Grey Wolf hunting ban lifted [Archive]

pusher robot

28th February 2008, 00:12

I own two rifles, but I think hunters are *pussies*. A real man, who for some strange reason felt the need to hunt, would find another human with similar needs. They would arm themselves equally, get dropped off in the middle of nowhere, and proceed to hunt each other. Hunting an animal, while outfitted with a high powered rifle, a rifle scope, laser range finder, four wheel drive vehicle, and possibly a friggin' helicopter, well, that just ain't right. You might as well have a knifefight against a three year old.

Imagine the thrill of hunting someone who is hunting you?! While you are peering through your riflescope, he might be doing the same. Now, that's entertainment, and it doesn't involve Bambi who only wanted to nibble on some leaves.

Such people exist. They are known as "volunteer soldiers."

freakazoid

28th February 2008, 03:06

What are your thoughts.

If 3,000 is needed then it shouldn't of been lifted.

I own two rifles, but I think hunters are *pussies*.

I hunt for food, not for sport. Only 2 rifles? :p

Phalanx

28th February 2008, 03:54

This is good news. One of my dad's friends was coming out of the woods last fall after sitting on his deer stand and he was surrounded by three wolves. All he could do was swing his bow to try to scare them off. The animals are getting too bold, so pretty much everyone here in Wisconsin thinks its only a matter of time before they start attacking humans.

Phalanx

28th February 2008, 03:56

I own two rifles, but I think hunters are *pussies*. A real man, who for some strange reason felt the need to hunt, would find another human with similar needs. They would arm themselves equally, get dropped off in the middle of nowhere, and proceed to hunt each other. Hunting an animal, while outfitted with a high powered rifle, a rifle scope, laser range finder, four wheel drive vehicle, and possibly a friggin' helicopter, well, that just ain't right. You might as well have a knifefight against a three year old.

Imagine the thrill of hunting someone who is hunting you?! While you are peering through your riflescope, he might be doing the same. Now, that's entertainment, and it doesn't involve Bambi who only wanted to nibble on some leaves.

It's either hunters go out and control the animal population, or the animal population gets too big and starvation sets in.

last_angry_man

28th February 2008, 05:07

the animal population gets too big and starvation sets in.

hmmm... might the wolves (top line predators...) help keep the general animal population in line? We are many years away from anything resembling a surplus of wolves, they just aren't a hairs breadth away from extinction,as they were not too many years ago. The animals that do breed themselves into overpopulation circumstances would be better controlled by the natural process of the animal food chain than by letting hundreds of Elmer Fudds loose on the plains

I still think that anyone with a powerful need to shoot an animal should be a good sport and challenge his buddy to a human hunt.

Only 2 rifles?

I've only figured out how to shoot one at a time, so two seemed like plenty at first. A 30-06 bolt action w/ scope for the outdoor range and a 9mm carbine for the indoor range. But I've got a strong desire for a heavy barrelled .243win bolt gun for seriously long range [target] shooting. Every time I think that I can squirrel away enough cash for the new rifle, I realize that a gun like that is going to need a scope that costs possibly more than the gun. Then I give up any thoughts of a new rifle for a long time.

Phalanx

28th February 2008, 05:33

hmmm... might the wolves (top line predators...) help keep the general animal population in line? We are many years away from anything resembling a surplus of wolves, they just aren't a hairs breadth away from extinction,as they were not too many years ago. The animals that do breed themselves into overpopulation circumstances would be better controlled by the natural process of the animal food chain than by letting hundreds of Elmer Fudds loose on the plains

I still think that anyone with a powerful need to shoot an animal should be a good sport and challenge his buddy to a human hunt.

The wolves are definately doing their job in northern Wisconsin. In many areas deer herds have been wiped out due to wolf packs. When they were first introduced to Wisconsin the wolves would kill entire herds for the fun of it, leaving the herds to rot. Whats the difference between human hunters and wolves? Besides of course the vast majority of hunters don't leave deer corpses to rot.

So in reality, competition has now begun between humans and wolves for venison, and if you've ever had venison, you'd know why we want to keep the wolf population down.

MarxSchmarx

28th February 2008, 06:39

if you've ever had venison, you'd know why we want to keep the wolf population down.

Just get it from other parts of the country where the deer and antelope play. I know in Southeastern WI for instance they have a shitload of deer and no wolves. So they have to send out park rangers to kill them. Just eat their venison.

RGacky3

28th February 2008, 08:30

Jazzratt

28th February 2008, 11:44

The Notion that Humans need to control the Animal population is rediculous, Animals do just fine without Humans, Nature does a pretty good Job, Humans tend to ruin the flow of things a little more than Nature does.

That may have been true before we started artificially changing animal populations according to our needs, but it is no longer.

I say that the ban being lifted is fine if these creatures are indeed posing a threat to people, livestock & game. Also, reading that they were introduced to Wisconsin makes me think that the area would function (ecologically) perfectly well without these bastards.

Wolves can fuck off.

Mari3L

They should create a human/wolf hybrid similar to a werewolf,

We know from your avatar that you're a furry, there's no need to ram the point home.

arm it with mechanized rocket launchers and laser beam eyes.

And then make a movie after the carnage.

I'm of a different opinion, I believe that this self-same "they" should give you some heavy sedatives and take you to a home where the walls are soft and everyone's really friendly.

Or, require the hunters to spend six months in the bush with very few rations and no pre-built shelter, prior to hunting the wolves. Maybe then they'd have a small taste of what it takes to survive and the power that all creatures posses.

That's fucking stupid. You're judging "power to survive in the wilderness" all wrong - of course our strength doesn't lie in our raw physical abilities to hunt food, scavenge and survive the night; our abilities are greater even than that, because we can engineer our surroundings such that we no longer need to care about dodging predators or finding shelter. Wolves may have claws but we have bulldozers and concrete.

Dimentio

28th February 2008, 12:01

Wolves may have claws but we have bulldozers and concrete.

Yes, but foxes got tomahawk missiles :P

Nothing Human Is Alien

28th February 2008, 13:06

It seems this is a bit overdue. As I've pointed out in other threads, hunting and trapping are the best ways to manage animals in society today. Besides bringing in food and other resources (e.g. fur), the practice also teaches skills in firearms use, which can be very useful.

The latest issue of Fur-Fish-Game, covers this sensibly. What they have to say should be read, in contrast to the liberal crap pushed by some others here:

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved Wyoming's Gray Wolf Management Plan, opening the door for delisting the wolves from the Federal Endangered Species List and also the possibility of a state hunting season.

"The Service rejected Wyoming's original wolf plan in 2004. The state wildlife commission then worked with the Service to make several significant changes and also considered additional public comment before submitting the plan that was approved.

"Under the plan, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department will manage gray wolves in a portion of the state as trophy game animals. In the remaining portions of the state, the wolves will be classified as predatory animals. Self-sustaining populations will be maintained."

"To see the full text of the Service letter approving Wyoming's wolf plan, go to http://gf.state.wy.us

Interestingly enough, the same issue also carries an article pointing out that PETA killed more than 97% of the animals it took in for adoption in Virginia in 2006. The nuts could apparently only find 'homes' for 12 animals of the 3,061 it took in. It also notes that two PETA employees were arrested last year for dumping animal carcasses in North Carolina, and that in Virginia a PETA employee is currently facing charges for dognapping a hunting dog. In the article, David Mortesko of the Center for Consumer Freedom notes "PETA raised over $30 million last year, and it's using that money to kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees ever actually see. The scale of PETA's hypocrisy is simply staggering." I guess "animal rights" wackos only feel its appropriate to manage animal populations when they're the ones doing it.. :laugh:

Ele'ill

28th February 2008, 14:17

That may have been true before we started artificially changing animal populations according to our needs, but it is no longer.

I say that the ban being lifted is fine if these creatures are indeed posing a threat to people, livestock & game. Also, reading that they were introduced to Wisconsin makes me think that the area would function (ecologically) perfectly well without these bastards.

Wolves can fuck off.

I think the people, livestock and game are posing a threat to the wolf population.

We know from your avatar that you're a furry, there's no need to ram the point home.

Surprisingly I am not a furry although anything as smoking hot as a Chun Li-meerkat avatar better get you going unless you're slow.

I'm of a different opinion, I believe that this self-same "they" should give you some heavy sedatives and take you to a home where the walls are soft and everyone's really friendly.

I didn't expect anything different from you. Covering up the symptoms through sedation and ignoring the real problems. Are you sure you're not a capitalist?

That's fucking stupid. You're judging "power to survive in the wilderness" all wrong - of course our strength doesn't lie in our raw physical abilities to hunt food, scavenge and survive the night;

It used to have everything to do with those and in a way it still does. Surviving by any means necessary seems to be the new age model for human living. Self preservation through destruction.

our abilities are greater even than that, because we can engineer our surroundings such that we no longer need to care about dodging predators or finding shelter. Wolves may have claws but we have bulldozers and concrete.

I don't believe that we dominate as a species. We are extraordinarily self destructive. Dumping chemicals into our rivers and ocean is equivalent to shitting where we sleep.

*Edit: PETA makes me nauseous

Phalanx

28th February 2008, 17:01

Just get it from other parts of the country where the deer and antelope play. I know in Southeastern WI for instance they have a shitload of deer and no wolves. So they have to send out park rangers to kill them. Just eat their venison.

Have you ever heard of CWD? It's infecting many deer in southern Wisconsin, and with no wolves, it's extremely hard to bring the population down. The DNR literally wanted all deer in the Madison area (the eradication zone) to be killed so the disease didn't affect all of Wisconsin. Park Rangers alone can't be expected to bring the population down. Last year, in fact, my dad and I brought home 12 deer, and the area we hunted is still flooded.

So I ask, what's the difference between wolf hunters and human hunters?

I don't believe that we dominate as a species. We are extraordinarily self destructive. Dumping chemicals into our rivers and ocean is equivalent to shitting where we sleep.

Yes, we're hard on this earth, but what species would dominate if we don't?

pusher robot

28th February 2008, 17:27

Dumping chemicals into our rivers and ocean is equivalent to shitting where we sleep.

No it's not, it's equivalent to shitting in the rivers and the ocean. Bad as far as it goes, but no different than any other animal save for sheer scale.

Surviving by any means necessary seems to be the new age model for human living.

It's the model of living for every animal species that hasn't gone extinct, and most of the ones that have. There's nothing remotely human or new-age about it. What is both human and new-age is the attitude that survival is not worth any price. Self-eradication, with rare exception, is simply not practiced by animal species.

I don't believe that we dominate as a species.Your belief is delusional and wrong.

Ele'ill

29th February 2008, 04:09

No it's not, it's equivalent to shitting in the rivers and the ocean. Bad as far as it goes, but no different than any other animal save for sheer scale.

No other species relies on the amount of natural resources that we do (rivers, ocean, forests etc). We are destroying them. We are shitting on what we rely on.

It's the model of living for every animal species that hasn't gone extinct, and most of the ones that have.

I figured this would be misunderstood. What I meant is that humans will destroy their own physical and emotional/mental environment in order to survive or better yet, preserve a self created culture or belief.

Your belief is delusional and wrong.

No it isn't. Every species dominates in its own way. I just think that humans are the only species that is intentionally conscious of its survival talents.

MarxSchmarx

29th February 2008, 04:34

Have you ever heard of CWD? It's infecting many deer in southern Wisconsin, and with no wolves, it's extremely hard to bring the population down. The DNR literally wanted all deer in the Madison area (the eradication zone) to be killed so the disease didn't affect all of Wisconsin. Park Rangers alone can't be expected to bring the population down. Last year, in fact, my dad and I brought home 12 deer, and the area we hunted is still flooded.

So I ask, what's the difference between wolf hunters and human hunters?

Well, this was my point. If people had gone out and shot bambi earlier before it got out of hand, there'd a been plenty of venison for all before the food supply got contaminated.

Still, if the hunters or the wolves don't get to them, PrP^CWD sure will.

Jazzratt

2nd March 2008, 04:42

I figured this would be misunderstood. What I meant is that humans will destroy their own physical and emotional/mental environment in order to survive or better yet, preserve a self created culture or belief.

You're full of shit. Humans engineer their environment and whatever problems arise from their doing so will be rectified through further engineering. That is how we have come to dominate.

No it isn't. Every species dominates in its own way. I just think that humans are the only species that is intentionally conscious of its survival talents.

That's because our survival talents are almost entirely all encompassing. If it's too hot where we are, we have air conditioning, too cold and we have radiators and in space or the deep sea we have spaceships and submarines. What the fuck do wolves have? An Advantage when we're naked and in their homeland?

last_angry_man

3rd March 2008, 01:31

Humans engineer their environment and whatever problems arise from their doing so will be rectified through further engineering. That is how we have come to dominate.

And it all works out just fine, with no problems... yeah, sure...you betcha

I'm an engineer who has spent most of my 20+ year career working on fixes to problems caused by our technology:
5 years on pollution control, 7 years on retrofitting buildings that will not survive an earthquake, and almost 10 years trying to solve the problem of urban transportation in a country that has a natural bias against public transportation. We're lucky if our technology has a net negligible impact on the earth but I fear that we are actually having a significantly negative impact. And this is a direct result of our wonderful technoloy.

Go Green! And support the radical environmental groups!

Ele'ill

3rd March 2008, 16:12

You're full of shit. Humans engineer their environment and whatever problems arise from their doing so will be rectified through further engineering. That is how we have come to dominate.

Your future-esque word usage and tense in 'will be rectified through further engineering' make you sound like someone that relies entirely on theory and historical evidence.
BTW, I'm an amateur astronomer from earth and am curious as to which planet you're writing from.

That's because our survival talents are almost entirely all encompassing.

We have come a long way from being able to survive comfortably in the bush for decades at a time. Now we cannot even survive in a world which we have completely created for our own use. We are not only struggling to survive in this world that we have created but we are killing off nearly every species on the planet while doing so. Yes, we as humans ARE all encompassing.

If it's too hot where we are, we have air conditioning, too cold and we have radiators and in space or the deep sea we have spaceships and submarines.

Many species have biological temperature regulators that control the temperature for them. The ocean is full of life. The difference is that humans have gone places they weren't supposed to go which often times leads to destruction of the visited area. The error is in the destruction not the visiting.

What the fuck do wolves have? An Advantage when we're naked and in their homeland?

Naked? Oh yes, we have developed clothes but often times we need cheap labor to produce the clothes so we resort to child labor which is a form of slavery. All of which keeps us from freezing to death in the colder months.

My point isn't so much that humans lack the potential for great things but that we are simply destroying everything around us in an attempt to find temporary happiness.

ÑóẊîöŉ

3rd March 2008, 17:32

And it all works out just fine, with no problems... yeah, sure...you betcha

I'm an engineer who has spent most of my 20+ year career working on fixes to problems caused by our technology:
5 years on pollution control, 7 years on retrofitting buildings that will not survive an earthquake, and almost 10 years trying to solve the problem of urban transportation in a country that has a natural bias against public transportation. We're lucky if our technology has a net negligible impact on the earth but I fear that we are actually having a significantly negative impact. And this is a direct result of our wonderful technoloy.

You contradict yourself. On one hand you insinuate that humans are incapable of fixing problems with your sarcastic response to Jazzratt, but you then go on to describe your career where you actually worked to improve matters.

Humans are not perfect, and we are not going to get everything right on the first try. But our intelligence and proficiency with tools enables to fix any problems we create.

Your future-esque word usage and tense in 'will be rectified through further engineering' make you sound like someone that relies entirely on theory and historical evidence.
BTW, I'm an amateur astronomer from earth and am curious as to which planet you're writing from.

What's wrong with historical evidence?

We have come a long way from being able to survive comfortably in the bush for decades at a time. Now we cannot even survive in a world which we have completely created for our own use.Six billion humans and counting would like to disagree with you. The human race is having no problems surviving at the moment - if anything, there are too many of us.

We are not only struggling to survive in this world that we have created but we are killing off nearly every species on the planet while doing so.Cutting the hyperbole and sticking to the facts will do wonders for your credibility.

Many species have biological temperature regulators that control the temperature for them. The ocean is full of life. The difference is that humans have gone places they weren't supposed to go which often times leads to destruction of the visited area.Humans aren't "supposed" to go anywhere, as evolution is an unthinking process that has no purpose.

Our evolutionary adaptation to extreme temperatures was not to develop fur or reflective skins, but to have an intelligence great enough to create things like central heating, air conditioning, etc.

Naked? Oh yes, we have developed clothes but often times we need cheap labor to produce the clothes so we resort to child labor which is a form of slavery. All of which keeps us from freezing to death in the colder months.

My point isn't so much that humans lack the potential for great things but that we are simply destroying everything around us in an attempt to find temporary happiness.And your alternative is what, precisely? I can see only routes that humans as a civilisation can go - improve civilisation, or revert to savagery.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to contemplate which is the better option.

last_angry_man

3rd March 2008, 17:42

We're lucky if our technology has a net negligible impact on the earth but I fear that we are actually having a significantly negative impact. And this is a direct result of our wonderful technoloy.

You contradict yourself. On one hand you insinuate that humans are incapable of fixing problems with your sarcastic response to Jazzratt, but you then go on to describe your career where you actually worked to improve matters.

You must have missed the last sentence where I concluded (based on my 20+ years experience) that the net impact of our technology is NEGATIVE, even if we have been able to mitigate some of the impacts of our wasteful ways.

ÑóẊîöŉ

3rd March 2008, 17:52

You must have missed the last sentence where I concluded (based on my 20+ years experience) that the net impact of our technology is NEGATIVE, even if we have been able to mitigate some of the impacts of our wasteful ways.

Your conclusion is quite simply wrong. A couple of centuries ago, dying of a rotten tooth was considered normal. For those of us lucky enough to live in the developed world, one can expect lifespans and a quality of life unparalelled a mere two hundred years ago. The rest of the world is not so lucky - but the only reason they suffer is because they do not have the same access to the cornucopia of modern technologies that greatly improve life.

The answer is not to abolish technology and immiserate everyone, but to work towards a world where everyone enjoys the benefits of science and technology.

Jazzratt

3rd March 2008, 18:06

You must have missed the last sentence where I concluded (based on my 20+ years experience) that the net impact of our technology is NEGATIVE, even if we have been able to mitigate some of the impacts of our wasteful ways.

What, then, do you suggest? Regression of technology? The self same technology that millions of people require to live? Would it not be more sensible to improve our technologies rather than simply "revert to savagery"?

Going "green" does not entail wantonly abandoning human progress, on the contrary it necessitates supporting such progress as we develop ever more sustainable technologies.

Mari3L

Well NoXion is pretty much wiping the floor with you, but there are a few things I want to add:

We have come a long way from being able to survive comfortably in the bush for decades at a time. Now we cannot even survive in a world which we have completely created for our own use.

I think you're trying to confuse the issue by arguing that because we survive by using tools rather than our bodies we are somehow "not surviving". This is bollocks. Where other animals may survive by burrowing underground, we have built houses but the principle is exactly the same. Where a wolf may use its claws and wits to hunt animals we either change the environment in such a way as to not need to hunt (by farming other creatures) or we use these wonderful devices called "rifles" or "shotguns". Hell, we did exactly the same type of thing when we were "surviving in the bush for decades at a time" - only we only knew how to make simple hunting tools rather than the more extravagant ones we use today.

Naked? Oh yes, we have developed clothes but often times we need cheap labor to produce the clothes so we resort to child labor which is a form of slavery. All of which keeps us from freezing to death in the colder months.

Don't dodge the fucking point you cumsmear. Saying that, when deprived of the means of survival that humanity has evolved with or created (extelligence, intelligence, tools, society and the like) a human can't survive in a habitat it hasn't been in for very long (temperate forests) and is therefore inferior to wolves is really quite moronic. Taking a lone grey wolf (depriving it of its pack), removing its teeth and claws (the methods it uses to hunt prey) and dumping it in the Savannah is exactly the same as what you were suggesting we do with humans.

Attacking the clothing industry is just an asinine strawman. Clothing isn't the reason that child labour is used, capitalism is.

last_angry_man

3rd March 2008, 18:24

Going "green" does not entail wantonly abandoning human progress, on the contrary it necessitates supporting such progress as we develop ever more sustainable technologies.

No, "Green" means not jumping ahead of yourselves without any consideration for the impact of your actions. Better to act with consideration for your environment, rather than always fucking things up and then trying to fix them later.

And the BS about tooth decay was completely illogical...
The Green position would be to try and fix the tooth without sending the hygenist to her death from running the Xray machine all day.

ÑóẊîöŉ

3rd March 2008, 18:54

No, "Green" means not jumping ahead of yourselves without any consideration for the impact of your actions. Better to act with consideration for your environment, rather than always fucking things up and then trying to fix them later.

That's impossible. We can never predict the full consequences of our actions. Therefore we have to take risks in order to progress, and sometimes the risks we take will come back and bite us in the ass. What's important is the motivation to correct past mistakes.

Not to mention the fact that risk assessment differs from person to person and organisation to organisation.

And the BS about tooth decay was completely illogical...
The Green position would be to try and fix the tooth without sending the hygenist to her death from running the Xray machine all day.

That's why we have things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection, dickwipe.

last_angry_man

3rd March 2008, 20:06

That's why we have things like....

which substantiates my argument in the 1st half of your last post. You can't have it both ways.

Ele'ill

3rd March 2008, 23:03

What's wrong with historical evidence?

Oops, I forgot the. [/endsarcasm] :rolleyes:

Six billion humans and counting would like to disagree with you. The human race is having no problems surviving at the moment -

if anything, there are too many of us.

Having the technology to prevent death can be a bad thing. Overpopulation and such. An over population will lead to a lack of resources. It has already begun and will continue to get worse.

Cutting the hyperbole and sticking to the facts will do wonders for your credibility.

We are destroying ecosystems. We are making a lot of species go extinct with our actions.

Humans aren't "supposed" to go anywhere, as evolution is an unthinking process that has no purpose.

We don't have gills and we don't have fins. We are not supposed to be under water for long periods of time. We created objects that help us over these hurdles. In achieving what we perceive to be great leaps in technology we are actually destroying the areas we visit. (Ocean, space, etc)

Our evolutionary adaptation to extreme temperatures was not to develop fur or reflective skins, but to have an intelligence great enough to create things like central heating, air conditioning, etc.

We have been reckless with our technology. This doesn't need any more of an explanation.

And your alternative is what, precisely? I can see only routes that humans as a civilisation can go - improve civilisation, or revert to savagery.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to contemplate which is the better option.

An improved civilization that destroys or runs out of resources because of reckless 'policy' is not civilization but a whoring and masturbatory celebration of its own capabilities.

I think you're trying to confuse the issue by arguing that because we survive by using tools rather than our bodies we are somehow "not surviving"

I think we rely too heavily on something (technology) that is destroying the earth. That is what I said in the simplest of forms. Now that you hopefully understand what I'm talking about we can debate further if you wish.

Don't dodge the fucking point you cumsmear. Saying that, when deprived of the means of survival that humanity has evolved with or created (extelligence, intelligence, tools, society and the like) a human can't survive in a habitat it hasn't been in for very long (temperate forests) and is therefore inferior to wolves is really quite moronic.

Thank you for calling me names. That means I've hit a nerve and saves me the trouble of assuming you are over the age of fifteen. The more you know! ;)

This habitat that you speak of is all around us and its called earth. I can survive in a forest and I think its sad that you can't. I also know how to use a computer and drive a car.

My point was that humans have survived by enslaving and mistreating itself as a species and by some how managing to destroy the resources that are now becoming scarce.

Taking a lone grey wolf (depriving it of its pack), removing its teeth and claws (the methods it uses to hunt prey) and dumping it in the Savannah is exactly the same as what you were suggesting we do with humans.

Where did I say this? If you mean at the beginning of this thread where in the same paragraph I was talking about creating mechanized werewolves with rocket launchers then you might not want to take things so literally.

Attacking the clothing industry is just an asinine strawman. Clothing isn't the reason that child labour is used, capitalism is.

Slavery isn't a new concept and its been around longer than your beloved capitalism. Slaves were used to construct cities, clothes, rugs, etc in other civilizations long before capitalism.

My point was that humans destroy in order to create things for themselves.

Well NoXion is pretty much wiping the floor with you, but there are a few things I want to add:

Ah yes, I bet he said all the things that you were going to say in response but didn't. :rolleyes: I'm glad you're an apprentice to someone. Maybe you won't turn out too bad after all.

Jazzratt

3rd March 2008, 23:28

I think we rely too heavily on something (technology) that is destroying the earth.

Technolgoy isn't destroying the earth, the Earth is a pretty fucking robust place. Irresponsible and inefficient use of technology is making the Earth less habitat for a lot of the creatures currently living on it (yes that includes humans). Don't worry if you don't understand this, I understand that having an IQ more commonly associated with fiddler crabs means you'll probably be unable to recognise things like "fine distinction" or "nuance".

That is what I said in the simplest of forms. Now that you hopefully understand what I'm talking about we can debate further if you wish.

You spewing hysterical green-fundamentalist claptrap (no doubt with foam dripping from your mouth onto your foul, unwashed hands as they batter away at the keyboard.) while being proven wrong isn't really much of a "debate".

Thank you for calling me names.

You're hearitly welcome.

That means I've hit a nerve and saves me the trouble of assuming you are over the age of fifteen. The more you know! ;)

0/10 for originality and 3/10 for style of delivery. Even if I were angry or under 15 that wouldn't make me any less right and it wouldn't make you any less of a ****.

This habitat that you speak of is all around us and its called earth. I can survive in a forest and I think its sad that you can't.

I don't need to survive in a forest, I live in a house and the forests near where I live have clearly marked tracks and decent mobile phone signals. This however is beside the point; my point with the "habitat" comment is simply that it is obvious we originate in a much warmer area (given that we aren't covered head to toe in fur and deal much more efficiently with heat than cold when in our "natural state".).

I also know how to use a computer and drive a car.

Your mother must be so proud.

My point was that humans have survived by enslaving and mistreating itself as a species and by some how managing to destroy the resources that are now becoming scarce.

Then your point is rubbish, fuck off and make a better one.

Slavery isn't a new concept and its been around longer than your beloved capitalism.

This one confused me for a while, then I remembered you're one of those contemptible little shoulder biters that believes a support for technology is a support for capitalism or some equally cockeyed shite.

Slaves were used to construct cities, clothes, rugs, etc in other civilizations long before capitalism.

This doesn't mean that a city, item of clothing, rug or whatever is a necessarily evil object though.

My point was that humans destroy in order to create things for themselves.

You're either lying or stupid. Given your track record I'm giving good odds on it being the latter.

Ah yes, I bet he said all the things that you were going to say in response but didn't. :rolleyes:

Pretty much. He also made some points I had not thought of, as happens when someone who is ideologically very similar to you posts before you do.

I'm glad you're an apprentice to someone. Maybe you won't turn out too bad after all.

Do you work on coming up with saying things this astoundingly stupid or does it just flow naturally?

Bud Struggle

3rd March 2008, 23:37

Mari!

I think you're a sweetie! :D

Call me a Reactionary (which I am,) but I don't think a woman shoud ever be disrespected. Disagreed with, sure--but not disrespected.

Ele'ill

3rd March 2008, 23:57

Technolgoy isn't destroying the earth, the Earth is a pretty fucking robust place. Irresponsible and inefficient use of technology is making the Earth less habitat for a lot of the creatures currently living on it (yes that includes humans).

When you start to dismantle an ecosystem everything is affected. I first learned this in kindergarten. I'm glad you finally agree.

Don't worry if you don't understand this, I understand that having an IQ more commonly associated with fiddler crabs means you'll probably be unable to recognise things like "fine distinction" or "nuance".

Lame.;)

You spewing hysterical green-fundamentalist claptrap (no doubt with foam dripping from your mouth onto your foul, unwashed hands as they batter away at the keyboard.) while being proven wrong isn't really much of a "debate".

That is what I said in the simplest of forms. Now that you hopefully understand what I'm talking about we can debate further if you wish.

You have yet to actually respond.

You're hearitly welcome.

*Heartily (the fiddler crabs are laughing not at your spelling but at the irony)

0/10 for originality and 3/10 for style of delivery. Even if I were angry or under 15 that wouldn't make me any less right and it wouldn't make you any less of a ****.

You attacked me personally because you couldn't debate the issue. I just pointed out that what you wrote seemed immature and off topic. (You just did it again)

I don't need to survive in a forest, I live in a house and the forests near where I live have clearly marked tracks and decent mobile phone signals. This however is beside the point; my point with the "habitat" comment is simply that it is obvious we originate in a much warmer area (given that we aren't covered head to toe in fur and deal much more efficiently with heat than cold when in our "natural state".).

I was stating that I can still survive in a forest.

Your mother must be so proud.

I never really thought about it.

Then your point is rubbish, fuck off and make a better one.

You're going to have to try harder than that to discredit a point of view. I am willing to change my view on this issue. You are doing nothing more than yelling swear words at me. (*cue fiddler crabs)

This one confused me for a while, then I remembered you're one of those contemptible little shoulder biters that believes a support for technology is a support for capitalism or some equally cockeyed shite.

No, let me 'un-confuse' you, again. Humans enslave their own species. You were stating that :

Attacking the clothing industry is just an asinine strawman. Clothing isn't the reason that child labour is used, capitalism is

I was setting the appropriate time line.

This doesn't mean that a city, item of clothing, rug or whatever is a necessarily evil object though.

I never said the objects were evil. In fact, this is a non-issue. I might as well respond to the inner social workings of elephant behavior and how it affects vultures. :rolleyes:

You're either lying or stupid. Given your track record I'm giving good odds on it being the latter.

The fiddler crabs have thrown their bodies into the gears of your machine, you have been demoted to a decaying plankton fetus.

Pretty much. He also made some points I had not thought of, as happens when someone who is ideologically very similar to you posts before you do.

:D

Do you work on coming up with saying things this astoundingly stupid or does it just flow naturally?

I pointed out that you obviously look up to Noxion. What's the issue?

Ele'ill

4th March 2008, 00:21

Mari!

I think you're a sweetie! :D

Call me a Reactionary (which I am,) but I don't think a woman shoud ever be disrespected. Disagreed with, sure--but not disrespected.

Just to clarify, I could insult Jazzrat until he kills himself. Seeing how I'm already a Restricted member it would be considered trolling and I'd get banned. On the flip side of things, I don't really consider Jazzrat's insults to be anything more than a result of frustration. He is more than a little immature. ;)

Bud Struggle

4th March 2008, 00:51

Just to clarify, I could insult Jazzrat until he kills himself. Seeing how I'm already a Restricted member it would be considered trolling and I'd get banned.

So you can't insult Jazzrat--or else you'd get banned. But Jazzrat could insult a woman all he wants and he's a Hero of the Revolution. :thumbup1:

BTW: I'm not trying to be unfair here. I just think Jazzrat is being rude for no reason. We can always do a "hurray for our side" in debates, but there is no reason to be mean to anyone--especially a woman. I can't believe deliberate nastiness is is a Communist point of view from someone in a position of power.

Jazzratt

4th March 2008, 17:56

When you start to dismantle an ecosystem everything is affected. I first learned this in kindergarten. I'm glad you finally agree.

That's never been a point of contention, prick, so why the fuck say something stupid like "I'm glad you finally agree"?

*Heartily (the fiddler crabs are laughing not at your spelling but at the irony)

Are you American? That'd probably explain why you don't understand how irony works.

I was stating that I can still survive in a forest.

Would you like a medal?

No, let me 'un-confuse' you, again. Humans enslave their own species.

This is nothing to do with technology nor the human condition, we do not need slavery to sustain us.

I was setting the appropriate time line.

Right, so all the modes of production between Primitive Communism and a given future production method (say Communist Technocracy or whatever) are complete crap. Marxists have been aware of this for some time, the same goes for class struggle anarchists and the rest of the left. What is the point you're trying to make?

I never said the objects were evil. In fact, this is a non-issue.

This is the issue. You are condemning technology but have yet to prove anything about it is insidious.

I might as well respond to the inner social workings of elephant behavior and how it affects vultures. :rolleyes:

You could well do, you might even sound less batshit. :D

The fiddler crabs have thrown their bodies into the gears of your machine, you have been demoted to a decaying plankton fetus.

I can't decide if you're mixing metaphors or just being weird.

I pointed out that you obviously look up to Noxion. What's the issue?

Cards on the table. NoXion is a good friend of mine with whom I agree, it is natural then for a healthy sense of respect to develop, no?

TomK

So you can't insult Jazzrat--or else you'd get banned. But Jazzrat could insult a woman all he wants and he's a Hero of the Revolution. :thumbup1:

Why are you fixating on what chromosome arrangement Mari3L has? I didn't even know, nor really care what it is because it has nothing to do with the fact I think she's batshit insane.

BTW: I'm not trying to be unfair here. I just think Jazzrat is being rude for no reason.

I'm generally rude to people who I think are contemptible cretins. This is a reason.

I can't believe deliberate nastiness is is a Communist point of view from someone in a position of power.

Deliberate nastiness is not a point of view, it's a character trait and it has fuck all to do with communism. Not everything in our lives is based on the "communist point of view", I didn't decide what kind of Sandwhich I wanted today because there's a section on Sandwhiches in Das Kapital and I don't decide whether or not I think someone is enough of a prick to insult because there's a paragraph on it in one of Hooton's essays.

Whether you think the nastiness is deserved or not is really your problem, but it's not a communist thing.

(As for "position of power" I've maintained a consistent posting style since being a complete newbie on here, and as I have pointed out several times before moderating a forum is more about responsibility than power.)

Entrails Konfetti

4th March 2008, 18:05

pusher robot

4th March 2008, 18:26

Those of you who are saying that we must control the wolf population otherwize animals starve (especially you cappies), should stick to you're own Smithist logic that populations control themselves. There may be starvation, but the wolves will rise again, then decrease, and so on.

But I guess allowing populations to control themselves only is subject to humans.

I'm extremely confused as to what point you think you are making. Are you attempting to argue that capitalists are inconsistent for not granting rights to animals? Are you attempting to argue that human population is not managed similar to animal population? Please clarify.

ÑóẊîöŉ

4th March 2008, 18:33

Having the technology to prevent death can be a bad thing. Overpopulation and such. An over population will lead to a lack of resources. It has already begun and will continue to get worse.

Which is why I support a global increase in living conditions. Birthrates decrease as quality of life goes up - notice that the countries with the longest average lifespan also tend to be the countries with the better living conditions.

Cheating death in a meaningful manner is likely to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the quality of life. Indeed, in some wealthy countries birthrates are below replacement levels, and in such a situation life-extending technologies can only be a good thing.

We are destroying ecosystems. We are making a lot of species go extinct with our actions.

Damaging =/= destroying. As for species going extinct, we should do our best to avoid that, but not at the expense of the human species. No other species looks out for anything other than it's own interests, so why should we?

We don't have gills and we don't have fins. We are not supposed to be under water for long periods of time. We created objects that help us over these hurdles. In achieving what we perceive to be great leaps in technology we are actually destroying the areas we visit. (Ocean, space, etc)

The main threat to marine ecodiversity are the vast fishing fleets that sweep the oceans clean - this is because our level of aquaculture is astoundingly primitive - in fact, it is merely the equivalent of hunter-gathering on a large scale. The problem is not that our marine science is too advanced, but it is too primitive. We need to farm the seas, not simply scale up ancient methods.

And please explain how we are "destroying" space, which doesn't even have any life in it.

We have been reckless with our technology. This doesn't need any more of an explanation.

Then we need to be more willing to deal with past mistakes. Reverting to savagery ain't an option.

An improved civilization that destroys or runs out of resources because of reckless 'policy' is not civilization but a whoring and masturbatory celebration of its own capabilities.

What is this, the Word Redefinition Game? Resources are useless unless exploited - uranium left in the ground won't power reactors. As long as there are suitable replacement resources, there's no problem in using up any particular kind of resource - nobody will mourn the passing of coal if there's plenty of uranium to take it's place.

Entrails Konfetti

4th March 2008, 18:48

I'm extremely confused as to what point you think you are making. Are you attempting to argue that capitalists are inconsistent for not granting rights to animals? Are you attempting to argue that human population is not managed similar to animal population? Please clarify.

I'm saying it's inconsistent that we are to externally control the animal population, when Darwin, Smith and so on said that populations control themselves internally accordingly to the resources available for their survival.

I don't see the logic behind hunting in the west, except that it has roots in the past, and in the present, profitable.

pusher robot

4th March 2008, 20:09

I'm saying it's inconsistent that we are to externally control the animal population, when Darwin, Smith and so on said that populations control themselves internally accordingly to the resources available for their survival.

I don't see the logic behind hunting in the west, except that it has roots in the past, and in the present, profitable.

I don't see it as inconsistent at all. Evolutionary theory is not an ethical theory telling us how we should manage populations, it's an explanatory theory telling us how populations occur in an unmanaged environment.

There no reason I can see, based on evolutionary theory, why humans should not manage the animal populations to best please humans.

Ele'ill

5th March 2008, 04:36

That's never been a point of contention, prick, so why the fuck say something stupid like "I'm glad you finally agree"?

You quoted it and I responded to it.

This is nothing to do with technology nor the human condition, we do not need slavery to sustain us.

In order to maintain our current economy we rely on practices such as child labor, wage slavery and the use of sweat shops.

Right, so all the modes of production between Primitive Communism and a given future production method (say Communist Technocracy or whatever) are complete crap. Marxists have been aware of this for some time, the same goes for class struggle anarchists and the rest of the left. What is the point you're trying to make?

Originally Posted by jazzrat;
Attacking the clothing industry is just an asinine strawman. Clothing isn't the reason that child labour is used, capitalism is

This is the issue. You are condemning technology but have yet to prove anything about it is insidious.

I have not condemned technology. If anything I've hinted at how its use is causing problems with our environment.

Damaging =/= destroying. As for species going extinct, we should do our best to avoid that, but not at the expense of the human species. No other species looks out for anything other than it's own interests, so why should we?

We should because we have that capability. We are also the only species that is destroying or damaging entire ecosystems at such a fast rate.

The main threat to marine ecodiversity are the vast fishing fleets that sweep the oceans clean - this is because our level of aquaculture is astoundingly primitive - in fact, it is merely the equivalent of hunter-gathering on a large scale. The problem is not that our marine science is too advanced, but it is too primitive. We need to farm the seas, not simply scale up ancient methods.

And please explain how we are "destroying" space, which doesn't even have any life in it.

Over-fishing is a problem, I agree. Pollution is a larger problem. Fish farms would be pretty neat as long as they weren't genetically modified :D

Space is being destroyed. Yeah I know that sounds odd but with the hole in the ozone layer growing and all the test launches of stuff it makes me a bit queasy.

Then we need to be more willing to deal with past mistakes. Reverting to savagery ain't an option.

Making the mistakes isn't an option. I don't see many of these mistakes as little. Some are very extreme.

What is this, the Word Redefinition Game?

What?

Resources are useless unless exploited - uranium left in the ground won't power reactors. As long as there are suitable replacement resources, there's no problem in using up any particular kind of resource - nobody will mourn the passing of coal if there's plenty of uranium to take it's place.

Oil, coal, water etc can run out. The world is filled with people that need these resources. Maybe the over consumption of these resources is a problem and maybe it isn't but the bi products of these substances (excluding water) are toxic.

I have simplified my responses so that this can hopefully wind back down to a few issues and not cover every sub category.

ÑóẊîöŉ

5th March 2008, 17:27

Over-fishing is a problem, I agree. Pollution is a larger problem. Fish farms would be pretty neat as long as they weren't genetically modified

What's wrong with genetic modification? We should use every tool at our disposal.

Space is being destroyed. Yeah I know that sounds odd but with the hole in the ozone layer growing and all the test launches of stuff it makes me a bit queasy.

The ozone layer forms part of the atmosphere, not space you scientific illiterate.

Making the mistakes isn't an option. I don't see many of these mistakes as little. Some are very extreme.

I'm sorry, but humans are imperfect beings and as a result it is inevitable that we make mistakes. Therefore it is in our own self-interest to correct such mistakes.

What?

You provided a definition of civilisation not in accordance with the dictionary. You were redefining the word for your own rhetorical purposes. Quite dishonest really.

Oil, coal, water etc can run out. The world is filled with people that need these resources. Maybe the over consumption of these resources is a problem and maybe it isn't but the bi products of these substances (excluding water) are toxic.

And so we should manage waste products and practice water reclamation. The idea that we should revert to simple, "sustainable" methods is simply a modern form of Puritanism. The answer is to improve efficiency overall and improve our technology, not to become eco-ascetics.

Ele'ill

6th March 2008, 04:30

What's wrong with genetic modification? We should use every tool at our disposal.

There have been issues with GMO in the past. A GM Orange contains half the nutrients that an organic orange has. I imagine this will change in time if it has not already.

The ozone layer forms part of the atmosphere, not space you scientific illiterate.

Its close enough to space and with nuclear weapons and satellites and every form of fuel imaginable being tested in rocket launches it makes me queasy.

I'm sorry, but humans are imperfect beings and as a result it is inevitable that we make mistakes. Therefore it is in our own self-interest to correct such mistakes.

Assuming this hasn't happened already, it is only a matter of time before we make a mistake that we either cannot correct in time or correct at all. As humans we often discover, create and test scientific 'things' (theories, weapons, whatever) that we do not fully understand yet.

You provided a definition of civilisation not in accordance with the dictionary. You were redefining the word for your own rhetorical purposes. Quite dishonest really.

1 a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b: the culture characteristic of a particular time or place2: the process of becoming civilized (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilized)3 a: refinement of thought, manners, or taste b: a situation of urban comfort

An improved civilization that destroys or runs out of resources because of reckless 'policy' is not civilization but a whoring and masturbatory celebration of its own capabilities.

You said 'improve civilisation or revert to savagery'
Pick which ever usage you want, they all work in regards to what I said.

And so we should manage waste products and practice water reclamation. The idea that we should revert to simple, "sustainable" methods is simply a modern form of Puritanism. The answer is to improve efficiency overall and improve our technology, not to become eco-ascetics.

There is a difference between watching how much we use and becoming eco-ascetic. There is also a difference between watching how much we use and not doing enough to prevent over consumption.

Jazzratt

7th March 2008, 13:36

In order to maintain our current economy we rely on practices such as child labor, wage slavery and the use of sweat shops.

Well done. What the fuck does this have to do with me as someone who does not advocate the current economy?

I have not condemned technology. If anything I've hinted at how its use is causing problems with our environment.

"I'm not condemning technology, just saying it's bad"? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Ele'ill

7th March 2008, 17:16

Well done. What the fuck does this have to do with me as someone who does not advocate the current economy?

I believe my original point was that humans are destructive and are the only species that enslaves their own. Slavery has been around long before capitalism. You not advocating the current economy is a non-issue. Regardless of what you think, the majority of the people in the world seem to be content with slavery. (Wage slave, child labor, sweatshops, etc)
You still contribute to the problem. You cannot avoid it.

"I'm not condemning technology, just saying it's bad"? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Hinting that some of what we're doing to our environment might have irreversible consequences is a world apart from :....

1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation <a policy widely condemned as racist>2 a: to pronounce guilty : convict (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convict) b: sentence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentence), doom (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doom) <condemn a prisoner to die>3: to adjudge unfit for use or consumption <condemn an old apartment building>

ÑóẊîöŉ

7th March 2008, 18:18

There have been issues with GMO in the past.

All technologies have issues. The correct response is to deal with the issues, not abandon the technology wholesale.

A GM Orange contains half the nutrients that an organic orange has. I imagine this will change in time if it has not already.

I'd be interested in a source for that statement, but even if that was the case, genetic modification is a fairly primitive science and is bound to improve if allowed to do so.

Its close enough to space and with nuclear weapons and satellites and every form of fuel imaginable being tested in rocket launches it makes me queasy.

Welcome to Paranoia, population You. What do you actually base these feelings of queasiness on, apart from your unacknowledged technophobia?

Assuming this hasn't happened already, it is only a matter of time before we make a mistake that we either cannot correct in time or correct at all. As humans we often discover, create and test scientific 'things' (theories, weapons, whatever) that we do not fully understand yet.

And so far it has served us well. I see no reason why this should change.

You said 'improve civilisation or revert to savagery'
Pick which ever usage you want, they all work in regards to what I said.

:rolleyes: A civilisation that mismanages resources is still a civilisation, just a bad one. Get this through your head; there is nothing wrong with using up a resource completely if one has an adequate supply of alternatives and/or one's not going to need said resource for much longer. Leaving resources that can otherwise be utilised "just because" is utterly nonsensical.

There is a difference between watching how much we use and becoming eco-ascetic. There is also a difference between watching how much we use and not doing enough to prevent over consumption.

That would depend on your definition of "over consumption".

superwog

8th March 2008, 10:01

Its a shame that animals with such beauty like the grey wolf should now be hunted, if people have the need to hunt HUNT NAZIS

Jazzratt

8th March 2008, 15:51

I believe my original point was that humans are destructive and are the only species that enslaves their own.

Typical anti-human rhetoric, if you fucking hate humans so much just do us all a favour and hang yourself.

Slavery has been around long before capitalism.

There's a thread in the Religion forum about Catholicism at the moment, why don't you tell everyone there that the Pope is a Catholic?

Regardless of what you think, the majority of the people in the world seem to be content with slavery. (Wage slave, child labor, sweatshops, etc)
You still contribute to the problem. You cannot avoid it.

"Contributing to the problem" is neither here nor there. If I ceased to do so the problem would still be there and it wouldn't be any better, and it's no worse thanks to my "contribution". Again, at least I am trying to advocate positive change, whereas you seem content to simply take the "humans are evil, grrr" moral high ground.

Hinting that some of what we're doing to our environment might have irreversible consequences is a world apart from :....

1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation <a policy widely condemned as racist>2 a: to pronounce guilty : convict (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convict) b: sentence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentence), doom (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doom) <condemn a prisoner to die>3: to adjudge unfit for use or consumption <condemn an old apartment building>

Stop wanking about with semantics. It's obvious that you consider the environmental damage caused by technology to be inherent to it, and you have a strong conviction that it is damaging the environment to the extent that is unacceptable - now would you not say this is declaring it reprehensible?

Ele'ill

9th March 2008, 00:59

All technologies have issues. The correct response is to deal with the issues, not abandon the technology wholesale.

I agree. I am not anti-technology and if I have blatantly stated this somewhere in the thread than I misspoke/mistyped.. I think that the manner in which we are using a lot of our technology is silly (to put it lightly). Much of it is amazing. Especially in the medical field. I played Ice hockey and took a high stick to the face and shattered a tooth. It is now fixed and I'm pain free.

I'd be interested in a source for that statement, but even if that was the case, genetic modification is a fairly primitive science and is bound to improve if allowed to do so.

I can find a source if you are interested but I think it is a moot point. It is a primitive technology and I was using it as an example of what can happen. I can get more into GMO and how its harmful although the main point of this thread was grey wolves. I feel as if we're spiraling into other issues. (which is fine but maybe it deserves its own thread)

Welcome to Paranoia, population You. What do you actually base these feelings of queasiness on, apart from your unacknowledged technophobia?

It isn't so much the technology as it is the government (funded organizations etc) and what they're doing with it.

And so far it has served us well. I see no reason why this should change.

I don't believe that it has served the right people in the right ways without severe consequences.

That would depend on your definition of "over consumption".

The rate at which we're depleting certain resources is alarming. The reasons we're using up these resources is alarming.

Jazzratt, I like your posts. Usually when a poster such as Noxion posts I have to actually think for several seconds as to which angle I'm going to take in regards to my response. Your posts, however, are equivalent to being called a 'butt head' by a no-nothing ten year old with poor manners.

"Contributing to the problem" is neither here nor there. If I ceased to do so the problem would still be there and it wouldn't be any better, and it's no worse thanks to my "contribution". Again, at least I am trying to advocate positive change, whereas you seem content to simply take the "humans are evil, grrr" moral high ground.

How are you advocating positive change? I am intrigued :rolleyes:

Stop wanking about with semantics. It's obvious that you consider the environmental damage caused by technology to be inherent to it, and you have a strong conviction that it is damaging the environment to the extent that is unacceptable - now would you not say this is declaring it reprehensible?

The fine details matter. We discovered fire however long ago and it was significant to say the least. This doesn't mean that burning down houses is acceptable. There is an acceptable use for technology and I don't believe that the most powerful governments in the world are using it the way they should be.

last_angry_man

9th March 2008, 05:59

if people have the need to hunt HUNT NAZIS

or... if they are such "manly men" that they just can't resist the urge to hunt, hunt each other.....but I don't see too many volunteering for the annual "human hunt"

Just as I thought, a bunch of pussies!

Jazzratt

9th March 2008, 12:14

Jazzratt, I like your posts. Usually when a poster such as Noxion posts I have to actually think for several seconds as to which angle I'm going to take in regards to my response. Your posts, however, are equivalent to being called a 'butt head' by a no-nothing ten year old with poor manners.

Generally I make posts containing counter points and insults, unfourtunately it's hard to make counter points if there are no points being made in the first place, or if every point you make is denied; first you declared that humans were inferior to grey wolves because they couldn't survive in the wilderness if you took away the survival mechanisms they had evolved (intelligence & tools) - when this was pointed out to be bullshit you went on a wider rant about how eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil technology caused slavery and global warming, then you backed down from that and started with some bullshit anti-human rhetoric.

How are you advocating positive change? I am intrigued :rolleyes:

Leftists rarely advocate any other kind of change, dickhole.

The fine details matter. We discovered fire however long ago and it was significant to say the least. This doesn't mean that burning down houses is acceptable. There is an acceptable use for technology and I don't believe that the most powerful governments in the world are using it the way they should be.

By the same token do you think we should abandon our knowledge of fire because there are arsonists using it? If not what, exactly, is your fucking point; yes we have people currently misusing technology - what should we do about it? Try to get rid of technology (the nuts answer) or to remove these people?

Ele'ill

10th March 2008, 03:56

Generally I make posts containing counter points and insults, unfourtunately it's hard to make counter points if there are no points being made in the first place, or if every point you make is denied;

This thread is filled with the points I've made. If you want to respond with insults that's fine but it completely robs you of credibility. You have not come close to proving any of my points wrong. End of discussion. ;)

first you declared that humans were inferior to grey wolves because they couldn't survive in the wilderness if you took away the survival mechanisms they had evolved (intelligence & tools) -
From a completely biological standpoint we are not superior to the grey wolf.
I don't think that we're inferior to the degree at which you're hinting at.

The latter point was that humans are the only species that are destroying the environment around it at such a fast pace. This can be because of overpopulation, greed, carelessness, naivety, etc..

when this was pointed out to be bullshit you went on a wider rant about how eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil technology caused slavery and global warming, then you backed down from that and started with some bullshit anti-human rhetoric.

It was never pointed out to be bullshit.
I never went wider. In fact I think I became even more specific.
I never said technology caused slavery. I was responding to an inaccurate claim that you made some where back in this thread.

If by 'bullshit anti-human rhetoric' you mean me wanting humans to be held accountable for massive mistakes that affect the only planet we have to live on then yes.

Leftists rarely advocate any other kind of change, dickhole.

Those on the far right believe they are advocating positive change too.

By the same token do you think we should abandon our knowledge of fire because there are arsonists using it? If not what, exactly, is your fucking point;

Your problem is that you never see a middle ground. Everything has become or always has been polarized to you. Its not stand still or drive at 120mph, no other choices.

We should stop using the technology in a manner that is destructive. We should stop using the technology if we don't have enough understanding to control it. And we should be cautious of, if not dead against, illegitimate governments doing a poor job creating and researching a technology before allowing the private sectors to play with it then sell it to other unstable governments.

yes we have people currently misusing technology - what should we do about it? Try to get rid of technology (the nuts answer) or to remove these people?

I don't believe that we will ever get rid of the people. The misuse of technology will continue even if the initial intent is benign. It is only a matter of time before something truly horrible happens.