Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 12-22-2010, 08:46 PM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post
Saying there is no evidence needed to support your answer is just as bad as using Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is at least something.
He is saying there is no evidence needed because he is arguing that his definition of civilization stems from common sense. While Lus has used sources (whether they are credible or not depends on the person) Exon cannot cite common sense. There has been an outside source, Khaj's anthropology friend, that Lus disregarded because he feels a student on the topic they are debating is not a credible source because it isn't cited text. Whether or not that action is valid is also up for grabs as well.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-22-2010, 09:47 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario View Post
He is saying there is no evidence needed because he is arguing that his definition of civilization stems from common sense. While Lus has used sources (whether they are credible or not depends on the person) Exon cannot cite common sense. There has been an outside source, Khaj's anthropology friend, that Lus disregarded because he feels a student on the topic they are debating is not a credible source because it isn't cited text. Whether or not that action is valid is also up for grabs as well.
An outside source based on hearsay is not valid evidence. Nate has given no proof that his friend is right or that what he remembers from what his friend said was right. We have only his word to go on, and sorry, that's not enough in any kind of debate.

Quote:
I think you're flip-flopping, because now you're arguing the exact same argument I was a few pages back. Remember when I cited the word primarily, stating that a civilization didn't need to have cities? You proceeded to label that as "the rarity", a condition so uncommon that it need not be taken into account. Now you've chosen that rarity and changed the base of your argument from the idea that civilizations must comprise cities to the assertion that civilizations often boast cities as a product of their technological advancement. However, I think that's good, because it looks like you're beginning to understand that while cities can often act as a common sign of civilization, the absence of them does not rule out other civilized areas.
Yes, I did agree with you that cities are in and of themselves civilizations. However, any civilization will build cities. And, according to some definitions of civilizations I have shown from university professors, they in fact DO require cities.

Quote:
Furthermore, you can't argue that we'd instantly build cities again, because if all of the cities were demolished, we'd likely lose the technology that we used to build said cities and, consequentially, lose the wherewithal to do so. That would force humanity to resort to other methods to advance from it's primitive state, because we cannot just build cities. We'd have to extract naturally occurring raw materials, convert them into a form we can use, and actually spend the energy and time it takes to make cities. Additionally, you cannot state that cities define American life, because not all of America is comprised of cities. Actually, most of it isn't. To truly define and differentiate American life, you'd have to explain the political and socioeconomic factors(which are also aspects of civilization) that isolate it from most other countries in the world - and those differences existed before our first settles even constructed cities in North America.
Wrong. Of course they would not pop out of the ground instantly. But America would not exist if cities were not built. Without cities, you do not have industry. You do not have politics. You do not have technology. You don't have phones, roads, cars, gasoline, plastic, electricity. Nothing that defines modern America can exist without cities. Besides the blatantly obvious, i.e. computers, TV, McDonalds, no cities means no capability to produce anything that a few guys in a garage cannot build from the stuff they dig out of the ground. This means no communications, no transportation. This means that every single person in America will be living in, at the most, a village of a few hundred people. Without communications or transportation, each village is completely isolated from the others. In short, America reverts back into the Stone Age. American politics, American society, American economics cannot exist without cities, without the technologies that cities make possible.

Quote:
Even so, if we were to lose cities we don't just lose knowledge. You cannott just lose knowledge like that, it doesn't make sense. You're making it appear as though cities act as our brains, and by that logic, I'd forget everything I knew as soon as I left a city and entered an urban area. We wouldn't instantly be diminished to the same intellectual level our ancestors were X years ago.
No, but in a few generations we would. Without cities, the knowledge society has built up over the years is no longer applicable to modern life. Who gives a damn about Calculus or History when you're worried about what you're going to eat tomorrow? With no opportunities to apply knowledge, and no opportunities to learn knowledge, likely 90% of all modern knowledge would disappear in a single generation, and 90% of what's left in the next generation. No cities means no school, no teachers. Everyone's just a farmer or a hunter. How much would you know if you and your parents were out in the fields from dawn until dusk and you didn't have a school to go to?

Your misconception is hilarious. Of course America wouldn't stop being a civilization overnight. But if people ceased to band together in large groups to form organizations, it would in a single generation.

Quote:
Then one can argue what "urban" means. I'd hate to start arguing the definitions of words again but apparently we have to. Many definitions of the word "urban" consist simply of this - "a densely populated area". Huh. There exist some densely populated areas that aren't cities. The Ancient Indus Valley civilization had a large population density as well, among many other factors we can use to label what a civilization is. Records show that they used bronze tools and weapons too, which acted as advanced technology (and yes, "advanced technology" does change, because what was advanced one hundred years ago is not so advanced now). One could argue that they aren't a civilization because their cities were not "advanced" enough to be called such. That's nonsense for a number of reasons. Because then you're forced to define what deems a city as advanced enough to act as a hallmark of civilization, which is already controversial.
Quote:
In 1936, the archeologist V. Gordon Childe published his book Man Makes Himself. Childe identified several elements which he believed were essential for a civilization to exist. He included: the plow, wheeled cart and draft animals, sailing ships, the smelting of copper and bronze, a solar calendar, writing, standards of measurement, irrigation ditches, specialized craftsmen, urban centers and a surplus of food necessary to support non-agricultural workers who lived within the walls of the city.

Another historian agreed with Childe but added that a true definition of civilization should also include money collected through taxes, a privileged ruling class, a centralized government and a national religious or priestly class. Such a list, unlike Childe's, highlights human organization. In 1955, Clyde Kluckhohn argued that there were three essential criteria for civilization: towns containing more than 5000 people, writing, and monumental ceremonial centers. Finally, the archeologist and anthropologist Robert M. Adams argued for a definition of civilization as a society with functionally interrelated sets of social institutions: class stratification based on the ownership and control of production, political and religious hierarchies complementing each other in the central administration of territorially organized states and lastly, a complex division of labor, with skilled workers, soldiers and officials existing alongside the great mass of peasant producers.
Reading is good yes? Of course, the status of urban is debatable, but for this debate I believe this definition is sufficient. Thus, the Indus Valley Civilization counts as a civilization, and I do not understand why you have anything to object to. No one is arguing that their cities weren't cities. Naturally any definition of civilization requires that its components be reasonably defined also.

Quote:
There is no evidence needed, outside of a search for published works, and this debate is not that critical that I, nor anyone else, needs to do that. While normally I oblige myself to use direct evidence, I'm not going to resort to Googling "civilization" and slapping the first two definitions I see in a debate and defending them, without even being completely sure of their credibility. The application of strong, useful evidence is obvious, because you know when someone really learned something as opposed to when someone snatched something quick off of the internet. You have chiefly shown sources that act as "quickie" definitions and information that don't really hold strong in debates. You cannot then boast evidence that isn't even meritable.
I linked a college lecture on the subject, hardly what amounts to a "quickie". Furthermore, if all you have to present to your argument is mere opinion, then your argument is hilariously weak and your defense of it laughable. You have nothing more than what you think. If you refuse to use evidence out of some misguided moral principle or sheer laziness, then that is your problem, and your argument is void.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 12-22-2010 at 09:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-22-2010, 10:55 PM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Would you say that to a college professor who walked into the room and backed Khaj's friend up? From what you are saying even people who are experts on the topic at hand would not be a valid source if they say what they know off the top of their head.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-22-2010, 11:26 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario View Post
Would you say that to a college professor who walked into the room and backed Khaj's friend up? From what you are saying even people who are experts on the topic at hand would not be a valid source if they say what they know off the top of their head.
If all I had was Nate's word that a college professor magically walked into his room and backed his friend up, I'd call bullshit. You cannot just say something in a debate and expect people to believe you. Everything you say, unless it is a matter of logic or opinion, must be verifiable, no matter how trustworthy the guy on the forum saying it is. As we are on an internet forum, verification here typically takes the form of a link. "I know this guy who says this" is not a valid presentation of evidence in any form of debate whatsoever. And if an expert in the subject posted in this thread, I would expect to see evidence that he is an expert, not just "I am an expert because I say so".
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-23-2010, 04:41 AM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
If all I had was Nate's word that a college professor magically walked into his room and backed his friend up, I'd call bullshit. You cannot just say something in a debate and expect people to believe you. Everything you say, unless it is a matter of logic or opinion, must be verifiable, no matter how trustworthy the guy on the forum saying it is. As we are on an internet forum, verification here typically takes the form of a link. "I know this guy who says this" is not a valid presentation of evidence in any form of debate whatsoever. And if an expert in the subject posted in this thread, I would expect to see evidence that he is an expert, not just "I am an expert because I say so".
Ah now I understand. But none the less would you say his evidence is valid if an expert, who hypothetically could find a way to prove his identity to you, backs Khaj's friend up? You aren't wrong about the anonymity of the internet making hearsay less believable I just want to make sure I understand what a valid source would be besides cited text.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-23-2010, 06:50 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
Wrong. Of course they would not pop out of the ground instantly. But America would not exist if cities were not built. Without cities, you do not have industry. You do not have politics. You do not have technology. You don't have phones, roads, cars, gasoline, plastic, electricity. Nothing that defines modern America can exist without cities. Besides the blatantly obvious, i.e. computers, TV, McDonalds, no cities means no capability to produce anything that a few guys in a garage cannot build from the stuff they dig out of the ground. This means no communications, no transportation. This means that every single person in America will be living in, at the most, a village of a few hundred people. Without communications or transportation, each village is completely isolated from the others. In short, America reverts back into the Stone Age. American politics, American society, American economics cannot exist without cities, without the technologies that cities make possible.

No, but in a few generations we would. Without cities, the knowledge society has built up over the years is no longer applicable to modern life. Who gives a damn about Calculus or History when you're worried about what you're going to eat tomorrow? With no opportunities to apply knowledge, and no opportunities to learn knowledge, likely 90% of all modern knowledge would disappear in a single generation, and 90% of what's left in the next generation. No cities means no school, no teachers. Everyone's just a farmer or a hunter. How much would you know if you and your parents were out in the fields from dawn until dusk and you didn't have a school to go to?

Your misconception is hilarious. Of course America wouldn't stop being a civilization overnight. But if people ceased to band together in large groups to form organizations, it would in a single generation.

Reading is good yes? Of course, the status of urban is debatable, but for this debate I believe this definition is sufficient. Thus, the Indus Valley Civilization counts as a civilization, and I do not understand why you have anything to object to. No one is arguing that their cities weren't cities. Naturally any definition of civilization requires that its components be reasonably defined also.

I linked a college lecture on the subject, hardly what amounts to a "quickie". Furthermore, if all you have to present to your argument is mere opinion, then your argument is hilariously weak and your defense of it laughable. You have nothing more than what you think. If you refuse to use evidence out of some misguided moral principle or sheer laziness, then that is your problem, and your argument is void.

And that just couldn't be farther wrong. A city has most of those things, but many, if not most, of those aspects can be, and likely are present in both current and past civilizations that don’t have cities. You’ve just created a list of things that many cities across the world often have, and proceeded to state that without a city, you cannot have these things. That’s wrong for a number of a reasons, and yes, it is “hilarious” to me at this point too, that you could make a series of evident misconceptions and blatantly wrong statements like this ^^; . But allow me to delineate why by defining these terms and connecting them to groups of people that did not or currently do not live in city-based areas.

I’ll start with politics. I’ll be using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary(arguably the most popular, refined, and useful dictionary to date) to define it, and another term that’s closely related.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
politics: the art or science of government
government: the act or process of governing; specifically, authoritative direction or control
Needless to say, it’s rather easy to have a person, or group of people, exercise “authoritative control” in an organized method without a city. In fact, many African tribes have tribal chiefs, or headmasters that exercise control and judgment in affairs within said tribes. Because you have asked so politely, let me shed some evidence on this statement. Here is an excerpt from an article discussing international politics; this article was published in the journal, Formulations and is now owned by the Libertarian Nation Foundation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNF
African tribal government is organized as follows. In each village one finds a chief. Always, he is accompanied by three men who act simultaneously as his advisors and his guardians.The role of the chief is to execute the decisions of the Council of Elders, who, in turn, must seek the consensus of the village assembly. During peace time, chiefs are carefully watched by the Council of Elders. Many an African chief lost his chieftaincy by stepping out of the lines drawn by his Council. A good example is the Samaron tribe, which owns the green valley which caught our attention. During the 1930s, this tribe deposed its king because he had signed a pact with Ethiopia's emperor Haileselassie without the prior consent of the tribe's Council of Elders.
Mm. Reading is very good, you’re right. And this seems like a pretty fortified political system to me, and not a city in sight. Truth be told, I find this a unique style of government as it helps prevent a politically destructive upheaval that might likely arises from a potentially power-crazed chief. There is a set order of rules that must be followed by both the chief and the people that he and the Council govern. There's even a directive for a time of crisis. “Without cities…you have no politics”. Nope, guess again.

Let’s move on to industry, the first thing you mentioned. I would call it the creation and the use of any good or service. Personally I wouldn’t include the purchase of said good or service, because then we’re taking a voyage into “economy land”. However, let’s see what the dictionary has to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
industry: systematic labor, especially for some useful purpose or creation of something of value
Well that could be plenty of things. It could only be hunting, agriculture, or sixty thousand other processes. Hell, early hominids in the Paleolithic Age had industries then, because they used early stone tools to separate animal hides from the bodies, and used them for various functions. One can argue that they had a hunting industry, a tool-making industry, a crafting industry, and later, an agriculture industry. Last I checked, there weren’t cities until quite sometimes after the origin of mankind. Let’s double-back that with some more evidence. I’ve pulled this excerpt from the first page of American Anthropologist, a paper written by Pat Shipman, who was Assistant Professor in the Department of Cell Structure and Biology at John Hopkins University, where he was also known for extensive work in anthropology. This was later published into a book. Shall we see what he has to say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat
Early hominid life is often reconstructed as broadly similar to that of modern hunter-gatherers. Whether carrying, tool-making, food-sharing, or seed-eating, is seen as the crucial adaptation in hominid evolution, hunting and meat-eating are often given a major place in early hominid life.
He proceeds to exclaim the emergence of scavenging and foraging as labour or industries. Hunting and foraging – sounds like some labour to me. May not be the most cutting-edge food gathering strategies like those present today, but it was surely there. And the more they hunt and gather food, the more they learn about specific animal locations and good hunting hours, along with the rotation times of many edible plant species. Thus, they become more refined hunter-gatherers, and their labour becomes systematic, organized, and more like an industry. I think I even see the seeds of a primitive economy here. No city needed. The word wasn’t even used. “Without cities, you do not have industry” – Wrong again, but I admire the effort. Next.

Now we’re moving on to technology, and this one ought to be pretty simple. Up until this point, I’ve essentially been defining technology as any tool or advancement from basic, naturally occurring substances in nature that can be used to make life more pleasant or work more efficient. Let’s crack open that dictionary for a third time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
technology
a. the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area
b. a capability given by the application of knowledge
I prefer my definition, but I suppose this will work. Let’s scope in on “a capability given by the application of knowledge”. But that could be anything couldn’t it? It could be creating efficient computers or generating strengthened steel on construction vehicles. Oh, it can also be the creation of a simple stone crafting tool or a spear. That’s where those early stone tools come into play. Good anticipation, you know we’re headed back to the time machine again to revisit those early hominids. I did some research and I found a site that has an amalgam of information and data garnered from a series of esteemed anthropology-based books, including The Last Human by G.J. Sawyer and some articles by the Yale University Press. There I found some interesting facts about early technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANC-Hominid Tools
Oldowan tools are the oldest known, appearing first in the Gona and Omo Basins in Ethiopia about 2.4 million years ago. They likely came at the end of a long period of opportunistic tool usage: chimpanzees today use rocks, branches, leaves and twigs as tools.

The key innovation is the technique of chipping stones to create a chopping or cutting edge. Most Oldowan tools were made by a single blow of one rock against another to create a sharp-edged flake. The best flakes were struck from crystalline stones such as basalt, quartz or chert, and the prevalence of these tools indicates that early humans had learned and could recognize the differences between types of rock.

Typically many flakes were struck from a single "core" stone, using a softer spherical hammer stone to strike the blow. These hammer stones may have been deliberately rounded to increase toolmaking control.
Flakes were used primarily as cutters, probably to dismember game carcasses or to strip tough plants. Fossils of crushed animal bones indicate that stones were also used to break open marrow cavities. And Oldowan deposits include pieces of bone or horn showing scratch marks that indicate they were used as diggers to unearth tubers or insects.
Currently, all these tools are associated with Homo habilis (rudolfensis) only; if the robust australopithecines used tools, they were apparently not shaped stones.

*ANC is a name given to the site by the author, whose name does not appear on the site.
Personally I find it interesting to see how early humans create useful tools by the most simplistic of actions. And then they use them to “dismember game or to strip tough plants”. Looks like a capability given by the application of knowledge to me. One more quick thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANC- Hominid Tools
The Acheulean tool industry first appeared around 1.5 million years ago in East Central Africa. These tools are associated with Homo ergasterand western Homo erectus.
The key innovations are (1) chipping the stone from both sides to produce a symmetrical (bifacial) cutting edge, (2) the shaping of an entire stone into a recognizable and repeated tool form, and (3) variation in the tool forms for different tool uses. Manufacture shifted from flakes struck from a stone core to shaping a more massive tool by careful repetitive flaking. The most common tool materials were quartzite, glassy lava, chert and flint.
There’s that word industry again – apparently I’m not the only one thinking you do not need a city to have industry. The fact that creation and use of tools to enhance early lifestyle is an example of early technology is just unarguable, and this is also something that can be found, really, in the opening paragraphs of numerous World History textbooks. And because that there is the origin of technology, you can bet your socks it was technologically advanced for its time – and yes, since I’m discussing the history of technology, industry, and politics with regards to humans, it is critical that we note what was technologically, industrially, and politically advanced for contemporary lifestyle at the time, and how it has changed throughout history.

Once more, I have yet to even see mention of the word “city”, and this is the third document I’ve read on three notably different, but inherently co-linked aspects of civilization. “Without cities…you do not have technology”. Nope. And at this point you’re not just up against me, but you’re up against hundreds of years of refined and reinforced knowledge that so many professors, teachers assistants, students, and even ordinary people adhere so closely to. Present the thesis that "Without a city you cannot have technology" to virtually any accredited college anthropology professor and tell me how long it takes for you to be tagged, bagged, and shipped away, because I'm greatly curious.


"This means no communications, no transportation."

And last I checked, not every road or form of transportation is in a city.
Speaking of transportation, what about horses and transport from other livestock? There are so many useful, yet subtle methods of transportation outside of motor-operated vehicles that you’re forgetting, and said forms still remain heavily used even today. So yes, even if cities were removed, humans would just domesticate a series of animals to use as transportation. And once a language pops up, so will communication. But the assertion that the absence of cities results in the absence of transportation is so incredibly wrong that even grade school children can disprove it.

I also see it worth noting that this is the first argument in a series of about three that I’ve noticed you provide some direct evidence(some of which, the credibility is still arguable) in, and it’s mystifying to see that you place such a hefty standard on a practical strategy that you’ve apparently only just begun.
__________________

Last edited by Exon Auxus; 12-23-2010 at 02:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-25-2010, 10:54 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

You get a city from a sudden and rapid increase of population, mainly due to the development of mass agriculture. The surplus in food allows the population of an area to increase, resulting in the construction of a large village. This larger village (we call cities) has enough people to require a set law and government, which is yet another marker for civilization. I do not see the point you are arguing. For this argument is no longer about the survival of humanity without technology, or even civilization for that matter. It is simply three or four guys arguing about a person's sources and whether or not they are trustworthy and notable. Honestly, I recommend you all get back on the subject of whether or not humanity can survive with the absence of technology, instead of arguing many basic definitions of the word civilization, which are all right I may add.



Instead of arguing about the definition of civilization (as all of you should have learned what it meant somewhere in your education, and despite what you argue about, it has many possible variations of the same definition), maybe you should fixate on possible scenarios and what YOU would do if this event (absence of technology) actually happened (Or I will make sure this thread is locked).


(My opinion on this argument: The definition of civilization can be interpreted in many different ways. The definition also requires many different things to take place in a certain order. You need a surplus of food to get a large amount of humans to govern and actually develop architecture. So no matter how you look at it, Lusankya, Khajmer, Lucario, or Auxus, all the things you are saying need to all occur for the proper civilization to develop).
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:

Last edited by Teddiursa of the Sky; 12-25-2010 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-26-2010, 09:11 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
An outside source based on hearsay is not valid evidence. Nate has given no proof that his friend is right or that what he remembers from what his friend said was right. We have only his word to go on, and sorry, that's not enough in any kind of debate.
This debate is giving me a headache and therefore I will be leaving it, but I would like to clarify that I did not just say to my friend "hey dude, internet debate, what makes a civilization a civilization?" and he just pulled from the top of his head "this is what a civilization is." I said "hey dude, internet debate, what makes a civilization a civilization?" and he went to his textbook and pulled the definition directly from it. It's not hearsay, I was taking information from a college level textbook. I had assumed that that it was implied when I specified that my source was a student of anthropology that the information was coming from an anthropology textbook, which is inherently a more credible source than Wikipedia due to the fact that random idiots with no clue what they're doing can't edit it. So next time why don't you, instead of just attacking my source as non-credible, get the freaking specifics so you yourself don't come out looking like a complete and utter moron when I come back and correct your baseless dismissals.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-26-2010, 11:00 PM
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?

Nah, we're still loosely on topic, because the point is that technology has a direct relation to civilization. From this arose the notion that the absence of technology results in the absence of civilization (thus answering the question with a no). That caused us to discuss what civilization was, while, although scarcely, remaining on topic while linking technology with civilization. In short, we were just proving a point by discussing a concept that's very closely related to it.

That's what I was focusing on by saying that without technology, which can span from stone and stick tools to computers, humans can't survive - or they won't for very long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations
Instead of arguing about the definition of civilization (as all of you should have learned what it meant somewhere in your education, and despite what you argue about, it has many possible variations of the same definition), maybe you should fixate on possible scenarios and what YOU would do if this event (absence of technology) actually happened (Or I will make sure this thread is locked).
:l

But you just said that the discussion of civilization was off-topic, then proceeded to put your own spin on it, so I think you ought to be redirecting yourself. You were banned for veering off-topic and continuing some insults and now you've returned with empty threats and another account to continue the same disturbance...

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:07 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post
Nah, we're still loosely on topic, because the point is that technology has a direct relation to civilization. From this arose the notion that the absence of technology results in the absence of civilization (thus answering the question with a no). That caused us to discuss what civilization was, while, although scarcely, remaining on topic while linking technology with civilization. In short, we were just proving a point by discussing a concept that's very closely related to it.

That's what I was focusing on by saying that without technology, which can span from stone and stick tools to computers, humans can't survive - or they won't for very long.



:l

But you just said that the discussion of civilization was off-topic, then proceeded to put your own spin on it, so I think you ought to be redirecting yourself. You were banned for veering off-topic and continuing some insults and now you've returned with empty threats and another account to continue the same disturbance...


I see your point about technology exists because of civilization, but what I don't understand is, why are you arguing over the term of it?

And about the whole "banned" thing, I will not continue an argument over that, for I cannot look at the previous posts and review what was said (they have been removed, including yours). The other account, I am now aware that it is against the rules to maintain two accounts, will be deleted soon, so you have nothing to worry about.

And I put my own spin on it in hopes that it would put an end to it, as I stated repetitively that all these current arguments are all right, and you cannot have one without the other.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-28-2010, 05:11 PM
Starkipraggy's Avatar
Starkipraggy Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gundam Porygon ZZ
Posts: 3,151
Send a message via MSN to Starkipraggy
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Well if we can all agree that humans would not survive given that they lose the ability to use most if not all of their technology and the ability to develop new ones, then we're done with this thread and you guys can continue derailing it.
__________________


Mons are here though

私はグレダーです--I am a Grader
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:46 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkipraggy View Post
Well if we can all agree that humans would not survive given that they lose the ability to use most if not all of their technology and the ability to develop new ones, then we're done with this thread and you guys can continue derailing it.
You speak of the gospel brotha!
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com