Idealistic? Flawed? Yup, I said it was.

The BBQ Pit
1

The hunting thread spawned the anti-farming thread. At PeeQueue’s request, I presented an idea which I admitted was idealistic in nature. Furthermore, I requested the assistance of the teeming millions to help resolve some of the inherent problems. kunilou posted in a style which at least resembled an attempt to conform with my request; however, the majority of other posts exhibited behavior which defies the nature of a debate, great or otherwise. The negligence displayed is an issue I would like to address.

Milossarian immediately resorted to treat my perspective with sarcasm. Exaggerated and/or inaccurate statements were drawn without a basis. Despite a later attempt to indulge in a debate at my request, points which effectively rebutted comments were unanswered.

  1. If someone shows the courtesy to respond to your comments, show the courtesy to respond in turn.
  2. If one makes a point where a concession must be made, concede; i.e., address each point made.
  3. If one makes a point to which you feel you must respond, do so in a constructive manner.

These concepts are essential to a debate. If they are not present, it is not a debate and a mockery is made of the pretense of the forum.

MGibson, see item 1 above.

sailor, the random “drive-by” style with which you approach the thread contributes absolutely nothing. See item 3 above.

Collounsbury, discarding one’s perspective as “inane” or “fantastical” is not constructive. See items 1, 2 and 3 above.

justwannano, please read a post thoroughly before responding to it and assuming the opposite of what was stated is true.

Enderw23, see items 1 and 2 above.

If you people want to play in GD, do so in the appropriate fashion.

2

Nen, I think I speak for everyone in listed above, as they sit drooling in front of their computers, typing with one hand, fingering the scabbed over stitches from their recent frontal labotomies with the other, by saying, “farming good. Nen stoopid.”

Not my opinion, of course, but I thought I’d save them the trouble of having to each individually come up with such an amazingly intelligent response themselves.

3

Did you found a coffee tree during a foraging expedition?

4

Find, Find, Find

5

Clearly, you didn’t read the entirety of the post either. Add yourself to the list, Archer.

6

Archer,

Please clarify your position and comments by answering this brief questionnaire:

I, Archer, find myself to be
[sub]check one[/sub]
__ a fucking moron.
__ completely insane.
__ an every day, run o’ the mill asshole.

7

Oh no! Nen has us blacklisted! AHHHHHHHH

Nen, I can’t speak for everyone else, but I tried to debate you without resorting to mocking you or spewing you with sarcasm. That I don’t debate using your style didn’t make my arguments any less valid.

I don’t like breaking things down for two reasons. 1) I had a friend that loved to debate like that. He would go so far as to break down arguments to half sentences and completely warp my meaning. When he divided it sentences, sometimes it still didn’t make sense in isolation. I had to continually tell him to look at my ENTIRE message, not just nit pick the points. It was as if, if I lost one point my entire argument crumbled to the ground. 2) Often times as I’m debating you, I don’t want what I’m talking about to be limited to one point. If you make point A here and point B there, I don’t want to restrain myself from talking about point B, if it logically relates, merely because I’ve quoted point A.

That we’ve not debated you on a point by point basis shouldn’t be of concern. That we haven’t quoted points C - F doesn’t mean we haven’t read them. It merely means that it’s not crucial to the points we want to make. In fact, I find that trying to respond to EVERYTHING dilutes the debate the more responses you get. By merely debating that which needs to be debated makes for a much more interesting debate overall.

By the way, I just thought of a new sig. I think I’ll start using it right…now.

8

I didn’t infer sarcasm from your posts.

Agreed. Taking sentences or sentence fragments out of context can greatly change the intended meaning. That type of analysis is not something that I have suggested.

Agreed. Naturally, one should include references to other points where correlations are relevant.

True. My problems with your posts are twofold:

  1. You selected portions of my post to respond to. That in itself is fine. I took the time to consider your response, which I assume were things you found to be important. You then elected to completely disregard my response. Essentially, you elected to disregard precisely that which you deemed to be important.

  2. When you did deign to respond, you did not address those points which you allegedly deemed important. When having a debate, it is usually helpful to establish a common ground, i.e., when two parties are in agreement regarding a point, let it be noted. Perhaps you didn’t agree. Perhaps you should have clarified your perspective on the issue of “importance” because if I did not state that I agreed with your perspective, I would have felt that I had adequately refuted the validity of it.

Do you understand how your post here conflicts with the very nature of a debate? “I deem this point important, so I’ll just disregard it.” Really! You have an interesting understanding of what a debate is. As for your sig, this site is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not spreading it.

9

Nen:

Your idea involves the destruction of civilization and most of the human race.

You would have to make a really good case if you would want us to take it seriously, like, why would it be worth it?

I prefer the alternate hypothesis. Earth is ours and like any mother, if she were sentient she wouldn’t want us to crawl back into the womb. She would want us to go forth as best we can, and would sacrifice so that we do so.

Look at it how you like; Earth has given us a gift at her expense: Human civilization. Do we throw it away and waste it, or gratefully use it?

10

:eek:

What the . . . ? Did I miss something? I’ve read both threads referenced by Nen and didn’t any spiel about destruction of the human race. I have, however, read a good bit about alternative usage of land and resources. Where is all this crap about the destruction of civilization?

11

Scylla, since I usually hold you in relatively high esteem, I will be gentle regarding the following remark and offer a little advice.

Grab your right ear with your right hand.

Got it? Okay.

Now, grab you left ear with you left hand.

Got it? Okay.

Now apply firm pressure and pull your head out of your ass. Doesn’t that feel better?

Perhaps now you can actually read the posts in question and provide a cite pertaining to precisely how I insinuated that civilization and most of the human race should be destroyed.

12

Although I was sarcastic, I then made an honest attempt to debate Nen on the, uh, merits of his points. I then, however, realized that life’s too short to debate really dumb ideas, so I disengaged.

I participated in the hunting thread ad nauseum, and I was sick of hijacking it, so I disengaged there as well.

Hey Nen? Maybe Great Debates isn’t the best forum for my particular posting style, but not everybody has to play your games by your rules in your sandbox.

Now go tend to your crops in your megalopolis.

:wally:

13

Nen:

You want to move the 99+% of the human race into giant enclosed arkologies, with anarchy as the form of government, and you do not think that this will result in the eradication of most of the human race?

Effectively you propose a prison without guards.

Everybody else gets to live in pastoral harmony. How do we decide who gets to live outside, and who has to live in prison?

Othern than you’re not liking our current system, because we’re mean to the animals and the environment, you have yet to provide a rationale reason why we should do such a thing.

And you tell me about heads and asses?
I stand behind my previous statement.

(BTW: Groundhogs still tenaciously resisting my genocidal efforts.)

14

Horseshit.

I invite any and all to read Nen’s post, particularly in the afore-linked hunting thread, and my synopsis of it. It cuts through the pseudo-intellectual phrasing Nen likes to use to appear more Great-Debatish, but it is essentially a reasonable review of the viewpoints he expressed. If there is some exaggeration or inaccuracy, it is most certainly not “without a basis.”

I would cut and paste what was said, but why would I do that to people I like?

15

Scylla:

You state that I have no basis for asserting a need for change aside from environmental reasons. Do you not find that the existing beauracracy in our sociocultural system is severely fucked up? I don’t know about you, but at one time I was homeless and destitute. When I was on the verge of dying from illness, I couldn’t get medical attention. Sure, the U.S. government is doing a stellar job of ensuring that the masses a cared for. You don’t think social stratification is an issue? You don’t think that the idea of coronating someone who thinks “subliminable” is a word is an issue? You don’t think that the derision brought about by segregation is as issue? You don’t think that war based on nationalism, economics, or ethnocentrism is an issue? There are plenty of reasons to establish a new sociocultural system.

So I personally don’t find much merit in capitalism or a potential emergence of corporatism. Those aspects are very limited in scope. Consider all of the other countries, cultures and systems around the world. Are they perfect too? I’m digressing.

I see a need for change. I think that most people do, although perhaps (and most likely) not to the extent that envision. I have no problem with people disagreeing. I’m used to being the only one who is right (<-- that was a joke). My problem is that I specifically requested for assistance and encountered sarcasm and ineffectual conversation. I call it ineffectual in that sense that, although it may have furthered the desires of those who only wished to antagonize or feel superior, I had aimed to change my idea.

You may be right about the outcome of my proposal. I just think that if the teeming millions were to put on there thinking caps and work in a united effort, something good may come of it. That’s why I asked for help.

(Psst. Hey you! Yeah you. Hey there Mr. Groundhog, here’s that new and improved tunneling device you asked me to get from ACME. Oh yeah, the additional biohazard suits are on the way).

Milossarian:

One or two thousand posts has made you quite complacent, eh? You don’t have to offer proof or cites because you’ve got some kind of tenure around here, eh? Sorry pal, but even before I postulated about a new sociocultural system, you made allegations that I was a proponent of the destruction of civilization. Just so we don’t punish the people you like, they can have a look here if they so desire. Your comments were unfounded. Other comments weren’t appropriate in that forum–it is supposed to be civil. Shit, if you want to express your “tenure”, why don’t you do so by setting a good example. Finally, you did deign to respond to me after I specifically requested you to do so–that is something I appreciate.

By the way, my use of language doesn’t make my thoughts “pseudo-intelluctual.”

16

I don’t have to offer proofs and cites of what?

You linked the threads in question in your OP, fuck-ear!

And as for the rest of your post, if I knew what it meant, I’d tear you a new one. I don’t recall making an issue of my ‘tenure here.’

I found your idea hopelessly flawed. I attempted to begin to point out why, then deemed it a worthless exercise, and moved on.

You may be in love with your intellectualism and grand vision for the future. It doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to cast down our nets by the Sea of Galilee and start following you with looks of wonder on our faces.

17

Perhaps you should change your user name to Center of a Black Hole: Most Dense Thing in the Universe–I’ll use Dense One for the sake of ease.

Okay, ye of addled brain, try proving that your allegations have a basis by citing where I made such statements.

Yes, I did, Dense One, but you might note that the link in question is to page two–the first post of which is where you made said allegations.

You are correct, sir! Give this poster a shiny new quarter! I simply can’t understand why you would think that you wouldn’t need to follow the conventions of this MB in general and those of GD in particular. I postulated that “tenure” might be your excuse.

You have a right to your opinion. You opinion isn’t in question here. My theory isn’t in question here. Your behavior is the issue at hand.

I’m not in love with either. I don’t want others to follow. Perhaps that is why I requested constructive criticism. Is this concept starting to make any sense to you?

18

Nen:

Recognizing problems in todays’s society is one way. Junking it because of them is a pretty big leap.

While the problems you speak of are very real, things are a lot better than they used to be. Society continues to improve.

While medical care is by no means satisfactory for everybody, even the poorest enjoy a much higher standard than the very richest would have received less than a hundred years ago.

The same holds true with the stratification and segregation you speak of. What makes you think that the arkologies won’t war with each other? It seems almost certain that they would.

The mispronunciation of “subliminal” is hardly a reason to tear down the fabric of society in and of itself.

As for capitalism, it works better than anything yet tried. Efficiency and productivity are rewarded, and the system is self-improving.

There is no evidence to suggest that anarchy would produce anything but… well, anarchy.

An agricultural society maintains its land in ways that slash and burn hunter gatherers don’t. As Bill Bryson states in A Walk In The Woods" There are a lot more trees now than there were 100 years ago.

Your idea is interesting, and it’s not a put down when I tell you that a few moments of lucid reflection reveals that it pretty much has no merit.

19

Nen,

You’re asking for too much here. Too accomplish this task, we’ll have to give up:

  1. Government. Which is sometimes the only thing that stops violence from escalating. It locks away the violent members of society and employs a force that allows us to feel safe in our homes and out on the streets.

  2. Money. Money is what gave us technology in the first place. Do you think Charles Babbage would have designed the computer if his compensation was a bucket full of chickens? Do you think Alexander Bell invented the telephone because his reward would was a new sun dress and a herd of cattle? Christopher Columbus went to the new world in search of gold, and spices he could turn into gold. He didn’t do it to better humanity, he did it for money. Look, money is just money. It’s a piece of paper. It doesn’t cause evil, it facilitates exchange between products that otherwise wouldn’t have been traded. I can use money to buy anything. Not everyone wants to trade pies for sports cars.

  3. Religion. Face the facts. Economics only causes so much strife. The rest comes from religion. You MUST get rid of religion, or convert everyone to the same religion to end tensions.

  4. Nationalities, color, creed, race, etc. See number 3.

  5. Hatred. If people hate each other, anarchy won’t work. It will only lead to more violence.

But because I just snorted a eightball’s worth of crack, I’m going to grant you that we can get all of humanity under one religion and one nation and people are fair to each other and don’t cheat each other and don’t cause wars or kill each other in bar fights over a girl.

Nen, your system still sucks. You’re advocating either: 1)The end of all but 500 million people in a megalopolis or 2) The end of all but 1 million people who can live peacefully in little communes.

What kind of Utopia asks us to get rid of 11 out of every 12 people now living? Or better yet, 99.99984% of the population? Why would I accept this as a reasonable way to live? With 1 million people you would never hold the level of technology that you currently have because there wouldn’t be enough people to maintain it or develop new technology. Natural resources be damned, there wouldn’t be enough HUMAN resources to do anything but maintain the status quo.

Or we can live in a prison, watching the rest of the Earth go unused. What’s the point of living on Earth if we’re not bothering to live on Earth?

Nen, as far as Utopia fantasies go, you might want to pick another one. Because I’d rather be one of the 11 that dies than live in the world you’re creating for us.

20

Is that what they are teaching in 3rd grade these days? That why we’ve had MRI machines for the past 6000 years, because money gives us technology. Thanks for clearing up the direct non-causal relationship between these for me!

Next you’ll be telling me milk is a gateway drug to using heroine. After all, all junkies started off drinking milk, right? Coincidence? I don’t think so!