133 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Luc0s wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Well since I don't believe in evolution, your arguement FOR augmentation makes no sense to me.

Since when is evolution something you can - or cannot believe in? That makes as much sense as saying "I don't believe in gravity".

Sure, some crazy people we call "creationists" deny the existence of evolution, even today, but surely you're not one of those, are you?

Since "it's just a theory!"

In before the common layman misunderstanding of the word "theory"

[KenKenpachi]

What a ****ing joke, you given me more reason to not like a few of you, I honestly don't give a flying **** if I'm not liked, but...you know I was going to leave this crap and alot of other stupid posts I seen today go, but yeah, not now. Temp Ban here I come (maybe)

Luc0s you talk about wanting to keep this not religious and a "healthy debate" then you go and attack Elton John is Dead, calling him a Fanatic, or ar the very least lumping him with the same group. I've know him as long as I've been on here, and he has never threatend anyone with his faith, that is if he even has one, thats how Scary of a religious boogy man he is, and while being attacked on his views which are quite moderate to mine, a group of you have been ganging up on him, as you all honestly from some reason have a bone to pick with Christianity, whats wrong, priest got hold of your asses one sunday? Mommy wanted you to get up and go to church when you wanted to stay home and watch TV?

This debate is a ****ing joke. Its a One Sided Discussion, your side that is. Just shame the devil, tell the truth. You want to be some roboboy for what ever reason, feel no responsibility to anyone else minus Money, your god, and are just waisting everyone elses time. Least I admit when I'm ****ing around and half heartedly trolling. And thats exactly what this is, a troll thread. You say you want an "Open honest debate" but you only stay with your aims, and use petty insults to lump people like Elton John here, with extreamists, or facts of reality are readily dismissed.

So stop calling this a debate, and change the tilte to "Human Augumentation Is right Cause I have money, Relgious Folks are all stupid and poor."

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 19 septembre 2011 - 12:31 .

[KenKenpachi]

You know I could waste my time pointing out in your last ****ing post where you've done that, and used the same source repeatidly to "Support your side" this whole time. But **** it. You can't beat stupidity, and your as much of a fanatic as the ones you hate. Your only blind to it. Might want to look into getting a glass stomach mate. So yeah I'll go, but only as you can't make the blind see. Not as you demand it.

As to your Europe comment.. Whats with Generalizing Europe, I know for a Fact in Eastern Europe (only part of the EU not in debt versus the 110% of your country.), Most of Greece, Italy, and Germany (aka the richest nation in Europe), Religion has seen a steady rise. Plus a praticular sigment of the population thats made no attempts to hide its disdane for European "culture". So Say the Netherlands, or Scandinavia.

Thats like me saying no one likes Tofu in America, when it sells well in CA, and NY among a few others, but not here. Makes me wonder who in this thread is the Fanatic.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 19 septembre 2011 - 01:05 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Luc0s wrote...

Since when is evolution something you can - or cannot believe in? That makes as much sense as saying "I don't believe in gravity".

Sure, some crazy people we call "creationists" deny the existence of evolution, even today, but surely you're not one of those, are you?

I deny it because there are no fossils showing the evolutionary progression and trangression of a creature. Darwin stated that the lack of transtional fossils is pretty much argument against his theory:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravet objection which can be urged against my theory." 

And while evolutionists would be quick to jump and point at the Archaeopteryx as proof of transitional fossils existing, it still doesn't show transition to any other fossil just as those "ape" skulls show no transition.

You may call creationists crazy but I find it insulting to believe that the life we observe on earth - with how complex and beautiful it is - was the result of a random force. No way.

Luc0s wrote...

Sure, augmentations are not direct evolution as in random mutation v.s natural selection, but augmentations can and will be the next step in human progression. And in the end, augmentations will influence the direction of human evolution. Our babies won't be born with augmentations, but they will be born ready to get augmented, and those augmentations will change their lifes, for the better we hope. Life as we know it will change and society will evolve, all depending on how far we go with augmentation technology and how we apply it to society. 

Augmentations will be the next step in human progression? Yes, maybe our progression into destroying ourselves and further dividing humanity. As I have expressed beforehand, the rich will get what they want while the poor won't. Poor people in England get the medical help when they need it but they won't get laser eye surgery if they have eye problems, they'd just be given glasses. I don't really care if you think that this is how life is. I believe humans are all equal and we NEED to reach that goal. If we stand back and say "That's life and humanity" then humanity will destroy itself.

I'm sure people told the black slaves "That's life" but it's not life and that's why we eventually abolished slavery because it was disgusting and evil. I'm sure people said "This is the next step into building a great empire" but it wasn't. Just because we can augmentate ourselves doesn't mean we should.

Luc0s wrote...

Tell those countless of innocent victims in Haiti and Japan that life and nature is fair and see if they agree with you.

That's just how things are. That's nature. We can't change nature. The people in Haiti KNEW the risks of living there as scientists had previously warned them of the dangers and they had previously experienced destructive forces of nature. If humans didn't live in these zones where tornados and earthquakes are common, then no one would die by them for they are rare in places such as England. The human race is over-populating, death is simply balancing the population. Whether we die by a force of nature or by natural means, it will happen eventually and must do.

Luc0s wrote...
No offense but what are you smoking? Humanity obviously is part of planet earth's mother nature. Nature created us. Nature shaped us. and even today we're still depended on mother nature. 

Our entire technology, everything you see today, is all based on mother nature. For example: Those antibiotics and vaccines that we use are invented because we understood nature and how it functions. We undetstood how our bodies protects itself against disease and that allowed us to create vaccines.

We're dependant on the resources given to us. We're not nature because we have almost destroyed the planet. Nature itself could never destroy the planet.

Luc0s wrote...
Rats also keep reproducing more and more and more and more and spread like a virus in some parts in the world. Aren't they part of nature?
Locust also keep reproducing more and more nad more and more and are a true plague in Africa. Aren't they part of nature?

The fact that we keep reproducing more and more and more is the result of evolution. The weaker species will die and go extinct, the stronger species will flourish and populate the earth. Humanity is the pinnacle of evolution on earth. We are the most succesful species.  We are not a virus, we're more like gods, demi-gods. We have the power to heavily influence this planet we live on. We see it happening every single day when the hole in our ozon-layer becomes bigger and bigger due to Global Warming.

Humanity has the power to destroy nature as we know it, but by doing that we're digging our own graves.
Humanity also has the power to create an utopia, but to do that we have to understand that we're still part of mother nature and we have to take care of mother nature, not abuse her.

Rats and locusts don't fill the entire world though do they? Humans do. Now while Christ called us gods, I believe we are more of a virus than a god. We can be gods if we truly stand together but humanity is divided and augmentations would only stand to divide us even more. Like your last sentance says, we have to take care of nature and NOT abuse her, that also stands for our bodies which DON'T need to be changed.

Luc0s wrote...

How the heck does this comparison make sense? A nuclear bomb capable of destroying the entire earth is IN NO WAY the same as rich people getting augmentations. This whole argument doesn't make any sense.

Besides, we don't need lots of things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get those things.

We don't need cars, but they surely make life easier.
We don't need the internet, but it surely makes life easier.
We don't need smartphones, but they surely make life easier.
We don't need video-games, but they surely make life easier.

We don't need augmentations, but they surely will make life easier.

Yes and people could say the same about drugs, guns, violence and food (over eat and it's unhealthy). Understand that there are limits. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I can keep eating non-stop but I would die as a result. Isn't that nature and God telling us that we have limits? Even animals have limits. They don't attack other members in their pack for no reason and some creatures don't even kill unless they need too.

Luc0s wrote...
I don't see how fire-arms are any worse than swords. In a way, fire-arms are even better than swords, because they make the life of a police-officer a whole lot easier. Just think about it what the world would be like if the police today still carried around swords. They would have a hard time stopping that burglar who just robbed someone. And when they finally stop the burglar by cutting him up with a knife, the whole street will be a bloody mess.

Besides, a carefully aimed shot with a pistol can neutralize a criminal without killing him. They simply shoot the criminal in his legs so he can't run away.
Neutralizing a criminal with a sword, without killing him, would be much harder, near impossible.

Fire-arms are better than swords? Since they were created, they have killed billions because of the low rate survival chance you have with them. Swords were about facing someone face to face and were more about skill than hiding behind some bush and firing. They could stop a burglar like they do today - with their batons.

P.S

I just read your comment about religion dying and surveys have shown that's it's not. 

http://en.wikipedia....Facts_estimates

Christianity is still the largest religion in the world with Islam following next. I agree though, this isn't a thread about religion, evolution or creationism but when you mentioned evolution as an argument FOR augmentation, I had to disagree as I see in no way how it could even make an argument in the first place.

Saying that the "Survival of the fittest" statement is a brillant argument for augmentation is like saying it's a brillant argument for the holocaust. It doesn't make sense.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 19 septembre 2011 - 11:21 .

[Il Divo]

This thread is getting heavy...

[Eternal Phoenix]

Luc0s wrote...

Ah yes, the good old quote-mining and misrepresenting Darwin's words. It never gets old, does it? Oh wait, it does.

There is no such thing as a "transitional fossil" because ALL fossils are transitions. ALL species who ever walked the earth are transitions between their ancestor and their offspring. 

But okay, lets not start a discussion about evolution here. If you want to deny the scientific facts about evolution then sure, go ahead, I won't stop you.

That's no fact. You call ALL fossils transitional, I say that we are secretly slaves of ants who actually control the governments of the world. Ants run the NWO, they also developed Deus Ex because they wanted this argument to take place. No evidence supports either. Both are opinions but I respect yours if that's what you believe.

Luc0s wrote...

I gave this some thought and I don't believe augmentations will further divide humanity. Like all technology, augments will be expensive at first, but in only a couple of years the augmentation technology will become much cheaper and everyone will be able to affort them.

Augmentations will become easier and cheaper to produce once the technology isn't brand new anymore. When that happens, everyone can buy augments.

Just look at the PC (personal computer) for example. 20 years ago, only the richest and most important people owned a PC. Today pretty much everyone in the western society owns a PC.

Just like cars, PCs and TVs, there will be expensive augmentations and cheap augmentations. Maybe you won't be able to afford that super-deluxe expensive platinum augmentation, but perhaps you can affort a regular stainless steel augmentation that pretty much does the same job? As I said, this is how it goes with all technology.

Really? Guns are expensive in the countries that you can buy them from, plasma TV's are expensive, the best and fastest cars are expensive and getting one of the most advanced robots would be expensive. Augmentations should be used to fix a human not "better" him because he doesn't need to better. We can learn new things, reason, understand and use tools with our hands, we don't need anything else, we don't superhuman strength and we don't need an augmentated pelvis. We're okay as we currently are. You are a man of nature, then let nature do its thing, otherwise we risk destroying ourselves.

There are medicines only given to the people who need them but the rich could aquire them through whatever means they want and it's the same with augmentations, there will be augmentations that no average guy could afford.

Luc0s wrote...

And you think those people in Haiti had a choice? You think the people who live there choose to live there? Don't you think that those people would rather live somewhere else if they had the chance? But sadly they don't have the chance to live somewhere else. All those people are poor as hell and because of that they're pretty much stuck there.

Maybe but after the hurricanes swept across Haiti in 2008 and scientists warned that Haiti was pretty much in a hot spot, people should have left there and then (and some probably did). It would be a better idea than to leave with your life than to stay and die.

Luc0s wrote...

Oh really? The sun can and WILL destroy our entire planet as soon as it's burned up and starts expanding. So I guess the sun isn't nature?

And what about the astroid that wiped out the dinosaurs a couple of million years ago? That astroid nearly destroyed the planet. So I guess that astroid isn't nature either?

When we're speaking about nature, we're speaking about the things on the earth. The sun will give birth to a nebula which will in turn spawn millions of more stars. You see...balance. Death gives birth to new life. Even black holes have a purpose of balancing the universe before they eventually evaporate. The astroid that nearly destroyed our planet is a theory. Other theories is one that calims that a volcano erupted which killed nearly all of the dinosaurs due to it spreading ash everywhere and blocking out the sun. Either way - whatever happened to dinosaurs - they AREN'T creatures you want to live in. Even today they kill us humans. (Didn't you know that ALL lizards - alligators and komodo dragons - are dinosaurs?)

Luc0s wrote...

My body is mine and mine only. I can do with my body whatever I want. My body is only a tool, a vessel. My body isn't what makes me human, my brain is what makes me human. My soul is what makes me human.

When I enhance my body, I'm not abusing nature. I already have several piercings and tattoos. Surely I don't need my piercings and tattoos, but if I want them then why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them?
Same goes for augments. I don't need augments, but if I want them then why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them?

I perfectly understand that some augments can be used as weapons. I agree that such augments should be illegal. But innocent augments that only makes life easier shouldn't be forbidden, why should they?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy augments that makes studying easier for me?
Why shouldn't a mine-worker be allowed to buy augments that makes him resistant against poisonous gasses? Why shouldn't the police be allowed to buy augments that makes their bodies bullet-proof?
Why shouldn't construction-workers be allowed to buy augments that makes lifting heavy stuff easier?

Because people would use them to control the population. The police being the prime example. Governments become corrupt with power (they are already corrupt as it is) and could easily use their bullet-proof police to do whatever they wanted. Governments will decide who gets what and certain powerful augmentations will be developed by their wish.

No augmentation is innocent. You say that your body belongs to you and that you can do what you want to it, so are you saying that sucide for no reason is right? How 'bout self harm? People would be changing who they were born as with augmentations. You believe in evolution, so how about this:

If we needed super vision, wouldn't evolution have given that to us? If we do have need for it, wouldn't humans evolve to have it eventually?

Fact is, we don't need augmentations for no reason. There needs to be limits to what is made. And as someone else said, why should someone with a normal face get plastic surgery when there is someone out there - who has been in a road accident - who really needs it? Don't say that we don't need computers either because computers aren't attached to us whereas an augmentation would be for life. You are literally changing who you are. A computer is simply a tool (and you believe humanity evolved by using tools which is what makes us human) whereas an augmentation would become part of you and change you. There's no need for that.

Humanity is becoming vain and greedy. Greed and vainess will destroy us if not contained. We can continue - foolishly - running down the road to destruction and have CATS telling us "to make our time" or we can stop and think. As KenKenPachi said in another thread, you can snap a piece of grass but get a thousand pieces of grass and the sharpest knife won't be able to cut through. The same goes for humanity. Instead of developing potential weapons, we should be focusing on how to make society join and work together. Not all advancements are through technology.

Luc0s wrote...

Some drugs makes life easier and those drugs should be allowed (and they are in the country where I live in).
Guns don't make life easier, but it does make the job for the police easier.
And over-eating to a point that it's unhealthy doesn't make life easier, that's friggin obvious. I mean, since when does obesity make life easier?

Didn't you know that eating makes people happy? That's why some depressed people eat and eat and eat. The only drugs that should be allowed are the ones that truly help people, not the ones that make you "high" for these are the same ones that destroy your mind. They make you happy when you do it but - just like with the eating example - when it's over, nothing would have changed. I don't believe people should be drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes either because they are harmful, it's like slowly thrusting a knife into your heart.

Luc0s wrote...
Yes, there are limits. Thats why I agree that human augmentation should be limited, not completely forbidden. I see no reason why we should completely oppose human augmentation. We should limit it, yes, but not oppose it.

And no, when you eat too much and die, the only thing that tells us is that our bodies have limitations, limitations that sometimes are good, but sometimes aren't. Some limitations are necessary, but some limitations aren't.

Who are you to say what limitations are necessary and which aren't? You're not nature to decide. You're not God either. We need limitations to prevent us from destroying ourselves which is slowly happening as technology increases.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 20 septembre 2011 - 03:50 .

[jacquesct]

EJIS, can you please, please stop with the pseudo science. It's embarrassing that you've been educated in the same country as I have.

1. Organisms are constantly evolving, thus every single fossil ever has been a "transitional" fossil.
2. People knew about hurricanes around Haiti long before 2008.
3. Lizards aren't dinosaurs. They're descendants of them, sure, but in the same way that cats and dogs are mammals, they're not the same animal.
4. A nebula doesn't produce thousands of other stars, mass doesn't magically appear and neither does energy.

[Eternal Phoenix]

What country is that from then?

1. Transitional means "moving" and I haven't seen fossils showing their progress.
2. Everyone knew about hurricanes in Haiti before 2008 but scientists were the ones who said that more was to come through natural disaster and no one listened.
3. Lizards (Reptiles) are dinosaurs. It's matter of opinion but both have much in common and Dinosaur is from Greek, meaning δεινός terrible or potent, and σαύρα lizard. Even the name "Dinosaur" was likened to a lizard. Link
4. Nebulas are where thousands of stars are born. Supernovas leave nebulae behind. The Orion Nebula literally contains thousands of stars... Link

The following quote is from science NASA's site:

From the Remains, New Stars Arise
The dust and debris left behind by novae and supernovae eventually blend with the surrounding interstellar gas and dust, enriching it with the heavy elements and chemical compounds produced during stellar death. Eventually, those materials are recycled, providing the building blocks for a new generation of stars and accompanying planetary systems.

Link

Though I really don't see why we are discussing things that I used as examples...

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 20 septembre 2011 - 04:12 .

[jacquesct]

If we're talking science, please don't use Wikipedia as a source.
1. "you" haven't seen them. Do a search on your beloved scientific source, they're there and easy to find.
2. Of course people didn't listen. If people did worry, no one would live in California or Wyoming or any other place that's susceptible to a natural disaster.
3. No, it isn't a matter of opinion. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, say nothing.
4. Our sun isn't going to go supernova, it won't be able to produce thousands or even the millions of stars you mentioned previously.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Wikipedia is simply a site where information is gathered. I check the sources that they provide.

1. I've seen the things that Wikipedia call "transtional" fossils and they are just skulls.
2. And they shouldn't. Your comment doesn't justify people living in dangerous areas which often see natural disasters. It's like the people who lived in Pompeii.
3. It is a matter of opinion and further more, it's proven that they are a form of reptils and they even belonged to the reptile family. If you want another source, then here's another site claiming the same. Link
4. I wasn't saying that our star would produce a supernova but the ones that do, give birth to thousands of more stars. If all stars produced supernovas, then so many stars would form and eventually the universe would collapse on its own weight.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with human augmentation.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 20 septembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[jacquesct]

1. What do you expect them to be? Is it really too hard a concept for you to grasp that fossils have been in the ground for thousands of years and it's a miracle that we've even found things like complete skulls? In any case, you're wrong, look again, there are whole skeletons.

2. They shouldn't? Where should they go?

3. Nice link, I particularly like how you're trying to use a site that contains the following in an attempt to provide a valid source.

You probably also know that they lived a very long time ago. (Back when your teacher was young, lol) How long exactly though?

I take it you never went to university or learnt how to write proper essays? One of the first things you're taught is to use good sources, that is not a good source.

4. No, you're not understanding science again. Mass is mass, you can't magically create more of it. If you were to collect all the dust and particles kicked out by a supernova, it would have the same weight as the original star. That mass would then form an identical star, rather than multiple identical stars. 

This is relevant because you're showing a complete lack of knowledge in what science means, and then you're trying to engage in a debate on the subject. If you don't know what you're talking about, stay quiet.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The nature isn't fair, but it is a rational being's duty to bring justice to his surrounding (a court do this for a state)

[Jakedee010v2]

I agree with it right up until it changes the way a human thinks, or if it's their choice or not. If it's forced upon, no. If it makes someone think more aggressively, no, etc.

Modifié par Jakedee010v2, 20 septembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[jacquesct]

Jakedee010v2 wrote...

I agree with it right up until it changes the way a human thinks, or if it's their choice or now. If it's forced upon, no. If it makes someone think more aggressively, no, etc.

The car fundamentally changed the way people think and behave, as too I'd bet have mobile phones and the internet[citation needed]. With hindsight, how do you feel about those inventions?

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

*MAJOR facepalm*

For the record: I'm a Christian and EJiD is decidedly NOT arguing on my behalf.

As for the original post, it's moot. Augmentation is already part of our daily lives. Glasses, prosthetics, pacemakers... Do you really expect me to tell a wounded vet he can't use a mechanical arm or leg because it's immoral or unfair? Or a child born with glaucoma he needs to be blind because Glasses are evil?

The whole argument just seems silly.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 20 septembre 2011 - 05:15 .

[jacquesct]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...


*MAJOR facepalm*

For the record: I'm a Christian and EJiD is decidedly NOT arguing on my behalf.

Good to know, but I'm attributing his stupidity down to stupidity, not to religion  

I do strongly recommend people watch the video I linked earlier, or this one:

[Jakedee010v2]

jacquesct wrote...

Jakedee010v2 wrote...

I agree with it right up until it changes the way a human thinks, or if it's their choice or now. If it's forced upon, no. If it makes someone think more aggressively, no, etc.

The car fundamentally changed the way people think and behave, as too I'd bet have mobile phones and the internet[citation needed]. With hindsight, how do you feel about those inventions?

Meh, that's diffent to the way I mean.

[jacquesct]

Maybe, but don't you think that we as humans are a completely different species to what we were 100 years ago? Let alone 1000, 2000 or many thousands of years ago?

The fact is, there are certain inventions in human history that have fundamentally altered the way that humans behave. The invention of farming, the printing press, cities, free education for all. These and countless others have had a huge effect on the way we act as a species.

[Jakedee010v2]

jacquesct wrote...

Maybe, but don't you think that we as humans are a completely different species to what we were 100 years ago? Let alone 1000, 2000 or many thousands of years ago?

The fact is, there are certain inventions in human history that have fundamentally altered the way that humans behave. The invention of farming, the printing press, cities, free education for all. These and countless others have had a huge effect on the way we act as a species.

Hmm, but messing with a mans head is different than messing with the way a man lives. Sort of.

[jacquesct]

Not really.