baron8000 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 you may not like it because your getting killed, you may think oo no but what if im next! i have to stop the anarchy i dont want to die, and indeed thats what you are doing, which is my whole point. Hitler didn't do that and i respect him for it. If it is indeed your turn to die, accept it, move on (or you know just die). Just because your affraid of not being the new type of person that is the next stage of humans, so therefore you stop it. According to hobbit it does. 1st bolded part reinforces my last point (its your turn to die accept it move on, would he "move on" if it was a loved one dead) 2nd bolded part is where "survival of the fittest" comes in, if anarchy removes the people who are "not the new stage of human" then therefore the fittest (in any terms) must be those who survive surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 He doesn't know what anarchy is then. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron8000 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Never said he did satenza, never said he did :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_hobbit22 Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ok here we go, a few simple questions, a yes or no answer is all that is required. Your statement is that anarchy is good as it promotes survival of the fittest? Therefore anyone who is killed through anarchy is not fit enough to survive? Therefore if any of your loved ones were killed in this anarchy you would not care as it is simply survival of the fittest? 1. yes, but it is not its key belief, it just goes along with what anarchy is. 2. yes. 3. your last questin is wrong \ i would care, but i would accept it, because they are evidently not the fittest. It seems evertime one of you posts you only prove my point, that the only reason you are against anarchy is because your scared of eithier you or your loved ones dieing, but i'm not scared, if i am not the fittest it is only fair i die, i may not like it but i must accept it, something that none of you seem to be able to do. #-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Thats not anarchy, anarchy is where there is no state and people's common sense would rule. There idealy woud not be any genocide or murder and even if they where commited the people would not allow it. It' just transfering the states power to the people. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron8000 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 3. your last questin is wrong \ i would care, but i would accept it, because they are evidently not the fittest. There are no "wrong questions" only wrong answers. I find it hard to believe that any person can accept so easily - have you experienced this scenario? If not then it is impossible for you to understand, if you have then I am in awe at your lack of empathy. Also Satenza makes an excellent point, what is your idea of anarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Thats not anarchy, anarchy is where there is no state and people's common sense would rule. There idealy woud not be any genocide or murder and even if they where commited the people would not allow it. It' just transfering the states power to the people. Anarchy like Communism only exists in an ideal world. Our world is far from idealistic. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1canadian1 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 You should live because some guy with a beard said so. RSN: Zammyftw ^^The girl that ruined music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_hobbit22 Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 3. your last questin is wrong \ i would care, but i would accept it, because they are evidently not the fittest. There are no "wrong questions" only wrong answers. I find it hard to believe that any person can accept so easily - have you experienced this scenario? If not then it is impossible for you to understand, if you have then I am in awe at your lack of empathy. Also Satenza makes an excellent point, what is your idea of anarchy? meh, just because you can't deal with loss doesn't mean i can't.my grand father passed away 2 months ago, sure i was sad, but i didn't moarn or anything just got on with life.. dont see the point in moaning about things you cant changs :-k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron8000 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 3. your last questin is wrong \ i would care, but i would accept it, because they are evidently not the fittest. There are no "wrong questions" only wrong answers. I find it hard to believe that any person can accept so easily - have you experienced this scenario? If not then it is impossible for you to understand, if you have then I am in awe at your lack of empathy. Also Satenza makes an excellent point, what is your idea of anarchy? meh, just because you can't deal with loss doesn't mean i can't.my grand father passed away 2 months ago, sure i was sad, but i didn't moarn or anything just got on with life.. dont see the point in moaning about things you cant changs :-k Irrelevant, your grandfather did not pass away due to "anarchy" presumably. I can deal perfectly fine with loss, I would have issues if it was due to a person however with either thoughts of hate/revenge presumably I don't really know. There is of course no point moaning about things you can't change, but there is every reason to react to the actions of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_hobbit22 Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 Irrelevant, your grandfather did not pass away due to "anarchy" presumably. I can deal perfectly fine with loss, I would have issues if it was due to a person however with either thoughts of hate/revenge presumably I don't really know. There is of course no point moaning about things you can't change, but there is every reason to react to the actions of others. meh, thats life, if we agree that what i said should happen, then it would only be a loss. You just cant accept that fact that someone has killed your family member, it is your only argument, but hey if it was his time to die, then tough [cabbage], hes guna die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I don't think you thought your distopia through properly. 1. It's nothing like Anarchism. 2. People sense of morality would never allow that to happen. 3. The individuals interest is self protection. Allowing anyone to be killed at any time would mean the individual could be killed at any time. I don't get why you think a war of all against all is best for society. Intellectual people who arn't strong would be killed off. Society would be plunged into a backwards era and an animal like state. Physical strength doesn't make you a super human of any sort. You don't carry intellect in any regard as to a good effect on society? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_hobbit22 Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 I don't think you thought your distopia through properly. 1. It's nothing like Anarchism. 2. People sense of morality would never allow that to happen. 3. The individuals interest is self protection. Allowing anyone to be killed at any time would mean the individual could be killed at any time. I don't get why you think a war of all against all is best for society. Intellectual people who arn't strong would be killed off. Society would be plunged into a backwards era and an animal like state. Physical strength doesn't make you a super human of any sort. You don't carry intellect in any regard as to a good effect on society? but clever people would lay traps for the dumb people they should still be able to survive usdeing there brains..., and if infact the clever people do all die, then surely thats evoloution, isnt that better for humans to evolve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I don't think you thought your distopia through properly. 1. It's nothing like Anarchism. 2. People sense of morality would never allow that to happen. 3. The individuals interest is self protection. Allowing anyone to be killed at any time would mean the individual could be killed at any time. I don't get why you think a war of all against all is best for society. Intellectual people who arn't strong would be killed off. Society would be plunged into a backwards era and an animal like state. Physical strength doesn't make you a super human of any sort. You don't carry intellect in any regard as to a good effect on society? but clever people would lay traps for the dumb people they should still be able to survive usdeing there brains..., and if infact the clever people do all die, then surely thats evoloution, isnt that better for humans to evolve? So you'd want all of this to happen just to facilitate our evolution? Here's news for you; we never stopped evolving, it's just slowed down and I don't think a world wide game of survival of the fittest would be best for the human race right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonorhc Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 There's a difference between evolution and social Darwinism. Varrock Library: Shattered Sky | Silent Thunder | The Emperor's FinestAstri @ MythWeavers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I don't think you thought your distopia through properly. 1. It's nothing like Anarchism. 2. People sense of morality would never allow that to happen. 3. The individuals interest is self protection. Allowing anyone to be killed at any time would mean the individual could be killed at any time. I don't get why you think a war of all against all is best for society. Intellectual people who arn't strong would be killed off. Society would be plunged into a backwards era and an animal like state. Physical strength doesn't make you a super human of any sort. You don't carry intellect in any regard as to a good effect on society? but clever people would lay traps for the dumb people they should still be able to survive usdeing there brains..., and if infact the clever people do all die, then surely thats evoloution, isnt that better for humans to evolve? Evolution is not just physical. Humans have evolved into a state where we don't need to fight against each other. Your system would be harmful to evolution if anything. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flametrooper Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Let me point this out: In a total, chaotic, lawless state, the "fit" would not survive. The people with the most guns and bombs were. When you involve something like a bomb or gun, "fit" doesn't matter. It's just who fires first. Humanity wouldn't evolve. It'd just blow itself up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobthefishy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Let me point this out: In a total, chaotic, lawless state, the "fit" would not survive. The people with the most guns and bombs were. When you involve something like a bomb or gun, "fit" doesn't matter. It's just who fires first. Humanity wouldn't evolve. It'd just blow itself up. Well, if you have a gun and someone else doesn't, you are more "fit" to survive. Just like if in the stone ages, if you had a spear and the other person had nothing, you were more fit. im level 76 and IM NOT A NOOB 30- is a noob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Let me point this out: In a total, chaotic, lawless state, the "fit" would not survive. The people with the most guns and bombs were. When you involve something like a bomb or gun, "fit" doesn't matter. It's just who fires first. Humanity wouldn't evolve. It'd just blow itself up. Well, if you have a gun and someone else doesn't, you are more "fit" to survive. Just like if in the stone ages, if you had a spear and the other person had nothing, you were more fit. So we would all evolve to become pro's at killing each other and wielding guns. :lol: :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 So we would all evolve to become pro's at killing each other and wielding guns. :lol: :P Hey, kids do this all over Africa, where they're entered into armies by force at ages as young as six or seven. Their given guns and bayonets and taught only to kill. They usually die. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now