Glenn Greenwald Owns Bill Maher

Byrnzie

Eilian wrote:

Your inability to read is putting me at risk of tediously repeating myself. It is repellent not because we are automatically justified militarily - I thought it would have been abundantly clear that I do not feel this way from my last post - but because it suggests tacit support of their actions.

Except it does nothing of the sort. Understanding their motives isn't the same thing as supporting their actions.

Eilian

Byrnzie wrote:

Eilian wrote:

Your inability to read is putting me at risk of tediously repeating myself. It is repellent not because we are automatically justified militarily - I thought it would have been abundantly clear that I do not feel this way from my last post - but because it suggests tacit support of their actions.

Except it does nothing of the sort. Understanding their motives isn't the same thing as supporting their actions.

Making more noise in blaming western imperialism than condemning the crime in question, suggests tacit support of the actions, regardless of how well (or poorly) you understand their motives.

Byrnzie

Eilian wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Eilian wrote:

Your inability to read is putting me at risk of tediously repeating myself. It is repellent not because we are automatically justified militarily - I thought it would have been abundantly clear that I do not feel this way from my last post - but because it suggests tacit support of their actions.

Except it does nothing of the sort. Understanding their motives isn't the same thing as supporting their actions.

Making more noise in blaming western imperialism than condemning the crime in question, suggests tacit support of the actions, regardless of how well (or poorly) you understand their motives.

No it doesn't. For those concerned about the victims, it's usually a good idea to understand the causes of the crime so as to try and prevent any further attacks from occurring.
Though I understand why it's impossible, and even 'repellent', for some people to consider the consequences of their own countries actions.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

bootlegger10 wrote:

Hey, just having some fun here. Whose to say Earth is destroyed if global warming takes over or it turns into a barren wasteland? Was the earth considered destroyed during the Ice Age? Is Mars destroyed right now?

I guess what I'm trying to play devil's advocate on is if humans and every other piece of matter on this earth formed from a bunch of particles colliding into each other without intelligent design like most on this board would say, is there really a good or bad state of matter? Is the universe really worse off with plastic bottles in the ocean or is it indifferent? Just trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't believe in intelligent design and why they can think the world is better off one way or the other? What does it matter what the particles happened to form after the "big bang" and what they continue to form? Perhaps the response is that it is what it is and we need to make the best of it.

Way off topic and probably a very stupid, incoherent post. As someone who believes in intelligent design and believes the God put us here to be good stewards of the earth, I think it is easier to see there is a natural way and an un-natural way of doing things, and that there is a purpose and value to all things created and there are negative consequence to not taking care of each other and the environment.

man can never truly destroy the earth. earth will always repair herself. in man's ever-arrogant and self-serving ways, all man means when he says "take care of the earth" is really just "take care of the shit WE need to sustain life-otherwise Earth be damned".

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin wrote:

It is a stretch.

We have lived within the confines of our environment for thousands of years without destroying it on a global scale. It hasn't been till the last 200 or so years that we have changed our climate globally.

To say that any species evolves to want to kill itself is a little ridiculous.

Over the lifespan it is natural for species to come and go.....but unlike the dinosaurs....it is not natural to extinct ones own self. Can you find an example of this anywhere else in nature?

You also know you are arguing on the side of someone who apparently doesn't believe in evolution right?

No. It's not a stretch- it's completely within the spectrum of possibility. Our time on this planet is but a blip in the bigger picture of the earth's lifetime. We are like a big rash that spread over it that the planet would like to get rid of.

Whether intending to or not is irrelevant- one can say that our very existence threatens our future. I believe in science and we can try to avert the course we have set due to our activities, but lets get serious here: the earth is warming and climate change is occurring because of our business.

There was nothing said about a species evolving to want to kill itself- I think you have misinterpreted. Check that: I know you have misinterpreted.

Lastly, you say it's not natural to extinct one's self. This might be true, but you tell me how we can naturally stop the exponential population growth that threatens to send the globe to the brink of disaster given the planet's inability to sustain it?

We are animals. Just as chimpanzee colonies venture to rival colonies to eradicate them in the hopes of securing more resources or land for themselves... we do the same thing. We just think we're fancy and somehow divine. We're not as smart as we like to think and we are not as divine as we like to think.

Right now I think I'm arguing against someone who thinks lots of guns in their country is a good thing? Just as dumb as denying evolution in my mind. Do I have this wrong? Aren't you one of the people that insist on the right to bear machine guns and rocket launchers? My point? Your belief system is not above anyone else's: it's just yours. I'd rather live by a neighbour who denies evolution versus one who owns an arsenal of weapons.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

dignin wrote:

It is a stretch.

We have lived within the confines of our environment for thousands of years without destroying it on a global scale. It hasn't been till the last 200 or so years that we have changed our climate globally.

To say that any species evolves to want to kill itself is a little ridiculous.

Over the lifespan it is natural for species to come and go.....but unlike the dinosaurs....it is not natural to extinct ones own self. Can you find an example of this anywhere else in nature?

You also know you are arguing on the side of someone who apparently doesn't believe in evolution right?

No. It's not a stretch- it's completely within the spectrum of possibility. Our time on this planet is but a blip in the bigger picture of the earth's lifetime. We are like a big rash that spread over it that the planet would like to get rid of.

Whether intending to or not is irrelevant- one can say that our very existence threatens our future. I believe in science and we can try to avert the course we have set due to our activities, but lets get serious here: the earth is warming and climate change is occurring because of our business.

There was nothing said about a species evolving to want to kill itself- I think you have misinterpreted. Check that: I know you have misinterpreted.

Lastly, you say it's not natural to extinct one's self. This might be true, but you tell me how we can naturally stop the exponential population growth that threatens to send the globe to the brink of disaster given the planet's inability to sustain it?

We are animals. Just as chimpanzee colonies venture to rival colonies to eradicate them in the hopes of securing more resources or land for themselves... we do the same thing. We just think we're fancy and somehow divine. We're not as smart as we like to think and we are not as divine as we like to think.

Right now I think I'm arguing against someone who thinks lots of guns in their country is a good thing? Just as dumb as denying evolution in my mind. Do I have this wrong? Aren't you one of the people that insist on the right to bear machine guns and rocket launchers? My point? Your belief system is not above anyone else's: it's just yours. I'd rather live by a neighbour who denies evolution versus one who owns an arsenal of weapons.

I agree with most everything you have said here.

But you may want to go back and read the post I was replying to earlier, bootlegger seems to think that destroying nature is natural (evolutionary). I'm not denying that we do it and we are terrible for it, but it's not natural, it's greed. Your on safe ground arguing that it is in our nature, but it is not natural.

As to you thinking I want a lot of guns in my country (Canada) you couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no idea where you got that from. Guns are for scared people.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dignin wrote:

I agree with most everything you have said here.

But you may want to go back and read the post I was replying to earlier, bootlegger seems to think that destroying nature is natural (evolutionary). I'm not denying that we do it and we are terrible for it, but it's not natural, it's greed. Your on safe ground arguing that it is in our nature, but it is not natural.

I can't speak for bootlegger, but my way of thinking is that if it is indeed evolutionary, how can it not be natural? it can be argued that everything we do is natural.

dignin

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

dignin wrote:

I agree with most everything you have said here.

But you may want to go back and read the post I was replying to earlier, bootlegger seems to think that destroying nature is natural (evolutionary). I'm not denying that we do it and we are terrible for it, but it's not natural, it's greed. Your on safe ground arguing that it is in our nature, but it is not natural.

I can't speak for bootlegger, but my way of thinking is that if it is indeed evolutionary, how can it not be natural? it can be argued that everything we do is natural.

Forgive my analogy but burning down your house while you and your family is in it is not natural or evolutionary beneficial. The goal on the most basic human level is to continue on. What we are doing is not natural.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dignin

Apologies for confusing you with someone else.

I never got that from bootlegger. The point I took was as Hugh said in the previous post: that it can be argued as natural.

We can't help ourselves. We recognize what is happening, but do not have the capacity as a collective to do anything about it. The overwhelming general attitude is a short term gratification one that tends to ignore the bigger picture.

Our nature prevents us from saving ourselves so to speak.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Dignin

Apologies for confusing you with someone else.

I never got that from bootlegger. The point I took was as Hugh said in the previous post: that it can be argued as natural.

We can't help ourselves. We recognize what is happening, but do not have the capacity as a collective to do anything about it. The overwhelming general attitude is a short term gratification one that tends to ignore the bigger picture.

Our nature prevents us from saving ourselves so to speak.

I think here we can agree. It's a sad state of affairs

bootlegger10

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I never got that from bootlegger. The point I took was as Hugh said in the previous post: that it can be argued as natural.

Correct. I think human recorded history has too many examples to count of selfish actions taken on a micro and macro scale to say it is unnatural to plunder the earth for personal gain. It is isn't for self-destruction, just personal gain. Certainly some cultures valued nature more than others, but whose to say the Indians of the 1400's in North America wouldn't have been driving gas guzzling cars if they knew how to build them?