For those who've seen black hawk down

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 20 2002,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In case you haven't noticed, people today are very inequal, since some of us have a lot of dough a.k.a. squirrel skins a.k.a. dinero and some of us have none. This is a great threat to democracy and equality, not genetech like you said. Having piles of money is an exclusive right of the elite and is a major factor in the success of an individual.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I know there is inequality based on socio-economical status and I devote a fraction of my time and energy to opposing it. (I just came home from a meeting of the local Leftist Youth)

Inequality is nothing new, but that doesn't make it a bit more acceptable. My fears about genetech increasing inequality are based on exactly what you said: "Now if you want to have a mod for your kid, you just cough up the dinero and your offsprings evolution goes to that direction."

In that scenario, privileged status is even more inheriditary (sp?) than today. Not only can the elite afford better education etc, but also better genes! If genes ever become subject to large scale testing and modification, they will surely become a part of job interviews etc. There will be an uncrossable barrier between the privileged and the pariah. Now is that the kind of society you want for future generations? And is that the kind of society which can exist in peace and wellbeing, or a society that gives birth to huge conflicts and possibly the end of civilization?

I know I'm over-exaggerating (sp?), but I'm just trying to make my POV clear.

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chan @ Feb. 20 2002,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lock this post!<span id='postcolor'>

What the #¤!&*% is wrong with you?!!!! If you're not interested, don't read. I believe that even though 95% of this kind of debates never lead anywhere, the remaining 5% makes all the difference in the world! If no-one had never listened to dissents, visionaries and revolutionaries, we'd be still in the Stone Age.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 21 2002,21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I know there is inequality based on socio-economical status and I devote a fraction of my time and energy to opposing it. (I just came home from a meeting of the local Leftist Youth)

Inequality is nothing new, but that doesn't make it a bit more acceptable. My fears about genetech increasing inequality are based on exactly what you said: "Now if you want to have a mod for your kid, you just cough up the dinero and your offsprings evolution goes to that direction."

In that scenario, privileged status is even more inheriditary (sp?) than today. Not only can the elite afford better education etc, but also better genes! If genes ever become subject to large scale testing and modification, they will surely become a part of job interviews etc. There will be an uncrossable barrier between the privileged and the pariah. Now is that the kind of society you want for future generations? And is that the kind of society which can exist in peace and wellbeing, or a society that gives birth to huge conflicts and possibly the end of civilization?<span id='postcolor'>

You know, there is an instinct on ownership in the human psyche, just like there is the instinct to breed. This ownership instinct is very wide spread in the mammalian kingdom (just try to take a bone from a dog for example). While your dreams about a socio-economically equal world are very noble, it will never work, since it is in the human nature to feel good about having more property than thy neighbour. This instinct has formed during the course of evolution, because it improves the chances of survival of individuals. Leftism just doesn't work, because it is unnatural for humans in their current state.

So it is your opinion that the rich should not get better genes just because the poor cannot afford them? You'd ban better life for everybody just because not everybody can have a better life? Your nobility sounds very scary. Don't you understand that if improved genes are at first the priviledge of the rich, the procedures will get cheaper in time and genetic modification will eventually spread down to the reach of the poor as well. You know, pretty much everything new was at first only the priviledge of the rich.

There will always be huge conflicts, it's the human nature. There is going to be no peace for us. And about the end of civilization, only science can postpone it. That's why science should be our ultimate priority.

[Longinius 1]

"Muslims people have killed x amount of people and has started x amount of wars and has killed x amount of civilians,but yet we don't talk about that."

And Christians have killed x+y amount of people, started x+z amount of wars and has killed x+t amount of civilians. So what is your point?

"Sure people say "we only hate the U.S. Government(only talking about middle-east people,not europeans)" ,if that's true why the heck you killing U.S. civilians?"

As Americans would put it. Collateral damage. Yes, that term does suck when it hits close to home, doesn't it?

"fill in the X with your number,because i don't know how many there is ,but it's alot.Also i bet more muslims has killed each otther more then america has,but heck your all muslims ,it's ok to kill a muslims ,if your a muslim right?"

Yes, and more Christians have killed eachother than muslims have. Again, what IS your point?

[Wobble 1]

For those who are wondering I dropped this thread because most of these "arguments" (if you can call them that) hit too far below the belt to warrant my time..

people believe what they believe.. if you believe stupid shit.. good for you, there wouldent be smart people if there were no idiots.

[4ntifa 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 22 2002,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 21 2002,211)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, I know there is inequality based on socio-economical status and I devote a fraction of my time and energy to opposing it. (I just came home from a meeting of the local Leftist Youth)

Inequality is nothing new, but that doesn't make it a bit more acceptable. My fears about genetech increasing inequality are based on exactly what you said: "Now if you want to have a mod for your kid, you just cough up the dinero and your offsprings evolution goes to that direction."

In that scenario, privileged status is even more inheriditary (sp?) than today. Not only can the elite afford better education etc, but also better genes! If genes ever become subject to large scale testing and modification, they will surely become a part of job interviews etc. There will be an uncrossable barrier between the privileged and the pariah. Now is that the kind of society you want for future generations? And is that the kind of society which can exist in peace and wellbeing, or a society that gives birth to huge conflicts and possibly the end of civilization?<span id='postcolor'>

You know, there is an instinct on ownership in the human psyche, just like there is the instinct to breed. This ownership instinct is very wide spread in the mammalian kingdom (just try to take a bone from a dog for example). While your dreams about a socio-economically equal world are very noble, it will never work, since it is in the human nature to feel good about having more property than thy neighbour. This instinct has formed during the course of evolution, because it improves the chances of survival of individuals. Leftism just doesn't work, because it is unnatural for humans in their current state.

So it is your opinion that the rich should not get better genes just because the poor cannot afford them? You'd ban better life for everybody just because not everybody can have a better life? Your nobility sounds very scary. Don't you understand that if improved genes are at first the priviledge of the rich, the procedures will get cheaper in time and genetic modification will eventually spread down to the reach of the poor as well. You know, pretty much everything new was at first only the priviledge of the rich.

There will always be huge conflicts, it's the human nature. There is going to be no peace for us. And about the end of civilization, only science can postpone it. That's why science should be our ultimate priority.<span id='postcolor'>

Natural instincts can not be used as an excuse. The life of a modern human is very far from natural. For example, monogamy is quite unnatural. Any man with a normal sex drive can tell that his natural instincts would cause him to have sex with just about every willing woman. Also, if the instinct on ownership was considered somehow "uncontrollable" (sex drive - the most powerful instinct excluding the survival instinct - can be controlled, why not the will to own?) , wouldn't stealing be okay? It's only natural to act on your instinct, you know?

Humans also have natural tendency to work as a group, pack, society or whatever. Humans are not solitary predators. If there weren't an instinct of solidarity and altruism, how come the majority of people (excluding Americans to whom selfishness is a religion) are willing to cooperate and share? The idea of selfishness and individualism is a newcomer, so it is quite reasonable to assume that humans are cooperative and altruistic by nature. Humans are highly social animals and selfishness only arises from the survival instinct. Capitalism is very unnatural and disconnects the human from his "pack", making him alone and vulnerable and his fellow humans enemies, members of a competing pack (well, everyone is considered a pack of his own). In such a situation, it's his survival against the others' and selfishness becomes acceptable. You can observe the results of this unnatural behaviour in every western society: mental illness, murder, etc are much more common than in more "primitive" societies.

[Longinius 1]

"Natural instincts can not be used as an excuse. The life of a modern human is very far from natural. For example, monogamy is quite unnatural. Any man with a normal sex drive can tell that his natural instincts would cause him to have sex with just about every willing woman. Also, if the instinct on ownership was considered somehow "uncontrollable" (sex drive - the most powerful instinct excluding the survival instinct - can be controlled, why not the will to own?) , wouldn't stealing be okay? It's only natural to act on your instinct, you know?"

You do have a point. The difference is that private property is socially acceptable. It would be very hard to change that since it goes against our nature. It would take a long time in order for people to get this instinct under control.

"Humans also have natural tendency to work as a group, pack, society or whatever. Humans are not solitary predators. If there weren't an instinct of solidarity and altruism, how come the majority of people (excluding Americans to whom selfishness is a religion) are willing to cooperate and share?"

The majority of people are surely willing to share, with a minority of people. I doubt most people are willing to share with people they don't know. In a group or pack you know the other individuals, quite well. I share with my mates, but there is no way in #### I'd share with someone I didn't know. There is no reason what so ever for me to do so.

"The idea of selfishness and individualism is a newcomer, so it is quite reasonable to assume that humans are cooperative and altruistic by nature."

I don't think it is. There has always been selfish people. You can be an individualist even in a group.

"Humans are highly social animals and selfishness only arises from the survival instinct. Capitalism is very unnatural and disconnects the human from his "pack", making him alone and vulnerable and his fellow humans enemies, members of a competing pack (well, everyone is considered a pack of his own)."

I disagree. Why does capitalism diconnect me from my friends? I see it quite the other way. Capitalism brings me closer to them as my salary allows me to live a comfortable life with lots of free time I can spend with my friends. I am far from alone and my other capitalistic friends make sure I am far from vulnerable.

"In such a situation, it's his survival against the others' and selfishness becomes acceptable."

No offense, but that's a load of bull.

"You can observe the results of this unnatural behaviour in every western society: mental illness, murder, etc are much more common than in more "primitive" societies."

And this is related to capitalism? Hmm, I seem to remember a couple of murderers from the communist societies. Want to know why murder is more uncommon in 'primitive' societies?

1. Smaller groups of people living together, depending on each other for survival.

2. Swifter justice. i doubt they send rapists and murderers to jail to be reformed.

3. Outside threats.

4. Shorter lifespans.

As for mental illness. It is probably related to the above. In a world where the fittest survives, ill people won't grow old.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (4ntifa @ Feb. 22 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Natural instincts can not be used as an excuse. The life of a modern human is very far from natural. For example, monogamy is quite unnatural. Any man with a normal sex drive can tell that his natural instincts would cause him to have sex with just about every willing woman. Also, if the instinct on ownership was considered somehow "uncontrollable" (sex drive - the most powerful instinct excluding the survival instinct - can be controlled, why not the will to own?) , wouldn't stealing be okay? It's only natural to act on your instinct, you know?

Humans also have natural tendency to work as a group, pack, society or whatever. Humans are not solitary predators. If there weren't an instinct of solidarity and altruism, how come the majority of people (excluding Americans to whom selfishness is a religion) are willing to cooperate and share? The idea of selfishness and individualism is a newcomer, so it is quite reasonable to assume that humans are cooperative and altruistic by nature. Humans are highly social animals and selfishness only arises from the survival instinct. Capitalism is very unnatural and disconnects the human from his "pack", making him alone and vulnerable and his fellow humans enemies, members of a competing pack (well, everyone is considered a pack of his own). In such a situation, it's his survival against the others' and selfishness becomes acceptable. You can observe the results of this unnatural behaviour in every western society: mental illness, murder, etc are much more common than in more "primitive" societies.<span id='postcolor'>

Monogamy is not unnatural. There are many animals with absolute monogamy meaning they are totally incapable of cheating their spouse. But the human case is a little more complicated.

Humans developed from monkeys living in forests as packs. In the forests, the monkeys ate fruit. They needed no monogamy, since the alpha male could always watch over the females and kick the ass of every other male trying to screw the females. But during their development, humans became pack predators living on plains. It became necessary for the males to leave the pack in order to go hunting. Monogamy started to develop so that you wouldn't constantly have to watch over your spuse. The glitch is, not enough time has passed for a full monogamy to develop. So humans have this sort of half-monogamy where they are jealous of their spouses, but still want to fuck around. This applies to both sexes by the way, not just to males.

So when you talk about controlling the sex drive, you're actually talking about how humans are still developing towards absolute monogamy by suppressing the obsolete and partially eradicated want to fuck around.

Your argument therefore fails, because we are absolutely not controlling any of our instincts. Stealing is not okay for the individual you're stealing from, because of his property instinct. So the anti-theft laws are designed to protect the fulfillment of this instinct.

Humans have a natural tendency to work as comprehensible packs. This means that humans are willing to share with people they know and care about a.k.a. their pack. But don't get this the wrong way. Everybody inside a pack is still naturally in some degree competing against each other for the spot in the sun. Thus selfishness is nothing new. In capitalism, you make money for yourself and if you want, you can share it with your pack. Sharing it with complete strangers is not natural, since they do not belong to your comprehensible pack. See your pack is not even your country or your town, it's just the people you personally know and care. That's the reason why soldiers in wars mostly die for their buddies (=their pack) and not for some vaque country thingy.

Mental illness, murder, etc. in western societies is in my opinion caused by the simple truth that modern society has made men obsolete. Our society is so safe and regulated that male properties (protection of your pack, etc.) are no longer needed. So some males become frustrated and vent their anger on violence. This is however only my view of this issue.

[Karppa 0]

America the beautiful.

The president is like the nation that elected him/her.

In that case there are a whole lot of stupid nations in the world.

Surprise, surprise.

[foxer 0]

And Christians have killed x+y amount of people, started x+z amount of wars and has killed x+t amount of civilians. So what is your point?

We aren't talking about the past,what is that like 200/300? years ago ? Unless you call nazi's christians.

"Sure people say "we only hate the U.S. Government(only talking about middle-east people,not europeans)" ,if that's true why the heck you killing U.S. civilians?"

As Americans would put it. Collateral damage. Yes, that term does suck when it hits close to home, doesn't it?

That's it,I didn't see that tank behind the wtc they was aimming for with their 747 cruise missile.Must have been america fault for building the WTC in front of the tank.

Yes, and more Christians have killed eachother than muslims have. Again, what IS your point?

Once again,stop looking in the past.Past was a different time,Today is modern time.What's the thing about now and then ? A group of people can kill millions,How ? Nukes,Will they use them ? Yes probably.