Re: Re: Re: Re: I do not like humans.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I do not like humans.
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.
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! 😄
Re: I do not like humans.
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.
On average, about 1 species goes extinct every 18 minutes, whether that is a particular plant or bacteria, or a large mammal (most recent was a type of dolphin just a few weeks ago) which means that with all of the species on Earth, in just 300 years, there will be NO more species.
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.
I personally think that animals lives are far above the value of a humans and that the next species to go extinct or endangered should be well...us. We are way too overpopulated too spread out, and because we are so arrogant, we think that it doesn’t matter what we do to anything else. With the amount of trees and forests we are cutting down each year (damn, each day for crying out loud) is disgusting and is a surprise that anything can still live in those areas.
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.
I remember a bit ago a man shot a hunter dead because the hunter was about to kill a Rhino, and he got extremely ridiculed for it and was sent to jail. But I still remember what he said before he did, he said that if someone was robbing a bank and ran out with a bag of money (basically a bag of paper) and he shot that man dead, he would be praised, perhaps even rewarded, and to see that one of our endangered animals, a living, breathing animal has less value than a silly bag of paper just disgusts me.
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.
I personally wouldn’t mind the removal of humans from this planet, we do nothing good.
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?
Originally posted by RobtardI say mostly hypocritical and I can debate on and on against those who are against their own species.
I do fail to see the irony and hypocrisy in a person hating people though; is self-hating "ironic" or "hypocritical"?
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
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.
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.
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.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5xRj9bMjLA
If horses could talk, what would they say? deliver us from humans!
This one is better, mankind, man-kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJiCKDj6xjA&mode=related&search=
Deliver us
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.
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.
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.