Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2005, 01:42 PM   #1
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by creepylittleshit
Well if she was unable to feed herself and if she were a wild animal what would happen? She would die. That was a natraul death from where she stood at that point in time. I'll be awaiting the flames up my ass for making that comparrison but like or not humans are a part of nature and to debate otherwise I think is to deny one's connection to the rest of the planet.
But, of course, she wasn't a wild animal, nor have any humans been for thousands of years. (Come on: eating cooked meat is "unnatural.")

And yes, I do deny our "connection to the rest of the planet." I've never been fond of commune-with-nature bullshit. Nature is random and impotent; it's there for humans to use, not obey.

I live in a state that gets regular tornadoes, massive lightning storms, floods, five-year-long droughts, and all sorts of nasty things on a pretty much daily basis. The main resevoir of water for this area is nearly bone-dry. But human mastery over nature has advanced to an extent that nobody here notices anymore. Our agriculture industry isn't fazed by either floods or droughts; we still manage to feed most of the country without trouble, and, as a whole, we're doing quite well.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people in Bangladesh, who live much more in-tune with nature, died when their country was struck by big waves. Thousands of more will starve to death because their agriculture is shot to hell, and thousands more will die from diseases that, in the West, are considered nothing serious at all.

Conclusion: until nature magically sprouts a pizza tree in my dorm room (the fruit contains natural vaccinations against flu, by the way), raises an umbrella of fig leaves over my head whenever it rains, and generally makes my life better, to hell with it.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 04:31 AM   #2
pitseleh
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,059
This stuff here ^ is so preposterous, I don't know what to say. It's a discussion for a whole other thread, really, if this is how you actually feel, Asurai. You're an intelligent guy, although I know you're supposed to be this reactionary capitalist - be that as it may - but there are limits to technocratic arrogance. Nature can fuck shit up for humans, sure, but you can't call an ecosystem that advanced "random and impotent".
pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 05:52 AM   #3
creepylittleshit
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: under the bed
Posts: 90
Hey Asuri,umm I got some news for you buddy... whether you want to believe it or not the Earth is our mother! She feeds, clothes, and shelters us. Where the fuck do you think all the materials for your "advanced technology" come from? Mars? If she wanted to, could destroy us all. It is very arrogant not to appreciate what gives you life. Your food either comes from a plant or something that eats plants. Even is the food you eat is way over-processed it still comes comes from nature and is only tampered with by man.

And as for the tsumani victums... They are poor and can't afford the warnings we can recieve. You are lucky to live where you live and have the things you have. But are you thankful for your random place on this planet? No.

Have you ever even thought about how random life is? It took alot for us to make it to the point we are at. And guess what? Nature made it happen! :shock:

I also find it amazing that you think we are above everything else. Yeah we humans are fucking spectacular!!! We poison our own food and water with our lovely man made chemicals. Not to mention it is not just our water and food...the animals also have to drink the chemicals we dump in the water. And live with our pesticides.

Our great technology will also lead to some really terrific viruses too. You want to know why? We chop down the redwoods and the rainforrests, They hold up our ozone layer. With a depleted ozone layer comes sperratic weather patterns. Sperratic weather patterns allow viruses mutate quicker. Man are we wonderful!!! Not only that the ice caps are going to melt quicker too, When they melt to a certain point, the Earth will shift on her axis and we will be dumped into a new ice age. Though it might not happen tommorow, it will happen alot faster thanks to mankind.

So, you wanna hate nature? Go ahead!!! Be an arrogant human and don't respect what nutures you.

"Humanity is a plague that will eat itself alive" ----Christian Death
creepylittleshit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 01:48 PM   #4
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by creepylittleshit
Hey Asuri,umm I got some news for you buddy... whether you want to believe it or not the Earth is our mother! She feeds, clothes, and shelters us.
Alright, I'll go through this point-by-point.

No, the earth does not feed us. Feeding us would mean that the ground automatically raises up enough food for humans to consume without human intervention. As any farmer will tell you, humans have to work our asses off to get the ground to produce enough food to keep humanity alive.

No, the earth does not clothe us, for the same reasons. I've never seen a t-shirt tree. Even the most basic savages had to put forth their own efforts to produce clothing for themselves. There's a reason that you don't see animals wearing fig-leaf clothing.

No, the earth does not shelter us, again for the same reasons. Even bloody ANTS, who are infinitely below humans on the scale of intelligence, don't get automatic benefits from "mother earth" -- they have to use what organizational talents they possess to maniuplate nature to their needs. Holes don't just open up in the ground spontaneously to serve as homes for them.

Quote:
And as for the tsumani victums... They are poor and can't afford the warnings we can recieve.
That's the point. They have less technology than we, ergo they are more at the mercy of random occurences. And yes, I'm quite thankful for my 'random' place on this planet, but thank you for putting words into my mouth.

Quote:
Have you ever even thought about how random life is? It took alot for us to make it to the point we are at. And guess what? Nature made it happen!
Wrong. Whether life arose from entirely natural causes or was designed, I neither know nor care, but you and I both know that "nature" did NOT bring us to the point where we are now. From the cave to the Empire State Building, humans are where we are because we refused to bow to random tragedies as "the will of nature." From the invention of fire to the present day, humans have been manipulating nature to our ends, to our great benefit.

Quote:
I also find it amazing that you think we are above everything else. Yeah we humans are fucking spectacular!!! We poison our own food and water with our lovely man made chemicals.
We poison our own food and water. I would advise you to look at population graphs and note that as science increases (including pesticides and chemicals, GASP), the human race grows -- ie, less of us drop dead at young ages. If you're above thirty years old -- the pre-industrial life expectancy ;-- go drop to your knees in thanks to the nearest sooty smokestack or chemical plant that you can find.

Quote:
Our great technology will also lead to some really terrific viruses too. You want to know why? We chop down the redwoods and the rainforrests, They hold up our ozone layer. With a depleted ozone layer comes sperratic weather patterns. Sperratic weather patterns allow viruses mutate quicker.
Debatable, but because of modern medicine, less people are dying because of those viruses. Hell, we're basically immune to the Black Death. So, even if there are more viruses, they're less dangerous to us by far.

Shouldn't you be GLAD that there are more viruses, by the way? They're natural, after all, and I would think that you would thank humans for increasing natural life.

Quote:
Not only that the ice caps are going to melt quicker too, When they melt to a certain point, the Earth will shift on her axis and we will be dumped into a new ice age. Though it might not happen tommorow, it will happen alot faster thanks to mankind.
Hey, the earth is going to blow up eventually, no matter what we do. (In a few billions of years, the earth will stop rotating, and various lunar-solar forces will tear the moon and earth into cosmic dust.) By the way, the earth is CONSTANTLY shifting on its axis and has been since long before man came onto the scene.

But the fact that there will be an eventual ice age doesn't justify abandoning technology and condemning thousands of generations of humans to barest subsistence and savagery until then, particularly when it will happen, eventually, whether or not we live as savages. Besides, by the time that there's another ice age, we'll have advanced to the point that we'll be able to save both ourselves and the rest of the ecosystems without much trouble.

Quote:
So, you wanna hate nature? Go ahead!!! Be an arrogant human and don't respect what nutures you.
I don't hate nature, I simply don't care about it one way or another.

Nature doesn't nurture me, by the way. My father works to put food on
the table; fruit doesn't spring out of the ground whenever I'm hungry.

"Arrogant human." That's a really cute insult, since "arrogant" would imply an undeserved pride. I'll make a deal with you: when nature creates a Victorian mansion, complete with modern air-conditioning and a heating system, I'll stop being an arrogant human. When an animal can solve an algebraic equation or write a book, I'll stop being an arrogant human.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 01:57 PM   #5
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh
Nature can fuck shit up for humans, sure, but you can't call an ecosystem that advanced "random and impotent".
Nature, by its definition, is without a guiding intelligence. It is therefore random. Advanced ecosystems are caused simply by the random chance that animals suited to live in certain enviornments live, while all of the others without the necessary ability die off in that area, causing the appearance of a fine-tuned, organized system.

But touche -- I withdraw my calling it "impotent," and apply the term instead only to those humans who bow to nature. As history has shown, civilizations that manipulate nature to their ends have been far better off than those that simply accept occurences as the mystical "will of nature" or "will of the spirits" -- if the latter could even be called civilizations.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2005, 03:03 PM   #6
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
As history has shown, civilizations that manipulate nature to their ends have been far better off than those that simply accept occurences as the mystical "will of nature" or "will of the spirits" -- if the latter could even be called civilizations.
Define better off. Some of the most peaceful and seemingly happy cultures are the most primitive, to me that would indicate that the exact opposite of what you said is true. In my opinion longer lives and more stuff does not equal better quality of life and it is that quality of life that makes someone better off.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2005, 02:39 PM   #7
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
and we also do not have a definitive cure against the black death, plague still happens (treated bubonic is a 1 to 15 percent mortality rate,
Very true. But compared to the mortality rates during the pre-industrial period, both in exposure and in fatality, that's lower by a very significant amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina
Define better off. Some of the most peaceful and seemingly happy cultures are the most primitive, to me that would indicate that the exact opposite of what you said is true. In my opinion longer lives and more stuff does not equal better quality of life and it is that quality of life that makes someone better off.
Allow me to quote from The Enemies of Columbus by Thomas Bowden:

Underlying every achievement of Western civilization has been a restless intellectual ambition, a striving for depth and breadth of knowledge, all aimed at understanding the world and how best to live in it, all made possible by a scientific view of the universe . . . .

Contrast this breadth of intellectual endeavor with the constricted mental outlook of the savage, whose world view is dominated by animism, the primitive notion that everything in the universe is inhabited by powerful spirits, that Nature remains mysterious. The anxiety that necessarily results from such superstition induces cognitive paralysis . . . . It is the savage's lot to see one of his tribe's crude boats vanishing over the horizon and feel dread that the water spirits might prevent its return -- to take that dread and turn it into a frenzied dance of supplication -- to take that dance and make it into a ritual, to be repeated generation after generation -- to invent a new ritual for every danger, for every wild animal, flood, famine, drought, or illness that threatens his existence -- and finally, to have nothing to pass on to the next generation but a pile of arrowheads and a vision of the future that differs not from the past. Immobilized by superstition, the savage society is helpless before the forces of nature, and consequently its members cannot control the course of their own lives.

The point in this is simple: it is better to be rich, healthy, and safe than to be poor, sick, and afraid . . . The importance of being at one end rather than the other [end of this spectrum] is not a matter of subjective preference; it is the difference between life and squalid death. People who fail to civilize themselves are doomed to live in filth, hunger, and fear -- and to die before their time....[They do not realize] that laser surgery is preferable to a shaman's spells.

. . . Now, consider pre-Columbian Indian life [the best example of savage society]. Not having developed an Aristotle of their own, these Indians had neither discovered the laws of logic nor formed a concept of natural law. Instead, they believed the universe to be ruled by fickle, inscrutable spirits that required unflinching obedience to mind-numbing rituals and taboos . . . . Virtually all of these Indians were either hunters, gatherers, fishers, or planters, still mired in the stone age. They were miserably poor, not only by today's standards but by those of 15th century Europe. All Indians, chiefs as well as warriors, were subject to a variety of economic and physical catastrophies (such as floods, famines, pestilence, and epidemic disease) that modern societies have tamed or forgotten.

...The spiritual lifestyle of the Indians was anything but relaxed and simple. Indians lived "in a world of anciety, frustration, inadequacy, and vulnerability, in which the spirits control everything," writes anthropologist Peter Farb. Because they did not understand natural law, Indians lived in constant fear that fickle gods and spirits might take away the things they depended on for life: plants, animals, rain, even the sun. The Aztecs, for example, believed that they were chosen by the gods to feed the sun, which required human blood to fuel its daily race through the sky. So they waged war on neighboring tribes, capturing thousands of prisoners and marching them one by one up to altars...

By contrast, modern Americans live in relative serenity due to their understanding and acceptance of natura law. They have no need to trouble themselves about supernatural beings that interfere with their mastery of the enviornment; they can confront the natural world with confidence that their efforts to investigate and control nature will meet with success over the long run. The resultant feeling of being "at home" in the universe is an achievement of Western civilization, not Indian or savage culture.

...Indians who lived for centuried atop massive reserves of petroleum needed the European immigrants to show them how oil could be used to light a lamp or run an engine. Likewise, although the Aztencs had applies the principle of the wheel to children's toya, Indians continued to carry their meager possessions on their backs or drag them across the ground on long poles. Indians toiled long hours to produce enough food to keep themselves alive; there was usually not enough surplus to permic much division of labor. If Indians produces less garbage, it was only because they produced less wealth. On the other hand, they would think nothing of stampeding a herd of bison over a cliff, taking what they needed, and leaving the rest of the dead animals to rot.

The enviornment that the Indians were unable to master, mastered them, as famine, disease, drought, floods, and malnutrition regularly left the survivors helpless and afraid. Describing certain pre-Columbian tribes, Jake Page writes, "It was, over the centuries, a hard life. We know from burials that a man of forty-five would be worn down, old; and the average life expectancy was less than that. We know that childbearing women suffered more severely from malnutrition than their men, and children more than their mothers. Not infrequently, people died from diseases arising from what we now know to be poor sanitation."

...Modern industrial nations, on the other hand, have truly built paradise by controlling nature to serve human ends . . . .The vibrant economies of the nations adhering to Western values -- including, increasingly, the nations of the Pacific Rim -- have banished famine within their borders, attained ever improving standards of living, and created the wealth and leisure necessary for intellectual ferment and the emergence of great art. Natural disasters, though they still occur, are far less deadly and costly due to the protection made possibly by modern technology.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2005, 02:45 PM   #8
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xnguela
Asurai--
I love you! I'm so glad you're back!!!!!

Really. I am.
Thank you, my dear, although I really don't know why you should be glad to have me back. But thank you for the welcome.

And get on MSN sometime, curse your lazy hide. :evil: :wink:
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2005, 06:32 PM   #9
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
When an animal can solve an algebraic equation or write a book, I'll stop being an arrogant human.
monkeys cn do simple math, I think. . .and they've been doing fabulous work wiht gorillas teaching them sign language.

They say Dolphins are incredibly intelligent as well. My backup for this one will be that they have sex for pleasure, but that ust indicates a well thought out reproductive system.

Not that I'm negating your comments, or anyone else's. Just thought I'd point it out.
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2005, 02:05 AM   #10
pitseleh
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,059
Sorry Asurai, but I'm gonna take a hatchet to your lengthy quote. This guy sees things so black-and-white, it's almost funny, albeit in a profoundly tragic way. He'd probably make a good holocaust-dissenter too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Allow me to quote from The Enemies of Columbus by Thomas Bowden:

...The point in this is simple: it is better to be rich, healthy, and safe than to be poor, sick, and afraid...
Yeah, but what's cooler? The latter, of course. :wink: But, hey, being a cynical Randian capitalist is also pretty cool, right?

Quote:
All Indians, chiefs as well as warriors, were subject to a variety of economic and physical catastrophies (such as floods, famines, pestilence, and epidemic disease) that modern societies have tamed or forgotten...
Go on, say it - "Genocide, schmenocide... they were all gonna die anyway. Those pox-infested blankets only sped up the inevitable! Nowadays we don't worry about that kinda stuff, we have medicine now. I'm so glad I'm not a poor person. I barely even notice my pesky humanity anymore! Hooray!" That's pretty fucking cold, man.

No, really. Please go on believing that the "tame and forget" tactic is gonna work out for the best. After all, those who forget history is in no way doomed to repeat it.

Quote:
...By contrast, modern Americans live in relative serenity due to their understanding and acceptance of natural law. They have no need to trouble themselves about supernatural beings that interfere with their mastery of the enviornment...
Of course not, they've got TV now...

Quote:
...Modern industrial nations, on the other hand, have truly built paradise by controlling nature to serve human ends...
You can laud the industrial revolution all you want for making our modern lives so comfortable, but don't ignore the fact that the way to Western Civilisation is paved with blood and guts. It ain't no paradise by a long shot. Maybe it looks like that from the office in the Ayn Rand institute, but people are still being crushed under the wheels of "progress" every day. All Thomas Bowden can say is: "Tough luck. Take comfort in the thought that your blood is OIL for the MACHINERY OF FREEDOM!"

I'm not gonna glamorize the Indian life, which was surely hard and full of danger, but surely even one as un-PC as you would have to agree that the shit really hit the fan when the greedy and dishonest white man came around. Basically this Thomas Bowden is defending a tragic and shameful genocide and condescending the culture of a people that was, philosophically and morally, superior to the one of the men that came to usurp it.

Oh, and sorry for hijacking the Schiavo-thread. Maybe this could be split?
pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2005, 12:13 PM   #11
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Asurai, that quote fills me with disgust and revulsion on so many levels........
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2005, 09:38 PM   #12
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Who do you think? :roll:

Clichés are clichés for a reason...
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 09:52 AM   #13
drgnlvr
 
drgnlvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Alright, I'll go through this point-by-point.
And please allow me to go through your argument the same way.

Quote:
No, the earth does not feed us. Feeding us would mean that the ground automatically raises up enough food for humans to consume without human intervention. As any farmer will tell you, humans have to work our asses off to get the ground to produce enough food to keep humanity alive.
Yes, and no. You're using black and white arguments, and they don't work here. The earth -does- feed us. And before humans learned how to cultivate plants for food, it essentially -did- automatically rise from the ground.

Yes, alot of people starved to death before they figured out how to cultivate, but the environment supported what it could support. If resources were stipped, everyone suffered, people died, and the ecology of the area snapped back into place.

All we did was make it work more efficiently to support a larger number of people. It still comes from the earth.

Quote:
No, the earth does not clothe us, for the same reasons. I've never seen a t-shirt tree. Even the most basic savages had to put forth their own efforts to produce clothing for themselves. There's a reason that you don't see animals wearing fig-leaf clothing.
Again, black and white arguments. all the fibers we wear started on, or in the earth. Cotton from plants, the chemicals for synthetics even started from an earth-based source. Leather, suede, come from the skins of animals. No, animals don't wear clothes. They have fur, or scales, or whatever nature intended them to have to protect them in the environment they live in.

Quote:
No, the earth does not shelter us, again for the same reasons. Even bloody ANTS, who are infinitely below humans on the scale of intelligence, don't get automatic benefits from "mother earth" -- they have to use what organizational talents they possess to maniuplate nature to their needs. Holes don't just open up in the ground spontaneously to serve as homes for them.
Again, black and white. Those ants would not be able to burrow, if there was nothing to burrow in. Your house would not be built without the trees for the wood, the clay for the bricks, or the ore for the steel and copper.


Quote:
That's the point. They have less technology than we, ergo they are more at the mercy of random occurences. And yes, I'm quite thankful for my 'random' place on this planet, but thank you for putting words into my mouth.
Yes, that makes you more -fortunate-. It does not make you "better".

Quote:
Wrong. Whether life arose from entirely natural causes or was designed, I neither know nor care, but you and I both know that "nature" did NOT bring us to the point where we are now. From the cave to the Empire State Building, humans are where we are because we refused to bow to random tragedies as "the will of nature." From the invention of fire to the present day, humans have been manipulating nature to our ends, to our great benefit.
But nature -did- enable us to develope consciousness, reasoning, and opposable digits. Without any of those things, we would not exist as we do today.

Quote:
We poison our own food and water. I would advise you to look at population graphs and note that as science increases (including pesticides and chemicals, GASP), the human race grows -- ie, less of us drop dead at young ages. If you're above thirty years old -- the pre-industrial life expectancy ;-- go drop to your knees in thanks to the nearest sooty smokestack or chemical plant that you can find.
And that is a double-edged sword.

We have succeeded in prolonging life, but not in slowing down reproduction to compensate. We've succeeded in forcing the earth to produce more "efficiently", to the point we are begining to reach a negative return. We have suceeded in developing industry to enable first-world countries to live easier, at the expense of the water, air and plant-life. And it -does- effect the rest of the world.

Quote:
Debatable, but because of modern medicine, less people are dying because of those viruses.
Yes. And again, we have a double-edged sword. With people not dying from disease, they're living longer, but they are still reproducing at the same rate. This puts a stress of the ecosystem. And when any ecosystem is stressed, and can no longer support the life in it, several things begin to happen. Violence, disease, famine, and death...it's the natural prograssion to keep the balance. But, in the human part, disease is being fought, so people aren't dying from disease. The system is becoming unbalanced. Famine exists, even within the richest countries. Violence is obvious all around us.

Hell, there's a reason that hunting is necessary, now. We killed off most of the natural predators 200 years ago, and there aren't enough wolves to keep the deer population under control. It has become our responsibility to thin the herd. Kudzu in the southern US is encroaching at an alarming rate, destroying the indiginous plant life there, because it has no natural enemies. It's not native to this part of the world. The rabbit population in Australia exploded because the natural pradators for that animal didn't exist at the time. When you fuck with nature, she fucks back. Humans are just too damn arrogant to see that.

Quote:
Hell, we're basically immune to the Black Death. So, even if there are more viruses, they're less dangerous to us by far.
And the White colonists were practically immune to smallpox when we came over here. It damn near wiped out the natives, though.

We will not be immune to new virii. It's a living organism, and evolves, and mutates. The virii become immune to -us-. And as we systematically destroy our environment, the natural protections we enjoyed from certain virii will also be destroyed.

Quote:
Hey, the earth is going to blow up eventually, no matter what we do. (In a few billions of years, the earth will stop rotating, and various lunar-solar forces will tear the moon and earth into cosmic dust.) By the way, the earth is CONSTANTLY shifting on its axis and has been since long before man came onto the scene.
This is true. But there is no reason we should hasten the Earth's demise.

Quote:
But the fact that there will be an eventual ice age doesn't justify abandoning technology and condemning thousands of generations of humans to barest subsistence and savagery until then,
I agree with you there. But at the same time, I think we need to take better care of the environment in which we live in now, so that we won't be foreced to live that way, when it does happen.

Quote:
particularly when it will happen, eventually, whether or not we live as savages. Besides, by the time that there's another ice age, we'll have advanced to the point that we'll be able to save both ourselves and the rest of the ecosystems without much trouble.
At the rate we're going, no we won't. And I'm not talking more advanments at the cost of the environment, but advancements that -work- with the environment.

Quote:
I don't hate nature, I simply don't care about it one way or another.
Perhaps you should.

Quote:
Nature doesn't nurture me, by the way. My father works to put food on
the table; fruit doesn't spring out of the ground whenever I'm hungry.
Neither does it appear out of nothing to sit on the grocer's shelves.

Quote:
"Arrogant human." That's a really cute insult, since "arrogant" would imply an undeserved pride.
You're right.

And it is undeserved.

Quote:
I'll make a deal with you: when nature creates a Victorian mansion, complete with modern air-conditioning and a heating system, I'll stop being an arrogant human. When an animal can solve an algebraic equation or write a book, I'll stop being an arrogant human.
Think about it. It already has.
__________________
Lover, Bard, Phone Monkey, and MILF!
drgnlvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 02:55 PM   #14
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Sorry Asurai, but I feel that your pride has you cornered right now.

Even if Dragon Liver's (that's what it means, right? ) arguements can be debatable, her last sentence "owned" you right there and then (in my opinion).

Lemme explain. I thought for a long time and couldn't make up my mind on a number of people (some Rosicrucians, to be precise) who are oposed to the use of vaccines as they believe them to cause unbalnce to the natural ecosystem. As humans, we are part of a natural ecosystem and everything we do is therefore natural.
Earth balances itself. Like the rabbitt vs fox population keeps itself in check.

But think of lost civilizations, fallen empires, slaughtered nations, whole cultures erradicated forever.
Armies of specific human ethnicities, cultures, creeds and ways of life have already disappeared forever (like those huge white english hounds that Bull Terriers descend from).

Yes, there are 4 original latin nations (Italy, France, Spain and Portugal) and a whole lot of derivates (the whole of South & Central America, Guinea, Prince Islands, Cape Verde, Angola, Mozambique [where I was born], Goa, Indonesia, Macau, Philipines, East Timor, etc) but still, the roman empire is no more.

The Dodo bird is no more, the tasmanian tiger is no more, the lusitanian Linx is no more, the Iberian Linx is almost gone, the North african Lion and Iberian Bears are no more.

You can feel nothing at all by that and argue its a natural process, even if done by humans, as we are animals who are part of this environment.
Hang on.
Are we?

Because the rabbits sure as hell ain't part of the Australian natural environment. Maybe some other animals endanger local ecosystems when wrongfully introduced into them (this one is really an unsubtle way to talk about your bloody past, but fuck it).

What I mean is, if we don't switch to solar real soon, we're never gonna get on those spaceships and get the fuck out of here to other places we can dirty up and destroy.

Don't like the idea of a female nurturing mother nature?

Good, 'cause neither do I and the whole thing stinks of new-age hippies and wiccans to me (even if they are COMPLETELY right), not to mention I grew out of the Edipian phase a long time ago, so I don't like the idea that everyday I'm contributing to fucking my mother.

Try these ones on for size then:

We're all on the same boat. If it sinks, you die before you can make a raft out of the pieces. And why would you wreck a boat for a raft?

Don't shit where you eat. If you don't clean up after yourself, you'll end up eating where you shit, cuase even if you conquer, exploit and kill all other people (I'm being subtle again), you'll still run out of space sooner or later. Again, why would you do that when modern science enables you to clean up after yourself and feed yourself better now than at anytime in history.

Smart evolution means that I can buy butter at a supermarket, eat it and recycle the plastic. What's the use of having science make me a mechanical butter churner? None. It's misuse of brains and equipment. But some idiot wants it because he thinks it's his god given right.

I had a dream, but I traded it in for a way of life I can't afford but hold on to desperatly out of sheer arrogance and pride who won't let me admit I'm just plain wrong, like Bush on drilling in Alaska-

Think about shiting on your food, 'cause thats what Europe did (why do you think you came to be?).
In Portugal, I don't eat where I shit, but it's so close I can smell it all the time. We were able to slow down to a near stop before I ran out of space (subtle). But we look around and a lot is wasted, barren an desolate.
And it's really sad if you guys do that in the US, because you have some of the largest and most beautiful dinner plates. Sad to see you want to shit on those.

I know I'm pushing it a bit and know that what I wrote can be interpreted as provocative.
Yes, I'm provoking you, and you know I'm doing it to melodramatically emphazise a point.
For those who don't know, Asurai does believe in all he wrote (to an extent) but wrote it in a way to shake things up a bit. There's no lamer discussion than one where everyone agrees, and no more pointless one than one where everyone refuses to listen to eachother.

Asurai, am I wrong? If I am, I'm gonna spend the rest of my life brainwashing you into being one of the pussy hippies (because there is a kind of hippy who's not a pussy at all [me]).

Hey Sternn, see? That's how you argue with americans.
I basically said evrything you did and implied all the things you did, but no one is gonna flame my arse for it.
They'll argue for their "way of life" untill they'reblue in the face and living on igloos made out of McDonald's styrofoam, but it won't get bloody.

You too are provocative, and a whole lot more than Asurai.
I know you were pushed. I know you only got personal when your arguements were just dismissed and ridiculed instead of debated.
But no one can be as one-sided as you are.
There are things you just love about the US, but because you never show your appretiation, people almost assume you just hate everything about them, when it's not true.

You got on the nerves of your opponents and are right on the money on many issues, I'll give you that, otherwise you'd simply be ignored instead of flamed.

But the way you make your points these days have lost you a lot of credibility.
Dude, even I get annoyed. I start to read one of your posts, and even I, who agree with you on most things (although your opinions are rather more extreme than mine) can't help but think you won't post about anything you dislike unless it involves the US or Bush (I also hated Clinton, although I thought he was funny [Bush is funnier, but tragically funnier]).

To the other members of this borad, sorry for derailing this last bit.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 03:08 PM   #15
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
What his source is saying, in a way, is native people of the Americas were stupid and not nearly as advanced as their eastern counterparts. That is, without a doubt, a lie. Native American technology is of the order grandiose, and rivals the best offering of North Africa on into the Middle East. And not just their buildings and culture, but their politics.

Or are we forgetting where Franklin received inspiration?
I would hardly call a culture that had not yet invented the wheel "grandiose."

And receiving inspiration from some source is not the same as learning from that source. Franklin may have received inspiration from American Indian sources, but without his thorough education in European science...

And no, the source was not saying that they were stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelstrom
Hey Sternn, see? That's how you argue with americans.
Touche and true. Americans are well-noted as being arrogant people who respond only to like arrogance.

I must go, but I'll be back shortly for a longer response.

By the way -- I've heard it said that the most difficult thing for a person to do, is realize what it is about himself that is obvious anyone who's spoken with him for more than five minutes. If you could tell me what it is about the way in which I make my arguments that loses me credibility, I'll certainly try to rectify it.

Last question, to everyone else -- what's wrong with black-and-white? It's simple and clean: there's a right answer that we need to try to find, then there's everything else that we need to disregard.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 03:22 PM   #16
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Last question, to everyone else -- what's wrong with black-and-white? It's simple and clean: there's a right answer that we need to try to find, then there's everything else that we need to disregard.
It’s all of that wonderful, tragic, painful, beautiful gray area that makes life so interesting. Sometimes I wish I could see things only in terms of black and white, that would certainly make things easier and a lot less painful, but most of the time I’m glad I don’t. It is that gray that gives me compassion, that allows me to coexist with others whose views differ from my own, and that truly gives life meaning. If everything were in black and white we would be incapable of truly deep thoughts, there would be no philosophy, no wisdom, only cold hard facts and logic.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 03:54 PM   #17
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh
Go on, say it - "Genocide, schmenocide... they were all gonna die anyway. Those pox-infested blankets only sped up the inevitable! Nowadays we don't worry about that kinda stuff, we have medicine now. I'm so glad I'm not a poor person. I barely even notice my pesky humanity anymore! Hooray!" That's pretty fucking cold, man.
What? Besides having no clue what you just said, I have no idea how you got it from that quotation.

Basically, the point is: it's better to be healthy and safe than sick and afraid. If you disagree, then by all means say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina
If everything were in black and white we would be incapable of truly deep thoughts, there would be no philosophy, no wisdom, only cold hard facts and logic.
Philosophy is hard facts and logic.

Quote:
It ain't no paradise by a long shot. Maybe it looks like that from the office in the Ayn Rand institute, but people are still being crushed under the wheels of "progress" every day.
Who is still crushed under the wheels of progress every day?

The only people that I can imagine you to say, would be the poor (I don't use the term insultingly; I was and still am dirt-poor) who are laid off by industry. But they're people getting screwed by regression, not progress.

(Just to note: Ayn Rand's a bit to extreme for even my tastes; the entire "anything done for yourself is good; for others, evil" thing never appealed to me. But she did know a lot.)

I would be interested to hear, though, how the culture of the Aztecs was "philosophically and morally" superior to that of the British. The one cut out the beating hearts of captives to please the Sun; the other invented the theory of individual rights and Social Contract.

Neither I nor Bowden support genocide. In the book, he strongly condemns, say, the actions of the Spaniards, as I do now.

Quote:
Yeah, but what's cooler? The latter, of course.
Of course. The latter is totally ubergothic. 8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfmoon
Asurai, that quote fills me with disgust and revulsion on so many levels........
You've always been nothing but kind to me, so I regret any offense done to you. If you can refute any of the statements, I would be glad to retract them.

Xnguela:

Don't worry about it. I'll talk to you once you get it working again -- if you still wish to speak with a cynical, Randian capitalist, of course.

I'll be back shortly, again, then I'll get to the longer quote. Goody goody gumdrops and rainbows.

Tstone:

The Aztecs knew of the wheel and used it for children's toys. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that they knew of any other use for it, to the best of my knowledge. Saying that "they must have had the wheel, because they built stone temples" is a non sequitur; we know very little about the methods used to build those temples.

The image is a round stone without any way to connect it to something else. A wheel, to be functional technologically, must be able to be connected to an axis of some sort. A round stone does not equal a wheel; it could be any number of other things. Perhaps they used it to offer still-beating human hearts to their gods. </ad hominem>

Still, even if they did, it doesn't particularly matter much. To say that even the most advanced American Indian culture was "grandiose" in terms of science and technology, compared to even the least advanced Western European civilization, is an absurd comparison.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 05:16 PM   #18
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Tstone, I don't recall saying that Western civilization was better than the alternative because they had the better use of the wheel. And yes, the snow-shoe is a very creative, useful invention. Given time, the American Indians would have developed their own science, technology, and industry.

But, since we're debating pre-Columbian American Indian culture and contemporary European civilization, allow me to make a simple comparison: the sum total of all American Indian achievements of science in the year 1491 is VASTLY inferior to the sum total of all Western achievements of science. As we go farther on in the centuries -- skip ahead to, say, 1800 ;-- the gap only increases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drgnlvr
The earth -does- feed us. And before humans learned how to cultivate plants for food, it essentially -did- automatically rise from the ground.

Yes, alot of people starved to death before they figured out how to cultivate, but the environment supported what it could support.
Of course resources are important and essential. Even I'm not so ignorant to assert otherwise, but of the two -- human genius and natural, undeveloped resources -- the first is infinitely more important.

A pristine, undeveloped, natural enviornment, no matter how lush, cannot possibly feed enough people to allow them any division of labor, which is the basis of all civilization and human achievement.

An utterly barren waste, devoid of resources, can nonetheless, with the proper application of human ingenuity, feed a large nation. Case-in-point, Israel. Israel has turned deserts into farmland by using modern agricultural science. Consequently, it has a division of labor in that all of its population isn't engaged in looking for food sixteen hours per day, and Israel is therefore one of the most advanced countries in the world.

Human genius in a place devoid of natural resources, can provide for many more people than hunting-and-gathering in a lush enviornment. Both are important, but the one is more important than the other.

Quote:
all the fibers we wear started on, or in the earth. Cotton from plants, the chemicals for synthetics even started from an earth-based source.
And without the intervention of the human mind, they would still be useless plants and chemicals. The improvement of human ingenuity provides by far the larger part of its value than the natural component.

Quote:
Again, black and white. Those ants would not be able to burrow, if there was nothing to burrow in.
Black-and-white is good. Nobody has ever discovered a shred of truth by viewing things as shades of grey.

And again: even in the most resource-rich enviornment, nature provides only raw materials. It cannot provide shelter for ants unless the ants force it to.

So, I clarify my position: insofar as nature provides raw materials, I respect it, but nature has never done anything good for humans without human intervention forcing it to do so. I think that you and I can be in agreement on that point.

Quote:
Yes, that makes you more -fortunate-. It does not make you "better".
I did not say that I myself am better because I live in a technological society rather than a savage one. I said that a technological society is better than a savage one. I'm fortunate that I live in the better society, not "better" because I had the good fortune to be born here.

Quote:
But nature -did- enable us to develope consciousness, reasoning, and opposable digits. Without any of those things, we would not exist as we do today.
Now we're starting to get into the main problem that I have with Nature-followers: how do you define "nature"? As resources, as the physical laws, as some abstract entity, as the enviornment, or as the sum total of everything? (Which is just saying that everything is due to everything, which really isn't a position at all.) I've met people who hold each different positions, and each definition leads to a completely different concept. "Nature" as a concept is nearly impossible to properly define.

So, depending on your definition, no, nature did not enable us to develop consciousness and reasoning. If you subscribe to the atheist position, then life is simply a chance phenomenon -- and to define chance and probability as nature, I think, is a far too wide definition of the word "nature." If you subscribe to the deist position, then life is designed, which is a concept entirely outside pure "nature" (by some definitions).

And even if you're completely right (not likely, since I, arrogant as I am, don't even consider myself completely right), we can owe no debt of gratitude or respect to random chance.

Quote:
We have succeeded in prolonging life, but not in slowing down reproduction to compensate. We've succeeded in forcing the earth to produce more "efficiently", to the point we are begining to reach a negative return.
Meaning, how dare we evil humans not die when we're supposed to? How dare we contribute to creating more life?

You're right, though: we've forced the earth to produce more efficiently. We're nowhere near a negative return, though; the majority of habitable land is still uninhabited, and a very great deal (I don't know exactly what percentage, but it's probably about 50%) of farmable land is still unfarmed. And even in China, agricultural science is still advancing so that we're getting larger returns of food for less and less effort, space, and resources.

As long as we don't nuke everything, we and the earth will be fine.

Quote:
With people not dying from disease, they're living longer, but they are still reproducing at the same rate. This puts a stress of the ecosystem. And when any ecosystem is stressed, and can no longer support the life in it, several things begin to happen. Violence, disease, famine, and death...it's the natural prograssion to keep the balance.
I don't consider keeping people alive a double-edged sword.

Our ecosystems are not stressed. None of those things that you've mentioned are happening in any severe quantity.

Judging by the price of wheat and beef (really damn low), I would say that the supply is up, which means that our ecosystem remains quite capable of supporting us all. The only places where this is not the case are the less advanced, inaccessible places (which are, correspondingly, still very underpopulated, which in turn means, again, that the ecosystem there is not stretches thin).

Quote:
Hell, there's a reason that hunting is necessary, now. We killed off most of the natural predators 200 years ago, and there aren't enough wolves to keep the deer population under control. It has become our responsibility to thin the herd.
More food for humans, then. Venison makes several good meals for an entire family. So, this imbalance doesn't risk destroying us, particuarly since deer are nearly unheard of near the farms that produce food for us. Let them eat grass in the woods, and let us eat them.

Quote:
When you fuck with nature, she fucks back. Humans are just too damn arrogant to see that.
We're still here, and all of those disasters have yet to make a dent in our numbers.

Killer bees have no natural enemies in this state, and they're all over. We're not starving to death from enviornmental collapse because of it, though. A general rule of thumb is that it's a lot harder to fuck with nature in any real degree than most of us think.

Quote:
And the White colonists were practically immune to smallpox when we came over here. It damn near wiped out the natives, though.
*blinks* This is true, irrelevant though it is to our current discussion.

Quote:
We will not be immune to new virii. It's a living organism, and evolves, and mutates. The virii become immune to -us-. And as we systematically destroy our environment, the natural protections we enjoyed from certain virii will also be destroyed.
Simple hygiene prevents the contraction of most virii, regardless of whether it's a mutant strain. Good nutrition builds a healthy immune system, which is highly useful against even a mutant virus. So, yes, I'm appealing to a natural, innate defense against mutant virii.

But at the same time, bacteria are tiny, fragile little things. They're easy to kill, no matter how new or unknown, once we find a way to do it. Simply heat -- taking a very hot bath, for instance -- kills great numbers of microorganisms. And eventually, we'll find a scientific cure against mutant virii. The little bastards don't have god-mode.

Quote:
I agree with you there. But at the same time, I think we need to take better care of the environment in which we live in now, so that we won't be foreced to live that way, when it does happen.
I agree with you here. Slash-and-burn operations, I'm sure that we agree, are a waste of natural resources. There are more responsible and, in the end, cost-efficient ways to take what we need.

Quote:
You're right.

And it is undeserved.
There is no living creature yet discovered that is capable of doing anything better than humans, once we set our mind and resolve to the problem. If you can find an example which I cannot refute, then I will admit that human pride is undeserved.

Quote:
Think about it. It already has.
That's a beautiful sentiment, but, in my cold and black-and-white way, I demand proof and examples.

No matter how beautiful, a cave does not equal or even approach a Victorian mansion complete comfortable furniture, plumbing, and electricity. Not to mention running water for reasons of hygiene.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 05:19 PM   #19
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
:shock:

How much mountain could a mountain-tapir surmount if a mountain-tapir were mounted with quarried mountain?
You just blew my mind, man.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 05:40 PM   #20
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Maelstrom,

Sorry that I didn't respond to you directly, but there's not much that I can argue with you about. I'm against "shitting where we eat" -- I simply think that the enviornment is more resilient than we give it credit for, and that human interests come before those of trees.

But, as I mentioned, I'm against things like slash-and-burn operations and strip mines; let there me no mistake about that.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 07:40 PM   #21
ghostposts
 
ghostposts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 232
I gotta say, the tapir quip was bloody brilliant.

As far as citing human sacrifices as evidence of barbarism, and of technilogical infancy, I don't follow. It's a religious and cultural thing. The aztecs were firmly convinced that their gods gave blood to mankind to bring life on this planet, with the provision that it was a temporary loan man had to pay back. If man didn't pay, the sun would die.

Basically, they thought man's life was due to the gods, as a return payment. Without the sacrifice the gods would suffer and the world would end.

in terms of development and civilization: They had advanced math engineering, health care (evidence of Surgery and dental care were found on excavated remains), art, all the bells and whistles. The steps of the one of the pyramids is a prime example. The stone quetzalcoatl is placed so that the sun's rays flow up the snake as the sun rises, I believe on midsummer day.

In 400AD, with around 200,000 inhabitants Teotihuacán was the sixth largest city in the world. Trading relationships were established with Monte Albán in Oaxaca and the Gulf Coast - there is little evidence of any hostility during the years of prosperity. (You will not see any depictions of warfare or human sacrifice in the carvings and murals at Teotihuacán). http://www.pennyjohnson.com/web/Mexi...1/Pyramids.htm
The mass sacrifices described by the spanish began after a drought and famine caused their priests to claim that the gods were angry at being neglected. His words are preserved in the library at paris, I believe. I read a translation of the speech years ago. It happened a few hundred years before Cortez landed in Mexico.

You can't confuse cultural and religious beliefs with the technilogical advance or lack of progress of a people.
ghostposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2005, 06:36 AM   #22
drgnlvr
 
drgnlvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Maelstrom,

Sorry that I didn't respond to you directly, but there's not much that I can argue with you about. I'm against "shitting where we eat" -- I simply think that the enviornment is more resilient than we give it credit for, and that human interests come before those of trees.

But, as I mentioned, I'm against things like slash-and-burn operations and strip mines; let there me no mistake about that.
I think there are alot of things you and I agree on, but I see you enjoy being provocative! :P

Let me assure you, I'm no "tree-hugger". I see no reason NOT to exploit our natural resources for the betterment of mankind. But, again, we also need to replace what we take, because those resources are not indefinate I also don't buy the crap that PeTA puts out that cow farts are reducing the ozone layer).

However, I disagree with you, when you say that we're not seeing the results of that wanton exploitation. Slash and burn aside, look at places like Love Canal. Look at studies on "Cancer Clusters". There's more, but I see no point in digging it all up. You'll either look for it yourself, if you're really interested, or you'll dispute my claim and leave it at that.

As for the lack of food....well, the US is supposedly the richest nation on Earth, yet we have -HUGE- numbers of people starving to death right here.

re: the advancements Isreal have made in cultivation...Keep in mind, the ME (including Isreal) was once a very lush area of the world. Quite fertile. Until the Romans salted the earth.

And philosophy, by it's very nature, -cannot- be black-and-white. :P
__________________
Lover, Bard, Phone Monkey, and MILF!
drgnlvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2005, 12:50 PM   #23
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgnlvr
I think there are alot of things you and I agree on, but I see you enjoy being provocative! :P
Usually. I don't sit here and think, "Hm, I'm going to go piss people off with my ideas," but it usually just turns out that way.

Quote:
Let me assure you, I'm no "tree-hugger". I see no reason NOT to exploit our natural resources for the betterment of mankind. But, again, we also need to replace what we take, because those resources are not indefinate I also don't buy the crap that PeTA puts out that cow farts are reducing the ozone layer).
Oh, good. I apologize for assuming that you were like that; I'm just tired of arguing with people who look at me like I'm a monster because I use wooden furniture.

And yes, we need to replace what we take, at least to a certain extent. Requiring lumber companies to plant so many seedlings for so many trees cut down seems reasonable.

Quote:
As for the lack of food....well, the US is supposedly the richest nation on Earth, yet we have -HUGE- numbers of people starving to death right here.
True, but this is due more to economic inequality than to the enviornment being unable to sustain our numbers. The total amount of food-stock in circulation in the US is more than enough to feed 300 million people if perfectly distributed, but some people hold more of it than others. (I do NOT advocate wealth redistribution, by the way -- as though anyone here could accuse me of that.)

[quotere: the advancements Isreal have made in cultivation...Keep in mind, the ME (including Isreal) was once a very lush area of the world. Quite fertile. Until the Romans salted the earth.[/quote]

True, but most of the salting was centered around population centers like Jerusalem. Long before the Romans came along, there were vast stretches of desert, including the Negev and Sinai. Israel has, to some extent, claimed some of this barren land as farmland.

Quote:
And philosophy, by it's very nature, -cannot- be black-and-white. :P
I hate modern philosophy for just that reason.

Philosophy is the ultimate science of black-and-white. It is the search for absolute truth that transcends all other petty concerns and circumstances.

And Aristotle is on my side :P. Roughly paraphrased: "A is A, always has been A, and always will be A. If it ceases to be A, then it is not A.

"That which is not A is not A, nor will it ever be. If it ceases to be not A, then it becomes A."

Aristotle was always very black and white: something either is, or it is not. There is no in-between on anything.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2005, 01:26 PM   #24
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Then I must have misunderstood you, and beg your pardon. It appeared to me, in the context of your original quote and the manner it was writ, that savages of the West were begging to be conquered, due to many factors, but mainly to an inferiority and ability to comprehend advanced ideas.
Nah. I'm an evil capitalist, not a rabid white-supremacist. Sorry that you got the wrong impression, though.

Quote:
Economics plays a role in every part of life, and if an argument can be made that Pre-Colombian’s of the Americas were lesser skilled, an argument can also be made that their then skills provided for their needs, and anything further would pose an economic challenge, which could (feasibly)allow an aggressor an advantage.
I'm afraid that I don't follow. Why would anything further produce an economic challenge and allow an aggressor an advantage? I've always thought that it would be the exact opposite, but I'm likely misunderstanding you.

Quote:
And you know my stance on Colonialism, Asurai. Combined with Catholicism; the greatest evils perpetrated on humanity.
I can probably agree with you on the bit about Colonialism (if by colonialism we mean imperialism), but Catholicism? I think that that's a little bit of an exagerration. Through all of the centuries, all of the inquisitions and pogroms, the number of those killed by the Church has never even begun to approach the number of those killed during fifteen years of Nazi rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostposts
As far as citing human sacrifices as evidence of barbarism, and of technilogical infancy, I don't follow. It's a religious and cultural thing. The aztecs were firmly convinced that their gods gave blood to mankind to bring life on this planet, with the provision that it was a temporary loan man had to pay back. If man didn't pay, the sun would die.

Basically, they thought man's life was due to the gods, as a return payment. Without the sacrifice the gods would suffer and the world would end.
Yea, that's the point. Slaughtering 10,000 captives every year (five times the number of people that died during the ENTIRE Spanish Inquisition), on average, is just a teency little problem.

And you're right: it was their culture. Which, while saying nothing about their level of technology, says very effectively that their culture was fucked up and cruel.

I'm not going to give them a free pass on that because "it's their culture." The fact that they considered mass sacrifice a-okay says a lot about their moral development, if not their scientific development.

Quote:
in terms of development and civilization: They had advanced math engineering, health care (evidence of Surgery and dental care were found on excavated remains), art, all the bells and whistles
...all with an average life exspectancy of about 30 years. Yea, they had great health care.

Quote:
The stone quetzalcoatl is placed so that the sun's rays flow up the snake as the sun rises, I believe on midsummer day.
This is true. Astronomy is among the first of all arts learned by any civilization, and I would be rather surprised if even the Aztecs were without it. But I would be more impressed if their great feats of engineering, the temples, hadn't been used to cut out thousands of beating human hearts on a yearly basis.

And remember: the level of engineering achieved by the Aztecs, was slightly below that of the Egyptians more than 2,000 years before Columbus sailed. So there's still quite a large achievement gap there.

The rest of the American Indians were even more worse off.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2005, 03:30 PM   #25
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
The fact that they considered mass sacrifice a-okay says a lot about their moral development, if not their scientific development..
Is it any better to slaughter people by the thousands for entertainment, like the romans did in the Circus Maiximus to the criminals, barbarians, christians (not catholics) than to do it for religious beliefs?

As for the wheel, it simply had no use in rainforest terrain and in the Andes. It's just impractical. A sledlike cart would suit the environment a lot better.
Necessity is mother to industry (invention or imagination). Their technology was perfectly adequate to their environment, where they were light years ahead of the West in biotechnology (shaman or medicine-man's knowledge and use of herbs and infusions and mind-altering substances) and architectural techiniques (Notre Dame is trully beautifull, but aside from some vitral colors we still cannot reproduce to this day, but Machu Pichu is a lot older, mechanically unexplained and impossible to reproduce to this day in its masonry techniques if not just the enigma on how they got the boulders up there in the first place).

The actual age of some of the Pyramids in South America and Egipt is still an ongoing debate. Remember I'm not giving props to south americans on rock size, quarring techniques and transportation logistics. I'm talking deep masonic knowledge here. I'll try to find a picture of what I'm talking about.

Bring it on. I'm on Fire.... (baby's on fire, better throw her in the water...)

I prefer Marijuana, beer, a steak and a blow-job to Ecstasy, Coca-Cola, Big Mac and a porn video. And with that phrase alone, I win and you're all my bitches.




p.s. sure, I'll have a coke, burger and a wank as often as anyone else, but I know where my priorities lie and don't doubt my preferences for a second. :P
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
twilight crying goddess xxxQueenOfDarknessxx Literature 2 11-30-2010 08:58 AM
Deus Ex Daedalus TV, Movies, & Games 11 12-16-2007 04:27 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:35 AM.