Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

5:25

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Oh, cool. 'Evidence' to support an argument using population counts before number systems, and censuses, were invented!

PS: The reason for population growth is the explosion in technology and modern medicine.


The reality is, as you admit in the above quote, is that people can survive on their own. Even by the image you linked, before modern society was founded, people survived long enough to procreate. That proves that people can and will survive if they have the will (want) and physical capacity (strength, healthy and lacking debilitating deformities).


The primitive tribes of Asia, Africa and South America would like to have a talk with you. They survive in some of the harshest conditions, completely cut off from the benefits of modern society -- clean water, medical care, high-calorie diets, etc. -- and they continue to survive. Early humanity was there at one point and they, too, survived. Even as short as a century ago, American frontiersmen and Indian tribes would learn to survive with little dependence on modern society that existed back east. This could go back to the discussion on skills, and how our differing skill sets would suit us differently. In the event either of us would need to survive alone, I'll survive and you will not.


Ha ha. Yea, ok.


And human embryos, conceived from the human sperm and egg, growing within a human... are dogs, birds, cats, dolphins... anything but human.


Whether the Romans placed their newborns in the sewers, alongside a busy street, on a cliff or in a field, the fact remains - infants can't survive on their own and neither can an embryo.


Did those people have visible, physical deformities that would've caused their father to cast them to the elements as a form of infanticide? "Well, Romans can kill their children at any age!" You can advocate for infanticide but don't mistaken it for what it really is -- murder. If a Roman kills a child, a teenager, or an adult... it's murder. Plain and simple.

The evidence exists - rate of resource consumption, the size of inhabited areas, human remains - conversely, do you think those numbers are sufficiently far off to invalidate my argument?



Correct. Things that don't exist without human society.



And they have extremely high mortality, which is why their populations remain small enough to be supported by their hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

They also have extremely tight-knit societies - more so than any other sort of people - so much so that hunter-gatherer tribes generally do not recognize the concept of private property, or even individuality (to be a man is to be able to name your male ancestors going back many generations). To be excluded from that society is a death sentence.

Again, the examples you cite debunk your overall argument that people can survive on their own.



Why do you think that?



Surely you agree it's ridiculous to think that gender is determined by anything other than chromosomal configuration. What's your basis for insisting on a biological interpretation of gender identity but a semantic interpretation of the beginning of life?

In a wider sense, what, to you, justifies empirical versus semantic interpretations of any human issue?




The Romans might disagree with you on that point. (I'm curious, do you know off the top of your head what that is?)

Anyway, the evidence clearly demonstrates that most people can't survive on their own either.



Not at birth. Alexander and Caesar lived because they were from wealthy families. If they were from poor backgrounds they almost certainly would not have made it.



Do you consider war murder? Self-defense? What about death through starvation or callous neglect?
Where do you draw that line?

Conversely, would you be willing to pay higher taxes and accept rationing of land, food and fuel because there are more mouths to feed out of the same limited space and natural resources? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Honestly, you making the argument is enough to invalidate your argument.


Do you think I'm wrong?


Stop being daft. Yes, gender is a configuration of chromosomes... but if chromosomal configuration determines gender, then doesn't the DNA composition and configuration determine species? A human sperm and egg form a human zygote, which is an under-developed human embryo, which is an under-developed human fetus, which is an under-developed human infant, which is an under-developed human toddler, which is an under-developed human child, to teen, to adult. In all cases there are two facts: 1) The 'clump of cells' is human and 2) the former state is simply an under-developed version of the next state.

No, I don't know what that is. Edit: Did a bit of reading about Romulus and Remus. What lesson are we to learn from those mythical characters which were spared by a God(s) (which you are certain doesn't exist), fed by animals, and eventually raised by someone who didn't want to kill them?

Also, it's worth pointing out that the sculpture goes back to my original point -- an infant can't survive on its own without the nourishment from a mother. Female cows, like humans, don't simply produce milk. That's a physiological and chemical response to bearing offspring and, like the embryo, the newborn cows and humans need a mothers nourishment to survive. In modern day, infants can be bottle fed, but again -- not independently viable.


Answer the question - Were there visible, physical deformities that would've caused their fathers to kill them?


Here's my line, whether you agree with it or not... It's wrong to take the life of an individual if that individual has shown no disregard for another human life.

If Man A kills Man B, and if Man B posed no threat to the life Man A, then that's Murder.
If Man A kills Man B, and if Man B posed a threat to the life of Man A, then that's Self Defense.
If State A kills Man A for murdering Man B, then State A is justified because Man A has shown a disregard for another human life.

War is a little harder to draw the line with. If two military want to kill each other, and if they're both claiming defense, then it's self defense. If one military kills a man driving to work, and if that man has no role in the war, then it's murder. If a military drops a mortar shell on a house, killing everyone inside, then I guess it'd be highly subjective... Who was killed, why did the mortar hit that house, etc. If the household was harboring enemy combatants, and if the kids died in the attack... yea, that's the gray area. I guess the kids would've been murdered, but the parents were extensions of the enemy combatants, and that makes them fair game?


I already do, but not because there's more mouths to feed. My wife and I pay our electrical, water, food and fuel. Because we consume those resources, we pay for that consumption. We pay more than the cost of those commodities, too, since they're all taxed and a profit margin is applied to the price to ensure the providers have money to survive, expand infrastructure, research and development, etc. We pay our federal, state, sales, income, and whatever other taxes the government wants to impose on us, and those tax dollars are often wasted at various levels trying to satisfy egos and sustain the machine. Lastly, we donate to various charities, the local food bank, and we donate our time to helping others when the opportunities, and our schedules, play together.

We pay for what we consume and we help soften the burden of those who aren't as fortunate as us, while saving for an uncertain future.

Meanwhile, you... don't do any of that.

Umm. No. The argument isn't invalidated until its underlying facts or reasoning (that the evidence indicates that the super-majority of people cannot survive without modern society) are debunked. You haven't accomplished that, in fact the facts you have cited only further illustrate that simple truth.


How is this relevant?

But to answer your question directly - yes.

First and most obviously, to understand how to do something necessitates an understanding of its difficulty. Since you think survival without society is possible for most people (and have unrealistic notions of how it plays out), you probably can't do it, because you don't comprehend how it's done.

Second, I'm smarter than you are. Humans evolved big brains (and spend roughly 15% of their resources on its upkeep) because they are useful. No matter how strong you are, you are not going to take down a deer, wolf or boar with your bare hands. Your strength will not help you forage for food or scare off tribes that outnumber you. But because I am smarter than you are, I can identify sources of food, water and shelter you would miss and survive hazards such as infection or tactical inferiority that would be lethal to you. The extent to which this advantage would be decisive may be questionable, but there can be no doubt that there is an advantage to be had.

Third and last, as I said, you think that because you are stronger than I am in the here and now you would better survive in the wild. But as I pointed out, in the wild, without a high-calorie diet and everything else you need to stay strong, your strength would quickly wane. In fact you would be at a disadvantage because I have a lower nominal calorie intake than you (and a diet more comparable to what would be encountered in the wild) and making do with less would be less of a shock. A month or two of survival by foraging and I would be stronger than you.

Since neither of us are likely to find ourselves in such a predicament anytime soon, and this has no bearing on the topic, this is just a pissing contest, of course.



Shifting the argument away from viability and back to chromosomal configuration brings us back to the original example: sperm and eggs. By this definition they would be human too. Or would you say the issue is not human genetic configuration or personhood? Choose your battlefield.



Romulus and Remus, founders of Rome, were abandoned as newborns and raised by a she-wolf.



What about ants, leeches, and even mammals that can't survive without the herd? Do we say they are not individuals because they aren't viable independent of the group, or of another lifeform? For that matter even humans cannot survive without the biosphere.



No.



So does that mean you wouldn't kill a man for invading your home, stealing your property, raping your wife? If you were kidnapped, would you not kill your kidnappers to escape? What if you had to kill to live, or to appropriate food because you couldn't obtain it any other way?

Not so black and white is it? The point I am making is that the highest good is not the condition of being alive but human dignity.

Surely if you believe there is such a thing as courage or morality then you must agree.



The only constant is that people can justify anything.



You don't "pay" for what you consume because you didn't establish the conditions under which they exist. You live in a world made for you by the efforts of God and other men.

If fresh water did not exist you could not buy it, and what then? If there's not enough arable land to feed all mouths then would you blame yourself when you go hungry? You talk about the unfairness of paying taxes yet the salary you earn is paid out of those taxes, and you are qualified to earn it because of others' taxes. What if you were turned away by the National Guard or fired from your job because of overpopulation + automation = only the elite are employable?

So what this really all boils down to is that you, like me, live in a world made for your comfort. The difference between us is that through education and insight I have not lost sight of that.

So what would a world not made for your comfort look like? Well, example would be any part of the world afflicted by a famine or drought, or poor long-term planning resulting in loss of arable land or other resources, or afflicted by tyranny. If we lived in the Soviet Union would you blame people complaining they aren't members of the Party for not getting what they want? Or look at countries like China or Japan - or even Europe - where arable land is at an extreme premium.

Isn't it curious that the only country where the mythos of the individual as invincible has taken root is the one with seemingly (but not in fact) unlimited natural resources? What's the logical inference?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

No really this is a good argument. Let's continue this.

Or, perhaps we could get back to talking abuot the convention.

By the standards of the Internet, can you honestly claim it isn't?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's the same old argument about how you don't have a job and how someone else doesn't read enough books.

I don't pay for anything real myself. I also don't read a ton of books (yet). But I still believe that I'm an asset to society and I consider myself educated. I don't see the shame of parents paying for their kids, and don't see the "honor" of paying for unbelievably expensive things (like school or home) by yourself. And fuck loans.

Idk.

How's the convention? Go Obama!

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

It makes me sad that Eturnal didn't know that was Romulus and Remus at first glance.

Classical educations ftw.

I knew what the picture was at first glance.

Thanks Ex Deo.

He's a sorcerer, that one.

(Couldn't resist.)

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Some funny bits to come out of the convention thus far...

* Sandra Fluke is going to speak in hopes to get women to vote for the man who hosted the Muslim Brotherhood -- those people that think it's cool to beat women and oppress them -- at the White House. (He also waived $1BN of debt that Egpyt owes us because we don't have a debt problem ourselves or anything...)
* "Arab-American Democrats" hate Israel and God. Apparently half the DNC delegates agree.. but Villaraigosa doesn't give a fuck. He do what he wants.
* Obama, a man who has given a number of speeches in the Rain, is being forced into a 15,000 seat arena by the DNC since there's a 20% chance of rain tomorrow night. We're being told it has nothing to do with an inability to fill a 74,000 seat stadium... but it's the rain. An 80% chance of no rain... I mean, a 20% chance of rain.
* Obama created 4.5M jobs! Hooray! Oh, wait, you say there are still fewer working than when Obama took office? Oh...
* The Media's perpetual boner for any Democrat that takes the stage... especially Michelle Obama.

Having Sandra "get your hands off my womb...but pay for its maintenance on the way out" Fluke speak probably isn't the greatest idea ever. I've had some interesting conversations regarding how fucked up it is that the new healthcare laws have all these perks for women, but fuck you if you want a vasectomy, and don't even ask about subsidies for your condoms. Classic double-standard: it's a woman's body, and she should control her reproductive choices, but fuck you guys for trying to do that, it's a woman's decision to get pregnant if she wants.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Sandra Fluke and Michelle Obama are cardboard cutouts.

Whatever else may be said about the Clintons, they had the decency to make sure their daughter lived a private life.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.