Value of human life.

Humm... Restricting families to have no more than 3 kids could work...

But I kind of agree the world is over populated, resources are running low, and tensions running high... I don't think it will be too long before another war kicks off... It may be the best thing to happen...

That doesn't mean I don't value human life, as I do... I just value the way of life more... I would fight for the way of life I have now, over having a restricted one, or no way of life at all.

But saying that if I found a new way of life some place else I would up and move... Some times War or fighting isn't needed, death can be avoided, in some cases...

It's a hard debate this one...

Value of life vs way of life... Depending on the circumstance depends on what I would put first....

Most people in here are saying "hey the world is over populated, so human life has no value"
... does that mean you don't value your own life? If the world is so damn over populated (I know it is) then just go kill yourself. Human life has no value.

If we all just killed ourselves then there, fixed. Who gets to decide who dies, and who lives (I know cliché) but it's true... when was it decided, that you had value and somebody else didn't?

So, here is my solution, not more deaths... but less births.

BIRTH CONTROL GOD DAMMIT!  It's like half the god damn world has not heard of this stuff.

-This is the result of Boe, posting in ID...  a jumble of bad grammar and crappy use of the English language

Lol, I actually think you did a fine job, you surprised me in a good way

Your main point seems to be this:

So, here is my solution, not more deaths... but less births.

BIRTH CONTROL GOD DAMMIT!

The only way for that to work enough to make a certain difference would be if it where enforced, making it not an option but taking away someones basic human rights.

While it "may" work if you just asked, that wouldn't make it a very sure decision and I doubt people would limit the amount of children they have because they simply don't see the bigger picture in self sacrifice for a greater good. Take a direct example of the people in Ethiopia; they are in a country where famine due to heavy over population has caused a horrible source of life, yet they still continue having more children then the land can support despite knowing it's not only adding to the problem but that their children will be basically in a state of "living hell". 

The problem with this is that while no one has directly stated about killing people to solve the problem (although that was a solution implied), taking away someones human right to have children is just as equally unmoral as taking away their right to live, while it may seem a lesser evil, it is still just an unmoral choice. What's the difference between the two other then time? 

Taking away peoples right to reproduce is taking away one, if not the main reason to live, it could be debated that killing them is the kinder thing to do because morality is really just a point of view to a certain level. You can only classify them both as simply "immoral" as no one has the same, exact ideas on morality.

So the same moral dilemma you imposed would be the same one here: who decides the maximum number of children a person can make?

So if you're going to do something that is 'wrong' or 'evil' for a greater good, then you may as well take the most efficient option. But, an option such as these may not be needed to take as we are referring to a problem that may be solved with future bringing, nor would any current government system in the western world take any of these dire options unless completely forced.

I actually think you did a good job, don't be discouraged =)

and yet again everyone disregards my comment.....

You only addressed that positive changes aren't needed, which is a an idea I have not stated on either way. My point was referring to negitive changes not being cut off, you addressed positive changes alone.

See, now why didn't you say that in the first place? Anyways, I'll answer to this and other points further down in this post for convenience.

If you're referring to the theory that evolution doesn't correctly work with our current society, I suggest you do more then say "YOU'RE WRONG!", answer the questions, refute and research, if you do the latter, you will see this idea is brought on by Darwin himself and is the only occurrence to the NS theory when introduced to how we humans work as a society. This shows that you're knowledge on NS is nothing more then textbook associated and you're incapable of actually working out the effects in your mind, this idea is grasped by many including the father of the theory's cause!

See, I don't buy into social darwinism. Neither did Darwin. Thing is, evolution's not about progress (social darwinism is, of course). It's about change and adaptation. Creatures aren't superior to their common ancesors, they're different and suited for different purposes.

Just because the outcome was in a whole, positive it doesn't make it the correct choice. What you're saying is it's ok for a highly developed culture to play god with a lesser developed one if they know the outcome..?? Please answer...

Play god? You're reaching here. I refer not to 'playing god' but to cultural enrichment- I don't know about the case in Ethiopia, but I can provide some good examples- the Latins (enriched by the Etruscans and later Greeks [and actually the Greeks enriched the Etruscans!]), the Germanic tribes of the Voelkerwanderung, South Africa, etc.

Oh, so you're in the habit of replying to things that you don't understand? You made a statement on how you felt about what was put down without actually knowing what was implied..? You're doing what the creationists do; "I have absolutely no idea on evolution, I haven't studied it at all, yet I will say as a fact that the theory is incorrect and heavily flawed!". Bad debating anyone?

Haha, not quite. More like 'I UNDERSTAND AND IT'S STUPID, STUPID.'

I am truly astonished you fell for that, you do realise you're now in a position that can't be proved because you showed no direct evidence of sarcasm (as I showed no direct evidence for a joke), you just accused me of doing something wrong and then proceed to do it! LOL

Non-sequiturs aren't funny. Also, I did show evidence of sarcasm, it's just that you're too dense to grasp it.

<snip>

^5

Humm... Restricting families to have no more than 3 kids could work...

:|

and yet again everyone disregards my comment.....

Ditto...

But... It seems we joined the debate too late.

That's because both comments were retarded.

So, do you believe human life has some inherent value? It seems most people here do, but I'm not so convinced. Does the life of Jiang Zemin matter more than that of a Chinese peasant? Is it wrong to kill enemy soldiers?
Do murderers deserve the same mercy they've given to their victims?

Well if you place it like that do you compare human live to the positions they're in? Yes but the point is that there is more ways to look at this is if there is the way you play it or the way they play it. For example Jiang have less importance then the peasent depending on the angle the human life is saw as. But in our eyes there is people who who achieved a lot has done nothing to you in that point and will not  count that as an achievement.To finish this up depending if you believe that if someone lost their lives for murder and if you spare someone else's life to lose your own then he loses his anyways. This is only opinion of the person who would done it in the example.

lolwut

@ Gono- Lol, did you just take a chill pill? I was expecting something much harsher, very pleasant, this has actually turned quite fun.

See, now why didn't you say that in the first place? Anyways, I'll answer to this and other points further down in this post for convenience.

I did, I said it quite amply, just not simply. I expected someone of your intellect to grasp it without the dim explanations~

See, I don't buy into social darwinism. Neither did Darwin. Thing is, evolution's not about progress (social darwinism is, of course). It's about change and adaptation. Creatures aren't superior to their common ancesors, they're different and suited for different purposes.

Alright, understandable. I agree with this, but It's still not referring to the NS mechanism of evolution being flawed in the human situation. 

Play god? You're reaching here. I refer not to 'playing god' but to cultural enrichment- I don't know about the case in Ethiopia, but I can provide some good examples- the Latins (enriched by the Etruscans and later Greeks [and actually the Greeks enriched the Etruscans!]), the Germanic tribes of the Voelkerwanderung, South Africa, etc.

Yes, "playing god" was indeed over exaggeration, but I still stand by that a highly technologically developed culture has no right to interfere with a heavily lesser one, whether the results are a known "good" or not.

Do you agree that missionaries should not be able to manipulate smaller cultures? I know it makes me quite sick, and it's one of the reasons I don't feel when there's a giant gap of power that a cultural exchange is technically "good" (I feel it's fine when the gap is small). The other reason being the potential danger in giving technology to a society that can't handle it at that time (i.e. giving machine guns to small, native tribes that use sharpened sticks).

Haha, not quite. More like 'I UNDERSTAND AND IT'S STUPID, STUPID.'

Oh, perhaps you didn't articulate your thoughts on the matter well enough then...

Eugh, thanks. This shit's given me a headache. In fact, it's so stupid {Implying you felt it was incorrect} as to not even deserve any rebuttal. Get back to saying things that make sense. {Implying it didn't make sense to you}

You should grasp how I came to the conclusion that you where making a judgment on something that you didn't understand.

Non-sequiturs aren't funny. Also, I did show evidence of sarcasm, it's just that you're too dense to grasp it.

Alright, then I showed evidence for my joke and you where too dense to grasp it yourself. You can't claim one thing for yourself yet say on the same premises that  the same is different for somebody else, there is no empirical evidence to support your claim other then the implied evidence I had for my claim. I assure you I understood quite instantly that in all likeliness you where making a sarcastic comment, but you left no visible evidence (i.e. ) leaving me the opportunity to make your previous statement about disbelief on my joke a hypocritical one. 

You fell for a setup, leaving you to make a hypocritical statement, simple as that. It might have been dirty but it worked quite pleasantly...

Stupid comment.

This is what I think of your comment.

That comment was sarcastic.

So was mine.

You are lying. I have "direct evidence" and you do not.

My comment was also made in jest and I have "direct evidence". You fail to realize it because you are stupid.

I proved that I was making a joke with my direct evidence but you have not. I have been privvy to the jokes all along, and you have been the butt of all of them. It is amazing how simple it was to trick you. Even now I laugh. It is impossible for you to defend yourself and I have no need to because this was a joke from the very beginning.

I did, I said it quite amply, just not simply. I expected someone of your intellect to grasp it without the dim explanations~

Your insults suck.

Do you agree that missionaries should not be able to manipulate smaller cultures? I know it makes me quite sick, and it's one of the reasons I don't feel when there's a giant gap of power that a cultural exchange is technically "good" (I feel it's fine when the gap is small). The other reason being the potential danger in giving technology to a society that can't handle it at that time (i.e. giving machine guns to small, native tribes that use sharpened sticks).

Missionaries? I've no problem with them really. Also, giving machine guns to these small tribes would of course be a problem (as if they'd be able to maintain them anyways), but this doesn't mean that they can't be exposed to the modern world (if only slowly), such as with a local settlement of civilised Europeans near a tribe engaging in trade and introducing them to more advanced technologies.

Saladin is correct.

~~~

I was making a joke

Mm hmm, sure.

Implying disbelief, as there is no evidence of a joke I can't do anything~

Mm hmm, sure.

(of course you were kidding when you called genetic inferiority!)

Which is it?

Here you make a comment that is one of two things; a contradiction, or sarcasm with no proof, leaving me to win with either answer, I assumed you replying with a rude comment pointing out my stupidity and that it was sarcasm;

The second quote is sarcasm dear.

Here's the statement where you go ahead and say it was something that can only be shown going by your word alone. If I was to take it literally, it's a contradiction, it's only by your word that it's sarcasm, as it was my word a joke. You expect me to take your word while not taking mine? The two situations are identical, making it hypocritical.

The second quote is sarcasm

That was a joke

If your not taking my word it was a joke, I'm not taking your word it's sarcasm, making you leaving a contradiction in your "sarcastic" comment. I don't see any way of you showing it was sarcasm (ditto to my joke)...

Your insults suck.

That wasn't an insult, I feel when you rely on them to such a degree that you end up missing points and making errors it kind of defeats the purpose, no?

Missionaries? I've no problem with them really. Also, giving machine guns to these small tribes would of course be a problem (as if they'd be able to maintain them anyways), but this doesn't mean that they can't be exposed to the modern world (if only slowly), such as with a local settlement of civilised Europeans near a tribe engaging in trade and introducing them to more advanced technologies.

Nothing really to address, just your point of view... If you assimulate them into society, then it kind of destroys their culture, the stronger one will all ways remain dominant, leaving nothing left... Who says we have the right to change there culture on such a heavy level when there is a large gap of power.   

Saladin is correct.

Not even slightly.

He pointed out;

Stupid comment.

This is what I think of your comment.

That comment was sarcastic.

So was mine.

You are lying. I have "direct evidence" and you do not.
{See this is where he jumps the gun, I said I have as much evidence as Gon, not more, and I said that if Gono was going to dismiss my claim as a joke on the grounds that there was no evidence for my joke, he was doing the same thing leaving no evidence for his sarcastic comment, which I could then dismiss as well.}

My comment was also made in jest and I have "direct evidence" {No, he had implied evidence, you do know the difference between the two right..?}. You fail to realize it because you are stupid.

I proved that I was making a joke with my direct evidence but you have not {Again, try fucking reading things twice, I said I had equal evidence and certainly not empirical}. I have been privvy to the jokes all along, and you have been the butt of all of them. It is amazing how simple it was to trick you. Even now I laugh. It is impossible for you to defend yourself and I have no need to because this was a joke from the very beginning. {Not the beggining, but it was a trap from the "Stop equating biological processes to historical events and social changes; it's quite obvious you're trying to use evolution to justify your ideas of race (of course you were kidding when you called genetic inferiority!) and imperialism.}

You sir, failed to see what was happening, try reading before hacking together those half-wit insults, you look like a fool with the amount of errors made.


I also see absolutely no comments made referring to negative changes amercing in the evolution of man. Conceded the point have we?

You must be really bored.

You must be really bored.

Aren't we all? In depth debating involves many tactics, not just raw knowledge, you should know that. Discrediting your opponent is one of them. Non the less, I had fun. Thank you.

Of course life has value, but not in a global sense. My life has value to myself, and the people that care about me. That's all I really care about, so it doesn't really matter to me if there's a purpose or not. People that are so self-involved as to waste time arguing over whether or not life has meaning are missing the point. You should be enjoying what life you have now, because there's nothing else after this. Write a book, or start a band. Go on a trip to see something magnificent. We're all just dying until we're not, so we might as well enjoy the ride.

Aren't we all? In depth debating involves many tactics, not just raw knowledge, you should know that. Discrediting your opponent is one of them. Non the less, I had fun. Thank you.

Ah, but see you're not debating. You're just acting like a grade schooler and grabbing at straws.
Let's move on, shall we?

Lots of stuff.

You just won't let go, will you?

Aren't we all? In depth debating involves many tactics, not just raw knowledge, you should know that. Discrediting your opponent is one of them. Non the less, I had fun. Thank you.

Ah, but see you're not debating. You're just acting like a grade schooler and grabbing at straws.
Let's move on, shall we?

Your sadly covering your ears and singing a song. For someone who uses more ad hominems then any one your statement is hilarious!

Lots of stuff.

You just won't let go, will you?

And you can't admit defeat. Right, so by not countering my points that shows me to be wrong? How it stands I have two people who stopped debating when showed their errors, nothing more. If you can't continue please don't project your facetious debating skills onto me.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread after loS's post except to read the childish argument you've been having with gonorrhoea about who was telling a joke and who was being serious. You were both being equally stupid about the whole thing until you made a super huge giant post which was supposed to "defeat me" while gonorrhoea admitted he was being an idiot about it.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread after loS's post except to read the childish argument you've been having with gonorrhoea about who was telling a joke and who was being serious. You were both being equally stupid about the whole thing until you made a super huge giant post which was supposed to "defeat me" while gonorrhoea admitted he was being an idiot about the whole thing.

It wasn't to defeat you, it was to show that you where either making a biased remark because of your friendship with gono, or you had not clue as to what was going on and skimmed the posts in this topic, either way your opinion had no relevance to the case.

Gon admitted he was being an idiot where? Perhaps you would like to quote that unless this is more assumption due to your lack of attention.

Of course life has value, but not in a global sense. My life has value to myself, and the people that care about me. That's all I really care about, so it doesn't really matter to me if there's a purpose or not. People that are so self-involved as to waste time arguing over whether or not life has meaning are missing the point. You should be enjoying what life you have now, because there's nothing else after this. Write a book, or start a band. Go on a trip to see something magnificent. We're all just dying until we're not, so we might as well enjoy the ride.

This post stands as a beacon in a sea of stupidity of this page. Really, DS, shut the fuck up.

It wasn't to defeat you, it was to show that you where either making a biased remark because of your friendship with gono, or you had not clue as to what was going on and skimmed the posts in this topic, either way your opinion had no relevance to the case.

Gon admitted he was being an idiot where? Perhaps you would like to quote that unless this is more assumption due to your lack of attention.

It's more like I was pointing out how you two are acting like kids over something so stupid. The post I was originally going to write was much harsher on you because "That was a joke, couldn't you tell?" is the lamest excuse ever and your comments about having evidence are just as bad.

Gono admitted he was being stupid on IRC. Sorry, I don't save logs.

Aren't we all? In depth debating involves many tactics, not just raw knowledge, you should know that. Discrediting your opponent is one of them. Non the less, I had fun. Thank you.

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. In case you can't tell from the most recent posts, ad hominem is a logical fallacy for a reason. It's what idiots who aren't able to defeat an argument use instead of actually attacking the argument. "yeah, well Aristotle also slept with little boys. His theories must be wrong!"

It's not a legitimate form of debate. It's a pathetic attempt to gain support by ridiculing the other person, and ignoring the argument. Obviously, I am not accusing just you, pretty much everybody does it in ID. This crap is why I think ID should be a sub-forum of Spam. Since when is it okay to use recognized logical fallacies in an intelligent debate?

Whatever, I shouldn't be breaking my vow to not post in ID. I just couldn't resist a good opportunity to ridicule it.

This post stands as a beacon in a sea of stupidity of this page. Really, DS, shut the fuck up.

Other then trolling what the fuck are you doing right now? Is this what you do when you can't refute someones post? Scream like a sasquatch? That's not debating, that's pathetic gon.

I'm out, this topic has lost it~

Other then trolling what the fuck are you doing right now? Is this what you do when you can't refute someones post? Scream like a sasquatch? That's not debating, that's pathetic gon.

Right after a condemnation of ad hominems, too.