Mediocrity - when do we settle?

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Indeed, whilst the old Ocrack is draining on the time, one thing I have learnt is that the friendships we have made are sometimes with us forever. I am still in regular contact with the people I knew from the spamboard, people like Kamel, Fiery Angel, Chryssie, Cassie, Bibob, Shockie, Shadowpyre, Leif, Eclectic, Naughty Angel, SirEsh, Chuwie, F_F, etc, all people that I have interacted with and enjoyed their presence. Yeah I could have chosen differently, but this is not mediocrity. This is important.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • @Largenton: Only replying for the sake of closure, so let me clarify a few points. I admit, it's a bit longer than I intended, but it's your choice to read or not.

      First - I admit that my last 2 posts (and not the original post I made) weren't quite written in a great frame of mind, so let's ignore those posts for the sake of moving ahead.

      Second - no offence meant here, but your degrees mean nothing to me. No one's do. A 'degree' is society's acceptance of someone's information/knowledge/experience in a specific field based on some examination set by people who are no more perfect than the holder of the degree. And yet, one can have all the information/knowledge/experience without a degree, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't flaunt them around like actual achievements. Not to say that I know more than you, but I really don't care about the levels of knowledge in people. Intelligent and informed or not, they're still people.

      Third - as far as evidence goes, I'm one of those who believes that evidence can be demanded for something claimed. If I claim that a specific amount of mass amounts to one kilo-gram, I'm liable to provide evidence. Problem is, evidence is not universal. What WE call as one KG might not mean the same to some other species, or in some other dimension, right? What's more, they might not mean the same in the same damn solar system in the same galaxy, same universe and same dimension!

      Our dictionaries, definitions, scientific labels and terms are completely irrelevant outside of our personal meaning. Nothing means the same to 2 different entities, a common agreement is only reached for the sake of practicality - to keep life moving. Since I'm neither claiming anything (I definitely didn't express that my opinion was how everything was, but rather, I said that it's what I think/feel it is), nor is evidence a fixed thing, yes, I still don't feel liable to providing it. Another reason will be stated at the end.

      Third - you think anxiety, depression and so on are disorders/illnesses, based on some evidence found by prior 'experts' in the fields of medicine, physio/psychology and so on. Great, but I feel not. I love solitude, being cut-off from everyone except for getting a specific job done and even then, I'd gladly prefer contact to be as minimal as it can be. Yes, my being human, or more precisely, a sentient, Earth-bound entity, is not tied to the society. Society doesn't define me, I do. And, after all these years of living, I'm happy to live in a world without humans. If that includes my own non-existence, that's the best solution.

      Fourth - yes, I'm extremely nihilistic for quite a few reasons. And I'm content being so. I'm more than completely ignorant (whether inherently, objectively or in comparison to 'degree-holders' like you) and I'm more than content to live with the inadequacies of discovering and learning further. Might sound to you like a terrible thought, might sound like I'm unhinged, be my guest, think as you will. I care not.

      As I said, I'd state yet another reason for not providing evidence - the thing is, I do have answers (might not feel evidence enough to you), but I feel my time's better spent putting bullets through cops skulls in GTA 5. After all - societal destruction and taking morality and especially authority out of commission never goes out of fashion, does it?

      And, for the record, while I can't predict the destruction of human society, humans have proved themselves destructive enough that in a few centuries, they'll have mining bases on the Moon and other planets. They just can't leave anything pristine - they grow like a virus and exterminate everything. I can only imagine the misfortune of the universe if humans end up spreading to the other planets before armageddon comes around. And yes, the human desire to have an exchange system (arguably born due to society) is always the center of greed and eventual destruction of everything. Society is doomed, whether or not you believe it or any evidence shows up.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by AMNeSia ().

    • AMNeSia wrote:

      Second - no offence meant here, but your degrees mean nothing to me. No one's do. A 'degree' is society's acceptance of someone's information/knowledge/experience in a specific field based on some examination set by people who are no more perfect than the holder of the degree. And yet, one can have all the information/knowledge/experience without a degree, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't flaunt them around like actual achievements. Not to say that I know more than you, but I really don't care about the levels of knowledge in people. Intelligent and informed or not, they're still people.
      Oh really? That is hilarious. Those things matter because of the training involved and what is taught. For example, if you are ill, would you prefer the certified doctor to examine you or some amateur? If you are having water flooding your kitchen, do you prefer to call the plumber or some random person who says they saw how to do it once.

      Qualifications actually matter. They give you knowledge and training. They are achievements of intellect. I didn't take an exam at the end of my Masters, I carried out a scientific experiment to look at what we can extract from dog dental plaque and wrote up the results. I advanced human knowledge like everyone else on my course and most degrees, that is an achievement. Yes we are still people at the end of the day, but I doubt I ever claimed I was some sort of superhuman, superior to those without. These degrees also taught me how to think, a skill well worth learning and something I try to pass on. The ability to look at a claim, determine its value and the evidence behind it and ask questions about it is a good skill to have. You on the other hand have failed to realise this and merely parrot your preconceived notions.

      And this is just an attempt to hide the fact that I used my knowledge to state why your claim is wrong. Because humans are societal animals. So you attack my degrees which is pretty much an ad hominen. I can provide the evidence required to back my claims. Question is, can you.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Third - as far as evidence goes, I'm one of those who believes that evidence can be demanded for something claimed. If I claim that a specific amount of mass amounts to one kilo-gram, I'm liable to provide evidence. Problem is, evidence is not universal. What WE call as one KG might not mean the same to some other species, or in some other dimension, right? What's more, they might not mean the same in the same damn solar system in the same galaxy, same universe and same dimension!
      Oh please. You made a claim about society being a brilliant machine being made by cunning intellects without proof. I asked to see your evidence full stop. As has been said before, this is my right on a public forum. Fact is, you've provided nothing to back up your statements, instead you are just discussing the difference between subjectivism and objective evidence as a smokescreen to hide your lack of evidence. I asked for evidence for your claim, this is just an attempt to weasel out of it. You made a verifiable claim. This is a discussion board, not an opinion board and I asked for evidence. Like Silverwind said, you cannot blame anyone for using their right to request evidence on a public forum. Stop being so upset because someone has challenged your beliefs. It can be seen as immature.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Third - you think anxiety, depression and so on are disorders/illnesses, based on some evidence found by prior 'experts' in the fields of medicine, physio/psychology and so on. Great, but I feel not. I love solitude, being cut-off from everyone except for getting a specific job done and even then, I'd gladly prefer contact to be as minimal as it can be. Yes, my being human, or more precisely, a sentient, Earth-bound entity, is not tied to the society. Society doesn't define me, I do. And, after all these years of living, I'm happy to live in a world without humans. If that includes my own non-existence, that's the best solution.
      Two thirds?

      Firstly, I am going to state that your opinion on mental health disorders is extremely offensive to everyone who has one. It is what can be described as ableist, where you are attacking someone's disability, which, I might remind you, is a protected characteristic under German law regarding human rights. As such, it is also against the Terms of Use for the board.

      The reason why is that you state that mental illnesses are not illnesses and you ascribe this to "experts". No it isn't. It is the rising panic for no reason that anxiety sufferers get. It is the inability to motivate yourself to get out of bed that affects the depressed. It is the volatile mood swings of the bipolar sufferer, who may swing from manic energy to black depression. It is the hallucinations and delusions a schizophrenic gets, which makes it hard for them to determine what is reality. It is a vivid flashback that the PTSD sufferer gets, taking them back to the worst moment of their life. It is the mother with Post-natal depression that cannot motivate her will to look after her child. It is the excruciating headaches, lack of sleep, stomach pains and all the other physical symptoms that come with a mental illness. This is not something that experts have ascribed to people who are not neurotypical. These are actual illnesses that result in things such as people idealising ending their life. That people are in so much mental pain that they seriously consider putting a gun in their mouth, downing a cocktail of pills, slitting their wrists, hanging themselves, jumping in front of vehicles, drowning, etc. You are denying those people are ill and have a problem. You are denying those people's experiences of things you know nothing about and that is technically called gaslighting.

      So yes, your ignorance is insulting and rather than attempting to be clever by saying things like this you come across extremely badly and offensive. This is not an ok opinion, it is not acceptable and if you continue to say things like this I will continue to call you out. Do you understand?

      Secondly, the fact that you have got so worked up about me requesting evidence that you continue to come back and make excuses as well as attempt to throw childish insults about my education and experiences shows how much society actually means to you. You're not separate from it and whilst you may be introverted, your nihilism is not healthy. And I am saying this in a, this is the same sort of mind set that you come across justifying and acting out atrocities.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      As I said, I'd state yet another reason for not providing evidence - the thing is, I do have answers (might not feel evidence enough to you), but I feel my time's better spent putting bullets through cops skulls in GTA 5. After all - societal destruction and taking morality and especially authority out of commission never goes out of fashion, does it?
      Yet you wrote this huge reply to me justifying yourself. Sorry, you're just doubling down on what you said previously. Please don't lie.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And, for the record, while I can't predict the destruction of human society, humans have proved themselves destructive enough that in a few centuries, they'll have mining bases on the Moon and other planets. They just can't leave anything pristine - they grow like a virus and exterminate everything. I can only imagine the misfortune of the universe if humans end up spreading to the other planets before armageddon comes around. And yes, the human desire to have an exchange system (arguably born due to society) is always the center of greed and eventual destruction of everything. Society is doomed, whether or not you believe it or any evidence shows up.
      I love the contradiction. Society is doomed because I say so even though I can't prove it. And what you refer to in terms of capitalism is only a part of society we have constructed. It is not necessary and your ignorance shows that your world view is dependent on lack of knowledge or critical thinking.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • At the end of the day who gives a shit about 'making it in life'. Everyone is mediocre. Even if you wrote a thesis about dental plaque on dogs, there's 50 other people in your year that made a thesis equally valuable or worthless, depending on your stance. I'd say worthless. All that matters is finding something you enjoy doing and to make enough money to have a decent living. And in the end you die. That's the game of life and there's really nothing more to it.
      Caught up in the game
    • I wasn't exactly arguing about "making it in life", not sure where you got that idea. The point is with my dissertation is that it is an achievement, just like everyone else who did that. More knowledge in a field is mainly a good thing as we learn something more. For example, with mine I demonstrated a technique that works on humans also works on dogs. This could have interesting implications in understanding dogs in the past and the present. I enjoyed doing it too.

      What I am highlighting is a healthy way of viewing your life, to remember things that are achievements and that are important. At that point I was going through a tough time in my life and to complete my degree was an achievement I was focused on. A certain someone did not see that as an achievement, highlighting their own ignorance for the sake of point scoring.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • @Largenton - Seriously, mate, you get a bit too worked up about opinions on some forum on the internet. More than a bit funny, but unfortunately, it doesn't make me laugh, considering your complete lack of knowledge about me and yet you're here making assumptions. As for my large replies, I'm making a perfectly verifiable claim that I have trouble being concise, so my posts become longer than I intend them to be. I wish I could help it, but I lack the skills in using the least amount of words for the message.

      Let me be clear - yes, your qualifications mean nothing to me. And I explained quite well that one can have the information/knowledge/experience WITHOUT any so-called qualifications and yet be more skilled than qualified personnel. Point being - qualifications mean nothing, only actual skill and knowledge do.

      As for the evidence part - I said quite clearly that I'm not going to provide any. Not sure why you feel I need a smokescreen, because I just don't care about evidence. This is not a scientific forum, I'm not making any claims, I'm merely stating my perspective which is not bound by evidence. Again, why are you confusing my perspective for a claim? I'm not saying something set in stone, I'm stating my perspective, which is what I think. My thoughts aren't THE truth, they're merely one of the infinite views. I expected better from someone who claims to be as knowledgeable as you.

      I am in no way upset, neither in my previous post, nor now. I don't care what you demand of me, I just don't want you consistently claiming that I'm saying something like a claim instead of merely expressing my thoughts. Evidence is provided for claims, not view-points/perspectives and even if it is, I'm not going to bother with it, seeing as how my simple original post got you riled up so much.

      If you'd been one of those just wanting to discuss, I MIGHT just have bothered explaining, but when you're flaunting your so-called qualifications like actual achievements and constantly demanding evidence, I'd rather not. Not a fan of people who think that degrees are the be-all of the world. There's a lot more to it than a bunch of qualifications on one's resume and while qualifications are relatively necessary for a job, they're nothing more than dead-weight in daily life.

      As for mental disorders, what makes you think I don't have any? Any evidence? Any proof? Maybe one of your so-called degrees gives you a degree of omni-science to just know what I do and don't suffer from, right? :rofl: Got to love assumptions. Really, you claim me to be ignorant about the people who suffer from mental disorders while yourself being ignorant about what I do/don't suffer from. How nice!

      And finally - as for my ignorance, you called me out quite a few times and again, I made it clear in my last post (seems you just didn't bother reading) that I am. And I don't care. There's a reason the quote says: Ignorance is bliss. Get it? My nihilism isn't healthy (again, for you, apparently), I don't care about health. I just don't give a shit, so I'm completely content living an unhealthy life if it means it brings me even the slightest closer to being out of touch with reality. Reality is over-bearing, from my personal experience.

      Largenton wrote:

      And I am saying this in a, this is the same sort of mind set that you come across justifying and acting out atrocities.
      To you, they're atrocities. You, the rest of the society and whoever feels so morally inclined, label acts as praise-worthy/atrocious. No one's asking you to impose your morality on others. You feel something's right/wrong, that's your view-point. Doesn't make it universal. Morality is a personal view, not a universal one. But since you seem to like calling out the 'wrong' stuff, please, do be one of those social justice people and excuse me for not promoting the same views as yours. I'm happy with a lack of morality, no distinction between right/wrong, since they're invented terms anyways. Nothing is inherently right/wrong, no?

      So why don't you just go and have fun with your degree-holding, your broken record of evidence and help man-kind achieve more, instead of coming around to argue with someone as ignorant and unhealthy as me? Maybe I'm replying with my habit of not leaving conversations unfinished, but I'm sure you can find better uses for your time?
    • AMNeSia wrote:

      Let me be clear - yes, your qualifications mean nothing to me. And I explained quite well that one can have the information/knowledge/experience WITHOUT any so-called qualifications and yet be more skilled than qualified personnel. Point being - qualifications mean nothing, only actual skill and knowledge do.
      Qualifications indicate skill and knowledge. Point I was trying to make is that I have skill and knowledge in that area. You've provided nothing.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      As for the evidence part - I said quite clearly that I'm not going to provide any. Not sure why you feel I need a smokescreen, because I just don't care about evidence.
      So to paraphrase you don't know what you are talking about and can't do so.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      This is not a scientific forum, I'm not making any claims, I'm merely stating my perspective which is not bound by evidence.
      Apart from this is a "discussion board". Rules clearly state to be prepared to back up any claims you make. You did make claims and that is society is a scheme made up by intellectuals. Otherwise you are just spamming.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      My thoughts aren't THE truth, they're merely one of the infinite views. I expected better from someone who claims to be as knowledgeable as you.
      Again I refer you to Douglas Adams.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      If you'd been one of those just wanting to discuss, I MIGHT just have bothered explaining, but when you're flaunting your so-called qualifications like actual achievements and constantly demanding evidence
      Loving the condescension and patronising attitude. Like the rules say, be prepared to back up claims with evidence. So when exactly did learning things become a bad thing? I have qualifications in the area, which is one reason why I was asking for evidence. Because it goes against actual research, something that I was stating. I have done my research and I have done so with peer-reviewed articles and evidence based research. I am still not seeing anything you have proposed which has any rigour to it. Again, I suspect there is no evidence.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      I just don't want you consistently claiming that I'm saying something like a claim instead of merely expressing my thoughts. Evidence is provided for claims, not view-points/perspectives
      Do you understand what the definition of "claim" is? It is an assertion that something is true. You have provided your perspective/ viewpoint which you believe is true. You've defended that, therefore you have made a claim. Please, use the word correctly. You made a claim, I asked for evidence.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      As for mental disorders, what makes you think I don't have any? Any evidence? Any proof?
      Because no person who has those disorders would ever make such a stupid statement, unless they were severely ill. Very simple piece of logic. And have you asked why I might be making this claim?


      AMNeSia wrote:

      To you, they're atrocities. You, the rest of the society and whoever feels so morally inclined, label acts as praise-worthy/atrocious. No one's asking you to impose your morality on others. You feel something's right/wrong, that's your view-point. Doesn't make it universal. Morality is a personal view, not a universal one.
      I kinda draw the line at people killing innocents because they aren't getting laid. Or they don't think they get the respect they think they deserve. You claim society will destroy itself and act like a person who is pretty defensive about people questioning your perspective, yet if anyone is going to destroy it, it would be people doing so for irrational reasons like the thoughts you have expressed.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • @Largenton Again, I love your consistent statement that I'm making a claim. Which is precisely something that I never did. Let's see my original post, shall we?

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Lot of view-points here, figured I should add mine. It's long, be free to criticize and ignore if you so desire, since it's easier than actually creating a view-point and I don't demand attention to the post anyways.



      There's no mediocrity, only an induced sense of want. The society is a brilliant machine made by a few really cunning intellectuals made to wash down all traces of individuality and produce conformity.




      IDK if anyone here's watched 'Fast Five', but the scene in that movie where the antagonist (Hernan Reyes, played by Joaquim de Almeida) is sitting in front of 2 clients, saying that he wants to do business in their countries but their methods are too violent. That speech is the summary of society. As he says at the end, "I go into the favelas and give them something to lose. And for that taste of a 'better life', I own them."




      Everyone around us is bent on making us feel inadequate, as if we're missing something out, when we're already as complete as we can be. Everything, from the 'basic needs' of food/clothing/shelter to things like family and kids and the latest phone/house/car/insurance/safety/stability/whatever created by other people, everything becomes an induced want. Sooner or later, you stop consuming because you want to and start consuming because you start feeling a need for it, even if there might inherently not be one.




      And so, it happens with every human and so, the society runs. The whole idea of society was made on slavery - being slaves to artificial, induced needs, by others. Everyone 'fulfilling' everyone else's needs out of some so-called 'necessity', when in fact everyone is capable of fulfilling their own needs using their own desire.




      There's the mediocrity. I'm sure my whole post will be completely disagreeable, since most people believe in the 'necessity' of a society and the even stronger belief of man being a 'social animal', but the fact is - none of this will ever be gone till the society stops existing and people reconnect with their individual selves instead of social ones. Societal destruction is inevitable - it's not really something made by nature (nature calls for relationships and a natural flow of life, not a rule-based, conformity-forcing system made by humans). And when it happens, the mediocrity will finally end and life will show itself in the truest sense.
      Where, exactly, in the post do I say that I'm making a claim? Anywhere? No, because I said precisely right AT THE VERY START that it's a perspective! A view-point, NOT a damn claim! I'm definitely not banging my fist on the table while saying all that and demanding validation for what I said, am I? I merely said that I'm adding my view-point, not making an actual claim.

      Largenton wrote:

      Qualifications indicate skill and knowledge. Point I was trying to make is that I have skill and knowledge in that area. You've provided nothing.
      Qualifications indicate society's acceptance of your level of knowledge. They don't indicate knowledge and skill. I could just make a few fake 'qualifications/degrees' and call myself a Ph.D in something. The qualification/degree means nothing anywhere except in this society where people seem to demand evidence for everything. And again, skill and knowledge can exist without qualifications.

      You think any of the people who made huge monuments, or wrote huge treatises on whatever the subject centuries ago had any such degrees like you do? You think Galileo had a degree in astronomy? Wasn't he confined to house-arrest by the church, even after having the knowledge? Fact is, degrees are nothing beyond social recognition. Beyond the society, they mean nothing. You can be ignorant with a ton of degrees and vice-versa.

      Largenton wrote:

      So to paraphrase you don't know what you are talking about and can't do so.
      Again, that's what you think, based on your broken record of demanding evidence. I could as much claim you don't know what you're talking about, but I don't. Not because of evidence, but because I don't care whether you know what you say or not. Your level of knowledge is not my business, nor something I care about even if it was.

      Largenton wrote:

      Apart from this is a "discussion board". Rules clearly state to be prepared to back up any claims you make. You did make claims and that is society is a scheme made up by intellectuals. Otherwise you are just spamming.
      I'm definitely not spamming, though I can't help it if people see it that way. I made the original post in response to the original poster of this thread, not in response to you. I expressed my view-point on HIS thread, not yours (and I apologized earlier for intruding on your thread, did I not)? My statement of society being a scheme is NOT a claim (again, for the millionth time), though that's my belief. Yet, NOT a claim, because I did expressly state it's what I THINK, not what I CLAIM! Ugh... :headbanging:

      Largenton wrote:

      Loving the condescension and patronising attitude. Like the rules say, be prepared to back up claims with evidence. So when exactly did learning things become a bad thing? I have qualifications in the area, which is one reason why I was asking for evidence. Because it goes against actual research, something that I was stating. I have done my research and I have done so with peer-reviewed articles and evidence based research. I am still not seeing anything you have proposed which has any rigour to it. Again, I suspect there is no evidence.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      I just don't want you consistently claiming that I'm saying something like a claim instead of merely expressing my thoughts. Evidence is provided for claims, not view-points/perspectives
      Do you understand what the definition of "claim" is? It is an assertion that something is true. You have provided your perspective/ viewpoint which you believe is true. You've defended that, therefore you have made a claim. Please, use the word correctly. You made a claim, I asked for evidence.
      Let's see. The definition of 'claim' is to assert the truth of something. Where, exactly, in my original post, do you explicitly see me asserting whatever I said? I put up a plain disclaimer that it was my view-point, which means that I was stating what I think and NOT asserting it to be true. I believe it, but that makes it neither true/false. It's an objective view-point, based on my experience, in response to the original maker of the thread and not to you.

      Largenton wrote:

      Because no person who has those disorders would ever make such a stupid statement, unless they were severely ill. Very simple piece of logic. And have you asked why I might be making this claim?
      I don't ask for claim. You have your reasons to believe what you do and I don't care. As for the statement being stupid, nothing is inherently wise/stupid, it's YOUR perspective, because a statement just can NOT be stupid. I'm not debating why you think it's stupid, I'm not asking for evidence, why are you still stuck on your broken record? Get a new one, for both our sakes. And yes, I do have my own set of mental disorders to deal with and I still say what I did, for my own reasons which you don't have a need to know. :)

      Largenton wrote:

      I kinda draw the line at people killing innocents because they aren't getting laid. Or they don't think they get the respect they think they deserve. You claim society will destroy itself and act like a person who is pretty defensive about people questioning your perspective, yet if anyone is going to destroy it, it would be people doing so for irrational reasons like the thoughts you have expressed.
      And where you draw your line is your problem, not mine, not anyone else's except your own. You don't agree with killing innocents, sure. Who is innocent? You? Me? People in the society? No one. Everyone's guilty of something. Everyone dies. They have to. What difference does it make if they die naturally or by getting murdered? And who the hell cares? If people did, they would have stopped killing each other, wouldn't they? They would have harmonized with each other, wouldn't they? But no, they love to get at each other, shred each other to bits.

      Look at us! We're the best examples. Either of us can just choose to ignore the other and yet we are here, arguing over something that means nothing in our daily, mediocre lives. Both of us can choose to rise above arguments and move on, yet we keep responding to each other. And if we can't stop arguing, how do you expect people to stop being violent? Sounds irrational? What is rational? Nothing. Nothing is inherently rational/irrational, WE define things as such. That's the point you're missing.

      You think evidence is all, and yet the fact is - evidence is ONE person's perspective, or maybe a point of mutual understanding. Evidence is not the end-goal of anything. It's just another way to make sense of everything around us and no more.

      Now, let me be clear I'm not getting defensive about you asking for evidence, all I want is for you to recognize that I'm providing MY view-point and NOT asserting anything to be THE truth. I NEVER, in my original post, asserted anything, merely explained what I feel (are you going to demand proof of what I feel, now? :rofl: ). You question it, great. I'm not liable to provide answers, since you in no way own me, nor have any right beyond asking.

      Again, expression, NOT assertation, FFS!
    • You know what is really interesting. For someone who said it is ok to criticise his ideas, you're really getting worked up when I do and when I asked for evidence for them. Firstly, let us establish that definition of the word claim. I'm going to use the Oxford English Dictionary with the link here. We have two definitions which are relevant here:

      [verb] State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
      [noun] An assertion that something is true.

      So let us go through your claims:
      1.
      There's no mediocrity, only an induced sense of want.
      Statement of something being the case. Is without evidence or proof.

      2.
      The society is a brilliant machine made by a few really cunning intellectuals made to wash down all traces of individuality and produce conformity.
      An assertion that something is true, that society is a brilliant machine, etc.

      3.
      Everyone around us is bent on making us feel inadequate, as if we're missing something out, when we're already as complete as we can be.
      Another assertion that people are actively making each other feel inadequate.

      4.
      The whole idea of society was made on slavery - being slaves to artificial, induced needs, by others.
      Assertion, society is slavery.

      5.
      Societal destruction is inevitable - it's not really something made by nature (nature calls for relationships and a natural flow of life, not a rule-based, conformity-forcing system made by humans).
      Statement of fact.

      5 assertions were made. Whilst they are your beliefs, that doesn't mean they are not claims. An assertion is a confident statement of fact or belief. You have made five assertions about your beliefs. In my first post I asked for evidence for these assertions as you were presenting them as truths. This can be seen as matching the first criteria as a verb. You have claimed these things. I asked for evidence as you've somehow expected us to just accept your beliefs rather than challenge them because like I keep saying this board is called the "discussionboard". This also runs counter to the knowledge I have acquired through study in my field. It ignores that all humans form societies and this is evident from the fact that our societies are evolutionary constructs, something that you contradict by saying animals don't have societies. So yes, claims were made about how society works and I asked for evidence politely. I also noted that you confused society with Capitalism, an economic ideology which is not society. You proceeded to have a tantrum as if I should just accept what you said is worthy of note. You even have said later on that it was because I wasn't trying to discuss what you have said. But this is problematic, because how can I form a critique when you won't provide evidence of how you are thinking? When you make out that society is an artificial construct designed by humans rather than an evolved survival strategy then I have a right to doubt that claim. Especially as I can refer you to many academics who have written on the subject, Penny Spikins, for example, looks at the development of cognitive traits and she has written some nice stuff with Andy Needham for example, arguing that empathy is a social strategy, along with autism. Just a few seconds browsing I can find a Royal Society paper on the evolution of society, if you care to read something with actual evidence. Your assertions run counter to actual evidence. Hence why I requested it. But don't expect me to just take those assertions as fact. You originally said you didn't mind criticism, yet you are constantly complaining when I do. It's pretty insecure tbh.

      Qualifications indicate society's acceptance of your level of knowledge. They don't indicate knowledge and skill.

      Wait what? Qualifications indicate society's accept of your level of knowledge. In other words, society accepts you have a certain level of knowledge right? So a qualification shows a certain level of knowledge. It is proof to other people you have some knowledge in a subject. You've just contradicted yourself.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      I could just make a few fake 'qualifications/degrees' and call myself a Ph.D in something.
      Good luck with that. Although it does show a form of knowledge..... it shows a lack of knowledge about how universities work, in terms of qualifications......


      AMNeSia wrote:

      The qualification/degree means nothing anywhere except in this society where people seem to demand evidence for everything.
      Ah, so you object to the concept of scientific thinking...... because that is what it is you know. Evidence is important for everything because it avoids making assumptions, as I explained earlier.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      You think any of the people who made huge monuments, or wrote huge treatises on whatever the subject centuries ago had any such degrees like you do?
      This doesn't make sense. How does other people's achievements without qualifications invalidate my qualifications? My qualifications came up simply as me saying that what you state doesn't match the academic field. Hence why I asked for evidence.

      Also Galileo was an academic. He started in medicine in 1580 but got distracted by mathematics, geometry and astronomy. He became a chair of mathematics in 1589. So he kinda does have qualifications in that area.... Sorry, reality got in the way of your little rant.

      But, I find this quite interesting about Galileo because he symbolises what I am requesting. Evidence. He presented evidence of his findings and it helped overturn an assumption. The Church didn't like the evidence and his portrayal of the Pope so he got put under house arrest for challenging a religious assumption. It's very Socratic and you are kinda supporting my request for evidence here.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Again, that's what you think, based on your broken record of demanding evidence. I could as much claim you don't know what you're talking about, but I don't. Not because of evidence, but because I don't care whether you know what you say or not. Your level of knowledge is not my business, nor something I care about even if it was.
      Apart from if you asked me for evidence I would provide it. Partly because it is hilarious, but partly because this is a discussionboard and you are requested to present evidence when you present an argument.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      I'm definitely not spamming, though I can't help it if people see it that way. I made the original post in response to the original poster of this thread, not in response to you. I expressed my view-point on HIS thread
      Well without the ability to discuss your viewpoint it really is just spam. Meaningless and without merit as you refuse to provide evidence.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Let's see. The definition of 'claim' is to assert the truth of something. Where, exactly, in my original post, do you explicitly see me asserting whatever I said? I put up a plain disclaimer that it was my view-point, which means that I was stating what I think and NOT asserting it to be true. I believe it, but that makes it neither true/false. It's an objective view-point, based on my experience, in response to the original maker of the thread and not to you.

      You do know the meaning of the word "objective" is to represent the facts right? So you are actually saying this is the truth based on your experience. Which makes those 5 points at the start claims according to what you said.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      I don't ask for claim.
      What? Do you mean that you didn't ask for a reason? Because you kinda did......

      AMNeSia wrote:

      As for the statement being stupid, nothing is inherently wise/stupid, it's YOUR perspective, because a statement just can NOT be stupid.

      No, making a statement with no empathy for those suffering with mental illness that it is classed as a disability.

      I have just realised from previous posts that you gave away your possible location as one of two countries. Both are not the best countries for mental health provision and from personal accounts told to me, one of them is notorious for mental health being a taboo.

      However, this is a perspective which is not valid really. There are clear signs that mental health problems are hard to bear, I have had to deal with them and I know a lot of people in that community. I can discuss perspectives from a lot of people who struggle with their problems and we have all acknowledged the hardship we have to deal with. Because it is hard when you are in pain and the paranoia sets in, combined with a sense of worthlessness, to feel like life is worth living. And this results in suicide when you don't talk about it. But to devalue these illnesses as not illnesses is insulting. It is ableist and to say it is only what the experts say ignores the fact that there are issues and that these illnesses are just as valid as physical ones.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And yes, I do have my own set of mental disorders to deal with and I still say what I did, for my own reasons which you don't have a need to know.
      Having mental health problems does not mean you can't be ableist.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And where you draw your line is your problem, not mine, not anyone else's except your own. You don't agree with killing innocents, sure. Who is innocent? You? Me? People in the society? No one. Everyone's guilty of something. Everyone dies. They have to. What difference does it make if they die naturally or by getting murdered? And who the hell cares? If people did, they would have stopped killing each other, wouldn't they? They would have harmonized with each other, wouldn't they? But no, they love to get at each other, shred each other to bits.

      Sophistry. Society is about shared space and community. We make laws to ensure we live together peacefully and they are agreed in democratic countries by the majority. So me drawing the line is kinda a perception most people have. I'm sorry you have this rage towards others in the way you do, but you expect perfectionism from people which is impossible. But despite what you say, simply killing people because God told you to do it, you're not getting laid, you hate people, etc, is wrong. It is taking away the right of a person to live, theft of their life. It suggests a lack of empathy and callous nature which is self-destroying.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      And if we can't stop arguing, how do you expect people to stop being violent? Sounds irrational? What is rational? Nothing. Nothing is inherently rational/irrational, WE define things as such. That's the point you're missing.
      Actually since being rational is something based on reason or logic, so technically, you have an answer.

      And this argument is mainly of me trying to a) make you understand critical thinking and b) challenge your world view. Kinda because your world view says a lot about you.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      You think evidence is all, and yet the fact is - evidence is ONE person's perspective, or maybe a point of mutual understanding. Evidence is not the end-goal of anything. It's just another way to make sense of everything around us and no more.
      Your last point merely emphasises exactly why I asked it in the first place. As there are different values of evidence. I never said evidence was the end goal, just that I requested it because your claims are not rational. Evidence would have given it some context.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Now, let me be clear I'm not getting defensive about you asking for evidence, all I want is for you to recognize that I'm providing MY view-point and NOT asserting anything to be THE truth. I NEVER, in my original post, asserted anything, merely explained what I feel
      Your beliefs are assertions by definition. And the fact is, you had them challenged. You reacted badly as this can establish from bystanders such as Silverwind when I asked for evidence. Asking for evidence is a way of challenging thoughts and critical thinking is a good skill to learn.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • @Largenton - Let me get this over with as shortly as possible. And there's something at the end. At least read that if not the rest of my post.

      You seem stuck confusing expression of thoughts with assertion. Let's define assertion, shall we?

      Google says: 'a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief' (noun).

      Was I being forceful in my original post? Was I saying, in the slightest that my view-point was THE truth? Yes, I expressed my views as statements, but a statement doesn't mean assertion unless one is only willing to place it as truth instead of a possibility. And the very first paragraph of my original post says that it's my view-point, feel free to disagree. Which means I'm NOT forcing my view around, which also means I'm not being assertive, and therefore, expressing merely a possibility and NOT a claim.

      Can we get it clear? Me, the source of the post, is CLARIFYING that I made NO ASSERTIONS, only stating a possibility to the best of my beliefs and skills in writing. Could you PLEASE just stop saying that it was an assertion, because it wasn't. :headbanging: :headbanging: :headbanging: :headbanging: :headbanging:

      As for the rest - first, yes, I reacted in my second and third post badly, but I accepted that they weren't written in the right frame of mind, which means they're meant to be ignored (due to the genius decision of not letting users control their own posts).

      Second - I don't care about providing evidence. I don't object to it, I merely don't like being pulled into it. You want to live a life of evidence, be my guest, just keep me out of the loop of proof.

      Third - I'm not in the least ableist. I don't discriminate against anyone, do I? Unlike you, with your moral policing, I don't discriminate between anyone. I explained in my previous point that I don't discriminate between right and wrong, why would I discriminate between 'normal' and 'disabled/mentally ill'? Neither of those terms mean anything, since to me, everyone's normal. Just like a new/extinct language, those 'disabled/mentally ill' people need to be learnt, not cured (unless they're a threat to life).

      Third A - They're different, not ill. In fact, you call them ill and discriminate instead of being with them, learning with and about them and accepting them as they are rather than looking to cure. Instead of learning to help them use their disorders in new ways, you want to make them 'better' and 'normal', which just ends up stealing their uniqueness away from them.

      Fourth - I don't demand perfection, I merely demand self-regulation. I don't need a bunch of someone else's laws to tell me how to survive. Tips? Guidelines? Sure. Laws and rules? No, thank you. I have a brain to tell me what's right/wrong for me and to live appropriately. You need laws because you lack self-regulation, that's your problem. I shouldn't need to suffer for it by having to follow the same laws. And (please don't start again by saying that it's an assertion) peace is a joke. Chaos is the natural way of life, from the collisions between atomics to the explosions of supernovae. Violence is existence - accept it rather than run towards and eternally distant peace which doesn't exist. Of course, all of this is a possibility, lest you start to think it's an actual assertion! :rofl:

      Fifth - taking away the right of someone to live their life? And what about those who take away the rights and lives of the so-called 'criminals'? If they were killed, that'd at least save them from living like a corpse in prison for their term. And life isn't a right, it's a privilege (isn't it? 'Cause I've always heard people teach to treat things as a privilege). No one has the right to live, they should merely be fortunate for even getting a life. Plus, taking away someone's right to take a life is as atrocious as taking away someone's 'right' to life.

      Sixth - Can we finally just move along with the fact that my original post was NOT A FUCKING ASSERTION?

      Anyways, I'm done with this. Yea, maybe it was my fault expressing my opinion. Maybe it's true, that opinions are like toilets and that everyone has one. Guess this has a lesson for me - never express my opinion unless explicitly asked to, and even then, say as less as possible. Not bad, TBH - communication is a huge energy drain and conservation is a significant step in survival.

      And the part which you should read, as I explained at the top: My world-view is my own. I prefer discussions, not challenges. I'm not one of those who likes a challenge. I'm one of those who likes things in the most predictable and boring way possible, while being the easiest, so I can just get them over with. I don't care about growth, about thinking, about anything more than finishing what comes up next. In a way, I'm like a really inefficient CPU - only care about executing tasks, but unable to do them properly.

      So, I'm out. I'm sorry for ever participating in this discussion, also apologize for any insults I may have hurled at you. Nothing personal. From now, I'll limit myself only to the most significant task I might have. On my end, it's :closed: .
    • And I see you have decided to not engage and attempt to listen to what I have to say. Whilst I understand what you are saying, you have failed to grasp the context of the matter nor understood why I keep repeatedly asking for evidence.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Can we get it clear? Me, the source of the post, is CLARIFYING that I made NO ASSERTIONS, only stating a possibility to the best of my beliefs and skills in writing. Could you PLEASE just stop saying that it was an assertion, because it wasn't.
      What you may say afterwards doesn't matter. The context of the matter does. You stated your beliefs which you believe are true on a board set aside for discussion. By default, those beliefs are up for discussion (which you stated) and are claims. In other words, these are claims you have made about the world and how it operates. Hand waving aside about how it is a possibility, you still believe it is true and you open this up to discussion. We may therefore treat them as claims on how the world works.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      As for the rest - first, yes, I reacted in my second and third post badly, but I accepted that they weren't written in the right frame of mind, which means they're meant to be ignored (due to the genius decision of not letting users control their own posts).
      However, you continued to complain about my requests for evidence. Let us be straight. My requests for evidence was to see what your workings were. In any sensible discussion, the idea is to perceive the other person's viewpoint. It is expected that this viewpoint will be rigorous enough to stand up to debate. Hence, my request for evidence. Evidence would provide why you thought that way as well as provide clarity in what you were trying to say. In a discussion it is a reasonable request, yet you have continued to echo the sentiments of those follow up posts, bitterly complaining about my attempts to find out more and/or denying people the opportunity to engage with you. Your behaviour then runs counter to your words, on the one hand wanting people to discuss them, but unwilling to provide clarity. This is not intelligent behaviour and leads to pseudo-intellectualism, which is just self-glorification without meaning, producing individuals like Jordan Peterson, the world renowned anti-semite and sexist who spends a lot of time criticising Marxism without having ever read Marx. Now that is mediocrity, a mediocre academic who, if he states enough woo, attracts incels and other disaffected white males to his congregation.

      What is more annoying is that you then tell me to ignore your posts yet pick up on my responses, wasting time claiming my degrees aren't worth anything and not proper achievements. As they required effort, skill and a degree of courage, they are defined as achievements. It is petty to make such claims and it does make it clear that you have not attempted true academic struggle. Because believe me, any one doing a PhD is making an effort. That effort is to declare yourself a world expert on something and it is bloody hard. Yet I only mentioned my achievements in regard to the fact that the knowledge I gained from them, contradicts entirely your claims.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Second - I don't care about providing evidence. I don't object to it, I merely don't like being pulled into it. You want to live a life of evidence, be my guest, just keep me out of the loop of proof.
      So in other words you prefer not to have your opinions discussed. How exactly can you learn to think without confronting hard truths about beliefs?

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Third - I'm not in the least ableist. I don't discriminate against anyone, do I? Unlike you, with your moral policing, I don't discriminate between anyone. I explained in my previous point that I don't discriminate between right and wrong, why would I discriminate between 'normal' and 'disabled/mentally ill'? Neither of those terms mean anything, since to me, everyone's normal. Just like a new/extinct language, those 'disabled/mentally ill' people need to be learnt, not cured (unless they're a threat to life).
      Who said that mental illness wasn't normal? Normal is a subjective word, it can be carefully argued that as mental illness is often an evolutionary reaction to somethings, it is a normal part of life. At the same time, I don't think you understand mental illness as you seem to think it is the same as learning disorders, like autism or ADHD or dyslexia for example. Those we can definitely celebrate and accommodate because it is about being neurodiverse rather than neurotypical. They are not abnormal and indeed there could be some argument for them being evolutionary adaptations, necessary in the human population.

      I will continue my point after this next bit.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Third A - They're different, not ill. In fact, you call them ill and discriminate instead of being with them, learning with and about them and accepting them as they are rather than looking to cure. Instead of learning to help them use their disorders in new ways, you want to make them 'better' and 'normal', which just ends up stealing their uniqueness away from them.
      This is stupid. You tell me not to make assumptions about you and then have the hypocrisy to make a huge assumption about myself and fail to read what I say. Let us be crystal clear, I am currently off work with anxiety and have been for two months nearly. I am classed by law as disabled because of it. Every time I think of work, my mind starts to think about the worst possible scenarios and I have to take medication to avoid an anxiety attack. Have you ever had an anxiety attack? They are not fun. With anxiety, certain hormones are overactive in your body, such as adrenaline. This is because anxiety is your flight or fight instinct kicking in when it doesn't need to. It means you get paranoid, you get headaches, stomach ache, struggle to sleep, you worry far too much about little things, flashbacks can occur, you feel nauseous, you can't control your emotions and in short it is horrible, especially if you start considering suicide idealisation. I, by every definition of the word am ill with a mental health problem. To claim I am just "different" and not ill is highly offensive to someone like myself who takes pills just to get up in a morning some days. Don't patronise my illness or claim I am trying to stop myself from being unique. What I want instead is to feel normal, like every person with mental health problems. I want to not struggle with my emotions and be able to behave normally for myself. How dare you then accuse me of discrimination when it is clear you do not have any idea what you are on about. I, like many other mentally ill people take medication to function. I do it to get up in the morning. I do it to plan my return to work. I do it so that I can focus on getting better. Because it is an illness, just like epilepsy or diabetes. When it is under control, anxiety can help with life, your perfectionism can be useful, you can be incredibly empathetic and if something goes wrong, you have already got a solution. The coping strategies as well are useful, CBT is a good way of living a healthy and fulfilling life. But it is an illness. It is caused by things like trauma. It changes your ways of thinking and behaviour. By definition therefore, you have no idea what you are saying. Worse, you are being offensive to people like myself by gaslighting, as I pointed out earlier. That is discrimination so don't try and pretend you aren't being discriminatory.


      AMNeSia wrote:

      Fourth - I don't demand perfection, I merely demand self-regulation. I don't need a bunch of someone else's laws to tell me how to survive. Tips? Guidelines? Sure. Laws and rules? No, thank you. I have a brain to tell me what's right/wrong for me and to live appropriately
      Oh stop being a hypocrite. Stop making assumptions about me because you have been doing exactly the same. Well done, you have figured out that murder is wrong, congratulations, you are apparently a superior being, although I find it hilarious that you don't consider I may have figured out the problems with murder at a fairly early age. But let us be honest, it isn't just about you on your pedestal. It is also so other people don't murder and if they do, there are consequences for those actions or at least the opportunity to try and reform them. It is a societal attempt to stop people doing wrong, like killing people for no rational reason. It also protects you as well from others, or at least in theory.

      As for demanding perfection, you do. You are upset because the world doesn't live up to your standards, you made that clear in your very first post, I mean, it is laughable because of how stereotypical it is. But the nihilism you embrace is practically a personification of Tyler Durden from Fight Club.

      AMNeSia wrote:

      Fifth - taking away the right of someone to live their life? And what about those who take away the rights and lives of the so-called 'criminals'? If they were killed, that'd at least save them from living like a corpse in prison for their term. And life isn't a right, it's a privilege (isn't it? 'Cause I've always heard people teach to treat things as a privilege). No one has the right to live, they should merely be fortunate for even getting a life. Plus, taking away someone's right to take a life is as atrocious as taking away someone's 'right' to life.
      Oh stop acting like an edgelord. It is just old and I am tired of you being stereotypical. The right to life is part of international law, a human right, although, the finer details vary from country to country. Taking away someone's life is different, it is not a human right. You deprive someone of their choice to live, who are you to take away that choice? You are insisting therefore that you are more important than they are. Sorry, you are not and it is a worrying argument that you propose, which leads to solipsism.

      The fact is, is that you are being hypocritical and offensive. You guard your precious beliefs from being challenged by critical thinking and you've demonstrated this continually. Stop rationalising this hatred because it isn't unique or productive. It is mediocre.


      If

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • Plenty of material here, you two went all in. Proud of you both.
      The fact you couldn't let the initial disagreement slide and turned it into an all out keyboard war means you're both craving for validation and attention, kings size mediocre.
      The fact I couldn't keep my mouth shut and came here to share my views and self-righteous attitude means I'm in the same club as you two. Ironic.

      Interestingly, I agree with Amnesia on his initial premise - human race truly is a virus in this world. Evidence? Let's be true to the scientific method and start by an observation.
      If all the lions die, the savannah has no
      apex predator, the food chain collapses.
      If all the humans die, not one part of the food chain changes - we're no apex
      predators, no producers, no value whatsoever for any other organism.
      We die and the world heals. The only significance is the one we gave to ourselves. The society is the evolutionary adaptation to the fact that outside of it, our race is weak as fuck. Fall into the ocean, have fun with the sharks. Get lost in the jungle, have fun with snakes and tigers. The only strengths we have as a species is in our numbers and following that, each individual is replaceable.
      We're the swarm with the only purpose to procreate. Eating, sleeping, shitting serve that goal, and art, music and all the fine things in life serve to keep us from murdering each other.
      Then the A-bomb was invented. Now we can do what no other specimen can - annihilate all life on Earth at the push of a button. Yay.
      We're the literal embodiment of chaos and destruction, packed in a meat-bag, governed by the cocktail of hormones and a full dictionary-sized list of chemicals I can't even pronounce. Some of those get mixed up, you get anxiety. Or cancer. Or a billion other mutations. We're the nature's lab rats, great for fucking shit up for the purpose of natural diversity and just for the lolz.
      Your entire argument is the culmination of 4 billion years of evolution, development of advanced cognitive functions just to say 'I'm better than you' in 3 thousand words, give or take.
      Great job.
    • Yes, @WhoDis, which is why I'm out. I realize that arguments are no good anyways. Ignorance or wisdom, we're bound to be stuck on our own views than live in harmony. Best let things play out as they do, while surviving to the best of our abilities.

      And @Largenton I'm not going to respond anymore to this thread, unless someone explicitly asks for me. While I did act out of control, I don't like being portrayed as something I'm not. And, just for the record - yes, when people kill each other, I feel better. I'm glad humans tear each other to bits. Want to call the psychiatric hospital morons on me? Be my guest.
    • Nah, I just object to bad arguments. Such as what Amnesia was proposing which he refused to engage.

      WhoDis wrote:

      If all the lions die, the savannah has no
      apex predator, the food chain collapses.
      Actually there are other apex predators. There would be a noticeable shift in strategies, but do remember that animals such as hyenas, wild dogs, cheetahs, leopards, etc are also present. These would attempt to fill the void and evolve to fill any deficiencies. It is a very simplistic model.

      WhoDis wrote:

      If all the humans die, not one part of the food chain changes - we're no apex
      predators, no producers, no value whatsoever for any other organism.
      And here is the same problem, you're thinking too simplistically. We're actually part of the food chain and our actions also provide alternative resources.

      There are many animals and plants that benefit from interaction with us. The first are the domesticates. I'm not going to define what domestication is because it is impossible, but if you have access to academic papers, Terry O'Connor wrote a paper on the subject as a zooarchaeologist (an archaeologist that studies the remains of animals) which explains some of the difficulties. Domesticates though, benefit from our control of their breeding. We keep their populations in check or encourage them. Our disappearance may be problematic here.

      There are also animals called commensal animals. These aren't domesticated, but use human dwellings and practices to live. Think urban foxes, mice, geese, etc. These animals benefit from humans being present, even if we don't actively control their populations in the same way as the domesticate. Again, referring back to O'Connor, he wrote a nice short book called Animals as Neighbours which discusses these interactions through the prism of zooarchaeology.

      The point here is that we are part of an ecosystem. We interact with other animals, plants and bacteria in greater depth than we know. Our extinction would have repercussions.

      WhoDis wrote:

      We die and the world heals.
      Eventually. This is rather like saying that Henry VIII's Dissolution was a good thing. We do however, have the ability to live with our planet.


      WhoDis wrote:

      The only significance is the one we gave to ourselves.
      Mainly because we are the only species that can understand that significance. We're unique as far as we know.


      WhoDis wrote:

      The society is the evolutionary adaptation to the fact that outside of it, our race is weak as fuck. Fall into the ocean, have fun with the sharks. Get lost in the jungle, have fun with snakes and tigers.
      That is the main thrust of my critique against Amnesia. He believes society is artificial, which is wrong. I have been trying to tell him that.

      However, it isn't just society that makes us strong. The adaptations to society are also beneficial. We have great social intelligence, we walk upright, we have the ability to think in the abstract, language, tool use, etc, these things make us strong. And we teach those skills too. Yes, drop a naked average suburban man into the ocean or jungle without preparation and they won't last long. But I doubt a lion would last long being dropped into Antarctica or a fish into a desert. However, give us knowledge and time, we can adapt to any environment. That's a strength.

      WhoDis wrote:

      We're the swarm with the only purpose to procreate.
      Technically that is the only purpose of all life. To procreate and pass on the genetic code. I disagree with most things Dawkins says nowadays, but the analogy of the Selfish Gene is quite interesting.


      WhoDis wrote:

      art, music and all the fine things in life serve to keep us from murdering each other.
      Why?

      I would argue that art, music and other things in life are products of our evolution. Evolutionary traits that give us an edge over other species.

      WhoDis wrote:

      Then the A-bomb was invented. Now we can do what no other specimen can - annihilate all life on Earth at the push of a button.
      Indeed, it is a terrible power. But at the same time, the amount of modern technology that came from that research is incredible. I can think of several influential things that would not exist without research into nuclear energy.


      WhoDis wrote:

      ay.
      We're the literal embodiment of chaos and destruction, packed in a meat-bag, governed by the cocktail of hormones and a full dictionary-sized list of chemicals I can't even pronounce.
      You judge us harshly. Yes we bring chaos and destruction, but at the same time we build structures and create order. We're not perfect and we have done some horrific things. We killed millions in the 1940s just because some idiot decided that anyone not aspiring to his ideals should be killed. Yet what did we do afterwards. We attempted to change our actions. We argued that genocide was wrong, created human rights, found alternatives to global conflict, tried to rebuild Germany as a better place. We're not perfect as a species, we are causing chaos and destruction right now, ignoring those lessons of history, but we do attempt to do better.


      WhoDis wrote:

      Your entire argument is the culmination of 4 billion years of evolution, development of advanced cognitive functions just to say 'I'm better than you' in 3 thousand words, give or take.
      Actually my entire argument is we are the culmination of billions of years of evolution and we have developed advanced cognitive functions so we should use them. Not be some edgelord whose inspiration is a Brad Pitt character and whines every time they get called out like a stroppy teenager. I would rather have a discussion with yourself, where you have provided evidence of your thoughts. I disagree with you, but at the same time, you've engaged with me and thought about it. You've provided some evidence of your thinking which means I can respond.

      I've said this before, but I used to run this board as a mod. Back when I ran it and before I ran it, I participated in it regularly. And people mainly provided evidence of their thoughts, because doing so meant you could understand their arguments properly and debate them. This made me think and others think properly about a subject. Rather than entrenching a viewpoint, you learnt new ones, which changes your perceptions. If you are interested and go and look up what I have said or learnt something from it, even if you disagree with me in the end, I've achieved something in this and fulfilled what this board is meant to be about. Engaging that intelligence we evolved.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • look, every argument ever said or written could be dissected and questioned into oblivion if we so wanted.
      As a matter of fact, this is a common practice in the court of law, where prolonging and complicating the argument serves the goal of
      losing the strain of thought, ultimately dismissing the whole thing as frivolous and futile. This is exactly what Amnesia did, after you started bantering his every sentence, and is exactly the reason why I won't follow up on any of your arguments, as much as my hand itches to do so.
      This whole thing started after his initial comment on society, which you asked evidence for and called it a conspiracy theory.
      You ask 'Is this correct?'
      If no evidence is present or offered, you dismiss it vigorously.
      I ask 'Could this be correct?' and with
      that attitude allow myself the benefit of the doubt and an open mind for something I might not understand properly to have an opinion on.
      Galileo didn't have evidence, because it took us couple hundred years to develop technology to actually prove what observations and logical assumptions already knew.
      Einstein didn't have evidence, yet as of this very month every intelligent person knows without a shadow of the doubt the black holes are real.
      What Amnesia offered was much the same way - an observation based on experience, his own view of the world. The same way 2+2 is 4, so is 3+1. Lot's of different views lead to same conclusion, same result.
      What you could've done was to ask for an explanation. Oh how different this thread would be had you two put your ego's aside and tried clearing the confusion instead of insisting on your right to be right.
      And in the end, both of you have some good points and some bad ones. Or do you truly wish to argue that everything you said is a scientific axiom and shouldn't be exposed to scrutiny?

      A bit more irony -
      Amnesia gave up on discussing with you, because the more you argued the more you confirmed his opinion. Makes it a phyrric victory for him, because he feels good for confirming what he already believed in and feels shitty because he'd rather not believe in it, it's just that people keep confirming it.

      You argued and the more you did, the more righteous you felt, because your ability to form and express thoughts made you believe that this ability has to be exercised.
      But to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: 'Your scientists where so preoccupied with wether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should'. You argued not because Amnesia was wrong, but because you so needed to be right. I get that you need a win right now, and the frustration builds up until you have to argue with strangers, but this is not a healthy environment to get better from anxiety.
      Makes this a phyrric victory for you too, because you technically won the discussion considering both Amnesia and I forfeited, yet do you really feel like you've actually proved anything other than the fact we're all just insecure little beings trying to look smart on a forum?

      I call this a waste of time and intellect on all our parts. We could all be doing more with our lives, and making strangers feel shitty definitely isn't on my to-do list of things I want done before I'm old and senile. We're all pretty good at complex thoughts, there's bound to be places better suited for such talents.
    • @WhoDis - No, it's not a victory for me. I know I don't stand a chance against him in terms of the 'general knowledge' thing. And while I do agree that I acted out of control, it's something I couldn't help, but yes, I will say this:

      What I did offer was an opinion, as you said and while I have no problem with discussions, maybe even debates, I do strongly have a problem with the whole nonsense called 'evidence'. Evidence doesn't exist - it's just the latest in a line of enlightened perspectives, each one more than the previous and still NOT the definite enlightenment.

      If he'd asked me, "Why do you think/feel the way you do?", I'd have gladly discussed. But when he talks about things only provable on paper, that's nonsense. How can anyone be expected to present their experiences on a paper like a scientific thesis? How ridiculous is that?

      Anyways, you got the point right, so there's nothing for me to say. You're more aware than I am and I appreciate you for it.
    • Right a few things.

      Firstly, I do agree with you @WhoDis that my problems have affected me by making me irritable. Not sure if you have had a similar experience, but being off work due to ill health caused by anxiety is draining and it is easy to let those moods influence actions. Having noted it, I make no excuses other than to say I am going to make sure it doesn't happen again.

      I will disagree with you about how scientists conduct things, partly because it bugs me and partly because I find the scientific process fascinating and worth learning about. Whilst Einstein didn't have evidence for black holes existing, he made a hypothesis that postulated them from evidence that he did have. So he did have evidence, enough to say that this may be one of the solutions via mathematics, but he couldn't confirm this with scientific experimentation. Even if Amnesia couldn't conclusively prove his point, I wanted to know what led him to it. Because, like I said, what he proposes runs counter to the academic field I have studied. We have facts that show his idea is wrong.

      @AMNeSia

      Regarding your confusion over evidence, you're overcomplicating things. Yes we can talk about the philosophical abstracts of whether evidence exists or not, but what I really meant was the standard definition which includes what you wanted. I wanted to know why you thought that, what "evidence" you had for it in terms of these thoughts. What I wanted was the structure of your thoughts for understanding. One of the maxims of science is KISS, keep it simple stupid. I apply critical, academic thinking to debates and discussions and it is worth doing because it promotes better thinking and clearer expression. Learning to do so is a useful life skill and it is one that I want to encourage here to promote positive debate. In general, the better the discussion, the more respect people have for each other and it stops miscommunication like here.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....