View Single Post
  #43  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:23 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
The Journal "Nature", a well-established scientific journal, found that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. There is little reason to cast doubt on Wikipedia on as uncontroversial a topic as civilization. It's inaccuracies mostly stem from political issues.

You're arguing the exception to the rule, the outlier, the rarity. There's almost exceptions to every single rule, so there's little point in attempting to prove a general rule by pointing out the exceptions. Furthermore, what was the definition a thousand years ago doesn't matter (the term, and possibly the concept, certainly did not exist a thousand years ago). What matters is its definition today. Unless we are going to debate about the ancient Babylonians would have fared in a world without technology, there is little point in showing how they would have thought about the subject.

Allow me to keep this message short and sweet. There is no exception, no rarity. Let's stay modern then. In some primitive African tribes that are still present today, there exist children that have never seen cars, skyscrapers, or airplanes. As far as they know, a watering hole can be the most technologically advanced invention out there. By our conceptions, they may not be civilized, but by theirs, they're as civilized as can be.

That's the point cut and dry. So now I'm not going to go in circles saying the same thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide View Post
So far, son, the only animal on this planet that has exhibited any technological advancement is the human. And since there is no real classification for a technologically advanced being, it is logical to call humans the only species that can develop technology (known to humans). Yet again, you fail to see what I am getting at.

And the definition of Husband has changed several times too, does that make the modern definition of the word false? No it does not. And do you think this is all a game? So far, the only person really getting himself worked up about it, and the only person who has lost their cool is you. You are a cynical person who has a sarcastic comment about anything that another person says. Go home, draw a nice warm bath, and just lay there. Don't think, just lay there. I defend Lus because I both respect and, in some aspects, agree with him.


Do not call me son. Someone as foolish as you could never earn the position of my father, even through a joke. Thus far you have failed to present any kind of logical argument and have apparently resorted to other factors to defend your already miniscule dignity. You have presented an opinion in multiple threads that lacks any sort of thought and intellectual depth, and you're being pounded for it by a number of members. You have missed the message of every single post I said, leaving all of our discussions to end up in wild circles. Your idiocy tires me without end, and debating with you is comparable to arguing with a drunkard. Let's be clear, I don't care that you defend him, because it was never my goal to garner your support. As far as it concerns me, you both can be wrong together. I don't desire your respect, your admiration, your support, mkay?

At this point I'll admit it. You disgust me, because you represent a shameful percentage of people who attempt to establish that they have some sort of intellectual vitality while being blind to the fact that they make themselves look completely idiotic. In my books you exist as a nobody with a peculiar ability to make himself look retarded while somehow enjoying it. I'm finished with you, so take your petty insults elsewhere as they don't phase me.

__________________

Last edited by Exon Auxus; 12-21-2010 at 12:31 AM.
Reply With Quote