Thread: Anarchy

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 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Rainman

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

≠

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.

To be honest I see no flaws in his reasoning. Asserting that one values X over Y usually shows that one desires X over Y, or at least in this case it does.

And how is he intentionally antagonizing with false/horribly flawed logic and baiting responses/trolling? I just see you getting mad over nothing.

No, my point was that imran never stated he "vales X over Y," he simply stated a fact, which is that the Earth would be healthier without humans, and Laughing Man reached the conclusion that imran "values X over Y," which is flawed reasoning, because stating a fact doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with one's values. Pay attention.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I just see you getting mad over nothing.

Which is also an assertion, as I expressed no anger, and even if I did, I reckon that would be difficult to perceive via text on a screen with an absence of hostile obscenities or anything of the sort. You're not good at this. Now please, one of you, please say something factual.

Originally Posted by Rainman

No, my point was that imran never stated he "vales X over Y," he simply stated a fact, which is that the Earth would be healthier without humans, and Laughing Man reached the conclusion that imran "values X over Y," which is flawed reasoning, because stating a fact doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with one's values. Pay attention.

It is clear imran_p seems to value Earth over humanity (X over Y), especially when he says thing such as:

If humanity dies out then the planet will heal. Humanity has so much potential but its failing, the sooner we fuck off, the quicker this beautiful planet can begin to regenerate and the natural world can re assert itself in vast areas where it has had to recede. Let us pray that this day arrives sooner rather than later, no?

Even our very existence is a problem. The largest and most serious problem facing humanity is one that isn't too often talked about; overpopulation. We breed and breed, and keep multiplying, moving across vast areas of lands destroying the natural environment and forcing the wildlife to disappear, stripping the land of its natural resources.
And I also think you overestimate humanity. We are a cancer. We wont disappear in my life time, but when we do, it will be for the greater good.

Which is also an assertion, as I expressed no anger, and even if I did, I reckon that would be difficult to perceive via text on a screen with an absence of hostile obscenities or anything of the sort. You're not good at this. Now please, one of you, please say something factual.

One does not need openly hostile obscenities to tell if someone is agitated, irritated, angry, or mad. You're saying statements such as, "pay attention, you're not good at this, say something factual." You're being hostile.

Originally Posted by Rainman

Everything would have been better if anarchy had remained. Granted, if it were to break out now, it would be madness, I think. Absolute madness. Panic, chaos

Disorder and chaos will always remain, despite our efforts to keep up the order. Fortunatetly, there is nothing inherently evil or bad in chaos or madness. There is danger, of course, but it has nothing to do with evil. So why should we be afraid of chaos or anarchy? People are just not accustomed to change or flow, they seek haven from order. Despite the order, you feel miserable and bad. How sad.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It is clear imran_p seems to value Earth over humanity (X over Y), especially when he says thing such as:

Okay. Let's take a look at this bit by bit, shall we?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It is clear imran_p seems to value Earth over humanity (X over Y), especially when he says thing such as:especially when he says thing such as:

If humanity dies out then the planet will heal.

That's called a fact. If A happens, B will happen. There is no opinion expressed there, -1 for you.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

...Humanity has so much potential but its failing, the sooner we fuck off, the quicker this beautiful planet can begin to regenerate and the natural world can re assert itself in vast areas where it has had to recede...

While poorly phrased, it's merely an observation which doesn't necessarily mean that he values the life of the Earth over the life of the human race.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Let us pray that this day arrives sooner rather than later, no?

I believe in following posts, imran clarified that this isn't what he meant, and may have even said he takes that back, but I'm too lazy to actually read back for that. This has been clarified.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Even our very existence is a problem. The largest and most serious problem facing humanity is one that isn't too often talked about; overpopulation. We breed and breed, and keep multiplying, moving across vast areas of lands destroying the natural environment and forcing the wildlife to disappear, stripping the land of its natural resources.

Again, facts and observations. All of these things are true. Where's the "x over y?" These are all true statements...

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And I also think you overestimate humanity. We are a cancer. We wont disappear in my life time, but when we do, it will be for the greater good.

Again, an observation. The way we behave is similar to a cancer. Here he restates his point that the Earth would be healthier without humans, which again, is true. So, what you're doing is analyzing a list of FACTS and OBSERVATIONS that are true, and deciding for him what his views are based on those facts and observations.

Even if he does think those things, you have no clear evidence of that, thus making any statement that arrogantly claims what he believes is, by definition, an ASSERTION, and that's all that my point was. So yes, those, whether they are correct or incorrect, are still assertions. Sorry.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

One does not need openly hostile obscenities to tell if someone is agitated, irritated, angry, or mad. You're saying statements such as, "pay attention, you're not good at this, say something factual." You're being hostile.

Yes, in this and in that post, I was being mildly hostile. However, the post before that was the one you were accusing of being hostile, which, first of all, is using a completely separate post than the one to which your argument refers, and second of all, that post was not in any way hostile, and if you feel that it was, then that's your problem entirely. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Originally Posted by Unelias

Disorder and chaos will always remain, despite our efforts to keep up the order. Fortunatetly, there is nothing inherently evil or bad in chaos or madness. There is danger, of course, but it has nothing to do with evil. So why should we be afraid of chaos or anarchy? People are just not accustomed to change or flow, they seek haven from order. Despite the order, you feel miserable and bad. How sad.

I actually agree with that. The chaos idea doesn't really frighten me, and I don't even think it would be all that much of a chaos after a while. I think if there was an event that caused anarchy, such as a large scale disaster, after all of the dust settles, people would start to behave normally. Maybe a few years or so, but I think in general, crime and such only exists for the MOST part, not entirely, but largely because of all of the fucked up aspects of the system.

How the Fed, and other central banks of nations fuck over every single citizen of that country and others. How you've got to work to live. Just those two alone would be enough to send even the best of people into a blowing point. Without money, there would be so much less crime. Even if we forget about complete anarchy and just say get rid of money, there would be so much less reason for crime to exist. Of course, there are obvious other factors that would be grounds for believing that crime would still exist on a noticible level, but like I said, give it a few years or so, and everyone will adjust.

So I don't feel that "chaos" is even the right term. Depending on your definition of anarchy, which I haven't given a lot of thought to specifically, there wouldn't necessarily be any chaos.

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.

The Earth is not a thing which is healthy nor a thing which is diseased. The Earth is a giant non-living rock which living things happen to live on.

That's all I wanted to say. It just annoyed me how a couple of you state that the Earth would be "healthier" without humans.

Ever heard of a thing called an ecosystem? Your post is a bit of an understatement.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

The Earth is not a thing which is healthy nor a thing which is diseased. The Earth is a giant non-living rock which living things happen to live on.

That's all I wanted to say. It just annoyed me how a couple of you state that the Earth would be "healthier" without humans.

I admire your attempts to admonish against adhering to the unfounded Gaia theory, largely purported by James Lovelock, but you are underestimating the delicacy of the ecosystem. The earth does have a self-regulating system which has allowed life to begin, human activity is disrupting this system. It is important to understand that this system is incredibly complicated, science doesn't have anything close to a full picture. This, naturally, makes fucking with the environment all the more dangerous.

Ecosystems can be sick or healthy. Earth can't. Was Earth unhealthy before there was ever life on it? The sun never had life on it and never will. Is the sun unhealthy?

Originally Posted by Rainman

What a beautiful, yet currently impossible concept.


I hate the way the world works. I hate western society. I hate the concept of monetary systems. It's all fucked up, pointless, and stupid. Most people at some point will have to exchange huge, non-refundable chunks of their life for meaningless slips of paper that enable them with the means to survive. If you do not have those silly digital numbers on a screen, or pieces of paper with scribbles on it that don't even represent what they were originally created for anyway, you're FUCKED. You will have a terrible life.

We're controlled by whatever the people with the most money want. The media? The news? People are lead to believe, and then begin to believe everything they are told. Like a bunch of sheep, they follow the leaders, and the masses. Then they can be scared into doing whatever the fuck the REAL people in charge want, while they pull the puppet strings of all the fucked up corrupt politicians that can now officially be LEGALLY bought off, with no cap amount.

Who the FUCK thought of all of this? We're slaves. It's not something you can run from, really, unless you want to be a hermit and live in some uninhabited place in the middle of nowhere.

Unfortunately, we're so deep into this system now, that there's really no way out of it. It would take some huge catastrophic event, or mass technological failure, or mastermind persuader like Hitler (For the idiots on this forum, I am not a Hitler enthusiast, I'm stating the fact that he was a brilliant minded persuasion and control artist) to snap us out of our routine.

Everything is so unfortunately, and perfectly circular. You have to pay for things in order to live. You have to waste your life away to pay for things. What's the point of life? We're not LIVING LIFE, god damnit. We are wasting away in our own filth and taking the rest of the world down with us.

Everything would have been better if anarchy had remained. Granted, if it were to break out now, it would be madness, I think. Absolute madness. Panic, chaos. But in time, people would evolve. You see, there would be no need for lies, and deception, and no opportunities for corruption. People would be free to expand their minds, free to live life how they see fit, without having to be bound to the chains of this fucked up society. Every fucked up society. I don't know what I"m getting at, I guess i'm just irate thinking about it.

I just read another thread about the legalization of corporations to donate to campaigns without a cap. That just set me off. It's hard to stay positive in the midst of such complete stupidity.

i agree with pretty much everything you said. i dont see what the next step is in all this? surely it isnt good though.