33
   

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

 
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:08 pm
@Setanta,
I know Arjuna and Caroline look similar... but look closer.

I recommend large doses of Bob Marley, lots of fresh orange juice, and a good night's sleep.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:12 pm
I do beg your pardon. However, you did accuse me of anti-semitism, and you've not demonstrated that, gobshite.

Reggae is booorrrring . . . i'll pass on that.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:14 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well that explains allot...
Yes... he also has super powers.

I've been sick.... some bug going around. Blaahhhh.

I've been reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He says there's no way the thing in itself could correspond to our mental image of reality because that would mean it would have to be self-contradictory.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:19 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I do beg your pardon. However, you did accuse me of anti-semitism, and you've not demonstrated that, gobshite.

Reggae is booorrrring . . . i'll pass on that.
I realize only one of your personalities is anti-semitic. Uhh.. sorry, dude.. I was riffing on what I thought was argumentum ad populum on your part... now I realize you were noting the thread title.

I have a cold.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:21 pm
@Arjuna,
You're a snide son of a bitch. As long as you allege anti-semitism, but provide no evidence, you are making yourself out to be a liar.

Liar.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Jesus, bright boy, read your own thread title. You are the one who alleges that the planet is being destroyed.

As for your allegations of anti-semitism, i defy you to provide a post of mine which is unequivocally anti-semitic. And before you pee your pants: criticizing Israel, which i am more than happy to stipulate, is not anti-semitic.

Israel is not just a state, but a nation of people who are semetic... You have to be careful of who you are talking about, the state, or the people... The people are hard to love, and the state is not much better, and it would be a surprise if it were... It is hard to argue that they are not moral in the usual and traditional sense of the word...
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:31 pm
@Fido,
The people are hard to love, huh? Here's the anti-semite in this thread, Arjuna. You should check out some of his other ****.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You're a snide son of a bitch. As long as you allege anti-semitism, but provide no evidence, you are making yourself out to be a liar.

Liar.
I was joking. It was an irrelevant statement in response to your irrelevant statement to me.... which actually wasn't to me.... but I didn't know it wasn't to me. So you don't know my statement wasn't to you... which it was.

I gotta say, though. Who gets this pissed off at being described as anti-Semitic? Sorry, dude, I'm still joking. I can't stop. I should go.

Bye.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:43 pm
@Arjuna,
Bye. Don't let the door hit ya in the ass.

(He don't fool me . . . he's gonna go smoke the gange and listen to that reggae bullshit . . . )
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:43 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Bye. Don't let the door hit ya in the ass.

(He don't fool me . . . he's gonna go smoke the gange and listen to that reggae bullshit . . . )


Dude, don't insult Reggae and Ganja that way!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:44 pm
Tell ya what . . . i'll take the gange, and you can have the reggae . . . what could be fairer than that ? ! ? ! ?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:46 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Tell ya what . . . i'll take the gange, and you can have the reggae . . . what could be fairer than that ? ! ? ! ?


Deal!

Uh. Wait.

I meant, no deal. Yeah.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 07:46 pm
There is a very clear distinction, to be made between a natural species replacement, after an extinction caused for a miss adaptation to changing conditions in a specific region, and mass extinctions themselves, an entirely different subject intentionally out of context in the previous crap posted above...

Is well known that those are very rare events caused out of severe stress generated upon all ecosystems out of apocalythical events hard to come by in natural cycles...
Thus a straw man without parallel is hiding it behind a handful of parochial misconceptions disguised on the pseudo neutral blend of real science, and sadly having the nerve to defend the absurd idea that our "Rousseaunian" aesthetic fantasy's are to blame on our so called delusional comprehension of natural processes...

At our actual rate of expansion pretty soon we won´t left anything else to replace or be replaced with...it is, should be, a self evidence out of range for debate between normal people, but then again, we are in lack of normality these days...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 08:11 pm
@Arjuna,
Dude out of what I have read posted by "big Marta" so far I seriously consider you were not joking at all... Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 08:33 pm
@Arjuna,
We lack its meaning because meaning in BEING requires final length, but nevertheless I am convinced that we get to have the skeleton, which is its pattern if you see were I´m heading...see you around Arj ! Wink
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 09:02 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well that explains allot...
Yes... he also has super powers.

I've been sick.... some bug going around. Blaahhhh.

I've been reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He says there's no way the thing in itself could correspond to our mental image of reality because that would mean it would have to be self-contradictory.

what would be his argument for that statement, because I think the traditional view has been, that we know by analogy, which is not much I admit, but there must be some sort of corruspondence some where....Or what use would be our forms???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 09:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The people are hard to love, huh? Here's the anti-semite in this thread, Arjuna. You should check out some of his other ****.
I think as a people that they have many qualities they want to be admired for, and many they should be admired for, others they might well be feared for... I think that if being huggable and loveable were any sort of goal with them they might be more successful at it...

And if you are going to check out my ****, bring your own stick... Setanta has saved his for a nose gay...
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 02:50 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Now you're getting really hilarious. How many megafauna have you met in your life? Is it experiences such as that upon which you base your aesthetic appreciation of them? Were those experiences the ones which lead you to your empathic epiphany? Are you disappointed that you can't now hunt them as a resouce?
I wasn't talking about myself, though I think it's something of a shame we can't appreciate them - but the people of the time.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 02:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You really think neolithic man went riding on wooly rhinos or aurochs?
Doubt it. More likely mammoths. Point isn't that they definately did though - just that it's presumptive to rule it out.
Quote:
That they may have experienced awe at seeing them--right before they plunged as many spears into them as possible, preperatory to butchering the remains--now that was a real gut-buster of an image.
So you esentially agree that it cannot be ruled out that they lost something - awe and hunting opportunities at the very least.
Quote:
As for a lack of hunting, you apparently assumed that as the environment changed and the megafauna disappeared, no other creatures moved in to fill those niches.

No - all I assume is that it is presumptive of you to assume that only the megafauna themselves might have regarded their extinction as a destructive thing.

And you agree - because even you cede they may well have been a source of awe and prey for people such as the clovis.

So you agree that 'natural' is not antonymous to 'destructive', and you agree that primitive man may have had reasons to regard the passing of megafauna as destructive - for either subjective or objective reasons.

Good - we're making some progress.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2010 04:11 am
@Dave Allen,
You're not making any progress. Your first order of business will be to master the concept of sarcasm. By the way, "Clovis" only refers to a particular style of neolithic flint knapping--it's not a name of a people. You've got a long, long way to go.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:23:33