Thread: Anarchy

Originally Posted by imran_p

You seem to enjoy conflict rather than debate mate.

If there wasn't conflict in debate then there wouldn't be debate.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I don't particularly understand the point your making but I'll do my best to get across what I was trying to say. I never said my life, individually was cancerous, it was an observation, that collectively, as a species we have a negative impact on the earth. You disagree?

Why are you not cancerous but the ambiguous masses cancerous?

Originally Posted by imran_p

I, like everybody else, is a living survival kit, we all are, such is the nature of life. So no, I don't want to die, I don't want other people to die; I just believe that the eventual, almost inevitable extinction of humanity will not be such a bad thing, as life, in all its diversity will be given the chance to flourish again.

So you don't want to die and you don't want people to die but it would be beneficial if the human race did die?

Originally Posted by imran_p

The huge spaces that we occupy, and build cities on, shall be returned to nature. The extinction of other forms of life will hopefully slow down from its current alarming rate. Please explain to me how you think what I said means that I like inflicting cancerous harm on the earth, or that I have a ghoulish desire to see other people die. I think your a person who knows no other way to discuss than to be confrontational and to be almost always bordering on the offensive, please prove me wrong by replying with a thought out reply to the point of humans having a negative impact on the Earth, as opposed to more personal "attacks," for want of a better word.

Firstly, your ghoulish desire comes from your recent statement that earth would be better if the human race didn't exist. The world lacks any value without humanity. What good is a sunrise if a human is not there to witness it? Lesser animals have no sense of appreciation, they have no values. Concerning you inflicting harm, it is a basic observation that since you consume on this planet you are thereby 'hurting' it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If there wasn't conflict in debate then there wouldn't be debate.



Why are you not cancerous but the ambiguous masses cancerous?



So you don't want to die and you don't want people to die but it would be beneficial if the human race did die?



Firstly, your ghoulish desire comes from your recent statement that earth would be better if the human race didn't exist. The world lacks any value without humanity. What good is a sunrise if a human is not there to witness it? Lesser animals have no sense of appreciation, they have no values. Concerning you inflicting harm, it is a basic observation that since you consume on this planet you are thereby 'hurting' it.

Individually humans are not such a large problem. What you implied in your initial response was that I enjoy destroying the earth somewhat because I don't kill myself. That's like claiming I want the extinction of all cows because i eat meat. Individually I am not destroying the earth, the collective we is destroying the planet.

And yes your summary of my position is correct. I don't wan't do die, I don't want other people to randomly start dying yet I believe the planet would benefit from our extinction. Why is this so mind boggling? I would assume that all three of the above are almost universally accepted.

Your justification for saying, " Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have." Is that I said that the Earth would regenerate and would benefit if humans didn't exist. I honestly don't understand your logic, if you were to do a poll a large number of people would agree that the Earth would benefit from a lack of humans; now i sincerely doubt that many, if any of these people would have a ghoulish desire to see other people killed, you are trying to pass off baseless assumptions as decent, logical argument.

And again with the point regarding your statement that, "I like my cancerous affect on the Earth", your justification for that statement is that I consume on this Earth. This does not follow logically. Everybody who travels via flight likes contributing to global warming?

Your arguments are poor and do not follow logically, you use my arguments as premises and make random claims which you then try and pass off as logically following conclusions.


Hmm I have to say though, your last point regarding the lack of aesthetic appreciation from other animals seems a completely more valid argument, worthy of discussion. Its a convincing argument, but the one problem with your argument is that life does not stagnate, evolution will continue, and maybe another species will evolve that has our heightened levels of self awareness, conciousness and aesthetic appreciation, and maybe it will be far less destructive. Or maybe we could be that species with a complete shift in our cultures, modes of thinking, structures and institutions?

What do you think?

Originally Posted by imran_p

Individually humans are not such a large problem. What you implied in your initial response was that I enjoy destroying the earth somewhat because I don't kill myself. That's like claiming I want the extinction of all cows because i eat meat. Individually I am not destroying the earth, the collective we is destroying the planet.

Well you said you don't destroy it but WE do. Baring the fact that we includes yourself and others, why is it that you think the ambiguous masses are destroying the world but you specifically aren't? You never answered that.

Originally Posted by imran_p

And yes your summary of my position is correct. I don't wan't do die, I don't want other people to randomly start dying yet I believe the planet would benefit from our extinction. Why is this so mind boggling? I would assume that all three of the above are almost universally accepted.

It's incoherent to say that the world would be better off if we all died, you value the world being better off but then go onto say you don't value if everyone would just die. If you value the world being better off, and see it as being better off if everyone were to die then how can you not be for everyone dying?

Originally Posted by imran_p

Your justification for saying, " Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have." Is that I said that the Earth would regenerate and would benefit if humans didn't exist. I honestly don't understand your logic, if you were to do a poll a large number of people would agree that the Earth would benefit from a lack of humans; now i sincerely doubt that many, if any of these people would have a ghoulish desire to see other people killed, you are trying to pass off baseless assumptions as decent, logical argument.'

Appealing to the majority is fallacious.

Originally Posted by imran_p

And again with the point regarding your statement that, "I like my cancerous affect on the Earth", your justification for that statement is that I consume on this Earth. This does not follow logically. Everybody who travels via flight likes contributing to global warming?

Yes. That is how it logically follows. You simply don't want to invert the looking glass onto yourself for it would show your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Hmm I have to say though, your last point regarding the lack of aesthetic appreciation from other animals seems a completely more valid argument, worthy of discussion. Its a convincing argument, but the one problem with your argument is that life does not stagnate, evolution will continue, and maybe another species will evolve that has our heightened levels of self awareness, conciousness and aesthetic appreciation, and maybe it will be far less destructive. Or maybe we could be that species with a complete shift in our cultures, modes of thinking, structures and institutions?

What do you think?

The future is unpredictable but I think it unlikely. That is speculation though. Concerning humans, I don't think we are a path to destruction. I think it is exaggerated sensationalism meant to conceal a certain ideology. I only have a mild interest in this climate debate. However, from what I have heard in recent months, we now have to worry about an ice age. It's ridiculous nonsense. I only see green technology through the eyes of a capitalist. It will allow from an increase in the standard of living and will open a new market of trade and exchange so I welcome it. Environmentalists are screwing it up with their legislative policies like subsidization and wanting to ban fossil fuels along with 'the Earth is dying!' motif.

Are you being serious? You completely avoided almost everything I said and came out with crap like this. "Appealing to the majority is fallacious. " The part of my message that you quoted contained much more than that appeal, I understand that it is a flaw in reasoning, however, the point still stands that it does not logically follow that those who believe that extinction of humanity would result in the regeneration of our planet have a ghoulish desire to see everybody killed. You dodge everything and just pull out flaws in the other persons reasoning whilst avoiding the points that are made. i have already answered that although it may be logical to wish that every human, including myself dies using the logic that the world would be better off, we are contending with natural survival instincts, and altruistic instincts that are all part of our evolution. I feel an affinity with the rest of humanity, and would never wish for everybody to die, logic does not always prevail.
I think debating with you is a waste of time, you finally revealed your agenda and reason for being in this discussion. I am not going to debate with somebody who has no opinions or beliefs of their own on most subjects except for an intense desire to prove other people wrong. I think its quite clear from the above that your reasoning is poor, and you mask this by twisting other peoples words and isolating small flaws in reasoning. I think its a shame that people like to do this thing where they quote the other persons argument and then go through and nit pick at everything the other person has said, one sentence at a time. Maybe it would be better if you just constructed a well thought out response. I think we shall have to agree to disagree, on almost everything. Ever.

Laughing man - If you look at the evidence, the eart really is at a critical state. The climate debate is far from over stated, it's massively understated. The reason? It's simply not profitable. Look up (a real, not in the realm of 9/11 bullshit) the conspiracy with esso, where it was discovered that they paid scientists to discredit claimte arguments that would force them to shut down their oil facilities. We could face extinction, it is a possibility.

But very unlikely. Humans are emotive creatures; rationale is something that must be taught or discovered, it is not innate. When a major environmental impact occurs the whole world will react emotively, with international demands for extremely radical changes in green policy. People are reactionary, it is an unfortunate truth.

Imran - On one front, I agree that laughing man trivializes debate with quintessential nit-picking, designed to evoke debate where none need exist. But then I remembered that you subscribe to new age leanings and my ad hominem alarm bell forbode me from siding with you.

Originally Posted by drew

Imran - On one front, I agree that laughing man trivializes debate with quintessential nit-picking, designed to evoke debate where none need exist. But then I remembered that you subscribe to new age leanings and my ad hominem alarm bell forbode me from siding with you.

Hahaha, I'm not sure what you mean by New age leanings. This must stem from the discussion regarding Mckenna, a man who I have ultimate respect for. Go over to the paranormal forum and people will tell you I'm a a skeptic, or maybe something stronger. I don't really subscribe to whole belief systems. I prefer not to put myself in boxes. That being said I don't think its accurate to say I'm into New Age stuff, since most of the things associated with being New Age I don't really practice.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Hahaha, I'm not sure what you mean by New age leanings. This must stem from the discussion regarding Mckenna, a man who I have ultimate respect for. Go over to the paranormal forum and people will tell you I'm a a skeptic, or maybe something stronger. I don't really subscribe to whole belief systems. I prefer not to put myself in boxes. That being said I don't think its accurate to say I'm into New Age stuff, since most of the things associated with being New Age I don't really practice.

Sorry, I was being immature.

Originally Posted by drew

Laughing man - If you look at the evidence, the eart really is at a critical state. The climate debate is far from over stated, it's massively understated.

Yes nothing like mother hen's running around screaming the world is coming to an end. Does one need to bring up Al Gore's Doomsday prediction concerning global warming?

Originally Posted by drew

The reason? It's simply not profitable. Look up (a real, not in the realm of 9/11 bullshit) the conspiracy with esso, where it was discovered that they paid scientists to discredit claimte arguments that would force them to shut down their oil facilities. We could face extinction, it is a possibility.

Yes yes, someone is always saying we could face extinction in every age. It's either millennialism, Y2K, global warming, global cooling, world wars, Mayans, gays getting married or whatever bizarre occurrence one could conceive. Scientists on both sides are capable of bias and I don't need to tell you about the recent email scandal concerning climate change to prove that to you.

Originally Posted by drew

But very unlikely. Humans are emotive creatures; rationale is something that must be taught or discovered, it is not innate.

Rational isn't something taught. You can't teach people what is innately moral or immoral. You do know what rationalism is right? The exercising of reason.

Originally Posted by drew

When a major environmental impact occurs the whole world will react emotively, with international demands for extremely radical changes in green policy. People are reactionary, it is an unfortunate truth.

That's ridiculous. You are claiming that everyone is 'reactionary'? How do ideas progress or get put forth if everything is just a reaction to another thing?

Do all of you get this worked-up in debate? It's sort of embarrassing.

Note: This is one of my "dick-ish" posts but honestly, I keep seeing a few of you get upset whenever someone that disagrees with you speaks.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Are you being serious? You completely avoided almost everything I said and came out with crap like this. "Appealing to the majority is fallacious. " The part of my message that you quoted contained much more than that appeal, I understand that it is a flaw in reasoning, however, the point still stands that it does not logically follow that those who believe that extinction of humanity would result in the regeneration of our planet have a ghoulish desire to see everybody killed.

Do you value the health of the planet over the health of the human race?

Originally Posted by imran_p

You dodge everything and just pull out flaws in the other persons reasoning whilst avoiding the points that are made.

That is moronic, how can I avoid points while pointing out their flaws?

Originally Posted by imran_p

i have already answered that although it may be logical to wish that every human, including myself dies using the logic that the world would be better off, we are contending with natural survival instincts, and altruistic instincts that are all part of our evolution. I feel an affinity with the rest of humanity, and would never wish for everybody to die, logic does not always prevail.

Thus the incoherence. You don't want people to die but you value the health of the Earth over that of the human race. You distinctly stated that you would think it beneficial to the earth if the human race were to become extinct. How does extinction not involve dying? Do you think we will all lose the will to live? And please before you start screaming about how I am twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, please notice the question marks. People here sometimes think that by asking a question, I'm making a statement about a person.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I think debating with you is a waste of time, you finally revealed your agenda and reason for being in this discussion. I am not going to debate with somebody who has no opinions or beliefs of their own on most subjects except for an intense desire to prove other people wrong.

How can one have an agenda but no opinions?

Originally Posted by imran_p

I think its quite clear from the above that your reasoning is poor, and you mask this by twisting other peoples words and isolating small flaws in reasoning. I think its a shame that people like to do this thing where they quote the other persons argument and then go through and nit pick at everything the other person has said, one sentence at a time. Maybe it would be better if you just constructed a well thought out response. I think we shall have to agree to disagree, on almost everything. Ever.

More contradiction. Before you were saying how I completely avoided your arguments, now you are saying that rudely go through them sentence by sentence.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Do you value the health of the planet over the health of the human race?





That is moronic, how can I avoid points while pointing out their flaws?




Thus the incoherence. You don't want people to die but you value the health of the Earth over that of the human race. You distinctly stated that you would think it beneficial to the earth if the human race were to become extinct. How does extinction not involve dying? Do you think we will all lose the will to live? And please before you start screaming about how I am twisting your words or putting words in your mouth, please notice the question marks. People here sometimes think that by asking a question, I'm making a statement about a person.





How can one have an agenda but no opinions?




More contradiction. Before you were saying how I completely avoided your arguments, now you are saying that rudely go through them sentence by sentence.

Mate I'm tried of this. I don't want to play your games, I'm not in the business of going through people's posts and trying to find slight flaws in the lexical choice. You do these things and then I post rebuttals to them and you ignore them, and you move to finding new problems with the words I've written.

For example, I said that you had an agenda, I then went on to say you had little or no opinions of your own on most subjects except an intense desire to try and prove other people wrong. You quoted all of this and probably a little bit more and replied; How can one have no opinions and have an agenda. It was clearly stated in the paragraph that your agenda was to prove other people wrong. You don't want to debate about the larger topic at hand, you want to find little problems with my sentences.

The crux of our mini debate has seemed to come down to one problem, you can't comprehend how somebody would feel that the extinction of humanity would benefit this planet, and yet not have an innate desire for everybody to all of a sudden drop dead. I think the answer lies in some very basic evolutionary psychology. I have outlined my position a number of times. We disagree, that's fine, life's like that.

I'm done with this discussion. This is not me being childish, but me realizing this debate has run its course. You are entitled to your opinions, and the little bit where you did decide to engage in the discussion rather than moaning about little bits of insignificant shit I found interesting, so cheers.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Thus the incoherence. You don't want people to die but you value the health of the Earth over that of the human race. You distinctly stated that you would think it beneficial to the earth if the human race were to become extinct. How does extinction not involve dying?

No, sorry, that's incorrect reasoning, for the following reasons:

You don't want people to die but you value the health of the Earth over that of the human race.

≠

You distinctly stated that you would think it beneficial to the earth if the human race were to become extinct.

Those two statements are different, and your conclusion is called an assertion.

First of all, he didn't state that he values the health of the earth over that of the human race. He stated a scientific fact, which is that the earth as a whole would see an improvement in it's condition of humans were extinct. There was no expression of desire there. He never stated his preference.

What you're doing is antagonizing intentionally with false and horribly flawed logic in an attempt to bait for responses, and thus trolling, and now you need to STOP. Take it to a different thread, please.