|
On January 29 2013 00:34 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 00:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2013 16:09 HeatEXTEND wrote:On January 27 2013 12:46 decado90 wrote:
humans are petty creatures incapable of coherent or rational thought. They are driven by primal emotions and desires, and are utterly selfish. The future is quite bleak. You're confusing humans with men :p. What kind of bullshit is this. You are sexist btw. This bullshit is saying that individual human beings aren't the same thing as mankind in general. Oh wait, should I have said womankind ? No wait, that would be sexist as well. Guess I'm screwed.
I was thrown off by the next guy saying "boys" maybe. Thought you were saying that only the male sex was a plague.
|
I'll take Mr. Attenborough's opinion under consideration after he stops consuming more resources and putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a year than most will do in their entire lifetimes and disinfects himself. The arrogance of the aristocracy talking down to the masses, the hypocrisy, the lack of any indication that they will change their own lives to help with 'overconsumption' or whatever they wish to call it, it never fails to amaze.
|
On January 29 2013 04:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The arrogance of the aristocracy talking down to the masses, the hypocrisy, the lack of any indication that they will change their own lives to help with 'overconsumption' or whatever they wish to call it, it never fails to amaze.
Yes 
|
On January 29 2013 01:49 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 00:34 HeatEXTEND wrote:On January 29 2013 00:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2013 16:09 HeatEXTEND wrote:On January 27 2013 12:46 decado90 wrote:
humans are petty creatures incapable of coherent or rational thought. They are driven by primal emotions and desires, and are utterly selfish. The future is quite bleak. You're confusing humans with men :p. What kind of bullshit is this. You are sexist btw. This bullshit is saying that individual human beings aren't the same thing as mankind in general. Oh wait, should I have said womankind ? No wait, that would be sexist as well. Guess I'm screwed. I was thrown off by the next guy saying "boys" maybe. Thought you were saying that only the male sex was a plague.
Well it's true. Which sex is responsible for nearly all wars, violent crime, and corruption of power?
|
On January 29 2013 05:57 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 01:49 WhiteDog wrote:On January 29 2013 00:34 HeatEXTEND wrote:On January 29 2013 00:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2013 16:09 HeatEXTEND wrote:On January 27 2013 12:46 decado90 wrote:
humans are petty creatures incapable of coherent or rational thought. They are driven by primal emotions and desires, and are utterly selfish. The future is quite bleak. You're confusing humans with men :p. What kind of bullshit is this. You are sexist btw. This bullshit is saying that individual human beings aren't the same thing as mankind in general. Oh wait, should I have said womankind ? No wait, that would be sexist as well. Guess I'm screwed. I was thrown off by the next guy saying "boys" maybe. Thought you were saying that only the male sex was a plague. Well it's true. Which sex is responsible for nearly all wars, violent crime, and corruption of power?
Men wouldn't have to compare dicks if there weren't women to judge them. You know what they say about behind every great man....
I'm sure we're all equally reprehensible as human beings. The only question is whether we get to show it right?
|
On January 27 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 05:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 05:40 AmericanNightmare wrote:On January 27 2013 05:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 27 2013 04:52 KwarK wrote:
How is a slave not an economic asset? It's not all they are, they're also people, but it is insanity to deny that a slave is an economic asset. It's a person whose labour is controlled by you. Labour is an economic asset.
I need to stay out of the general forum. I never go on political or philosophical forums because I get sucked in.
Yes, you are correct in that human labor is a resource. However the American Civil War wasn't fought over human labor. That labor was going to happen either way and it did in fact happen both before and after the war. The North didn't want to deny the South human labor, which was the resource.
The war was fought regarding human rights, whether or not it was legal for a certain group of people to work for nothing and have no legal rights.
Human rights are not a physical resource. I hope that makes sense. It doesn't make sense because much of what you say is incorrect. But this thread isn't about why the American Civil War was fought. EDIT: I just realized you may not have the historical knowledge if you grew up in the UK to know that slavery in America was far more about racism and racial superiority than getting free labor. Slavery in America was far different and darker than slavery in ancient Rome for example.
And that is why it was about human rights, not resources. Southern plantation owners could easily afford to pay (and did after the war) people to pick crops without it adversely effecting profits. And the majority of people who willingly fought for the South in the war were not slave owners. Yet they still held (and even in many places in the South, hold today) racist beliefs.
Humans who spread misinformation are the real plague to this planet. They spew they filth and those who aren't properly informed or the dumb easily fall for it. The cure to this plague are smart people or even people with the ability to read, who are willing to correct the filth spat out by the plague. Someone who believes that American slavery was "darker" then Roman Slavery is.... Roman slavery wasn't racist, anyone could be a slave. American slavery was balantly racist, only African Americans were slaves. The ancients had no sense of racism. (They did have prejudices against foreigners, but this was based on nationality, not race.) In America, few slaves were freed in comparison to their numbers, while in Rome hundreds of slaves were freed annually. The freed slaves in Rome, although owing a limited service to their former masters, were free to climb the social ladder and many of them did, becoming businessmen, craftsmen, or government officials. In America it was much more difficult, as race and lack of education worked against the freed slave. How long did it take America to elect a black president after freeing the slaves? The ancient slaves always had the hope of freedom, either from their owners or by buying their freedom. An American slave did not have this advantage. I'm not going to get into this anymore than that. The racist undertones that dominated American slavery and came to define it and Southern culture clearly are far darker than Roman slavery. It is well known and documented that African Americans were dehumanized and treated extremely cruel compared to Roman slaves. Check it our for yourself. My guess is you grew up in the South. A freedman owed more than a limited service to his master. He was forever bonded to his master as a client in a master client relationship, manumission did not mean an end to his involvement in the master's economic sphere. Often it was a useful tool in the running of the household business. Furthermore a slave freed for the purpose of marriage could not refuse to marry her master and a man was absolute master of the household with the power to beat or kill his wife, those manumissions were not always an act of kindness.
Emphasis mine.
Your assertion here is false. Roman law did not allow domestic abuse, and wife beating was grounds for divorce or other legal action against the husband. In fact, Cato the Elder was quoted by Plutarch as saying "the man who struck his wife or child, laid violent hands on the holiest of holy things."
|
Earlier in Roman civilization that would have been true, but not in classical times
|
On January 29 2013 16:13 sam!zdat wrote:
Earlier in Roman civilization that would have been true, but not in classical times
I've found nothing to substantiate the notion that this was acceptable in early Rome, either.
Do you have a citation for that which shows otherwise?
|
Nah just my understanding. if you know something about it, I'm sure you're right.
edit: upon consideration, I'm right.
|
On January 27 2013 17:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 08:38 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 17:26 sam!zdat wrote:
I was answering your question...
edit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food. We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. On January 25 2013 19:56 Ysellian wrote:
It's so infuriatingly dumb that our 10000 year old ancestors had better lives than we do today and only because agriculture put us in a spot we can no longer escape from. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. Infectious diseases aren't limited to epidemics. There are numerous diseases you can pick up from biological vectors such as insects, from cuts that you pick up during hunting and battles, infected food/water, and all those women you're screwing. On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
The probability of ourselves having come into existence is astronomically small anyway, trillions of universal factors had to fall into place by sheer chance outside of our control as we didn't exist. Your point is moot. Your argument makes no sense. "We have little control of our existence, therefore it wouldn't make a difference if we have a low chance of surviving to adulthood." On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Besides, I have fine hunting grounds where I currently live, and there are plenty of places I would prefer to the one's you outlined. Maybe when I become bored and feel like pursuing exotic beasts. You live in the United States, where you benefit from all of the "coddled" aspects of modern society including the police and military to keep you safe from other people. Being a "hunter-gatherer" in the United States doesn't resemble the nasty, brutish, and short life span of our ancestors in the slightest. The closest simulation to the violent struggles to survive you claim to be so fond of would be backwards third world countries, not the American wilderness. Yea but I have to pay taxes. So not worth it, sign me up for rampant disease.
No one's stopping you from moving to a third world country, so feel free to get off the Internet and do so.
As long as you continue to post here, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of hypocritical bullshit.
|
we are like the zerg hahahhhah
|
I agree with it 100% regardless of who is saying it. People are overly obsessive about material possessions and "owning land/space." I myself live in my own philosophy of being the smallest eco footprint I can be. I will live in my own micro home and use expandable space for a family. I dream of a permaculture which can take care of most of my food through organic and self-sufficient means. There is so much crap to address between inefficient transport, non-localized food sources, grains raping the land of nutrients (and people's bodies) and the government funding it. Giant houses with more space than the mass majority of owners can even utilize, bullshit individually packaged goods and bottled water people just use at home over some irrational fear of their typically cleaner faucet. Millions of ads go to each mailbox when it could simply be put in a centralized electronic source for each area to view. Hell, most people these days grow up eating only the muscle of an animal when it is the least nutrient dense and just throw the rest or most of it away. Lawns shouldn't even be allowed past a certain (albeit small) sq footage and flushing gallons of water for your shit and urine because people are afraid to compost or deal with it another way is insane. Society is backwards and it's repulsive. Even the miles per gallon of cars has gone down and the people as well as the companies certainly haven't pushed towards more efficiency. Oil companies enjoy controlling and profiting from the terrible system and they certainly have the mindset of "well I'll be dead before it gets back to me anyway."
I wish people would open their eyes and do small changes to the greater good. It's funny, I hate humanity as a whole yet I'm one of the people actually trying to preserve our livelihood. Even with my eco friendly way of life, I know there's some asshole reversing what I try to do and that's saddening. Everyone should be taught early on and the fallacies might slowly get fixed by a newer, smarter generation. I guess you could say I'm not driven by the same gene of greed that most of humanity blindly continues to use. Learn self control. The native people before "North/South America" who lived with and respected mother nature had it right before the white people came and fucked it all up.
|
On January 29 2013 16:20 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 17:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2013 08:38 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 17:26 sam!zdat wrote:
I was answering your question...
edit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food. We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. On January 25 2013 19:56 Ysellian wrote:
It's so infuriatingly dumb that our 10000 year old ancestors had better lives than we do today and only because agriculture put us in a spot we can no longer escape from. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. Infectious diseases aren't limited to epidemics. There are numerous diseases you can pick up from biological vectors such as insects, from cuts that you pick up during hunting and battles, infected food/water, and all those women you're screwing. On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
The probability of ourselves having come into existence is astronomically small anyway, trillions of universal factors had to fall into place by sheer chance outside of our control as we didn't exist. Your point is moot. Your argument makes no sense. "We have little control of our existence, therefore it wouldn't make a difference if we have a low chance of surviving to adulthood." On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Besides, I have fine hunting grounds where I currently live, and there are plenty of places I would prefer to the one's you outlined. Maybe when I become bored and feel like pursuing exotic beasts. You live in the United States, where you benefit from all of the "coddled" aspects of modern society including the police and military to keep you safe from other people. Being a "hunter-gatherer" in the United States doesn't resemble the nasty, brutish, and short life span of our ancestors in the slightest. The closest simulation to the violent struggles to survive you claim to be so fond of would be backwards third world countries, not the American wilderness. Yea but I have to pay taxes. So not worth it, sign me up for rampant disease. No one's stopping you from moving to a third world country, so feel free to get off the Internet and do so. As long as you continue to post here, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of hypocritical bullshit.
Right, because there are no taxes or internet in third world countries, its just straight back to the Paleolithic. I better take off then. Thanks for informing me I'm opposed to the internet btw. You've never been to a third world country have you?
|
On January 29 2013 17:00 Glockateer wrote:
I agree with it 100% regardless of who is saying it. People are overly obsessive about material possessions and "owning land/space." I myself live in my own philosophy of being the smallest eco footprint I can be. I will live in my own micro home and use expandable space for a family. I dream of a permaculture which can take care of most of my food through organic and self-sufficient means. There is so much crap to address between inefficient transport, non-localized food sources, grains raping the land of nutrients (and people's bodies) and the government funding it. Giant houses with more space than the mass majority of owners can even utilize, bullshit individually packaged goods and bottled water people just use at home over some irrational fear of their typically cleaner faucet. Millions of ads go to each mailbox when it could simply be put in a centralized electronic source for each area to view. Hell, most people these days grow up eating only the muscle of an animal when it is the least nutrient dense and just throw the rest or most of it away. Lawns shouldn't even be allowed past a certain (albeit small) sq footage and flushing gallons of water for your shit and urine because people are afraid to compost or deal with it another way is insane. Society is backwards and it's repulsive. Even the miles per gallon of cars has gone down and the people as well as the companies certainly haven't pushed towards more efficiency. Oil companies enjoy controlling and profiting from the terrible system and they certainly have the mindset of "well I'll be dead before it gets back to me anyway."
I wish people would open their eyes and do small changes to the greater good. It's funny, I hate humanity as a whole yet I'm one of the people actually trying to preserve our livelihood. Even with my eco friendly way of life, I know there's some asshole reversing what I try to do and that's saddening. Everyone should be taught early on and the fallacies might slowly get fixed by a newer, smarter generation. I guess you could say I'm not driven by the same gene of greed that most of humanity blindly continues to use. Learn self control. The native people before "North/South America" who lived with and respected mother nature had it right before the white people came and fucked it all up.
I got something, especially for the kinds of you.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm never sure why "back to the nature" isn't backwards.
User was warned for this post
|
Well, I think there a good chance we will know the answer during our lives.
The plague is expanding exponentially, killing everything. But then it dies off itself because there are no hosts and no food left. There are quite a few indications that unless our technological process continues at an ever-accelerating rate, we will run out of stuff during this century.
In the mid-term future we will see whether we are smart, techy and cooperative enough to continue our quest for greatness, or whether we are just a mindless plague and should expect if not die-off, then at least a major fall-back and drop in living standards.
![[image loading]](http://www.reocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/3614/starcraft/spells/plague.jpg)
|
On January 29 2013 17:30 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 16:20 sunprince wrote:On January 27 2013 17:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2013 08:38 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 17:26 sam!zdat wrote:
I was answering your question...
edit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food. We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. On January 25 2013 19:56 Ysellian wrote:
It's so infuriatingly dumb that our 10000 year old ancestors had better lives than we do today and only because agriculture put us in a spot we can no longer escape from. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. Infectious diseases aren't limited to epidemics. There are numerous diseases you can pick up from biological vectors such as insects, from cuts that you pick up during hunting and battles, infected food/water, and all those women you're screwing. On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
The probability of ourselves having come into existence is astronomically small anyway, trillions of universal factors had to fall into place by sheer chance outside of our control as we didn't exist. Your point is moot. Your argument makes no sense. "We have little control of our existence, therefore it wouldn't make a difference if we have a low chance of surviving to adulthood." On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Besides, I have fine hunting grounds where I currently live, and there are plenty of places I would prefer to the one's you outlined. Maybe when I become bored and feel like pursuing exotic beasts. You live in the United States, where you benefit from all of the "coddled" aspects of modern society including the police and military to keep you safe from other people. Being a "hunter-gatherer" in the United States doesn't resemble the nasty, brutish, and short life span of our ancestors in the slightest. The closest simulation to the violent struggles to survive you claim to be so fond of would be backwards third world countries, not the American wilderness. Yea but I have to pay taxes. So not worth it, sign me up for rampant disease. No one's stopping you from moving to a third world country, so feel free to get off the Internet and do so. As long as you continue to post here, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of hypocritical bullshit. Right, because there are no taxes or internet in third world countries, its just straight back to the Paleolithic. I better take off then. Thanks for informing me I'm opposed to the internet btw. You've never been to a third world country have you?
If you wanted to, you could move to a third-world country where tax collection is negligibly enforced and live without the use of modern technology, including the Internet.
The fact that you continue to use the Internet while proclaiming the supposed superiority of our prehistoric ancestors is laughable.
|
Humans are a plague I completely agree, we are the only animal on earth that isn't ever going to be happy with what we have, we always want more, more consumables, more money flowing, yet the earth is just a planet, in the end (100years max now) we will faceplant and the decline in technology etc will be comparable to the middle ages as we wont have fuel to run the things we rely so heavily on now, and no-one cares enough to make reproduceable energy as we have crossed the line of consumerism, we wont stop until all we have and love is destroyed.
|
On January 29 2013 20:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 17:30 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 29 2013 16:20 sunprince wrote:On January 27 2013 17:46 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 26 2013 08:38 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 21:45 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 21:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 25 2013 20:39 sunprince wrote:On January 25 2013 17:26 sam!zdat wrote:
I was answering your question...
edit: food is irrelevant (what is relevant is the environmental impact of the way we produce food). Actually the problem is too much food, the so-called "Green Revolution" (keep in mind that the population of Rwanda tripled in the decades leading up to the genocide). We need less, but healthier and more sustainable and robust, food. We need fewer mouths to feed. Places like Rwanda are as bad as they are because they're caught in a Malthusian trap. More food just results in a bigger population, exacerbating all the other economic, environmental, and political problems. On January 25 2013 19:56 Ysellian wrote:
It's so infuriatingly dumb that our 10000 year old ancestors had better lives than we do today and only because agriculture put us in a spot we can no longer escape from. This statement is absurd. Our ancestors from 10,000 years ago had nasty, brutal, short lives. Less than 25% of people even made it to age 15. The death toll from giving birth alone was unimaginably high at 14% per birth. It's ridiculous that you think a people without antibiotics, running water, and military/police to protect them from genocidal neighboring tribes, had better lives than we do now. If you seriously believe their lives were better, then I encourage you to move to a third-world country, which is still probably a better life than that of prehistoric humans. I'm sure there were some who lived fairly long lives. One of superior strength, cunning, and hunting skills would eat like a king, screw many women, slay one's rivals, and live into their forties before dying in battle. Sounds better than the coddled existence you've described. Real life isn't your little fairy tale. No amount of superior strength, cunning, or hunting skills could protect you from dying before you're even born because c-sections didn't exist. Nor could they protect you from being felled by an infectious disease (which you consider an evil spirit possession) because hygiene, antibiotics, and refrigeration don't exist. But of course, you're full of hypocritical bullshit right now. If you really believe all that is better than the "coddled existence" we have, get off the Internet and move to Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan. I dare you. Population was so sparse there really wouldn't be much infectious disease. Infectious diseases aren't limited to epidemics. There are numerous diseases you can pick up from biological vectors such as insects, from cuts that you pick up during hunting and battles, infected food/water, and all those women you're screwing. On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
The probability of ourselves having come into existence is astronomically small anyway, trillions of universal factors had to fall into place by sheer chance outside of our control as we didn't exist. Your point is moot. Your argument makes no sense. "We have little control of our existence, therefore it wouldn't make a difference if we have a low chance of surviving to adulthood." On January 25 2013 21:56 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Besides, I have fine hunting grounds where I currently live, and there are plenty of places I would prefer to the one's you outlined. Maybe when I become bored and feel like pursuing exotic beasts. You live in the United States, where you benefit from all of the "coddled" aspects of modern society including the police and military to keep you safe from other people. Being a "hunter-gatherer" in the United States doesn't resemble the nasty, brutish, and short life span of our ancestors in the slightest. The closest simulation to the violent struggles to survive you claim to be so fond of would be backwards third world countries, not the American wilderness. Yea but I have to pay taxes. So not worth it, sign me up for rampant disease. No one's stopping you from moving to a third world country, so feel free to get off the Internet and do so. As long as you continue to post here, you're just continuing to prove that you're full of hypocritical bullshit. Right, because there are no taxes or internet in third world countries, its just straight back to the Paleolithic. I better take off then. Thanks for informing me I'm opposed to the internet btw. You've never been to a third world country have you? If you wanted to, you could move to a third-world country where tax collection is negligibly enforced and live without the use of modern technology, including the Internet. The fact that you continue to use the Internet while proclaiming the supposed superiority of our prehistoric ancestors is laughable.
Oh, they were superior. They had the muscle density of Olympic athletes, and the endurance to run down large game for days, killing the beast once it was exhausted. I fail to see the hypocrisy with me using the internet though, what am I missing?
I'm also not sure why you're assuming taxes are my sole criterion for living in a place.
|
hey hippies, stop trolling tl, start doing something go plant some shit
User was warned for this post
|
OK dude let me make this short and sweet we are simply not on plague if we are then that's our fault because we are now far away from the teachings of our holy books,and that's disturction.because we don't know where we heading,and for those who don't believe in god,for them my friend you should be happy because you turned from a monkey into a thing we call human so you should be celebrating everyday and i don't think that's plague XD ...and by the way nobody gives a crap who Sir David is
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jIBpGdn.jpg)
