SeVeR

RIP Faither.

fart

Bacteria can be harmful to the human body, but your analogy isn't sound because the Earth is not alive. The Earth is a rock with water and weather systems. The only harm we as a species can do is to ourselves and to the other species on the Earth, not to the Earth itself. We certainly can change the Earth in ways that are harmful to ourselves, and that has to be a result of imperfect genetics that cause one to place the needs of the self over the needs of the species. "Killing our biosphere" is such a relative term; we could kill another planetary biosphere in order to escape a catastrophe on Earth, and thus continue our species by changing another world to our needs. As such, we are not killing anything on Earth, merely changing. Unfortunately we are changing our world in ways that are disadvantageous to ourselves. Having said that, there are reasons for this which i will get onto in the final paragraph. It's pretty hard to be confused about the `Jesus = Sun' part. The sun is the astronomical representation of God, and the role of the Sun in relation to the position of the stars, and even the star's names, is the same as Jesus' role in the story of his birth and some subsequent stories. Granted the pisces/fish thing isn't convincing, but it's only supposed to be cir!@#$%^&*stantial evidence to the 'new-age = new astronomical epoc` argument, which is fairly convincing. That is all in addition to the astronomical argument for the Jesus myth and that's all in addition to the borrowing of countless stories and symbols from the Pagan religion, which focusses alot on astronomical signifance. It's all supposed to add up, and in my opinion it does. In the case of greener energies, survival is of course the main motivator. The rich are motivated by their current situation of wealth, yet would gladly switch to greener energies once the threat to their survival outweighs the benefits of wealth. The poor are motivated by the need for greener energies alone, as their wealth is not threatened by abandoning the oil industry. The rich may wait too long to act, and may even allow some of the poor to die before acting. It's not entirely wrong for them to do so. The poor may seek to eliminate the rich, and its not wrong for them either. Such is the struggle for the weak to overcome the strong and the strong to preserve their position of strength. It really is beyond good and evil, it's human nature.

The Mayans had to pick some date to end their calender, it couldn't have gone on forever or they would have been there making it forever. Even if the Mayans really did think the world would end then, it's no reason to believe it will. Astroprodigy said it very well: "They were ahead of their time, but they weren't ahead of our time". Although, i have a few bones to pick with you Astro. Even though Christianity is full of absolutist religious garbage, one thing we should agree on is that alot of it is stolen from earlier religions. In fact the whole Jesus story is stolen from a number of other religions which have the exact same story about a saviour born on the 25th of December to a virgin mother with three wise men present. The reason is purely astronomical with the three wise men representing stars that align on the 25th, a day which has special significance in astronomy. (www.zeitgeistmovie.com). Suffice to say, Christianity isn't really any less significant than more primitive religions that were based on astrology and astronomy, one just has to reinterpret the words: i.e. Jesus = Sun, `new age' = `new astromical epoc'. It all fits together perfectly. We are not a disease that multiplies too much. We have conquered the Earth in response to being genetically programmed to do so. Through our evolutionary path we have beaten all the other spieces on the planet, thus eliminating the threats they pose to our survival. It is not a disease-like status that is ruining our environment, it is imperfect genetics which are causing us to present a new threat to our existence by ruining our habitat. I'm not a "red-stater", i'm just someone who doesn't buy into the liberal hippie mumbo-jumbo that tells us to do things without any real basis to do them. I understand the human condition. Anything that threatens my survival or the survival of the spieces is the closest thing you get to wrong, and that therefore includes pollution. We care for the Earth because we need the Earth, not because it's some `mother life-force' that deserves ultimate compassion. That's your liberal mind turning a good idea into a religious idea through a lack of understanding for the ideas purpose.

The Earth is not alive. Nature is alive. The Earth would still exist without a single molecule of life. Nature is as parasitic to the Earth as we are, because we are apart of nature. But if the Earth is not alive then nature is not parasitic and neither are we. We use the resources at our disposal to rearrange atoms and molecules into complex constructions that make the universe a more interesting place to live in. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No problem. What i mean by a complex model is one that is purely mathematical. A code would be written in a computer language such as Fortran-90. A number of variables such as the density, 'viscosity' and m!@#$%^&* of the Earth, and the temperature, relative velocity and relative distance of Sirius would be put into the code as initial parameters. The code could be set up to loop over intervals of distance. The tidal forces would be calculated from known formulas and based on the initial variables we'd see if the Earth would break up... one could probably use the Roche Limit formula for asteroids that break up during their descent to Earth, except this would be for the Earth descending into Sirius. It would be a simple matter then to calculate the changing temperature of the Earth from the distance and temperature of Sirius. One could theorise from that the surface effects in the form of water evaporation, although producing a model to predict Earthquakes and volcanic activity would be much more difficult. A model to see whether the Earth would be thrown out of orbit and into space is again difficult as you'd need to factor in the sun and probably the moon. All this is made even more difficult by the fact that Sirius is a binary star. Anyway, only once all that is done can you produce a realistic and nifty looking graphical image of the Earth being boiled, torn apart, eaten, tossed into space etc.

The Sirius Binary system is 8.6 light years away and is heading towards us at 7.6 km per second. Thus it would be 40,000 years before any collision, and even then i doubt the path would be a direct enough collision to precipitate the catastophes you mention. It's motion probably takes it to some point where it is closest to our sun before it begins heading away from us - like a car that goes past you when you're waiting on the side of a road. Anyway, 40,000 years is not 4 years, someone did their math a bit wrong. I can't really comment on those effects, it all depends on just how close Sirius would get. The Earth could could be thrown out of orbit to freeze in the depths of space, broken up into an asteroid field, or sucked into the sun or sirius and completely incinerated into it's consituent atoms. The people on Earth would certainly die in any scenario. To make any prediction you need a complex model of the path and velocity of Sirius with respect to the solar system at its point of closest approach.

aw emos aren't all bad. without emos there wouldn't be gays, without gays there wouldn't be christians to bash those gays, without christians there wouldn't be atheists, without atheists there wouldn't be scientists, and without scientists there wouldn't be the internet. so there ya go, emos are responsible for the internet... and gimps.

There should be plenty of emo-gimps around to get down on their knees to provide you with a table.... should your ordinary table be cut apart by emos to be fashioned into wrist-slitting implements. Better not let the emo out of your site though, or you might end up with black hair dye and a pool of blood staining your floor, and a circle of other emos whining about how you abused a willing emo as a table. Cheese-topped fries are becoming popular everywhere, although gravy is a nice touch.

Haha, i was thinking the exact same thing when i read this yesterday.

cencil without a doubt

"SubSpace - Not Worth it I've played SubSpace for over 10 years. From back in the VIE days, through the golden age of 1.25, to Peasant's Paladin breaking the news VIE was shutting down the servers. I played through Baudchaser's original servers - GAMES.NO, through his new set on iNet, and then when they all merged into SSC. I was a Senior SMOD in Warzone, helping newbies play. I helped host Premier League events, websites, and even paid for jackpots for the winners. Heck I paid good money for this domain. The game will always be SubSpace to me - Continuum is nothing more than a client. But the game is stale. It hasn't been updated in years. The graphics were introduced over 10 years ago. Everything has a shelf-life, and Subspace has reach the end of its. An old player of SubSpace has gone ahead and built a much better game, based on the same physics. It is called Galactic Melee. It is fresh. It is exciting. And it pushes the genre forward - a push that was much needed. And so person-who-has-raid-this-mini-essay - Subspace has been dying for a while now. It is time to try something new. Something fun." ...And here is the `spoilt nerd' to `regular subspace player' translation: "Here is my life history, it's a sad history of spending too much time playing a 2D spaceship game, but without which i would not have the sense of self-importance that i feel with subspace. As a result it is my duty to tell you all that subspace is dead so stop playing now, especially now that i have officially told you in my capacity as grand-!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&* that it is time to stop. !@#$%^&* all the hundreds of people who still play, and all the noobies who are still joining the community. I've decided it's dead because i'm so important. Say !@#$%^&*o to my new lover, i mean `game', because i am so emotionally jolted that i want my infantile, and quite frankly sad, affections to be known to you all. I've loved and lost, and i've found love again. Adios all and good riddance *wipes away tears*. Regards, Pathetic Nerd with Emotional Problems"

Does he think he can just decide for everyone else when the game should die? It should read something like this: "Here is my life history, it's a sad history of spending too much time playing a 2D spaceship game, but without which i would not have the sense of self-importance and ownership that i feel for subspace. As a result it is my duty to tell you all that subspace is dead so stop playing now, especially now that i have officially told you in my capacity as grand-!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&* that it is time to stop. !@#$%^&* all the hundreds of people who still play and all the noobies who are still joining the community. I've decided it's dead because i'm so important. Say !@#$%^&*o to my new lover, i mean `game', because i am so emotionally jolted that i want my infantile, and quite frankly sad, affections to be known to you all. I've loved and lost, and i've found love again. Adios all, good riddance *wipes away tears*. Regards, -Pathetic Nerd with Emotional Problems" EDITED based on your post Hakuku, although you surely can't blame me for thinking that.

It would be un-Darwinian to impede the process of evolution for a forum topic.

You say that man-kind does not really live in a survival of the fittest way, and although i agree with you when we consider the conventional meaning, I could just as easily describe the "fittest" as those who excel in academia. Indeed those who do well at school typically end up in well-paid jobs, which provides wealth, leading to security, happiness and even sexual attractiveness or at least an improvement in the prospects of finding a mate. This is all paramount to survival and reproduction. On the other hand, a physically fit and healthy janitor will certainly be less able to preserve his own existence above that of anyone who isn't genetically death-prone, and would have a hard time finding a mate. That is not to say physical prowess is not important. I don't pride myself simply on learning science, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and history.... fitness and muscle m!@#$%^&* is important too. "Life is nothing more than the instinct of growth, permanence and power" - Nietzsche. In my opinion, it's all about self-improvement. However i do not feel we are living in a society where the unintelligent are being weeded out by natural selection. In the developing world they reproduce at a rate we cannot match in the west. In America, religion has tightened its grip. Religion is a disease of the mind that is counter-productive to our natural unceasing desire for self-preservation, and it does this through fooling the mind through a number of psychologically based benefits, the most profound and relevent of which is heaven: eternal survival. Others are love (from God and for God), security, happiness, moral satisfaction (believing you're a good person), easily achieved perfection (growth), a oneness with the ultimate power, an answer for the unknowns (knowledge), and of course a purpose. In fact it is the fulfilment of everything a Darwinian survivalist seeks to achieve, except its an illusion for the mind. It's a quick fix, a drug, a disease. It spreads by infecting the young, the weak, and the desperate... and it spreads through those who already carry it. Co-operation is a survival trait though. It is why we have conquered the planet for humanity. So again i must say that we ARE living in a survival of the fittest society, it's just we know how to survive better than any other spieces. I suppose the existence of weakness can be a strength. How can we define strength without a knowledge of what is weak. In the end, will we end up eliminating so much genetic material through natural selection that we wipe ourselves out in one foul inability to protect against a disease? -EDIT- If i could say one thing about religion, it would be: Only by understanding the human mind do we understand the power that religion holds over it.

If he's not wearing a beret and stroking his gay moustache, while riding a bike with a french loaf in the back-basket, on his way to crushing some grapes after eating frogs-legs and snails at a fancy restaurant where the head chef is a man named Pierre.... then he certainly is the best thing to come out of France.

Greased, you said "On a Darwinian system FDR shouldn't have been allowed to p!@#$%^&* on inferior genes in the susceptibility to polio". I realise you don't support that and was joking in that respect, but you are still making a point about Darwinian systems, and it's a point i disagree with. In my opinion physical disability, whether genetic or not, is irrelevent in a darwinian system for presidents and many other positions in our society. I'm not calling you a Nazi or even a supporter of Darwinist survivalism, i'm merely saying that what you said had a meaning about Darwinian systems other than (or in addition to) the jocular. If you think i'm calling you a Nazi then you're completely misunderstanding me. You say that in a Darwinian system the resources needed to keep alive a person like Stephen Hawking would be detrimental to the survival of the others. So once again i have to tell you that we're not living in the Dark Ages. We are living in a society where people like Stephen Hawking are not presented with threats to their survival, and where those who help Mr Hawking do not jeopardise their own survival in the process. Another example would be someone like myself. I was born with eyes that steadily got more short-sighted as i got older. I would have been an imperfect hunter and warrior during times when that mattered. My genes would have eventually been wiped out. In this day and age there is no barrier to me achieving all that someone with perfect eye-sight can achieve. In fact i just got my eyes lasered, giving me 20/20 vision. My short-sighted genes may still propagate but survival is not threatened at all. Again you're dealing with the physical, but consider the idea that Stephen Hawking's bad genes are more than balanced out by the beneficial genes that give him such a great intelligence. It's true that a society that keeps bad genes will get weak and die out, but surely genes are never perfect and it's all in relative balance as to how beneficial certain genes are to our societies survival at that time in our development. Its a flawed analogy because the threats to wolves and the threats to humans are not identical. Wolves are not in need of calculus to survive. Consider the possibility that a massive asteroid is about to hit the Earth, causing m!@#$%^&*-extinction. With our intellects we may be able to fashion a rocket carrying a nuclear warhead to destroy or deflect the asteroid. Whether or not the inventors had polio or muscular scleroris is irrelevent as they have saved the entire spieces. Thus it is in the best interests of all darwinists and survalists to see that no-one is ever killed at birth on the grounds of physical disability alone. In fact, in our era, if we were to kill at birth, it would be to stop the possibility of having mentally disabled babies who may be perfectly fit physically. The fact is, technology has subs!@#$%^&*uted for genes that cause physical inadequecy. Cir!@#$%^&*stances change, and so must our methods of survival. If society collapses we may well end up valuing people like Stephen Hawking alot less... we would be more like the wolves in your analogy.

Greased: In a natural setting deprived of traditional morality we would still value the intellectual ability of Stephen Hawking to further the progress of the spieces through his innovate thinking and contributions to science. Brains such as his may one day save the entire planet. Anyone who understands the role of darwinian survivalism in todays culture would never dream of eliminating someone based solely on a physical disability. If there is the potential for great intellectual ablity (and there usually is) then it's our role as a spieces to allow that potential to emerge. So i have to disagree with you. Even if you think about it in terms of genes: If we want our genes to propagate then we need people like Stephen Hawking to help guarantee our survival through their furtherment of the spieces. You seem to be equating a survivalist society with a basic one, and while it is true that in the past we may have been more survivalist (in the conventional physical sense) our current society if it were to become survivalist would attribute massive value to people like Stephen Hawking. I realise the second part about cranial density was a joke, but i replied because i could see the first part wasn't (and you proved that with the post i'm replying to). I'm not sure what you mean by "Quantum Physics" hasn't helped the whales. Whales didn't develop quantum physics. They are of course a different spieces, and our development of Quantum physics has nothing to do with helping whales to survive. This analogy is also why i think you are equating a survivalist society to a basic, caveman, tribal society. That is simply not the case.

Lol Greased, should Stephen Hawking have been destroyed at birth to cancel out his genes? Not at all. Physical health is of ever decreasing importance in our intellectual society. Darwinism is more complicated than it appears.

What a good question. The control of the few over the many could be equated to the control of the strong over the weak and from a Darwinian perspective it could be deemed the right method of government. A democracy could be equated to a society where the weak are given too much power, something that is ultimately pernicious. It's a toss up between nature and morality. Nature is grounded in fact whereas morality is derived from nature and is thus secondary to the survival of the self. To fault those in control from a Survivalist perspective we could say that the power they wield over the masses presents a threat to their survival. However, if they are confident of keeping the populace in the dark, then how can we fault them? Alternately morality raises its ugly head and says "help the weak". What it's really saying is: "help the weak to become strong for they will help you to eliminate those who hold power over you". That is perfectly logical. It's not charity, it's empathy for a survivalist purpose. The problem still remains: Are these "controllers" wrong to be doing what they're doing? At the moment i have to answer `No', but it's my utter imperative to see that they are taken down from their position of power. Anyway, it must be and always was our fault for allowing ourselves to be subjugated. It began with the election of officials who were too weak and corrupt to oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is our fault currently for not staging a revolution to bring an end to it. However, we have been given enough freedom to make our lives tolerable, and thus many will make the choice not to risk their lives for the price of further freedom. The process of educating the people cannot be halted or reversed, and inevitably the corrupt will be weeded out through our appeals for politicians who want to abolish corruption. It's either a long term peaceful solution or a bloody revolution. The risks of the long term solution are that our freedoms may continue to be eroded until no amount of education will heal the wounds. That would be almost as bad as death. A bloody revolution may not be so bloody if both sides acknowledge a distaste for civil war and agree to hammer out an agreement. The mere threat of a revolution may be enough... or it could just spark the CIA into an assassination frenzy. It is a hard one to answer.

Not exactly, we are given a "choice" of two candidates to vote for, and those candidates can both be just as corrupt as eachother. We are not telling them what to lobby for either. The people who pay their election funds do that. If anything, what we lobby for is what the media tells us to lobby for based on whatever emotional and sarcastically presented fact-free issue is being plastered over Fox News. The people who own these media outlets have their political agendas and its openly obvious what they are and how they're influencing public opinion. You can trace the link from the public to the media to the government to the people who pay for the government and thats how we are controlled.

Zeitgeist was an eye-opener in that respect. I already knew about the history of Christianity, the Federal Reserve, the criminality of income tax, and the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but the pattern of 20th century wars really linked it together. I only watched it once, but when someone mentioned FDR i just had to dish it out.

In relation to my previous posts. 2nd World War FDR: The Roosevelt family had been New York bankers since the 18th Century. FDR's uncle Frederick was on the original Federal Reserve board. Some may theorize that FDR was very sympathetic to the interests of the international bankers. FDR's Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "The question was how should we maneouver them into firing the first shot... it is desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stimson#_ref-0 FDR's actions to provoke Japan: 1. Halted all of Japan's imports of American petroleum. 2. Froze all Japanese !@#$%^&*ets in the US. 3. Gave public loans to Nationalist China and the British, who were fighting Japan. This is in violation of international war rules and was done PRIOR to Pearl Harbour. The prelude to war The attack on Pearl Harbour was known weeks in advance, it was provoked, and some may theorize it was wanted. Three days before the attack, Australian intelligence told the American government about a Japanese task force moving towards Pearl Harbour, ignored by Roosevelt. The price we pay 2400 soldiers dead.... 1 million American citizens volunteer to take their place. Playing both sides The Nazi War effort was powered by I.G. Farben who produced 84% of Germany's explosives. Their chief partner was: US Standard Oil, a company owned by the Federal Reserve international banker J.D. Rockefellar. Without US Standard Oil the Nazi's would not have had a viable air-force. The Bush family line The Union Banking Corp of New York City financed Hitlers rise to power and much of the Nazi war effort. At the end of the war they were seized for having billions of dollars of Nazi money in their vaults, and were exposed as a Nazi money laundering organisation under the "Trading with the Enemy Act". The director and VP of the Union Banking Corp was none other than Prescott Bush, GWB's very own grandfather and the father of Bush Sr. Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin incident: Staged, brought America into the Vietnam War. Rules on the restrictions of American troops in the Vietnam war: Made the war last. 1st World War The Lusitania, a passenger liner, is sunk by the Germans provoking outrage among the American public and bringing America into the war. Fact: The Lusitania was loaded with explosives and sailed into German waters deliberately. The Price: 1200 lives. Conclusions Private international bankers who created the Federal Reserve control the entire American economy by being able to revalue the dollar. (FACT) These bankers want war, as war results in the government borrowing money from the Federal Reserve at interest. (FACT) The bankers influence or control the American government through known aristocrats such as the Bush family and the Clinton family. (Based on the evidence, LIKELY) The American government creates the necessary conditions for war and makes the war last. (VERY LIKELY) Example: Iraq 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan removes any public opposition to war through the rejuvination of the nationalist movement known simply as "Patriotism". WMD's cited as a reason. (The necessary conditions) Terrorists cited as an enemy that can never be wiped out. (The war has lasted) WMDs and Saddams links to terrorism have since been proven to be a load of bs. (The inevitable scandal) The 9/11 Condition 1. How was an unqualified (and quite frankly terrible) pilot able to fly a plane into the Pentagon? 2. Why was there no wreckage found at the Pentagon? 3. Why was the only security tape that could verify the Pentagon attack confiscated? 4. Why are 7 of the supposed 19 hijackers still alive? 5. Why did Building Seven of the WTC collapse after never being hit? (any fires could not have melted steel girders) 6. Why have architects admitted that a plane could never have brought down a WTC tower? 7. Why is there evidence of the steel girders in the towers being cut, at the base, in traditional demolition style? 8. Why did the American government fake a video to incriminate Bin Laden? 9. Why are we in Iraq? 10. Why are so many people dead...?

trannies always want the pooper sex. i mean emos...

Unfortunately the definition of 'disease' has become so broad as to include things like that. When anyone in the medical profession uses the word, they of course mean a physical ailment with symptons.