Computer Science Canada

Derek's Philosophy

Author:  Dauntless [ Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Derek's Philosophy

Why are we here? This is a stupid question; only something so stupid as a human could and would ask such a question. There is no answer to that question, at least no answer that would satisfy the ravenous ego of human nature. A close approximation would be to say that we are here because of the same reason any other animal or plant is here; to reproduce and survive. People try to search for a greater meaning in life, for their creator. Again, only humans would do such a thing. Those who believe in a greater being may also believe that being a human is a gift, or that human thought is a gift from God as well. Humans are just animals who eat and sleep and defecate and reproduce just like any other animals, except we happen to have evolved the ability to advance our society.

So having established that society is an extension of human thought, can human thought be that much of a blessing? When society was in its cradle, when hunter-gatherer tribes roamed the continents trying to subsist in their respective environments, there was no room for the weak; the weak were culled by nature. In modern times, however, there are many who could be considered weak by primal standards. In times when only the fiercest, smartest, fastest, strongest, or essentially best in any category survived, many of our world's population would not be alive today. Society supports the reproduction of 'weak' human specimens, allowing a sort of genetic degeneration in the human gene pool. Whereas in primal times, only the physically and mentally attractive and strong would reproduce, nowadays anyone is. Today, the strong hold positions of power, which in turn bring food, shelter, and excessive overspending. The weak are left to live out their lives with low-paying jobs; they have food and shelter, but so did hunter-gatherers, and hunter-gatherers were not bound by any laws of society. Boiled down to the core, those holding the positions of power go against nature's design; suddenly humans are taking much more than they need, taking trees to turn into the paper money people so cherish, and using these slaughtered trees to pay for more waste and gluttony.

Why should I not simply go live in the bush? Would society chastise me for not having helped to further its development? I say, what development? Sure, we have developed cures for diseases that kill or debilitate, but when we have cured them all, which way will we grow then? Will we develop luxury to an art, but make it available to everyone? Are we actually building towards a Utopia? Or, more realistically, will all our vaunted developments only drive us to overpopulate our earth before we do? Do we, as a society, know where we are developing toward? From someone from the present knowing the past and guessing at the future, it does not seem like society is going anywhere good. I'm just glad I won't be around to know for sure.

I realize this is a coldhearted way to view things; I'm not saying I wholeheartedly agree with everything, but it's more like, "if you think about it like this...". The part about today's "weak" is a bit too harsh, but it gets a point across. I realize that today's society is good in that a mother will not have to mourn the death of her newborn child, or that in some countries a poor man with no family can receive health care and government support to stay alive. I just think, what kind of life do you live if you are simply eating and using shelter to just stay alive? In ancient times, if you cannot provide, you simply die. You may live long and prosperous , or you would die fast. There is no in between. There is no 9-to-5 so you can fit into society's picture of a normal citizen.

Author:  poly [ Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

After reading the first paragraph I dont agree so I didnt continue to read it. I have my own Philosophy and it goes something like this...

We are put on this earth for one thing, well actually 2 if you count death, but thats not important right now. We are put on this earth to be consumers of corporate products, to make the rich richer.

See everywhere and everything we do somebody makes money! You are born, the doctor gets paid (by gov't). You need clothing on your back because somebody thought they'd make a law banning nudity, so now a cloth store gets your money. Hey look you need to eat, so you goto the grocery store to buy your food. When you buy entertainment, somebody makes money. And than when you die a funeral home makes money off you. When you are barried in the ground you are finally not making anyone any richer than they are.

Author:  McKenzie [ Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

What is the point? Why are we here? Oldest question in the book. You know my real answer is steeped in my faith, but I would like to address some some of the basic points.

1. The university professor who is happily married and puts on musical productions is not the same as the cab drivers who ran off on 2 babies, has a live-in girlfriend that he beats now and again, likes watching TV 8hrs a day and increasing his sizable beer belly, are not the same.

From a basic intuitive point of view you have to say that whatever the point of this game called life, contestant #2 is not doing to well.

2. Society does cull the weak. I know it may not seem like it, but the reality is that for the most part what is attractive is also healthy. Facial beauty is often a measure of how symetrical. The attractive are more often placed in leadership roles, and are more likely to produce offspring.

3. If you are serious about examining "the meaning of it all" I have some Plato I can lend you. Not to suggest that He had all the answers but in the same way I examine programming books for what other programmers think I examine the thoughts of great thinker.

Author:  Andy [ Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

wow thats deep man.. thats it this is a now a sticky

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Firstly, sir.. Did you mean to capitalize 'He' when you were talking about Plato? Thought it was kind of ironic since we were talking about God and a philosopher. :p

What I am saying is, there would be no cab-driving beer-drinking wife-beating slob OR a righteous society's darling University prof putting on musical productions if there was no society. There would be no war in Iraq or high gas prices or genocide if we never developed into the society we are today. If you could ask the caveman if he beat his wife, I don't think he would tell you he did. You could say there were no women's rights back then, but then again, men's rights were established by society as an extension of men's nature wanting to establish dominance.

Back when everyone was living together to bring down the deer to eat, backstabbers and people who didnt contribute did not have any place in society, and everyone worked together. No police because there was no organized crime. No people pondering the question of "why are we here"? Because like Mr. Mckenzie said, "what is the point"? Excellent, humans now have the power of free thought. Women's rights movement successes are hailed, and when communism or dictatorships are overthrown with disdain, with democratic countries cheering. People are more free nowadays, it is said, because nudity as a form of expression in art is more widely accepted and tasteful. People are more free nowadays, it is said, because children in some countries have access to free public education where they play Fishy. We had nudity in the cave man days, except nobody made such a big deal out of it.

** Note, I realize this is not a complete argument or thought or whatever...however, Mr. Mckenzie decided to read my post before I wanted him Response is below.

Author:  McKenzie [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:17 am ]
Post subject: 

but all of these points are answering different questions. Basically you are addressing "was this development 'good' for 'us' as a whole?" Now obviously you need to define good, and define who us is. This brings us down a long line of what ifs.
The reality is that we can not change the past. We can never know what this word would be like if there was no gunpowder or no cities or no clothing. The only thing we can change is our own actions.
As far as a personal philosophy goes I think it is important to understand what our society is about (the good the bad and the ugly) then decide how we fit into this. But to reduce us all to unthinking beasts ignores some obvious truths, and some obvious good that does exist in the world.

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok, I realize my argument is not really focused; I was thinking how I was jumping all over the place when I wrote my original post.

And I guess philosophy isn't a good word to describe it either... Andy, if you can think of a synonymish word, change it if you can. It's more like a thought process, where I took an node(Idea) and branch(Idea)'ed from it. Well geez, this IS isn't it?

Unthinking beasts may be more than what I was going for; humans will never be unthinking beasts, but really, what the heck happened for society to turn out the way it is? If we try to trace its course...
Society at its roots started out when groups of humans banded together to hunt or to oppose other groups of humans who encroached on their territory. I suppose when humans learned to communicate they were able to become more effective as social units. This is probably where diplomacy was invented. Diplomacy between tribe members, or with members of other tribes. So did people learn to backstab and lie when they learned how to communicate? Subtle manipulation afforded by clear communication could have been the cradle of modern society. Still, that is only maybe the root... Society today could have been shaped by the wants of one individual. This person was probably named Troy. Or Henry. Or Polonius. I think that perhaps this individual was the dominant in a tribe, and they enforced their views on their tribe. Somehow their views spread, and suddenly humankind in a large area had similar views. Who knows... If you're asking what it is I'm getting at, maybe its that I think a better use of the earth would have been if advanced society had never happened. How would that happen? Well how about if civilizations just routinely died out, like the Mayans?
I've gotta say this branch is just uninspired speculation. But you could picture some of it, couldn't you?

And another thing, one day when we have all the cures for everything, and a solution for any sort of non-human-caused death, mankind will overpopulate the Earth and people will start to fall off the edge...hehe. Seriously though, when people stop dying from sickness, people will start dying from lack of air, food, and standing room. What will we do then? Have annual cullings? Society needs to look into the long term more. How will society deal with spreading economic wealth around? How is it possible today, with inflation and exchange rates and all? Trade is another of our society's shortcomings... Say that our society does figure out a way to spread economic wealth, cure every disease, and even sustain this massive population. For some people, enough is just not enough. More is not even enough. There will always be someone who wants more. There can be no perfect society, but there surely can be better ones than ours right now.

Actually, I started thinking all of this one day when thinking about my I figured that I wanted to be a teacher when I grew up, probably a history teacher. I don't want to be a doctor who makes a lot of money, or a jet-setting CEO. I don't want to be a burger engineer at Burger King, and I don't want to be a mechanical engineer for whomever. I'm sure the people who can get into med school or law school feel pretty confident that they can spend the rest of their lives making easy money after a relatively worthwhile 7 year degree. But that doesn't appeal to me. I want to be like my role models, and to make my students look at me like I looked at my teachers. Teachers like Litterick, Caldwell, Dagg, Zieba, Hlady, Solotzo (sp.?) and even Mckenzie (stop reading this thread, sir), because they made class fun and learning a no-hassle byproduct. Then I got to thinking, when I have kids, I want them to have as good an oppurtunity as my parents have provided me. Tuition fees being what they are today, and a teacher's salary being around... 30k starting? I didn't know if I'd be able to pay for my kids' tuition. But if I couldn't they'd hafta qualify for a scholarship. And my childhood being what it is, with alot of (what I feel is) excessive parental pressure about my marks, I don't think I will have the same approach. So then I started thinking how I'd be as a parent. If I don't teach them good, they won't be motivated to do well in life, and then they will do the same to their kids. All this led me to think, back in the day, people didn't worry about tuition fees, or mortgages. People only worried about finding shelter and killing their next meal.

Yeah, I realize I think about weird things for my age, perhaps for any age. Wellll, once you get old, nothing is too weird to think about. Septuagenarian and older are excused to think about stuff like why their twelve cats seem to be getting smaller, or how their sprinkler system turns on at the same darn time every day, even in winter; they've made it this far. It's just thinking, and thinking is only human Wink. I also realize this isn't the best persuasive writing I've ever done. But it is just a web forum after all. No critics that I'm afraid of here (except the NJ...he burns hard).

Also, I just wanted to add a little religious disclaimer here. I realize what I am putting out here may go against the religion of some people, but I don't mean to offend anyone. Everything I say here goes on the basis that you believe in or have heard of the theory of evolution. You can say man did not evolve from anything, or whatever you want; it's an open topic, and all comments are welcome.

Oh yeah, one last thing. I guess I don't need to change my avatar pic eh? All my posts in this thread have been long enough to justify it.

Author:  McKenzie [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

First off it's not so weird to think of these things at your age. I thought of the exact same things, and even though I was religious I had an equaly pesemistic view of things. I eventually realized that everything happens for a reason, and by-and-large people are good, and do what that feel is right. As for a desire to be a cave-man "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".
Again I suggest that if you are interested in the study of society, study it, but keep an open mind. More importantly focus on your own values and philosophy to ensure that you don't emulate the things that you hate in society.
As far as offending the pious, I wouldn't worry too much. Computer Science is filled with atheists. The truth is the truth. If you bring up a genuine question that shakes my faith the problem is not the question, it's my level of faith.

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 


My dad gave me a very affirmative 'no' answer when I asked him if I could buy an air rifle. That sucks so much. Way to crush my dreams. I guess I'll hafta keep my XS-B18 800 FPS break-barrel .177 calibre air rifle with Monte Carlo stock and parkerized finish, along with 3-9x42 adjustable power scope and mount on layaway. Sweet, sweet, layaway. Farewell, my lovely.

Unless someone wants to keep it at their house for me...preferably someone with an open field near their house without many people Smile

Author:  Dan [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

I was offend by your litte easy there Dauntless. Not becuse it implyed anything about region or the existscan of a god but becouse of your second pargerft. How dare you go and say what poleop should be alowed to exist just so you can have your eclosive soticy of so called poleop who are geneticly prue and have a "clean" gene pool. How can you start going aroud and saying what kind of poleop are geneticly right?

Also i totaly disagaery with your litte idea there that killing off any one who dose not fit your gentick profile will hurt the human race. Even tho i diss like the way our socity is going now a days i do not think we whould be better off with out it all togther. It has chaged the way things work, no longer the pshicly strong rule, but is that a bad thing? If you realy think about it is not wrong, it is just how we are evolaling. Now intelgenc is becoming more import then phiscal abitys...why?...becuse we no longer have to be pshicaly strong, i mean being hetly is good a good thing but how offten do you have to go and kill some perditor on your way to school or wrok?

See, the formation of socity has just chaged who the weak are, it has not made it so there are no weak. Also this is hardly making the gene poll worse off, it is just chaging it. The one thing that truly whould mess it up whould be to go out and all the poleop you are considering weak. The main strigth in worlad today is our divistry, if we where to do what you impley whont you just be creating a new kind of socity that is just like this one X100? That whould be going agested nature's design even more then we are now. Also nature's design is eviotion, and we have evloed, we no longer need tobe sotrong physcialy to soverie and insted we are strong metealy.

You can go live out our life as a cave man with a club if you think that whould bring more meaing to your life, but i bivle that igroince is not as blisfull as some poleop say. I realy dislike our socity but i whould take it any day over one where poleops lives are detrmend by wthere they are genticalk like the set out guide lines.

Alougth i do aggery that we do need to stop kill the erath, it is the only one we have. I bilve that nothing is set yet, we can still turn it in to a Utopia if we can get over our difrreces (not kill every one who is weak inculed) and start wroking together for the good of every human and living thing on this earth. life is import we should try to persever as much of it as we can whtere it is weak or not.

And as for your littinng thing there on "Why are we here", there may be no awser to that and we may just be a random thing that happend. But we are not like the rest of the life here, just the fact that we can ask the question "Why are we here" makes us difrent. We can unnderstand how our actions will effect the wrold around us, for this reason i think we should be wroking on saving the life around us. May be this is why we are here, some one has to take care of the erath or may be we are here for totaly ther reasons, ether way for all we know this could be the only place where life exists in the univers so we should try to keep it avlie and stop our petty wars.

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

First off, I want to address the line that stuck out to me the most.

Hacker Dan said,
How dare you go and say what poleop should be alowed to exist just so you can have your eclosive soticy of so called poleop who are geneticly prue and have a "clean" gene pool.

This is in response to how I said,
Society supports the reproduction of 'weak' human specimens, allowing a sort of genetic degeneration in the human gene pool. Whereas in primal times, only the physically and mentally attractive and strong would reproduce, nowadays anyone is.

The wording here is definitely harsher than I wanted it to be. I didn't want it to be harsh at all. In fact, now that I think about the idea I was originally trying to get across, it was a stupid point anyways, because, first off, any 'genetic degeneration' will probably be addressed in the future by advances in genetics. Secondly, yes, diversity is one of society's redeeming qualities.

Okay, I was a bit hardcore about "the weak". But I addressed that in the end paragraph. I also never said anything about fitting MY genetic profile. You are assuming I think I am one of the strong, the fit to survive. If this were that situation I was describing, I wouldn't be here. For long at least. I never implied that we should take nature into our own hands. I said that if we went back to our roots, man would be under the same rules that the rest of the living world is restricted by. To the point of man is no better than animal, only different. People view the circle of life as a neat way nature cleans up. Weak deer are eaten by strong wolves. The strong deer live to eat and reproduce. No strong deer starve because weak deer have eaten the food. This is viewed as good; this happens in a healthy ecosystem. With no natural predators, the deer starve to death eventually. If one wanted to take a compeletely realist view of things, we are the deer right now. We have no natural predators, and we are heading towards starvation. I do not think that we should change it by killing the weak so the strong have more food, that's not the case or the solution. Also, by strong, I don't mean just physically strong. I'm sure back then those who were intelligent or had other good social qualities were cared for by their family groups.

People are not better than animals because they can think. People are only a different kind of animal. No animal other than a human ever beat their mate, or blew their life on narcotics and killed people. Such a horrible thing as the Holocaust never happened outside of human history for a reason. Humans are the only race to be outright cruel; animals may kill for a need or out of instinct, but never to just inflict pain and cause misery.

Additionally, I was trying to address the fact that man believes himself superior because he can think. I think people tend to romanticize themselves because they can think. Our gift is the gift of thought, but animals don't have it and they get along fine. When a person dies, it is basically like they have become just another animal; there is no longer thought inside them. When a person dies, there is nothing. Just think about that, this is what really made me think. People that are living are unique and special, but we are just animals, and it is never more apparent than when we are returned to the soil. In the end, there is no difference. Just that the thinking man's way of living is causing suffering and destroying the earth.

Finally, for everyone who reads this in the future too. What I say in here is not meant to be taken to heart. This is not a case of supressed genocidal feelings. What was only meant to be a discussion has been interpreted as something else. I only wanted to put out some thoughts that I had the other night. I wanted to have people to talk about it with. I didn't want to offend anyone. That's why at the end of EVERY post I write something to that end. If you think its a stupid point, say that. It makes me feel... ashamed to have people say its offensive when I never meant it to be so and I don't feel like I deserve that. I definitely don't feel good about every word I say in the sense that I feel like some of them could be turned against me when I never meant to bring across that point.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

well i think it is a stupid poit to say that we whould be or where better off when we where more primitive. Also i dont think is side that we where better then anaimals. I agger that phsicaly we are all the same in the end but metaly or at least some part of us i whould like to bivle lives on. I just find it hard to bivle that we could stop our thinking even affter death, and i whould like to bivle that the contiones lives on in some way. What or how that may be i dont know and it may not even be importent as long as it dose. Alougth i could all ways be wrong and when we die we could be nothing, in that case we should live our lives to the fullest while we still can think and try to help put the erath on the right cores whell we are still here.

Author:  jonos [ Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 

Ok, keeping it simple... I'm not really understanding you guys at all, but here is my thoughts on why we are here:

My thought: We are not here for any one reason. We are here for unique reasons, and that depends on our walk of life, our mental strength, our physical strength, etc. If you are a doctor, then you are meant to heal people, if you are a teacher you are meant to teach people, if you are a landlord, you are meant to collect the money that people owe you. If you are a prostitute you are meant to pleasure people, etc... The reason people are here is then practically for the continued existence of the human species, like someone said already. The continued existence of the human species is the continued existence of morality/immorality, intelligence, etc. at least on this planet. Society has practically now become the continued existence of self - through what someone said already, backstabbing, manipulation, the quest for the highest job, the quest to be the most powerful. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

i hope i made sense, i wasn't really thinking that hard on it and I didn't really read all the other posts (too long!!)...

Author:  JayLo [ Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

to only live for and to glorify God.

Author:  Paul [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hey, there's no point in debating this... we are all gonna die someday, might as well save urselves from carpal tunnel syndrome...
Anyways, my thoughts: I think humans are not gonna survive, since we are the weakest of all, we depend on the one weakest organ for survival: The Brain. If put into the wild with gorillas without any of our tools or technology, or even clothes, Im sure a majority of us would not survive...

Author:  Catalyst [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

our intelligence makes us the strongest of all Very Happy
and our ancestors survived with animals far worse than gorillas, its just a question of adapting

Author:  Paul [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think random natural events have to do with it as well, if there hadn't been an ice age, then the neanderthals probably would have survived instead of us, seeing as they have bigger brains, and the only reason they died is because they had bigger noses, and couldn't survive in the ice age.

Author:  jonos [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

^agreed, everything happens because of the changing of nature

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lol, i had to go back and read my original post to see if I actually had anything to say, and to figure out what it was exactly that I was talking about. Since I can't really reply to your points directly, seeing as they only touch upon like the first line of what I said, my question for you guys is this:

Do you believe there is a higher being that created and is watching over mankind? Do you believe that humans have a higher purpose, or are obligated to strive for a higher purpose than simply survival, or are we just another animal?

I believe there is not a higher being; I guess you could say that this is the result of my not having any religious background, or mainly because society today seems to hold onto the beliefs of science more so than the time-honoured beliefs of religion. I believe this because I also believe that humans do not have a higher purpose, that we are just another animal. Just like a dog, or a fish, or a lion, when we are alive, we have a personality, and we affect the others around us. When we are cut, we bleed, and when we bleed too much, we die. When we die, we are just like any other animal as well; we become minerals waiting to be returned to the earth. Our brains stop working; it is our brain that gives us personality or any other trait that is considered human. I don't believe that was in our brains on earth go to somewhere else when we die. Is there any reason it would?

Therefore, I also do not believe humans have a designated higher purpose. It is very noble to think that we as a race do indeed have a greater meaning in life, but then again I think that such ideas are again the romanticization of humans. I don't think that we have a greater purpose set for us by someone else, but I still think it would be admirable if we strove for such a goal regardless.

Author:  jonos [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'd have to say that i do believe in a higher power, though not necessarily a "god" like power, a universal "power" that cause things and does not require worship, which to me is pointless though it helps many people.
*had to go read past past*
I think that humans are like you said, just another animal though we are advanced intellectually and have a greater intelligence, but that just may be our disposition or the way evolution went.
All humans can really strive for is the accumulation of knowledge, and the growth of the human race, though one day I believe we will be overtaken.

If i said anything that contradicts some of my previous posts, disregard the old posts, they mean nothing!

Author:  Paul [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

meh, I only quote this from a book I read

In the year 2500, God's remains has been found beyond the outer ring of Saturn

Author:  jonos [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

well, that is a very interesting quote.

Author:  Dauntless [ Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

That is such a great quote! The depth for analysis is endless.

Author:  roer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

The Christian God is a hard idea to fanthom. If he created everything, time and space he created his future which means he has no free will, which does not make him all powerful. We are only here because evoloution chose us to be on this planet at this time. We have hit the "Peak Oil" and this is where we start to descend. Third world countries are going to be wiped out in a few decades, first world countries will go into depressions and start fighting for the remaining energy left on this planet. If that dosent happen then AI robots will take over, why would we need to live when AI can do what we can but be 100's of times more effective, faster and efficent. Survival of the fittest.

We are here because we are here. Those looking for an explanation will not find one. If you dedicate your life to finding out the meaning of life you'd only waste it in return =P Just accept what your given and you'll have a much better time.

Say what you say, I see the world for what it is. Corruption, Death and once in a while there is a little beam of light to cheer us all up Wink

Author:  Andy [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

the thing with most ppl is, they dont want to understand God, and quiet frankly, they are to arragant to even admit that there is a God.

Author:  roer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

dodge_tomahawk wrote:
the thing with most ppl is, they dont want to understand God, and quiet frankly, they are to arragant to even admit that there is a God.

I believe in God I just dont believe in how Christians define him. I can have faith in anything, I could believe that a rock created the Earth. Can you disprove that? As scientific findings increase miracles go down. Whens the last time you heard someone perform a miracle? If God is perfect why did He need to create us? Perfect means that you need nothing, you desire nothing, by creating us he became imperfect didnt He? Also in the Bible God says that he feels human emotions and such, how is that possible? Emotions exist because humans gain new knowledge or experience stimuli. If God can experience emotion then he isn't exatcly all knowing is He?

Author:  Amailer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

So science is proving mricals to be all a fake eh?
Then why does everything happne as the exact same time?? all coincidence... i dout it...

Author:  roer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Amailer wrote:
So science is proving mricals to be all a fake eh?
Then why does everything happne as the exact same time?? all coincidence... i dout it...

Explain by what you mean exact same time.

Science does try to explain many miracles. Have you read the article about the Red sea parting? One explanation was that they walked by the Reed Sea which had a depth of about a maximum of 50 cm. I am not saying science is proving miracles to be a fake, Im saying whens the last time you saw a miracle?

Author:  Amailer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

They say since now day's there is more sin in the world...there are very very fiew miricals in the world ;D

Also you gatta take it as in the olden days... the life style of living was much lower (well not as advnaced as today) so some stuff that now days we see daily were amazing thing in those days...

especially people who were dead and came alive..

Author:  roer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ya thats true, women who could do math got burned at the stake because people thought they were witches. In my personal belief, if Jesus came to this world again He would die again a painful death because we as humans are iggnorant to change Sad

Author:  Andy [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

miracles eh? well my friend went on a missions trip last summer, he saw and did some amazing things... one particular one is when he prayed for this woman in panama, she had arthritis all over her had and red spots covered it... almost rite after the prayer, the woman's hand was healed.
The Christian God does not create the future, he is not limited by time. he can change the future, but he does not plan everything and force them to be exactly as he wishes them to. and the nxt time you want to argue about something, research it first, so you dont seem like a moron and offend other ppl

Author:  Andy [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

if Jesus came to this world again He would die again a painful death because we as humans are iggnorant to change

for ur information, He is coming again

Author:  Amailer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

dodge_tomahawk wrote:
if Jesus came to this world again He would die again a painful death because we as humans are iggnorant to change

for ur information, He is coming again

it's called the 'Judgement day' isn't it?
and ya... miracles do happne today...i guess people just take it as luck or something Sad

Author:  roer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

dodge_tomahawk wrote:
The Christian God does not create the future, he is not limited by time. he can change the future, but he does not plan everything and force them to be exactly as he wishes them to. and the nxt time you want to argue about something, research it first, so you dont seem like a moron and offend other ppl

The Christian God stands above time and he knows EVERYTHING. He is an all knowing God which means that he knows what will happen to Him in the future! Thus he has a predestined life which means he has no free will, this takes away from the Christian perspective of an omnipotent God. This is simply a paradox which disproves the idea of a God for which anything is possible. Thats what I meant in the original post

and ya... miracles do happne today...i guess people just take it as luck or something


Author:  Dauntless [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Just wanted to say that you sound like what most non-religious enriched students sound like these days...It must be some sort of cool thing going around, as if optimism is a social faux-pas to you guys...

Say what you say, I see the world for what it is. Corruption, Death and once in a while there is a little beam of light to cheer us all up

You sound suspiciously like if you could be the father/mother of any one of the angst poems in my other thread.
Is it so hard to ascribe values to the world that aren't so dreary and angsty? What about Life? If the world really is all about corruption and death, why do you still live? The reason you still live is another thing the world is. What you said about it all being about corruption and death is hyperbole; death has always been a part of the world, but it's not everything. Corruption is a relative term anyways, but even so the world is not what you say it is. Read I Am Legend by Richard Matheson... It's about the sole human survivor of a plague that turns everyone else into monsters; the majority, being the monsters, view him
as the monster, him being the only one of his kind. If everyone is "corrupt", everyone becomes adjusted, and everyone is relatively uncorrupt. There's no such thing as a human that is pure society's eyes. I'm sure even the most chaste person cannot suppress the occasional natural instinct/need to reproduce, and apparently to society sex is a dirty thing.

And debate about God is touchy at best; the concept of omnipotence is too complex for our minds to comprehend (seeing everything at once, from every angle, distance, etc.) Explanations of paradoxes have no verifyable evidence.

All in all, good to see this thread getting replies again.

Author:  Paul [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

is angsty a word?

Author:  Dauntless [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Angst-filled or angstful would probably be a more accurate way to say it. But come on, who can resist angsty?

Author:  roer [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Corruption is just how our human nature has evolved. People take advantage of power (Bush) and use it for their own personal agendas (war on iraq). I go to a Catholic school and have been for my whole life. I believe in the message of the Bible, it's a guideline in my life. The messages conveyed through the Bible are exatcly how we should live our lives.
I have a general question because Im just curious about this:
Do you believe God is good, evil or both?

Personally I believe he has to be both, if God can do everything then he would have to be able to be good and evil at the same time. Or perhaps Satan is part of God.

And in my little point of the what the world is, I still believe in that little light at the end of the road, thats what keeps me going Wink

Author:  Boarder16 [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Enough of this crazy talk you fools! No matter how much u argue about crap liek this it still dosent change the fact that monkeys will rule the world one no no, not ordinary monkeys you see around you, but super human..talking, monekys that..walk..yes yes..walk. So stop wasting your time wondering why we are here and all this talk of power and crap and start preparing for the monkeys...start digging your underground layers..saving up food..making stick weaponsa nd getting all the guns you can find.. and we might just! save ourselves.............


Author:  Paul [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

No no monkeys, orangutans (however you spell them)

Author:  jonos [ Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

monkeys, then it will be the next most intelligent species. the ruling species always dies away of its own faults and ignorances, so there will be an endless number of "ruling" or dominant species.

Author:  Amailer [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:26 am ]
Post subject: 

*stabs Boarder16 for breaking up the topic... ** DIE DIE ** * Laughing

Author:  roer [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 

jonos wrote:
monkeys, then it will be the next most intelligent species. the ruling species always dies away of its own faults and ignorances, so there will be an endless number of "ruling" or dominant species.

So how could the dinosaurs prevent the comet? Wink Robots are the next generation, they'll probably inhabit monkey bodies Rolling Eyes

Author:  jonos [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:54 am ]
Post subject: 

first of all, the comet is just one theory and it has not yet been proven, so i could still be correct... Wink

Author:  Dauntless [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:43 am ]
Post subject: 

This just in from Saturday Night Live; the word "Evolution" can be freely said in biology classes in some state in Virginia. In related news, dinosaurs will now be called "Jesus Horses".

-Weekend Update, Saturday Night Live

Author:  jonos [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:07 am ]
Post subject: 

haha, jesus horses. did you mean can't say evolution or can, because can't you use evolutuion everywhere, unless its a really uptight christian school. i kow this guy who has actually called me an ignorant heathen for believing in evolution and not the genesis versions (there are 2).

Author:  Dauntless [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

I said "can" and so did

I think because before it was controversial to say so because religious parents who had their kids in the public school system didn't want the bias. "Jesus horses..." Not even Jimmy Fallon could keep a straight face.

Author:  strife_8 [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok, I signed up a while ago to this site because Derek was here, I haven't been here in a while and I just dropped in to check things out, I found this massive thread and I have just finished reading it. Here is Ryan's perception of what has been said so far.

We as human beings made society for the way the majority of us wanted it to be. If we wanted it changed, it would have to be a gradual change that the majority of us wanted to change. Some of us in this thread view that today's society is "corrupt" in our eyes. But the Wall Street CEO does not view todays society to be corrupt, he/she views it to be their life.

My heritage is of a third world country, but I was born and raised here in Canada. So I see myself as having a unique view. I've been blessed with a top notch education so far, I've had excellent medical care, and as a diabetic I know that I have had it good in medical care. I've travelled back to Sri Lanka twice in my life, the first time I went, it was amazing, I was an ignorant little kid who had only seen 1st-world countries. Visiting a third world country opned me up to see the world for what it really is, not all of us have access to the internet, or a computer, or medical care. That was what I learned in my first trip. In my second trip back, I expanded my knowledge of third world countries, plus I found out that the world isn't made of good samaritans. We were ending our vacation and packing for our flight back to Canada in 2 days. There was a terrorist attack, 2 days before our flight, on the only international airport in the country. The attack involved around 10 suicide bombers who packed machine guns and explosive vests. If I remember correctly all 10 of them died. For the next 2 days my whole family paid attention to the news as we were essentially stranded. I saw, on TV, a mutilated body of a terrorist who blew himself up as TV there was not censored, luckily, the airport re-opened and we were the 3rd flight out of the country. When we arrived at the airport I saw things that would change my life. I saw countless bullet holes in the windows that soldiers were taping up to try to hide, I saw at least 4 destroyed jetliners. As I stood, looking out through the bullet-ridden windows at the destroyed jets and I thought. Why would somebody do such a thing? Sacrifice their life to damage an airport? I thought, maybe they didnt know what they were doing in life, but I realized that at the time I didn't know what I was doing in my life either. So why didn't I commit suicide like those young terrorists did? I still don't know what made them do it, and I probably never will. That week changed my view on the world forever and I still think about it to this day.

So basically my view on the world, life, society, religion, gods, human beings is all together inconclusive. I'm learning new things every day and the only moment I'll be able to give you a final answer is the moments before I die.

I've seen many things in my life, good and bad, I am only 15 and I consider myself lucky to see all the things that I've seen but at the same time unlucky to see the graphic nature of the things I've seen. I may be getting dramatic here, but that's the way I see it.

Onto the question of religion that you've been throwing around, I'm technically a buddhist because of my parents. I frankly aren't very keen on religion as I believe I am Me. I don't think anybody is up there watching over everything. If somebody is up there, why not make everything perfect? If I had omnipotence, which a god should, I would kill myself. Knowing everything, seeing everything from every angle would, without question, overload the human brain. So does that mean god is not human? Was Jesus Christ not human? I don't wish to delve much into religion but that is how I see it. I accept the philosophy of Buddism where as there is nobody looking over us per se, but one can achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment doesn't attract me and it never has, thus resulting in my reluctance when it comes to religion.

I already have a basic idea of what I wish to get done in life, become an engineer, meet my soulmate, have kids, raise them and present them to society as the best they can be. Then I have other objectives I wish to complete, cliff jumping, travelling on the ground at a speed over 200km/h and others. I think these objectives are realistic, but after thinking about it, can having an objective list like this, for life be simple minded? But I'm sure, doesn't everybody have a desire in life? Does that mean humans in general are simple minded? I think Yes.

That concludes my perception, as you see, I call it a perception because we are all individuals. Simple minded yes, but still individuals.

Please, don't take any offense at me calling everybody simple-minded, but in the grand scheme of things. I think that is true.

I also realize that I've been going in circles as I type, jumping from one idea to another, but it's pretty hard turning your perception of life into a matter of letters. Neutral [/quote]

Author:  Walker [ Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nice post ryan, anywasy my view on this whole thing is that, is that there is no such thing as good or evil there is mearly diffrent view points, example my cat hunts down the kills mice, now the mice (if they could think) probably find that evil but im sure my cat doesnt. All the talk about whya re we here and does god(s) exist dosnt really matter does it? Just do the best you can in the time your given and dont worry about what might happen after you die and so on. Also who ever was talking about miracles and if they do ahppen. What makes it a miracles to you? does there have to be a heavenly choir and sunlight streaming down from the sky, or is the fact that we have a chance to grow up with out fear and starvation a miracles?

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

:p I don't believe anyone said anything about good and evil; this was originally about the roots of why the world is as wrong as it is in the greater scheme.

As for robots being the next dominant species, aren't humans just meat-robots anyways? A robot as we think of it is a metal-human. So basically, I guess robots could have the potential to be the next dominant species. Robots can have stainless steel bodies so they need less maintenance, some sort of crazy power source that doesn't run out and runs under any condition, etc. But to have all that technology, and to be able to make better-than-human AI would require that society be really advanced technologically; if we were smart enough to make something like that, I'm sure we'd be smart enough to keep it under control too.
Conversely, the way things look today with great leaders like Bush and Sharon, we probably will be dumb enough to do anything.

But in my view (clearly you must have seen this coming, and it's gonna be "pessimistic") unless people make a change in the way the world is going we won't be around to see that. In the future, the world is going to be a dangerous place, and the government's going to have to do something about it. I'm guessing it'll probably be something extreme that gets out of hand. Call me a doomsayer, but tell me why I'm wrong.

Author:  jonos [ Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, robots that have stainless steal bodies will need maintenance because that metal still requires maintenance, so until we discover some alloy similar to adamantium, I don't think maintenance-free robots are possible. In a book by CS LEWIS called Out of the Silent Planet, humans must learn to capture the power of the sun in order to have an infinite power source (BUCKY by the guy who wrote the chrysalids also said something about this).
The way things look now with great leaders like Arafat, Fahd, Kim Jong-Il, Paul Martin, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Castro (just to name a few), as well as many terrorist leaders that Bush and Sharon must get rid of, this is not possible at this moment in history.

Author:  Dauntless [ Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jonos, stop acting like such a political expert. I'd like to hear you break down what each of the abovementioned political leaders are doing wrong, and how they should be doing things. Then try debating the other side, by breaking down what George Bush and Ariel (sic) Sharon are doing wrong too...

Author:  jonos [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

actually im not acting like an expert, im trying to give my point of view, but if you want to debate politics don't do it by saying im ignorant to this subject, please.

-what bush is doing wrong: the jobs issue, but there are more jobs coming; debt, hes not realy acting fiscally conservative; iraq war, though i agree with the iraq war i think that the original reason may have been based on false/incorrect intelligence, i do not believe that it was a big conspiracy to get back at hussein for trying to assasinate bush sr.
-what sharon is doing wrong: the assassination of the hamas leader was a good idea but there should have been an ultimatum for him to give himself up or at least to try to imprision him, because then they could extract information about hamas from him; the bribery scandal, i don't know much about it, but he shouldn't haven't gotten himself into it, i think it involves his son also
-what arafat is doing wrong: he called for the three days of morning for a !!!terrorist!!! leader that ordered/asked people to go blow themselves up, or manipulate mentally challenged kids to blow themselves up; though elected democratically, he rules like a dictator; as far as i know with reading newspapers and such, he hasn't really done anytying to stop the attacks on isreal and jewish people, which is why the israelies have to retaliate; harbours terrorists
-what fahd is doing wrong: he is a king and if he were really caring about his people he would at least try to introduce democratic elections, but it seems that he has not realized that the ruling monarchy is not the best form of government; though saudi arabia has a large amount of the world's oil, they still seem to have a large national debt, with mismanagement of money
-what jong-il is doing wrong: he is practically blackmailing countries to keep them giving his country aid by threatening wmd; his government is researching more dangerous weapons, and he is a madman so this is very dangerous; his people are starving, and he doesn't seem to be doing much about that
-what paul martin is doing wrong: considering the sponsorship scandal, he has to stop the infighting in the liberal party on this issue; he needs to fess up for his at least knowing of it - he was finance minister, thats like second in command in the government, how would he not have known, even heard rumours
-what khamenei is doing wrong; theocracy is not cool; he allows major anti-semitism to take place in his country in the form of daily prayers of "kill the jews, kill the christians" as the opening
-what zapatero is doing wrong: he is showing the terrorists that they can succeed in changing the outcome of an election to a more left government, that will not take a stand against them; he is not going after the source of the terrorism, at least not yet, so he could still do that; he is withdrawing from iraq, which is just stupid, even if you don't believe in the war, becase spain sent the troops to help out, they've been trusted with an area and they are just going to pull them out - that is going against your word and not a good show of your national ideals, how would spain have felt if the us and britain had pulled out of wwII, they would still be fascist
-what castro did wrong: he doesn't want to make the leap to democracy, though he did bring cuba up to a certain point from where it was, it just kind of stopped there and the standard of living hasn't really gone up

my name is jonos not Jonos

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 4:26 pm ]
Post subject: 


Democracy isn't for everyone and it really isn't anybody else's choice how a country runs itself. The U.S doesn't even go by the Monroe Doctrine anymore, and it shows; it is hardly isolationist when it comes to getting campaign votes.

Sharon's approach to Palestine is completely wrong; how can there be peace if he is constantly running over Palestinians? There is no way that they are going to stop the killing with more killing, the way they are approaching the matter right now. Don't tell me they've already tried to negotiate; so what if they have, maybe with the death of the Hamas leader things will be different. Anything is better than just fighting, and really, if they wanted to do it right they could just crush the Palestinians :p

If you want to talk blackmail, basically the U.S. was acting like a big brat when they pressured Spain into the war; they know that nobody can afford to have bad international relations with them, and Spain was probably one of the countries more inclined to join the war anyways. And besides, the terrorists had nothing to do with Spain before they joined the war, so technically they were justified, if you believe that Sharon is one of the better leaders.

WMD; why is it that the U.S. is one of the only countries that are deemed okay to have them? Does G. Bush even know he has them too? Would he freak out if he did? Seriously, what would the smaller countries with no WMD do if they didnt have them...They haven't used them yet...So why did the U.S. attack Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, Afghanistan had no WMD, and the UN didn't find any in Iraq basically neither had WMD. It seems to me that if you attack a non-democratic country it is ok, since their political views are different (different = bad, obviously). Don't even tell me that Iraq was justifiable. Why doesn't the US invade countries that actually have WMD? Because they would get nuked; WMD are deterrents too, not just weapons. Honestly, Iraq was under a declining regime, and Korea has one of the biggest armies in the world; so the U.S. picked the knockover, old grudge, target which they've had experience in, versus Korea, which would be like a new Vietnam (not good for votes, unlike Iraq).

The American people, confident that they can topple dictators now, will be not be sated in their quest to democrify the world, simply because dictatorships don't make great places to sell Americana. Hell, if the U.S. gets a missile shield, what's to stop them from taking out ICBM armed countries? Then everyone can have the joy of liberation and trade with the U.S.! And it'll be a great world, for the U.S. Gotta love that Manifest Destiny.

(Sorry about the name mixup, jonos. And I never said you were ignorant, though it might have seemed implied.)

Author:  jonos [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Korea's massive army is also not the best equipped army. South Korea and the US could easily take out North Korea considering N.K has almost no airforce or navy. And probably a lot of the soldiers in N.K would not even want to fight, they are fighting for a dictatorship, and most likely they were forced into the army. A major reason that the US didn't attack N.K instead of Iraq was that there is the existence of China, which looks at N.K as it's little cousin. China has a giant population and a giant military, and a rapidly growing economy which will most likely be equal to the US's in 50 years, even under the communist system. Also, China is currently working on making their military more technonological equal to a modern fighting force, of course leaving many people hungry but thats besides the point. If the US were to attack N.K how would China react? No one wants China as an enemy, hell, even the Israelies are working out deals with the Chinese concerning advanced radar technology and bettering their relations. I think that was a major reason why the US didn't go after N.K. Also, N.K has weapons that could reach Seoul (is that right? - the capital of S.K), and that could cause some problems.

I think concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict one cannot blame everything on the shoulders of the Israelies who are basically defending themselves. I highly doubt the Israelies would continue to attack Palestinian <b>terrorists</b> and others dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews if radical Palestinians discontinued their suicide bombing, or manipulating others into suicide bombing Israelies. Like you said, if Israel really wanted to crush all the Palestinians, they could do it in less than a day. Even in the 7 days war (is that the right name?), though outnumbered greatly and being attacked from different sides by 2 (is that the right figure?), they still managed to defeat the attacking countries through better organization and training. It would be easier than if the Americans were to take over Canada. Israel wants to protect their citizens and their country which has been in jeopardy since it was created. In biblical times they were governed by foreign leaders, and now they are governing themselves for onee. Even before the creation of Israel during the 1st/2nd/3rd Aliyahs of the Jews returning to their homeland, they only attacked the Arabs when they were attacked themselves or when pogroms took place and defence was necessary to stop the killing. If the Palestinians want peace, they must get rid of Hamas but it seems that everyone is part of it so that would entail mass genocide and no one wants that - even us war-mongerers!

WMD; Whether one believes that Iraq never had any WMD and the US Government knew it, that is their's to decide. There was faulty intelligence as they have admitted to, and if their was sufficient what seemed to be reliable intelligence to justify the going to war with Iraq, then you can't hold that against them. Hypothetically, if you had intelligence concerning your mother having an affair with your best friend, would you wait to actually observe this or witness this before confronting your mother and your best friend? I know I wouldn't. (no offence to your mom or best friend, of course). WMD were found in Syria and now it has come out that Iran was starting a nuclear program (now what does that tell you about the "religious" leaders of that country). And now Libia too I think... Those countries are close to Iraq, what would have stopped Hussein from contacting some of his friends from Syria and Iran, or Pakistan because we now know what was happening there.

Basically whether you believe America is in this for Imperialism or to fulfill their Manifest Destiny, or they want control of the world, is all an opinion. Frankly, I`d rather live in a world of democracies than in a world of dictatorships, you know those things containing very little human rights and opposition (we wouldn`t be having this debate, would we). If it takes the US to democrify the world, then I`m all for the US.

I also highly doubt that the US would threaten the world and blackmail other countries with their nuclear weapons like Iraq, N.K, or many other countries would; as well the bombs are left over from the arms race with the Soviet Union, which is now just in the form of Russia, but that is just my opinion. You can`t always blame the present on the past and keep hauling out the sins of the fathers, Bush had nothing to do with the nuclear bombs being made during the Cold War. I`m sure many US citizens would like to forget about their nuclear weapons. They are not needed, so why do other countries want them. Frankly, if the US had not tried to counter the Soviet Union, we`d have the world full of countries with leaders like Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein.

Author:  Dauntless [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

In response to your

First paragraph:
Like I said...the U.S. went for a pushover target with no real justification...The U.S. wouldn't want to bring one of its trade partners into a war... That would mean less money for them.

Second paragraph:
The reason the Palestinians have suicide bombers still is because people are pissed that their relatives have been killed by Israelis... Israel isn't just defending, its encroaching, in Palestine's eyes. So Israel needs to back off, if they really wanted peace they could afford to give up some land, at least make a compromise. Remember, Sharon was elected because he promised to be more warlike against the Palestinians as opposed to the former Israeli PM.

Third paragraph:
Have you ever read Othello? Tragic. If everybody has the same logic as you used, its no wonder that people believe we are brainwashed by the media. If you're going to believe everything you hear and act on it like it was truth because it affects you, because you don't like the sound of it? You forget that in your metaphorical situation, if you were the U.S., you would've killed your friend because of your suspicions, and then you would've admitted publicly that, yes indeed, you made an oopsie cuz we had wrong information. Dude...The UN found nothing, and if the U.S. doesn't believe them, what good is it for? Who cares if WMD were found in Syria or Iran...nuclear programs dont always mean nuclear weapons anyways...Canada has nukes...Nuclear power plants, that is. Nuclear power is not a NATO only privilege, as you or your Americans may think. Also, weren't Iraq and Iran at odds with each other anyways? Why didn't America's vaunted satellites catch the conspiratorial Syria exodus?

Fourth paragraph:
That's the height of selfishness and arrogance; to put your wants above the wants of other people. Yeah, you may rather live in a world of democracies, but I'm sure there's people who'd rather live in a world with no black people, or Jews, or Asians...etc. If they had a big rich country with a big rich military, I suppose they would be right to have that desire. Because they are a majority and hold a lot of power. You also forget that China is slowly becoming less communist by itself, and it did not get as powerful as it is today by the same ways the U.S. did.

Fifth paragraph:
The U.S., blackmail other countiries with their nuclear weapons like Iraq? Your logic just tripped and fell...Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons. Also, do conventional ICBMs count as WMD? It seems that if they didn't, it wouldn't be a matter of the fear of losing American lives, it'd just be the shock value of nukes; with all the stuff we've heard about how we can destroy the world hundreds of times over with the nukes we've had, how Hiroshima was eradicated in an instant leaving nothing but burning straw, and how today's nukes are about 50 gazillion times more powerful...It just seems like if they U.S. government warned their people that Iraq had had conventional ICBMs people would be What are those? How exactly did the US counter the Soviet Union anyways? Other than the laughable Bay of Pigs operation, what did they do? Bring the world to the state it is today, with two heavily armed countries from two different political doctrines? The US sure showed them.

Author:  jonos [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

First Paragraph: nothing to say, I think i agree with you there but im not sure, i think i said that in my previous one, did i?

second paragraph: The reason the palestinians are bombing israelies is not because israelies are killing their relatives. Muslims have always hated jewish people, maybe its because israel, the jewish state, is the most prosperous in the middle east, maybe its because they did more with the land in the 1/2/3 aliyahs than the arabs did since biblical days. maybe the palestinians are angry at the israelies for killing their relatives, who were terrorists. if you've wathced the news then you ahve probably heard the new hamas leader saying they will never stop making war upon israel. if israel backs off, hamas will keep doing it. if the middle eastern countries would stop harbouring anti-semitism and letting those murderous thoughts run loose, then id bet my penis that israel would stop. isreal [the modern one] has been at war practically since its creation, im sure it would want to put less emphasis on its armed forces, but it is forced to.

third paragraph: In my metaphorical situation I did not say anything about killing my friend, apples to apples, i meant i would confront my mom and my friend, which i stated. the fact that you just said that i believe everthing i hear is just lack of thinking on your part. if that were true, then i would believe that there were wmd and that there weren't, that bush is the best of america and that kerry is the best for america. it would alos seem that i would believe that jewish people are the cause of all our problems, and that dell makes the best computers. actually syria did have wmd, and would you really want to trust a dictatorial theocracy with nuclear toys? that is a hell of a responsibility. iraq and iran !were! at odds, they were rebuilding their "relationship". america's vaunted satellites cannot see everything and know everything - which is a concept both of us should by now thoroughly understand.

forth paragraph: i did not say anything about living without races, i said living without dictatorships, a form of government not very particular about human rights. but maybe your right, people may want to live in a country and experience very few human rights and not have the right to speak in opposition of the rulers, or right to a fair trial, but most likely those people would be rich and in the favour of the rulers, not the lowly peasants who make 100 dollars a year and have to live with dissapearing parents and siblings. maybe i am selfish and arrogant when it comes to governments which i think are right, (remember im talking about governments, not races). but if you'd rather live in a dictatorship, then go ahead. yes yes china is becoming less communist and amending their constitution and allowing free-enterprise and what not but they are still a "communist" nation and that practically means they are a dictatorship, which is the only practice of communism used on this eart (if only the mensheviks had succeeded). america has never had the large population of china to feed its economy, so china has an edge over america in that respect. but please tell me how america became as pwoerful and rich as it did, and please don't say imperialism and stealing oil and whatnot, ive heard that too much.

fifth: you seem to forget that i did not only mention iraq, i said some other countries too, but maybe that didn't support your allegations of my insane logic tripping and falling or whatever. as to the us countering the su: they showed that a democratic country can still look after its people, and use only 8% of their gdp on the military and still outlast a communist country which did not take care of its people and had to use 30% of the gdp on the military. it also showed that at least one country in the world is willling to counter a menace.

lastly, you seem to think that im american, refering to a large military. unfortunately im canadian, and we certainly don't have a large military, haveing a rather laughable excuse for one, but i assure you, as soon as i am old enough, you can be sure of my moving to the us, or maybe israel, we'll have to see.

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Think about your metaphor; I didn't think I'd hafta simplify it so much:

1)America believing there are WMD in Iraq is like hearing a rumour that your friend is banging your mom
2)The UN investigating and finding nothing is like having your other friend investigate and have him tell you nothing is going on
3)The US attacking and "liberating" Iraq is like killing your friend to save your mom.
a) There was no WMD, but you went through with it anyways...
b) You killed your friend even though the reason you wanted to wasn't even valid.

Another thing, I didn't say you believed everything you heard; I said if you acted on everything you heard as if it was truth... Also, you point out the most obvious forms of propaganda, but its the subtler stuff that changes us... Most, not even all, people can tell that a Dell ad is pretty blatantly pro-Dell...But when the government of the US, someone the people trust and believe in, tell you that Iraq was behind 9/11 as well, and that they probably have WMD...People don't see it like an ad, people see it as a truth; they're so scared of terrorism they'll believe their Big Brother on tons of things... Imagine catching Saddam too, that must have been the icing on their cake.

And about the "living without races" bit? Do I really have to make my comparisons so glaring that you can't refute them anymore?

I know you mentioned other countries, but the US didn't invade any other countries...they invaded the harmless one, the one that they had bad blood with, the one thay had experience fighting...

The US became what it is today because of the geography of it; with a nation that size, not only did they have a lot of room to grow but also plenty of natural resources. What other country can match that? When Europe was in the middle of World War I, America was growing; when Europe was in the middle of World War II, the US was making money off of it. Even the war in the Pacific never reached American soil with the exception of Hawaii. It is a big country in a warm climate, with plenty of different geographical regions; what other country can match that? There was no imperialism; the U.S. never expanded outside of North America. Stealing oil is a modern habit; gasoline was hardly the black gold it was today back in earlier years.

I never thought you were American. Your manner and beliefs and ways of thinking are definitely American in their brutish stance. In this day and age, its not might that make right, so what does it matter if we have a laughable excuse? It just prevents us from having to invade people to justify a cash-guzzling military machine. Just think what the US economy would be like without the massive military it has.

Author:  jonos [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

this is taking a lot of my time, i can't take the time to read all this. but i will just defend something and hopefully not make you say something else that i will have to rebuke.

my metaphor did not involve killing the friend. i thought i said that.

another thing, i didn't say i believed that iraq was behind 9/11, further proof that i don't act or belive upon everything i hear from the states.

hawaii was outside na actually.

whether you think my manners and beliefs are brutish in stance is for you to think. your second last sentence is kind of disturbing, disturbing in the way that you actually think that the americans went to war to justify it's military machine. if the americans don't strive to develop better weaponry, then what are we to use if we have a war with aliens? if aliens were to make contanct with us (and wish to attack us), then certainly they would have better weaponry which we wouldhave to counter.

and the us haven't invaded other countries... yet. would you justify a war on north korea if they suddenly decided to bomb soeul.... or japan...?

the un question of not finding wmd: the state of the un is laughable. look at how long it is taking to bring the rwandan criminals to justice for the massacres. jewish people cannot advance in the un because of the blatant anti-semitism present. its the league of nations all over again, then un has just lasted longer. the un is highly capable of making mistakes, and so is america too.

but anywask i have to go play morrowind.

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

It has to involve killing your friend/enemy; cuz thats the parallel in reality; the US invaded Iraq, which is the parallel of killing your friend.

Well, ok, I'll give that one to you...But its not like Hawaii is a big part of the corporate machine :p

I'm just saying its not something we can count out of the equation; when the US was in a depression in 1811 because of the Embargo Act (i think), they went to war to end the depression. And they came out stronger. So maybe it taught them something along the lines of war being good.

And basically, if aliens came down and conquered us, we wouldn't appreciate it, and EVEN if the aliens thought they were liberating us it still wouldnt be comforting, right?

If North Korea bombed somewhere else, yeah that would justify action. But Iraq made no offensive action; they might have provoked it... The U.S. took pre-emptive action.

I totally agree that it is the league of nations, except this time America basically controls the UN; my teacher told me about some major proposal that was struck down, which had the majority's support, but was denied because of the US's opposition to it. But still, they US agreed to accept the results of the UN's search, didn't they?

And in response to your scathing last paragraph....That Morrowind is a good game eh?

Author:  Paul [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

actually, if Iraq was the US friend and US invaded Iraq. It would be the equivilant of a guy had a bone stuck in his throat (in this case saddam) and a friend "helps" by sticking his arm down the guy's throat to get the bone. the arm also has a metal studded armband.

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

That's a good analogy, but the situation is more complicated than that.

Author:  jonos [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

morrowind is awesome!!!! something we can agree on. i just restarted cause my friend told me where to find this good orcish armour for free. what clasa and race and sign are you:

im breton, sorcerer, born under argonaut. im only really doing the mage quests now but i think i should get into the blades and then join another guild soon. this is a ll my friend and i talk about in math.

Author:  Paul [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

what? you have to pay for it??? I guess I'll just stick with RS2

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Haven't played it yet, but it sounds good..maybe you could mail me a burned version...and a new computer too... (PII 355Mhz :p)

And no, you don't hafta pay...Where would you get that idea? The orcish armor is a game item.

Author:  jonos [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

i would email you a burnt copy, but im sure that it would not work on your computer. if you ever get a new one i will send one though, just ask me. i have to send a hd to short so i better goa dn check the prices on that.

Author:  Dauntless [ Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Alright, but remember what this thread is about, further discussion should go in a diff thread if you wanna discuss...or PM me.

Author:  Dauntless [ Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Continued from Templest's thread.. Context is that the world would be better without idiot's who put down the less-physically-well-endowed.

Yeah, the world would be better without idiots like that. But beauty is mother nature's way of ensuring that the "strongest" reproduce. While nowadays, beauty doesn't always entail stronger genes, that's where it came from. Basically, if beauty never existed, we might not exist to be like we are today. But since it did exist, it carried over, so that now people with the luxury of abundant food and shelter can reproduce at will. Minus the pressure, people are out of how nature intended them to be.

Now that we have abundant food, anyone with money can buy it. Same goes for shelter. Now, all we need to do is get money and reproduce, which even the lowliest slobs in our society can do. Therefore, the weak slobs can reproduce too.

But in populations of wildlife where the prey outweigh the predators, or vice versa, entire populations die out; the prey eat all the plants, and starve, or the predators eat all the prey, and starve. With humans, we are at the top of the food chain; the only thing that kills us is disease and ourselves mostly. But now, we are inventing cures for diseases. I've always thought that disease was nature's way of keeping us down. So I think we're going the way of the situation I described above.

Now if we had never developed into a society like this, I think we would have been better off.

Also, I believe things like compassion and other emotions generally accepted as "human" emotions are perhaps just another habit that we have acquired. Just like smoking is now accepted, when before it may not have been common or accepted, compassion might have come the same way. Perhaps the compassionate homo sapiens lived to reproduce, and in such large numbers that now the majority of the human race has such feelings. Only a few, like the psychopaths, have active "apathy genes" that are recessive in everyone else. Maybe the world would be better off if we had a better balance of apathy and compassion genes.

Disease and apathy I think are the two things mother nature designed to keep the human population down; if we can fight things that kill us, and the thing that makes us kill each other, then we can reproduce without bound, eventually outstripping the resources and imploding upon ourselves.