[Rictor]

Originally posted by an0n
It's only because you know you'll never have power that you preach tollerance.
 

Exactly. And guess what, you won't either. Probably no one here will, nor will anyone you know or anyone they know. I know that I am among the weak, so I fight to protect the rights of the weak. Unless you've got something solid to go on, believing that you will be powerful while all the other sheep cower in fear is just dillusional.

I can understand how someone powerful would subscribe to your values, after all it serves their self interest. But not ordinary people, I just don't get why. Its working against your best interests.

[an0n]

What exactly do you think powerful people are before they become powerful? Non-entities floating through the void, waiting to manifest?

Hell no. They're ordinary people like me who realise that preaching the exact same message you're preaching, but tacking "...under my guidance" to the end of it, is the way to power.

[Bobboau]

if it's right it's right, weather it'll be something you like or not,
you sound like the theists who say "why do you beleive in evolution when it means you'r not going to go to heaven?" when you make statments like that. I have been a keen follower of GM foods for years, there is nothing about GM simply becase it is GM that would make it unsafe, each GM product is difrent (so it is ignorant to say GM food is bad) but each one is tested heavaly, Green Peace is playing polotics with peoples lives.

[Rictor]

Oh well, its just a different vision, so that can't really be argued.

bob: The logical question then would be, to what ends? Why is Green Peace playing politics, and what does it hope to accomplish. Who will profit from their influence? Again, they must have a concrete agenda which they consider worthy of pursuing, so that would be the first step in understanding them.

also, heavily tested by whom? The biotech companies themselves? The FDA (or similar agency), and if so are they under any sort of pressure to produce favourable results. Does it do its own research, or rely on the observations given to them by the biotech corps? I think the BST milk additive is a pretty good example of what happens when you have a huge apparatus in place, put their by a biotech firm (Monsanto in this case), in order to accomplish a specific goal and science be damned. The fact that the Canadian and British governments (I don't know about other nations, but I would assume they gave a similar verdict), have banned it, while the American government didn't is a testament to the power of the almight lobby group.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by SadisticSid

Huh? I am not against gay marriage, but I see it as a non-issue. We have civil unions over here, for instance, and the US is heading in that direction too. But the gay rights wing won't stop at that until they can call it marriage, despite a completely equal measure of rights and privileges that both afford.

Where do you live? Here in the US, gay people do NOT have equal rights (or responsibilities) under civil unions as they do under marriage. Cursory examination of inheritence, tax, adoption, custody, and privacy laws shows glaring discrepancies.

[redsniper]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I (for the most part) agree with an0n on those points.

beneath his shell of swearing, alcoholism, and "badness" an0n's a pretty bright person. He knows what he's talking about usually and is fairly open minded (about technology and such).

Anyway while we're talking about this kind of stuff, let's not forget PETA, which borders on terrorism and goes around scaring people with mutilated animals and such.

[Singh]

Originally posted by an0n
Pff. That's only applicable if you believe in all that equality bull**** to begin with.

If someone came up to you and said "Here's all the power in the world" you'd oppress people with it. It's only because you know you'll never have power that you preach tollerance.

Kinda like a little kid cowering in the corner screaming "Can't we all just be friends?!?!"

And why cant we all just be friends? In the end, being enemies all the time and trying to enforce only a single way of thinking
(you seem to be mentioning that, and then suger-coating it by calling it a different way of thinking....but then, i think you've mentioned yourself somewhat of a terrorist so i guess it doesnt matter much ) onto a population which has ~infinite ways of thinking. As much as you are right in the sense that the human civilization will survive, I must ask; why only survive?

Isn't that why we evolved the way we have in the first place? To rise above mere survival? We created the great arts, the fine structures and the monuments that have signified humanity's progress, most of which came about because different thinking was encouraged rather than stifled. And even then, the renassaince came from it being stifled, which means that an organization with 100% effectiveness in holding a viewpoint will never exist.

But then of course, all this was 60+ years ago.........humanity pretty much became dead when capitalism was pushed as the 'heaven', when in reality it was just as bad as communism, so in a way, I actually agree with you about modern times........

[an0n]

Everything in human history is derived from conflict.

All art and music are are expressions of the conflict created to ensure the reason it started and its progression are remembered even after the people who created the piece are long dead.

And I'm not saying peace doesn't have its place, I'm saying preaching total peace is absolutely ****ing stupid. And I'm also saying it's right for people to die and civilizations to fall.

The proper progression is: Barbarians fight in anarchy to determine genetic superior. Remaining babarians fight to determine tactical and strategic superiority. Peace-time where the ideologies of the barbarians are expanded and explored to create a civilization. War with another civilization puts that ideology to the test: Whichever civilization falls has the majority of their ideas discarded except for the truly exceptional concepts which are integrated into the conquering power.

Peace is the garden, war is the weed-killer.

And I'm not just talking on a national scope but even in things like chatting up women. You adapt and improve or you fall by the wayside.

To oppress people is to enhance that conflict to the point where people who are superior to you overthrow you.

[an0n]

And as for GM plants/animals: The UK only banned it because we knew if we didn't there'd be morons without the proper containment procedures breeding fish with legs and plants whose spores could decimate entire fields in a matter of days.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
And as for GM plants/animals: The UK only banned it because we knew if we didn't there'd be morons without the proper containment procedures breeding fish with legs and plants whose spores could decimate entire fields in a matter of days.

Been suckling at greenpeaces teat again?

They banned in the UK cause they listened to the idiotic general public who in turn had been conned by listening to the idiotic enviromentalists.

There are no fish with legs.

[an0n]

If they hadn't restricted everything, there would be.

While I'm perfectly happy to accept the decisions of people like the FDA and their equivelant organizations, I'm not so stupid as to think there wouldn't be people making dogs that moo just to prove they could.

[Singh]

Originally posted by an0n
Everything in human history is derived from conflict.

All art and music are are expressions of the conflict created to ensure the reason it started and its progression are remembered even after the people who created the piece are long dead.

And I'm not saying peace doesn't have its place, I'm saying preaching total peace is absolutely ****ing stupid. And I'm also saying it's right for people to die and civilizations to fall.

The proper progression is: Barbarians fight in anarchy to determine genetic superior. Remaining babarians fight to determine tactical and strategic superiority. Peace-time where the ideologies of the barbarians are expanded and explored to create a civilization. War with another civilization puts that ideology to the test: Whichever civilization falls has the majority of their ideas discarded except for the truly exceptional concepts which are integrated into the conquering power.

Peace is the garden, war is the weed-killer.

And I'm not just talking on a national scope but even in things like chatting up women. You adapt and improve or you fall by the wayside.

To oppress people is to enhance that conflict to the point where people who are superior to you overthrow you.

Hmm....so if you were to oppress people and then if they overthrew and killed you, you would ahve absolutely no objection, especially when they appeared and actually were superior?

[an0n]

If they'd earned it.

Not that I'd give them the chance.

[Ghostavo]

Evolution through conflict...

Someone's been listening to the Shadows too much, not that I disagree or anything.

[Rictor]

How very Machivellian. You can't just lump all conflict or all peace (internal, external, societal, environmental, economic, cultural etc) into two categories, and have to choose between them. Some conflict is good, as it serves to advance humanity. But some conflict is pointless, and serves no purpose at all. I believe this latter kind is the majority. I can eat meat and still stive for peace, justice yadayada. I don't have to take it to the absolute extreme.

There is little that can be accomplished through competition than not be accomplished through cooperation.

[Ghostavo]

All conflicts serve a purpose... if there was no purpose there would not be a conflict.

[Rictor]

Sure, they serve a purpose, but how often is it a desirable or useful one? If I kill 10 people, just to see if I can, then their death has served a purpose, but not one worth the cost.

I refuse to accept that brutality, greed, exploitation etc are what consitutes a "strong" person - one who is fit to survive in the Survival of the Fittest scenario - while the opposite traits are what make a person weak. That would mean that those who are destined to survive are, bar none, complete assholes, by definition. I don't dispute that in the end, the strong survive, I just don't accept that the characteristics which ensure strenght have to be the above mentioned ones.

[Ghostavo]

If you kill 10 people that's not a war... it's murder, there is a diference.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Rictor
Sure, they serve a purpose, but how often is it a desirable or useful one? If I kill 10 people, just to see if I can, then their death has served a purpose, but not one worth the cost.

But it's still served a purpose. It's shown everyone that you have the power to kill people without any apparent consequence, which means by killing 10 people you've negated the need to actively oppress everyone.

I refuse to accept that brutality, greed, exploitation etc are what consitutes a "strong" person - one who is fit to survive in the Survival of the Fittest scenario - while the opposite traits are what make a person weak. That would mean that those who are destined to survive are, bar none, complete assholes, by definition.

By YOUR definition.

I don't dispute that in the end, the strong survive, I just don't accept that the characteristics which ensure strenght have to be the above mentioned ones.

If I can lift 10 elephants, I'm strong. If I can lift 100,000 elephants, I'm stronger to such a degree that lifting 10 elephants is so easy that I'd barely notice doing it.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
If you kill 10 people that's not a war... it's murder, there is a diference.

That's a common misconception.

Killing soldiers is still murder but it's more of a case people getting what they deserve. They gambled their own skill as a soldier against the enemy and lost, so it's seen as acceptable. But it's still just one guy killing another, which is murder.