wanted to even be generous, Vikings made it before Columbus. This is cited in and never negated by ANY modern scholar.
He did not make history. He did not discover the earth was round. He did not sail to the Americas first.
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
If you wanted to even be generous, Vikings made it before Columbus. This is cited in and never negated by ANY modern scholar.
He did not make history. He did not discover the earth was round. He did not sail to the Americas first. That's what Robby said.
And he did make history....we can all witness it nowadays.
chithappens
He made history in what way? What did Columbus do first?
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens If you wanted to even be generous, Vikings made it before Columbus. This is cited in and never negated by ANY modern scholar.
He did not make history. He did not discover the earth was round. He did not sail to the Americas first.
What are you getting at? You made this claim:
Originally posted by chithappens Well, in the easiest and probably best known example of false canon, Christopher Columbus being celebrated as "discovering America", "teaching" the world the was round, dying poor, as well as other myths are complete bullshit. Even if you wanted to mention the Vikings sailing to the Americas before then, it would be false, but even they were not the first ones to sail to the Americas - the canon is written by white people who celebrate other white people.
I am asking you, who then, if it is "false"? As you say it is.
Yea, he did make history, as Bardocky mentioned, the world we live in today, is a direct result of his past exploits and those who followed him afterwards. Imagine if Columbus, Cortez or Pizarro didn't come to the "new world", its safe to logically think, that "our world" as we know it today would be very different.
Magellan was first to circumnavigate the Earth.
chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
What are you getting at? You made this claim:
I am asking you, who then, if it is "false"? As you say it is.
Yea, he did make history, as Bardocky mentioned, the world we live in today, is a direct result of his past exploits and those who followed him afterwards. Imagine if Columbus, Cortez or Pizarro didn't come to the "new world", its safe to logically think, that "our world" as we know it today would be very different.
Magellan was first to circumnavigate the Earth.
I could answer you but you would throw up your hands and say I was spitting bullshit. Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the Earth. Ancient civilizations has all sorts of interaction with one another but to get into major detail about it take a while and to have that conversation certain general information must be known.
I don't use too many net sources, I'm mostly books and frankly, I'm not about to cite each damn book when I know you would be skeptical simply because it is not what has been presented as canon. There is plenty of evidence of these things but like I said:
Originally posted by chithappens
the canon is written by white people who celebrate other white people.
chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
Yea, he did make history, as Bardocky mentioned, the world we live in today, is a direct result of his past exploits and those who followed him afterwards. Imagine if Columbus, Cortez or Pizarro didn't come to the "new world", its safe to logically think, that "our world" as we know it today would be very different.
This is a perfect example also. This assumes that the Native Americans would have never become advanced enough with the "help" of Europeans(or hell Asians or Africans either; although again, they had already interacted). That is a "what if" history statement and that inference is invalid on multiple accounts.
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
He made history in what way? What did Columbus do first? You don't have to do something first to make history.
chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't have to do something first to make history.
Sigh, fine - what exactly did Columbus do that made history? He made history, but not in the way you continue to suggest and infer.
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
I could answer you but you would throw up your hands and say I was spitting bullshit. Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the Earth. Ancient civilizations has all sorts of interaction with one another but to get into major detail about it take a while and to have that conversation certain general information must be known.
I don't use too many net sources, I'm mostly books and frankly, I'm not about to cite each damn book when I know you would be skeptical simply because it is not what has been presented as canon. There is plenty of evidence of these things but like I said:
You assume to know how I'll respond before I respond, you assume to know what "certain information" I know or in this case do not know, yet you have no problem making claims based off conspiracy theories* and not backing them up. You win the thread!
*I'm assuming they're conspiracy theories, per your tone.
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh, fine - what exactly did Columbus do that made history? He made history, but not in the way you continue to suggest and infer.
Well, he found something that most people had forgotten and made it popular resulting in the colonization and in time the rise of the at the moment most powerful nation in the world.
chithappens
It is not a consipracy guy. You are not even explaining what Columbus did. You are running around what I said.
What did Columbus do to make history? What did he do? How is that consipracy theory? What did he do? I have no gotten answer from you?
Do you know?
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
It is not a consipracy guy. You are not even explaining what Columbus did. You are running around what I said.
What did Columbus do to make history? What did he do? How is that consipracy theory? What did he do? I have no gotten answer from you?
Do you know?
His voyages to America created an awareness in Europe that resulted in the colonization of the American continent by Europeans, shaping it in the way we know it now.
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
This is a perfect example also. This assumes that the Native Americans would have never become advanced enough with the "help" of Europeans(or hell Asians or Africans either; although again, they had already interacted). That is a "what if" history statement and that inference is invalid on multiple accounts.
Are you ****ing retarded, seriously? I didn't assume anything about Native Americans needing help, or that Europeans made the world a better place. Re-read what I said.
You're the one making claims, yet dancing with "conspiracies" when asked to support your claims
chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, he found something that most people had forgotten and made it popular resulting in the colonization and in time the rise of the at the moment most powerful nation in the world.
1) Let's remember Columbus is Spanish so that is not neccesarily directly related. By "most powerful nation" I guess you mean the United States and the main colonies (at least in what became known as the United States) were of France and Britain so that is a long connect the dots game.
2) What do you mean "he found something most people had forgotten?"
chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you ****ing retarded, seriously? I didn't assume anything about Native Americans needing help, or that Europeans made the world a better place. Re-read what I said.
You're the one making claims, yet dancing with "conspiracies" when asked to support your claims
Originally posted by Robtard
Imagine if Columbus, Cortez or Pizarro didn't come to the "new world", its safe to logically think, that "our world" as we know it today would be very different.
Right. Left?
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
1) Let's remember Columbus is Spanish so that is not neccesarily directly related. By "most powerful nation" I guess you mean the United States and the main colonies (at least in what became known as the United States) were of France and Britain so that is a long connect the dots game.
2) What do you mean "he found something most people had forgotten?" The American continent. And yes, his voyages did create awareness. For France and England as well. I have no idea why you are trying to downplay his importance.
Oh, and he was Italian.
chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
His voyages to America created an awareness in Europe that resulted in the colonization of the American continent by Europeans, shaping it in the way we know it now.
Ok, cool. Now what about this:
Originally posted by chithappens
Well, in the easiest and probably best known example of false canon, Christopher Columbus being celebrated as "discovering America", "teaching" the world the was round, dying poor, as well as other myths are complete bullshit.
Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
It is not a consipracy guy. You are not even explaining what Columbus did. You are running around what I said.
What did Columbus do to make history? What did he do? How is that consipracy theory? What did he do? I have no gotten answer from you?
Do you know?
I have repeatedly answered. He set up trade routes, that paved the way for the colonization of the Americas. That is history. Now, you may think it is irrelevant history, it doesn't change the fact that it is history; it shaped the world you and I live in today.
Europeans, arguably the most technologically advanced people of the time became even more powerful and dominant because of exploiting the Americas, that and things like knowledge, religion, medicine, foods and agriculture spread. That is history.
Now, care to answer one question?
chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
The American continent. And yes, his voyages did create awareness. For France and England as well. I have no idea why you are trying to downplay his importance.
Oh, and he was Italian.
I'm not downplaying his importance - I'm saying his celebrity is falsified and glorified in different areas.
And I meant he went through help from the Spanish court. That was my mistake.
Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
Ok, cool. Now what about this:
I agree with that. Just saying he made history in other ways and was not just a random guy that got famous for no reason. And though I agree he gets hyped to many children, at least in Europe people that go to school get taught more accurately.
chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
I have repeatedly answered. He set up trade routes, that paved the way for the colonization of the Americas. That is history. Now, you may think it is irrelevant history, it doesn't change the fact that it is history that shaped the world you and I live in today.
Europeans, arguably the most technologically advanced people of the time became even more powerful and dominant because of exploiting the Americas, that and things like knowledge, religion, medicine, foods, agriculture spread. That is history.
I don't find it irrelevant. It think it is certainly important to understanding the world as it is today. Europeans became the dominant force of the world after exploiting the Americas, I agree. We ARE NOT disagreeing that what happened was important.
The "how" is never explained is history text in schools or in mass media. The "what" is given but now how and often times it the "what" is based off one man and building him up to something he is not. My issue deals with the other myths surrounding Columbus that are certainly not true. Some textbooks omit the Vikings completely and other mention Prince Henry sailing around the tip of Africa, but never mention that Afro-Phoencians did it first - he was inspired to do so after seeing them do it blah blah blah.
The point in my original post was that Willie Lynch and Columbus have some points to them, but to falsify so much is an insult to everyone.
<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.