Re: Arrogance
 

I know really? I'm starting to wonder if it's all a show to give us a prime example of arrogance.:lol:

Atleast then it would all somehow be related to the thread topic.

Re: Arrogance
 

Well I can't say I can say something that faggy. Canada as well has money, just like you have enough money to pretend to support your country, where as we CAN support our country.

You still fail to show me how your country is a god.

And wesker, this thread is on topic, notice the thread title, and than notice how we're talking about Nitestryker?

Re: Arrogance
 

Yes. Thats what I was going for. What, you didnt know?

But seriously, MOAB Africa.

Re: Arrogance
 

I don't see how really.

I've come to notice that the majority of people treat others, and the planet, and the wildlife like shit. This makes me arrogant? How?

Nature may have made us look how we do and act like we do, but nature didn't give us technology. We created that ourselves, over a significant period of time. As said above, we've become more arrogant because of this technology, that has nothing to do with nature.

Yes, people and species do die naturally, but many have become extinct because of us. That has nothing to do with nature. In the unlikely event that an alien space ship comes to earth, and decides to take away our crops, and our farm animals, we'd eventually die off. By your word, this would be a cause of nature. I think not!

It's about superiority and power.

Help preserve our countryside and wildlife perhaps?

Violence is AN answer, but it sure as hell isn't the only answer. There is such a thing known as diplomacy. Sure it may not be as quick, but it is less destructive, and you'd probably get more out of it.

If you nuked a place, you'd have a small victory. You'd contaminate the area (even with a biological weapon, you'd still have tens of thousands (if not more) corpses to clean up), you'd have a price on the weapons and such used, you'd lose culture, and no doubt many other valuable resources.

If you use diplomacy, you needn't worry about cleaning up the mess, and you've still got all the benefits. The only difference, is that is would probably take longer.

What gives anyone the right to decide who should live, and who should die?

You say Nuke Africa (or bomb them with said weapon) but not everyone in Africa is trouble / evil. Do they deserve to die for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

:ditto:

I'll admit, I lol'd.

I'd have to agree with Afterburner's last comment too... We're not suppose to be biting each others heads off here, so how about we all calm down a little (for those getting too personal about it). :)

Re: Arrogance
 

We ARE nature. Is a beaver's damn unnatural? Is a bird's nest unnatural? Is a Primate's use of sticks to hunt for ants unnatural?
Everything is a cause of nature. EVERYTHING is nature.
Same thing that gives anyone the right to do anything, more force.

Re: Arrogance
 

I think I see where you're going, but by your definition, everything from a plant leaf, to a raindrop, to a skyscraper, to a nuclear weapon, to another planet 2,000,000 lightyears away is that of 'nature'.

I suppose in a way, we are what we've become because of nature, but we've advanced so much because of technology too. If we hadn't evolved to this state, we've not have developed technology, thus wouldn't have cured countless illnesses and such.

Not sure if the point I am trying to make is being made well here (I'm thinking not) but there is another point that I'm trying to make. Suffice to say, without technology, we'd generally live in peace (to an extent), and wouldn't contaminate the planet. With technology, we're arrogant, and do fuck things up.

Think back to the conquest of America. The Red Indians used to hunt the Buffalo that they needed. They'd kill what they'd require for food and clothing, then leave the rest be. We took technology over there (guns), and cowboys slaughtered many more simply for 'fun'.

This is no different to various species that either are extinct, or that are becoming such because of our technology. Without bulldozers, we'd have to cut down tree's one at a time. We've since discovered a way of taking out an entire forest within a number of weeks. One tree every now and then isn't going to matter to the wildlife living there, an entire forest will.

Re: Arrogance
 

Yes.
And without technology we'd be... well extinct actually. We're terrible at survival without technology, though I suppose without technology we might simply never have evolved from the chimp's evolutionary line (though even chimps use technology.)

White man mostly hunted Bison for their fur, not for "fun." They are fucking dangerous animals, and very few people would have hunted them for fun. Native Americans put a great deal of pressure on the Buffalo in many areas of the U.S. Also, at least according to Wikipedia (and it has a cite for this) there is evidence to suggest Native Americans essentially created the Buffalo herd themselves by burning down forest areas to make more grassland for them, and then regulating the herds. There is this rather ridiculous notion that the Native Americans had some sort of mystical connection to nature, but there isn't really a great deal of evidence to suggest that. I mean they would stampede the Buffalo off cliffs to kill them, does that sound like a steward of the wilds? Or just a group of people interested in getting lots of food?
Are joking? The use of fire to destroy huge tracks of forest is thousands of years old, and was the predominant way of clearing land. The bulldozer is hardly the reason so many animals go extinct. The largest human pressure on the animal kingdom is in the trash we dump into waterways really. That can poison hundreds of miles of drinking water.

Some animals just need to die out anyways. The Panda is such a worthless animal. It is horribly adapted to survival and is only surviving because of humans.

Re: Arrogance
 

BWAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!......*cough*

So, you're saying that Nitestryker only pretends to support the USA, but you actually support Canada? Ok, tell me how you support your country.

Re: Arrogance
 

Yes it would. Everything that happens in the world is nature. With or without human influence is the astrisk.

You will also loose a considerable amount and have a greater chance of failure.

Say you want to go to Africa to educate people on the downsides of having so many kids. You burn the fuel to get there, you walk around attempting to communicate. You need to persuade the natives your idea is worth following, even tho you are a strange white man in a tribal village. And then even if somehow, after the weeks and months you educated them, they have to make a decision to listen. Then, they have to stay consistent.

So say they listen. You are still waning resources as the kids age. So really you only saved maybe 40-50 % of the possible resources.

Not gonna happen.

You drop a fuel air bomb, and no man, no problem. Sure you burn some stuff, but the people are eliminated, thus releasing the burden the people were on the local area, saving 100 % of the resources.

The valuable resources are the ones being consumed daily. Food, water, and air.

Im not saying just target africa, but its a good place to start.

Culture is irrevelent. The universe doesnt care about culture. Eventually the sun will die out and earth will no longer exist.

Take longer, and try to convince people who dont speak anything like english to follow your advice. High possibility of failure.

He who has the gun, makes the rules.

Is it fair? Nope. Is life fair? Nope.

They deserve to die for not keeping pace with the rest of the world. Natural selection. The strong survive.




QFT.

If I have a gun, you will dance if I tell you to. Is it right? Probably not. But at the end of the day, I will still stand, and you will not.

Lifes' a game, but its not fair. You can try and call lack of morals or ethics all you want.

Re: Arrogance
 

It seems unlikely considering there are many unemployed/redundant people already who aren't engaging in that oh-so-lucrative activity.