why am i getting mixed feelings ref looper. those feeling are.
hes the same as a jova.
hes on a wind up.
hes a fucking idiot.
all of the above.
but fuck me he is wierd.
looper mate we aint on the same page so end of.
Printable View
why am i getting mixed feelings ref looper. those feeling are.
hes the same as a jova.
hes on a wind up.
hes a fucking idiot.
all of the above.
but fuck me he is wierd.
looper mate we aint on the same page so end of.
Actually not correct. Chimpanzees and dolphins have been observed engaging in warfare (i.e. coalitional conflict). Warfare requires higher order cognitive apparatus since it is a coalitional agreement so you need the mental apparatus to recognize individuals on your team and to remember their past actions of loyalty or traitorousness or cowardice so you can reward them or punish them accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
There is nothing morally wrong with warfare as such. It is just a gang against a gang instead of individuals for themselves in a conflict over resources or (in the case of humans) more cognitively exotic things like religions or ideologies.
Destruction of the environment is an unfortunate result of our inventive ingenuity at manipulating our environment but we are learning to clean up after ourselves now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Yes of course it is annoying that slavery does not really exist anymore so we are denied use of the dramatic term so the best way out of that problem is to redefine the term as you are doing. But of course you do a disservice to the memory of people who really did live lives of genuine slavery in the past and you belittle the tremendous social advances we have made in the past 150 years in doing away with true slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Ganging up in conflict or competition from time to time is a primal urge and has nothing to do with organized warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
It took 9 million years of human evolution for us to get potty trained without breaking the potty, yet,.... next step....Quote:
Destruction of the environment is an unfortunate result of our inventive ingenuity at manipulating our environment but we are learning to clean up after ourselves now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Really? Read;Quote:
...slavery does not really exist..... problem is to redefine the term..
Slavery Today « Free the Slaves
Slavery Is EverywhereThere are tens of millions of people trapped in various forms of slavery throughout the world today. Researchers estimate that 21 million are enslaved worldwide, generating $150 billion each year in illicit profits for traffickers.
- Labor Slavery. About 78 percent toil in forced labor slavery in industries where manual labor is needed—such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, and brick making—and in service industries working as dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and maids.
- Sex Slavery. About 22 percent are trapped in forced prostitution sex slavery.
- Child Slavery. About 26 percent of today’s slaves are children.
Slavery today is a hidden crime, making it harder for the public to see and for those in slavery to call out for help.
Slavery statistics come from the U.N. International Labor Organization. See our Trafficking and Slavery Fact Sheet for details.
True slavery? The one you saw in the movies or read of in a book or discussed with your mates about down at the pub?Quote:
But of course you do a disservice to the memory of people who really did live lives of genuine slavery in the past and you belittle the tremendous social advances we have made in the past 150 years in doing away with true slavery.
au contraire - violent coalitional conflict resolution is the quintessential original definition of warfare. Humans do it with drones and guided missiles today but it was arrows and slingshots and clubs a while back. Troops of chimpanzee do it with their bare hands and with sticks and stones.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Not sure what you mean. We only invented the internal combustion engine 200 years ago and we have already clocked to the fact that our industrious bent has an impact on the environment and we are now working towards addressing the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
You can play with the definition of the term as much as you want if you are fond of using it but by any measure slavery, which was once socially acceptable and commonplace, is nowadays substantially eradicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Yes - True slavery. The legal and enduring ownership of one human being by another in perpetuity with the consent and approval of the state and the social approval of the rest of the the human population. You can cook up any flaky new soft-cock definition you want if you feel you have missed out on using the term due to the original practice's virtual eradication but you do a disservice to the memory of people who really lived and died lives of true slavery sanctioned by the state and population and to the good work of the campaigners who successfully outlawed the practice in the face of strong opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Definitely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by lob
Definitely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by lob
And that's because he's a deeper thinker. I don't agree with everything he says, and some ideas are out of date, but generally he's a smart cookie.Quote:
Originally Posted by lob
Rubbish. That's your invented definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
.Quote:
..... slavery,... substantially eradicated
Back step from your post #127; "... slavery does not really exist anymore"
Which was a back step from your post # 124 "There are no slaves."
So which one is it? "There are no slaves" or just some, somewhere,... 45.8 million of them according to 2016 figures published by;
Findings- Global Slavery Index 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
A Loopy definition of slavery, found nowhere else but in your head as posted on TD forum.Quote:
Yes - True slavery. The legal and enduring ownership of one human being by another in perpetuity with the consent and approval of the state and the social approval of the rest of the the human population.
There have always been different degrees and categories of slavery, some bonded for life some for generations as is the case in some parts of India today, where family debts bond successive generations of a family into perpetual slavery.
Worse off than Pliny's slave, who asked him for an extra gift of clothes to go on holiday with, which Pliny gave him.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maanaam
Good man, keep your sights low, you seem to be easily impressed. :)Quote:
And that's because he's a deeper thinker. I don't agree with everything he says, and some ideas are out of date, but generally he's a smart cookie.
You show time and time again your inability to comprehend even fairly simple ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maanaam
Good man, keep your sights low, you seem to be easily impressed. :)Quote:
And that's because he's a deeper thinker. I don't agree with everything he says, and some ideas are out of date, but generally he's a smart cookie.
Because you don't get it means you're missing something, not that the ideas are bad.
Seriously, you keep on demonstrating a profound lack of comprehension.
I get what Looper is saying about warfare and about slavery....and in this case, agree. It's not difficult. You don't get it, and as per usual, you disparage that which you can't understand.
You and Looper both missed the point about organized warfare, which doesn't exist among any animals. Find some reference to prove that it does exist, Looper can't.
What makes you think slavery doesn't exist?
Do you dispute UN (among others) claims and statistics about the current prevalence of slavery?
Does it exist in Africa, especially among warring Islamic groups there? Or in Saudi Arabia where Yazidi women are sold as slaves by IS?
Or are you blind to that?
Myth: War Is Beneficial (summary)
Wars do not benefit the people where they are waged, and do not benefit nations that send their militaries abroad to wage wars. Nor do wars help to uphold the rule of law — quite the reverse. Good outcomes caused by wars are dramatically outweighed by the bad and could have been accomplished without war.
War Does Not Benefit Its Victims
There is a fundamental error in supposing that a new war is likely to bring benefits to a nation where it is waged, given the dismal record of every war that has occurred heretofore. Scholars at both the anti-war Carnegie Endowment for Peace and the pro-war RAND Corporation have found that wars aimed at nation-building have an extremely low to nonexistent success rate in creating stable democracies. And yet the temptation rises zombie-like to believe that Iraq or Libya or Syria or Iran will finally be the place where war creates its opposite.
Wars fought by wealthy nations against poor ones tend to be one-sided slaughters; quite the opposite of beneficial, humanitarian, or philanthropic exercises. In a common mythical view, wars are fought on “a battlefield” — a notion that suggests a sportsmanlike contest between two armies apart from civilian life. On the contrary, wars are fought in people’s towns and homes. These wars are one of the most immoral actions imaginable, which helps explain why governments that wage them lie about them to their own people.
The wars leave lasting damage in the form of brewing hatred and violence, and in the form of a poisoned natural environment.
Wars and militarism and other disastrous policies can generate crises that could benefit from outside assistance, be it in the form of nonviolent peaceworkers and human shields or in the form of police. But twisting the argument that Rwanda needed police into the argument that Rwanda should have been bombed, or that some other nation should be bombed, is a gross distortion.
War Does Not Bring Stability
War can be imagined as a tool for enforcing the rule of law, including laws against war, only by ignoring the hypocrisy and the historical record of failure. War actually violates the most basic principles of law and encourages their further violation.
War Does Not Benefit the War Makers
War and war preparations drain and weaken an economy. The myth that war enriches a nation that wages it, as opposed to enriching a small number of influential profiteers, is not supported by evidence. In addition:
- Greater consumption and destruction does not always equal a superior standard of living.
- The benefits of peace and international cooperation would be felt even by those learning to consume less.
- The benefits of local production and sustainable living are immeasurable.
- Reduced consumption is required by the earth’s environment regardless of who does the consuming.
- One of the largest ways in which wealthy nations consume the most destructive resources, such as oil, is through the very waging of the wars.
- Green energy and infrastructure would surpass their advocates’ wildest fantasies if the funds now invested in war were transferred there.
Research and development would be more efficient and accountable and more directed into useful areas if separated from the military. Similarly, humanitarian aid missions could be run better without the military.
War Creators’ Motives Are Not Noble
Wars are marketed as humanitarian, because many people, including many government and military employees, have good intentions. But those at the top deciding to wage war almost certainly do not. In case after case, less than generous motives have been documented.
1. ten second google: "Thought chimpanzees were cuddly? Forget it - they're ruthless killers with a taste for gang warfareQuote:
Originally Posted by ENT
By David Derbyshire for MailOnline
UPDATED: 08:49 GMT, 22 June 2010
Think of chimpanzees fighting, and it's hard to imagine anything more serious than a few teacups being thrown around at the zoo.
But despite their comical popular image, mankind's closest cousins in the animal world are merciless killers with a taste for gang warfare.
A study of wild chimps found that gangs of the apes routinely attack rival chimps to seize their land and massacre their young, preserving their dominance."
Chimps go on violent killing sprees to take land from their neighbours | Daily Mail Online
2. There's that lack of comprehension again. Looper's contention is on the definition and thus the manifestation of what slavery is. The word has come to mean whatever human rights organisations find convenient for their cause.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a slave was literally and legally owned by a master. You do not have that now. Now, for the sake of sensationalism, organisations call working for below minimum wage "slavery", for example, which is not what the real meaning the word confers.
Have you ever heard about the abolition of slavery?
If I get cancer, I want to go out on a high.....full moon on the beach, a spliff, my favourite music, having had great sex in the sand dunes.
Trouble is : when would I actually off myself ? Why not just do the same thing again tomorrow ? And the next day ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaanaamQuote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Still not organized warfare, even if the hyped up term "gang warfare i's used.Quote:
1. ten second google: "Thought chimpanzees were cuddly? Forget it - they're ruthless killers with a taste for gang warfare
By David Derbyshire for MailOnline
UPDATED: 08:49 GMT, 22 June 2010
A study of wild chimps found that gangs of the apes routinely attack rival chimps to seize their land and massacre their young, preserving their dominance."
Chimps go on violent killing sprees to take land from their neighbours | Daily Mail Online
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a slave was literally and legally owned by a master. You do not have that now.
Ha ha! Sounds as though you just have!Quote:
Have you ever heard about the abolition of slavery?
Abolishing slavery has happened many times in history and in many lands, it didn't suddenly arrive with the emancipation of blacks in the USA, which epitomizes the modern abolition of slavery and was agreed to within western nations,but not African, or Arab countries who still buy sell and own slaves.
We're not just talking about working below the minimum wage, it's about wholesale restriction of freedom, incarceration, violence and intimidation used within some societies who regard other outsiders as fair game to enslave for whatever purpose.
You can open up your mind a bit about ending slavery if you read the following website's information and references to understand how the struggle against slavery has been a progression, not a sudden "Oh, it's over!" moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolit...avery_timeline
Oh, and as an aside, the price of slaves has dropped! Good news for some, the owners, as it makes their acquisition much easier, but for others, the slaves, their lives being cheaper, are now more likely to be treated as disposable when past their use by date.
At least, in the past, slaves were a valued commodity, selling for high prices, so were fed regularly and maintained to be in the best of health for economic reasons.
Not so today.
Slaves are becoming (but not quite) a dime a dozen,,,you can buy them wholesale,...at your border, ...today.
But then again, you'd probably call modern lifetime bonded labour emancipation of the disenfranchised and a fair deal.
Head of nail hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
That is exactly the problem with a terminal disease.
When does one pull the plug?
IMHO It needs to be before you become a burden on family a friends but you still need to be sufficiently compos mentis to do it.
Therefore, inevitably, you'll be dying whilst still able to communicate with close ones. The argument against is that you are robbing them of time together, it sure ain't an easy one.
You've never been close to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Having a spliff or a shag on the beach on the full moon wouldn't even be the last thing on one's mind while consciously approaching the eternity of the end.
And that's because he's a deeper thinker. I don't agree with everything he says, and some ideas are out of date, but generally he's a smart cookie.[/quote]
you can fool some of the people some of the time, you cant fool all of the people all of the time.
i'll settle for hes an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lob
you can fool some of the people some of the time, you cant fool all of the people all of the time.
i'll settle for hes an idiot.[/quote]
It seems so. :)
theres also an anti litering law, any liter where u live ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Maanaam1. ten second google: "Thought chimpanzees were cuddly? Forget it - they're ruthless killers with a taste for gang warfareQuote:
Originally Posted by ENT
By David Derbyshire for MailOnline
UPDATED: 08:49 GMT, 22 June 2010
Think of chimpanzees fighting, and it's hard to imagine anything more serious than a few teacups being thrown around at the zoo.
But despite their comical popular image, mankind's closest cousins in the animal world are merciless killers with a taste for gang warfare.
A study of wild chimps found that gangs of the apes routinely attack rival chimps to seize their land and massacre their young, preserving their dominance."
Chimps go on violent killing sprees to take land from their neighbours | Daily Mail Online
2. There's that lack of comprehension again. Looper's contention is on the definition and thus the manifestation of what slavery is. The word has come to mean whatever human rights organisations find convenient for their cause.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a slave was literally and legally owned by a master. You do not have that now. Now, for the sake of sensationalism, organisations call working for below minimum wage "slavery", for example, which is not what the real meaning the word confers.
Have you ever heard about the abolition of slavery?
It doesn't matter what the exact numbers are or whether I said substantially or completely. The fairly obvious point, which you are refusing to accept, is that slavery, as it is commonly understood, has been abolished and substantially eradicated. It used to be a legal and socially approved institution right up until recent the 1800s. It is now illegal and socially rejected with righteous moral outrage. If it is carried on at all it is a tiny fraction of what it once was and crucially it is illegal and done in a covert way with all the powers of the worlds laws ranged against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Again just linguistic pedantry. Slavery as I defined it and as almost everyone commonly understand it has been essentially eradicated and this is the giant moral step forward which your myopic (obtuse?) view of the world is not letting you see.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Why do you find it so unusual and resist the idea that chimpanzees might (and indeed do) take part in warfare (or coalitional conflict if you want to object to the term warfare on linguistically pedantic terms). Some degree of conflict is a natural state for competing individual organisms within a species. Once they develop the higher order tribal cognitive apparatus for recognising each other individually and remembering past behaviour (so that cowardice and bravery can be rewarded/punished) warfare comes naturally to a species.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
liters are illegal!Quote:
Originally Posted by lob
Who would have guessed? :)
You must be still stuck in the imperial system if you didn't know that!Quote:
Originally Posted by crackerjack101
You might be right. A splendid system the Imperial one. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MaanaamYou must be still stuck in the imperial system if you didn't know that!Quote:
Originally Posted by crackerjack101
There are far more slaves alive today than have ever existed before the so called emancipitation of slaves fostered by Europeans and Americans in the last couple of hundred years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
Slavery was indeed state sanctioned, and still tolerated within individual countries, and is far more than a tiny fraction of past endeavours.Quote:
It used to be a legal and socially approved institution right up until recent the 1800s. It is now illegal and socially rejected with righteous moral outrage. If it is carried on at all it is a tiny fraction of what it once was and crucially it is illegal and done in a covert way with all the powers of the worlds laws ranged against it.
As slaves become cheaper, their numbers grow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Almost everybody in your little social structure (around 3% of the world's population) would go along with your definition of slavery, but not the rest of the world, of which white man is only 20% of, the rest live in a world where the threat of and practice of slavery still exists, but you're in total denial of the fact, probably wanting to brush the topic out of sight to be able to pat yourself on your little white back for being so humane and giving lip-service to an admirable ethos.Quote:
Again just linguistic pedantry. Slavery as I defined it and as almost everyone commonly understand it has been essentially eradicated and this is the giant moral step forward which your myopic (obtuse?) view of the world is not letting you see.
Slavery as you define it is a romanticization, a naivety. Slavery means enslavement, for long or short periods of time, as shown in history, not in your myopic viewfinder and by your social definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Your either dreaming or exaggerating, warfare's only been known in the human archaeological record, not amongst animals. Look it up.Quote:
Why do you find it so unusual and resist the idea that chimpanzees might (and indeed do) take part in warfare (or coalitional conflict if you want to object to the term warfare on linguistically pedantic terms). Some degree of conflict is a natural state for competing individual organisms within a species. Once they develop the higher order tribal cognitive apparatus for recognising each other individually and remembering past behaviour (so that cowardice and bravery can be rewarded/punished) warfare comes naturally to a species.
Conflict, yes, fighting, yes, hunting eachother down for food or as part of dominance strategy, yes, but organized warfare is not a primate construct.
I agree with ENT. The problem you describe, LD, is the problem with life, not an end-of-life problem. In other words, day to day living is never completely satisfactory but it is satisfactory enough that we wake up (generally) and decide to do it over again rather than off ourselves. We do it to ourselves and as long as we can do it to ourselves we'll consistently grope for a more satisfactory life. So the lucky (or unlucky) ones no longer have that choice. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTYou've never been close to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Having a spliff or a shag on the beach on the full moon wouldn't even be the last thing on one's mind while consciously approaching the eternity of the end.
So, a 18 year old prostitute chained to the bed to serve punters is not a 'slave', because her pimp cannot legally 'own' her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maanaam