Quote Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
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?