posted 04-08-2001 13:06            

Kokinolimoneiki - wtf does yer name mean?
-This- isnt nature. Nature doesn't consist of concrete and steel. Question, if I were to kill you, would your family and friends say "It was nature?" and forgive me? Of course the Dark Ages was bad, but it still is better than now. If you had a grudge, you fought it out, you didn't shoot a gun from 300 feet away and kill that way. You got a sword, and fought each other. You didn't get in a cheap slash from behind because you had HONOR. As far as I know, the ONLY time people attacked from behind back then were in wars(lots of people) and for assassinations.

I talked about how we should rid the world of stupid people in a post I made a little while ago. That was me being brutally honest. Keep talking, if people don't understand that what you say is your own opinion, then they are morons.

posted 04-08-2001 13:43            

People were just as likely to stab you from behind...there are just more people now to stab. As far as the whole "assasinations/duels" thing goes: The 'Dark Ages' were 700 years ago...the only deaths we still know about are the assasinations and famous duels. I am fairly certain (correct me if I'm wrong) that duels were limited to noblemen.

Besides...who would want to live in an age where if you slipped with your sword and cut a gash in your leg the chances were extrememly high that you would die of infection?

No, people didnt shoot guns from 300 feet away...but only because they didn't have guns. They used Arrows/spears. They mugged people traveling alone in forests. They stole food and cattle. You either lived in shit or in luxurious shit.

As far as the IDEA of what your talking about...I like it. No more guns, disputes solved by gladiator style duels, living with an honor system, it all sounds good. Its not how the average middle ages serf lived though. There can only be so much nobility, and the world need shit shovelers too.

Pay attention in history class, do some research, I think you'll find that 'honor' was still a limited thing to find, especially among the religious castes.

Oh...and China... They acted in very similar ways to how the US would react. You cant tell me that the US wouldn't do SOMETHING to a plane flying less than 100 miles from the shore, obviously spying. At the very least we may have broadcast some sort of interference or fake in formation. Of course, we would have let the diplomats visit..but aw hell. I give up. I'm merely babbling now.

-Chris

posted 04-08-2001 16:21            

The accident which grounded the E3 happened 80 miles off the coast of China, the Chinese pilot was flying a much more maneuverable plane, and according to lots of Air Force pilots this kind of thing happens all the time. The Chinese pilots get close to intimidate our pilots, this one got too close, probably wasn't as good as he thought he was, and collided. The E3 then gave a mayday on an emergency channel, which is used by all nations, and was monitored by the Chinese, they didn't land in China without warning. International policy on this is pretty clear, the host nation should return the plane and crew intact, as soon as possible. The demand for an apology is idiotic. We did nothing truly wrong, this kind of activity is engaged in by every nation which has the ability to do so. China has recently been allowed into the WTO, and wants free trade in order to build up their economic standing in the world, they really need to rethink their actions in this case. Starting a war with the US over something so petty would hurt them more than it would hurt us, other nations would not back the Chinese in this case, and it would hurt their economy far more than ours. I am not a supporter of the Bush administration, I think the guy is a functional illiterate, but in this case he is doing the best he can be expected to (probably with a lot of help from Colin Powell). If we do apologize to them it would be a loss of face for us, in their minds at least, and it would look like the Commies won some kind of moral battle, which they haven't.

Ok, I'm done, I hate discussing politics, I can't do anything to make the Chinese give up our guys. I just hope that the crew is doing well, and remembering their oaths and the training we received for cases like this.

posted 04-08-2001 17:38            

I am also not saying the Chinese shouldn't send the pilots back. As you said...its not like they were in the most threatening and technologically advanced plane anyhow. They were in no stretch of the imagination performing an act of war.

The way I see it there are 3 problems:

Problem #1) They crashed into a plane on international waters. They were trying to scare the plane away at the time. Both big problems
Problem #2) When the plane made an emergency landing, they wouldn't give the pilots back.
Problem #3) They are quite openly breaking international rules in order to make the US lose face.

-Chris

posted 04-08-2001 17:52            

And besides, are you saying that when we lived in mud houses with thatch roofs that we were closer to Nature? I suppose if you think that the closer one is to one's own shit is the measure of how natural everything is then you may be right, but I personally think if we're smart enough to not be covered in shit then we're pretty much the pinnacle of Nature's creations.

And Clme, fuck yeah. The Middle Ages were cool if you were nobility, and then they weren't even that cool. Sure, you had meat, and clothing, but you still lived in a dank and cold stone edifice, constantly worried that one of your slighted relatives or opportunistic children would slip a rusty knife between your ribs in your sleep.

posted 04-08-2001 18:40            

And for all of the folks who think that giving an apology wouldn't be all that big of a deal, you're right, to us it wouldn't be, but to the world at large it would be an admission of guilt, and an indication that we will roll over at the possibility that military action may be taken.

posted 04-08-2001 19:34            

Creatures adapt and evolve to survive in thier enviroment. Humans, on the other hand, destroy the enviroment and create something of thier own in order to survive. The chimps and monkeys you talk of, they are not outside of nature. We tear down forests and flatten out land, we build houses and buildings so we won't have to deal with nature.

If we are the pinnacle of Nature's creation, then that is sad. We can't adapt like other animals, we haven't evolved in how long? If we haven't evolved, then we must really be perfect. But if we, nature's creation, are so perfect, then why are we still destroying it?

posted 04-08-2001 20:00            

And, humans continue to evolve at only a slightly slower pace than we always have, because our procreation has slowed down. Evolution does not take place on the kind of scale where it would be visible over the course of recorded history.

posted 04-08-2001 20:00            

quote:

---

We haven't evolved in how long?

---

Now... The little bit of evolution they were allowed to teach in my quasi-liberal school led me to believe that evolution took place over millions of years.

I just did a search and found 2 sources that say that H. sapiens sapiens didnt even exist (as far as fossil evidence) until 200,000 years ago. Barely the blink of an eye in a species. If we follow the path of the previous human species then we'll hang around for a million years or so and be replaced by another species.

200 thousand years. Very little evolves in that time. Of course...200k years from now people may only have 4 toes and a tail. Who am I to guess?

posted 04-08-2001 22:08         

quote:

---

Demon said:
"Having our fuses short."

---

Man, I wish I were as astute and quick to the draw as all you other guys. Everyone said what needs to be said, and AMEN FEN!!!
It's really a personal choice as to when you'd like to be alive, whether it's in the Dark Ages or in 2500 A.D. But the fact is that we live now. There is nothing you can do, except maybe kill yourself, or others. I also thought the way Demon does when I was in high school, but now I am broke as a joke, tired as hell, and not using my "wonderful" degree in anthropology other than to correct people's thoughts about early humans in meaningless conversations. I am not so idealistic anymore. If we can find ways to make life easier, GREAT!!! I'll take that anyday over any other.
Look up adaptation in the damn dictionary - there you'll find that adapting is using your environment and tools to ameliorate your life or the life of others. This is what houses do, and shoes, and any other item we use, even soap.
This is what humans are good at - adapting. Whether we use computers or clothes to do it is irrelevant. We are still brilliant adapters. Let's wait and see how you feel in five or ten years. Then we can talk about the "good ole days."

posted 04-08-2001 22:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demon-of-Elru:

Creatures adapt and evolve to survive in thier [sic] enviroment. Humans, on the other hand, destroy the enviroment and create something of thier [sic] own in order to survive. ... We tear down forests and flatten out land, we build houses and buildings so we won't have to deal with nature.

*snip*

A simpler world would own this one. People being weak and using guns, showing no strength other than killing from a distance. Having our fuses short. I will be waiting when we finally do kill Earth, have no more resources to draw from, have no more technology, have none of what we have now. Then, that world will come to us.

---

Wow. There are SO many things wrong with that entire statement. What I fail to understand is why you think the construction of mildy-overpriced housing puts humans outside the bounds of Nature. What, you think all the animals out in the rain enjoy it? If they had the mental and opposable-thumb capacities for it, don't you think they'd do the same thing and build shelter?

Demon, I have to give it to you. You made my head hurt. Wow. As for the "simpler world" bullshit...d00d. Be serious. Whatever you've been smoking be sure to send some my way. I really really want to deeply and truly believe that the coolness of the world is solely dependent upon the number and availablility of guns. I would give you the, "if you're so anti-technology then go live in a cave and leave me alone" speech, but that's just played. I just don't understand...how would not having the convenience of modern technology make the world simpler? It'd be hard as hell. Try to grow your own food without a plow. Or make your own clothes. Or, perhaps, wipe your own ass without killing trees to make toilet paper.

I seriously think you've been reading way too many Romance novels or something to get such a skewed view of past times. Yeah yeah yeah, blades may be a cleaner way to kill someone, but you gotta put it in context, man. Killing people with swords doesn't magically make the rest of the world a simpler place to live in.

Last thing: You think the Earth gives a fuck what we do? NEIN. It's been around a lot longer than we and will persist long after we're gone. It has no thought. It is a hunk of rock we inhabit. So what if we shit it to hell? We'll just end up killing ourselves and other things will evolve. So what? That's how things are. People don't want to save the Earth --- they want to save themselves.

posted 04-09-2001 00:01            

quote:

---

Living a honorable life is, to quote the zen story, a matter of washing your bowl when you're done with breakfast.

---

I am without honor.

posted 04-09-2001 00:07            

quote:

---

If you had a grudge, you fought it out, you didn't shoot a gun from 300 feet away and kill that way. You got a sword, and fought each other.

---

In the middle ages - and this most DEFINITELY includes Japan - mere possession of a sword was a death sentence for anyone not of a noble caste.

If a nobleman raped your underage daughter and you so much as nicked him with a table knife, you and likely your whole family could be put to death to satisfy the RAPIST's "honor."

Only nobles had honor.

All that aside, I think a code duello should be reintroduced into our society - I think the knowledge that that guy - or that girl's brother - might 1. challenge you to a duel, 2. beat the living hell out of you, and 3. publish the results in the local paper if you get out of hand would be a serious incentive towards being fucking polite. We're not polite enough in this society.

posted 04-09-2001 04:54            

Especially after I read "Var the Stick".

posted 04-09-2001 06:35            

It's the technological and historical aspects of what Demon's said that we seem to have issues with. Not Demon himself. Nor with Piers Anthony.

------------------
Ain't that the drizzlin shits?

[This message has been edited by MightyMon (edited 04-09-2001).]

posted 04-09-2001 06:42            

I too had some rather strange beliefs when I was in high school.

For instance... it took lots of pain and suffering to discover that my cock was not, in fact, made of steel.

Then there was the whole thing where I thought that my eyes were fire-proof.

I got over those the hard way. If only someone had been there for me, someone to say "You stupid jackass, get that stick out of your eye".

*sigh*

posted 04-09-2001 07:52            

As for re-introducing duels, let me quote Peter Sellers from Murder by Death: "Is only one problem with your idea. Is stupid! Is stupidest idea I ever heard!" People kill each other for alot of reasons, and I think you'll find perceived breaches of honor pretty far down the list. All this talk about honor presupposes that society at large gives a shit about honor. The people mugging old ladies and shooting people to steal their drugs are precisely the ones who won't show up for a duel and who aren't afraid of having their good name besmirched. Personally, I'm for Robert Anton Wilson's solution: fence off the state of Missouri and incarcerate all violent offenders therein, for life - then, they can have all the feudal sword-swinging honor they want.

posted 04-09-2001 10:40            

Yeah we do it and on a pretty large scale since we now have machines to help. But we are not the only species to adapt our habitat to suit our needs better.

Beavers: Chew down trees, dam up streams, cause localized floods and changes in habitat which can be pretty profound in certain areas.

Carp: Around here, carp are a huge issue. They grub around in the mud, eat absolutely everything, muddy up the water to the point where other fish can't live in it and can completely ruin a stream, pond or wetland for other species.

There are about a zillion other examples, but I can't think of them right now since I just got out of work and I'm tired. But look, everything is out for itself and will either overgraze, parasitize nests, overkill their prey supply, or something. Populations in "nature" tend to show normal fluctuations as they overstep their bounds and then suffer the consequences. The only reason people have become a problem is because we've managed to avoid most predation by other species and because we're such fabulous generalists that there is little habitat we can't make use of. The other species that can do that (raccoons, opossums, house sparrows, mice, swine, etc) are the ones that tend to become pests as well.

What we're doing is natural. It's reprehensible since we have the ability to have a conscience about what we are doing. But it's still natural. And honestly, if you really want to "save the planet", don't recycle, don't plant trees, don't donate to Greenpeace, just choose not to have kids. The amount of resources a single additional human being will use up will never be made up by saving your aluminum cans and milk bottles. But most people are not willing to do that, especially those in third world countries who are contributing the most to the problem, and hence the population boom continues.

I completely lost track of the point I was trying to make. Gah. Humans are animals. Remember that. I'm goin' to bed.

posted 04-09-2001 11:54            

Fenomas - Maybe they have, but oh well.

Clme - Not only do we alter our enviroment more permantly that other species, we REALLY fucking alter it.

Kokinolimoneiki - Fuses right now are pretty damn short. Almost anything will piss us off nowadays, no? Go back about 2000 years, I'll have to say that I'm somewhat sure that people back then weren't as quick to anger as us.

And one thing was left out. My friend Xan needs to be here to say "Matt, SHUT THE FUCK UP!" followed by me going "hehe". :P

I am in high school, I am broke, very much so, I am always tired, and I have no CLUE what I want to goto college for. I'm still idealistic

As for a way of making life easier. If we could find a power source that was natural and that didnt rape the enviroment like oil, would it be offered to us? Lemme make up an example talking about gasoline. If we found out that [something] could fuel cars 3.7 times better than gasoline, costed 1/50 less than gasoline, made no exhaust, and culd be collected and used by the average person by one tiny machine, would we see it? I'm going to say no. I say no because it would dent the economy. How many people have a job that is related to gasoline? If all of a sudden, this new fuel source appeared, all of those people would be out of a job. (I'm not entirely sure about this part, so correct me if I'm wrong) The stocks for those gasoline companies would wither and die, making all the people invested in it lose thier money. (am I wrong?) It most likely wouldn't be seen by us. There wouldn't be many jobs associated with this new fuel source because you only need one machine. There wouldn't be enough money made from this new fuel source.

This could also work for energy.

Adapt v. to put in harmony with changed circumstances.

MightyMon - If they did, they might. But they are still alive without them. Would humans be alive without all that we have now?

Thank you, MightyMon Scary thing is, I DON'T smoke anything, and I have these fucked up thoughts hehehehe. Not having the tech. we have now would make everything hard to us, but if we never had the tech. to start with, it wouldn't be hard.

I don't read romance novels, those things suck. True, but it'd be a hell of a lot better to fight in close quarters than from thousands of miles away.

About the Earth.. will it last longer than us? With all the weapons of mass destruction that we have, if we ever had another large scale war, and used those weapons, the Earth would be hurting.

Now, I remember reading a couple of things about the Earth. There is something called a Schuman(sp?) resonance. It is a harmonic freqeuncy that is apparent all over the Earth, and that scientists can't pinpoint its origin. I also read that there is somekind of 'beat' the Earth makes. It might be associated with the S.R., I'm not sure though. I heard somewhere about the number of lifeforms on earth, and that if you compared them to nuerons in the brain, the numbers are similar. Going out on a limb, which is probably completely wrong, so don't say "Demon you're a fucking moron" because I already know . If the 'beat' is part of the S.R., and if the number of lifeforms are similar to the amount of nuerons in the brain, then couldn't the Earth be alive? I know its far-fetched and completely ludicrous, but oh well. If we say the Earth is alive, then is it safe to say that natural disasters can be the Earth's immune system? So, is Earth just a rock?

Jimbo - Eye for an Eye should be in our society.

Fenomas - hehehe. The ass raping ends when people reply to THIS post.

MightyMon - I am just a stupid high schooler. Right?

Clme - riiiiiight :P

Weis - Blech with Missouri, Eye for an Eye instead.

posted 04-09-2001 15:35            

You mean to say with 8 people ass-raping you, that you still refuse to look any information up? Back it up with facts! Show me links or hard sources that back you up! At least tell me why you think every other source out there is wrong and the fantasy novels are right!

In order to set a good example I have put together a small presentation for your viewing and edjimacation.

First of all, on the middle ages:
This link shows a general idea of how people lived about that time.
This link shows some statistics from that time.

Now...on the "Schumann" resonance:
Such a thing really exists, and at the moment there are countless pseudo-sciences developing around it. This is not to say that the pseudo-sciences aren't without merit...just that they cant all be right.
This link is really full of shit. Check out the graphic on the bottom after you read it. It does give an account of what a schumann resonance is though.
This is the link to a page that debunks much of what is said in my previous link.
This link is Stanford's definition... they are also monitoring the resonance.

So, a review:
1) Middle ages were bad. Period.
2) "Honor" is relative. What they considered "honorable" would get you a life sentence now.
3) Schumann's resonance exists...but there are no hard facts at all. Anyone could be right.

-Chris

posted 04-09-2001 15:56            

quote:

---

And honestly, if you really want to "save the planet", don't recycle, don't plant trees, don't donate to Greenpeace, just choose not to have kids.

---

... thereby making a strong selective pressure towards being either too unintelligent to consider consequences or too selfish to care.

Evolution, don't you know. RIGHT NOW, throughout the population at large, intelligence quotient is inversely related to number of offspring produced. So is education level. So is financial success.

Think about it.