Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Because, of course, boards of people getting together always find the best possible answer to a situation.

Was that ever implied?

[Neruz]

Because, of course, boards of people getting together always find the best possible answer to a situation.

Was that ever implied?

Your response to my saying that people are dumb, panicky animals was to say that a board of people sat down and made the decision. So yes, it was implied.

[Max White]

Your response to my saying that people are dumb, panicky animals was to say that a board of people sat down and made the decision. So yes, it was implied.

I was drawing a distinction between people as a mass populas and a small board of select people, therefor giving an answer based on the latter was irrelevant.

I made no refers to the effectiveness of the process.

[Neruz]

I didn't say you did, and neither did you ask me if you said anything about the process being effective. You asked if you implied that, and i said that yes you did imply that.

[Max White]

Because, of course, boards of people getting together always find the best possible answer to a situation.

I made no refers to the effectiveness of the process.

So, why bring it up if you agree it never had any relevant to the conversation? The ability of a group to find the best possible outcome is a measurement of effectiveness, and very clearly you bought it up as a topic of debate, despite

neither did you ask me if you said anything about the process being effective

the fact that if has no relevants.

[Muz]

This thread reminds of the UFC. I come in hoping for something cool. Sometimes I see the referee come in because someone threw a dirty punch. Sometimes, but rarely, I see someone getting pwned by a powerful, logical argument. Most of the time, it's just one guy lying there with his head covered and trying to block off attacks or two guys trying to wrestle each other down. Not necessarily a bad thing, but boring.

[chaoticag]

Eh? There was that one guy that popped in with his "ultimate argument against atheism" and got owned pretty badly. He argued a 50-50 chance of god, and an apparent 50-50 chance of theism, then went on to say the atheist had a 25% of being right.

Not only was the argument flawed, the math was wrong. He was also anti-evolution, so I added a link to an ongoing evolution experiment, but I wish I had the link I do now about observed speciation.

[Neruz]

Because, of course, boards of people getting together always find the best possible answer to a situation.

I made no refers to the effectiveness of the process.

So, why bring it up if you agree it never had any relevant to the conversation? The ability of a group to find the best possible outcome is a measurement of effectiveness, and very clearly you bought it up as a topic of debate, despite

neither did you ask me if you said anything about the process being effective

the fact that if has no relevants.

You're the one who brought the committee thing up, not me.

[Max White]

You're the one who brought the committee thing up, not me.

I merely bought it up as an example, you took it out of context by trying to refer to the effectiveness of the committee, in an attempt to bring out a negative trait associated with the example implying that the example itself was invalid towards proving my argument.

[Neruz]

You're the one who brought the committee thing up, not me.

I merely bought it up as an example, you took it out of context by trying to refer to the effectiveness of the committee, in an attempt to bring out a negative trait associated with the example implying that the example itself was invalid towards proving my argument.

The way you worded your post implied that because the decision was made by a committee, it was the correct one. You didn't say it outright, but you heavily implied it.

[Max White]

No, rather I asked what method was in place for determining the choice made by this committee if the 'logical' outcome was not met.

The reply was that people are 'stupid'.

I then asked if this implied that the replier was in anyway superior, with the intention of forming a frame of reference to how the human race was stupid.

You then took the repliers words out of context by implying that he was referring to the human condition, HOWEVER this was an irrelevant smokescreen due to the fact that you were talking about the human condition in the context of a entity, not a committee. There as neither countering any argument nor providing a fame of reference to measure the intelligence of the human race.

At no point did I imply there actions were correct, nor did I place personal bias towards there decision, I simply asked what drove there actions, and the reply was 'stupid'.

[Neruz]

Oh i see.

We actually both misconstrued his point; his point that 'humans are stupid' was in respect to the people agreeing to be tested on. I'd guess he meant that the reason human testing is illegal is because people are stupid and will quite happily subject themselves to dangerous and\or pointless tests for fifty bucks (it happens at the moment anyway with what tests are allowed.)

The logical conclusion to reach is that human testing cannot be allowed normally, as a way to protect people from their own stupidity.


I actually missed your first post and was talking about something else entirely.

[Max White]

Ah, now were getting somewhere!
Once again, I must ask you not to interpret for people with there own voice, it can lead to misunderstandings, as you can see. HOWEVER if it is indeed that only 'stupid' people would subject themselves to testing, then surly this would push the argument towards human testing.

Earth is rather over populated as it is, and thus some sort of cull would be logically called for, so why not also archive something more from it like scientific research?

[Starver]

Atheism, in it's many forms, today, will look as ridiculous as the really, really, old religions of yesteryear. We aren't much closer to explaining anything than the Mayans or the Native Americans, who were going on the best science and philosophy of their time

Highlighted the problem with that statement.

Maybe there's something that can show the Hardline Atheists that denial of something that can or can't be proven in the first place is silly, and that attitude be excised from the populous (or everyone starts to be more rational and unilaterally decides that's not their position, where they even considered it).  Or maybe something about the Universe is found that actually brings those in the "not even considering a God" camp to align themselves as total deniers.  And that's just covering a two of the myriad of flavours.

A doubt all forms of atheism will be excised, much the same as all degrees and specific sub-types of religion are.  In fact, I doubt that while there are sufficient populations themselves brought up within a given religion (or other world-view) to produce offspring who will themselves sufficiently retain their parents' religion (or world-view) that any religion will die off.  Mutations/evolutions, yes (and, of course, the occasional side-stepping to another type and hybridisation/sub-selection of multiple beliefs, as environmental/social effects act upon us, as long as worlwide communications and travel allow youngsters to fall under the influence of non-parental/motherland systems of thought and interpretation) but only complete and utter extinction if/when a some latter-day (self-?)proclaimed Messiah or Guru or Leader (wishing no prejudice, by that label, as to any particular denomination in this example) takes all of the followers off to a single island in the Pacific that ends up being wiped out by Tsunami or other disaster.

Also discounting any particular state-enforced creed (including strict and/or non-considering forms of Atheism, such as a certain nation of note has considered) actually having the double-whammy of taking over the entire world (by military, economic or other means), and somehow develop thought-crime control mechanisms to be applied to suppress even covert worship/philosophising of all other forms of thought.  No, I don't see that.

I predict that we will end up with more forms of atheism, and theisms, and encompassing all the rest of the philosophical viewpoints.  Filling the gaps.  (Indeed, another use for the term "God Of The Gaps", I suppose...)  Especially if interplanatary (and then interstellar) colonisation gets off of the ground.  Plenty of 'island habitats' that can develop new considerations.  And (unfortunately) more opportunity for diametrically opposed (or even diamatrically similar, but differing only in magnitude) opinions that can consider each other so Wrong that the resulting war is more than a War On Words.  But maybe that's too pessimistic an end-game...

[Neruz]

Earth is rather over populated as it is, and thus some sort of cull would be logically called for, so why not also archive something more from it like scientific research?

No it's not. We're (humans are) just really crap at properly assigning resources.