*technology taking over*

[Guest XplsvBam]

XplsvBam, do you realize how much in the minority you are here? I'm not saying the minority view is wrong - I'm saying that you're so out of touch with reality on so many issues. How can you be against technology like this? Your using the internet itself is so hypocritical. Instead of reading what everyone here has to say in such disagreement with you, I think you'd be much happier reading a bible, or if you've already exhausted that and continue using our technology, I'll try to find you a religious forum to test the waters in. I'm not saying I dislike religious views - I'm somewhat religious myself. But you are just so fallacious and illogical I'm at a loss for words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Succession does not equal technology. First of all, your definition is that of a biological succession, in no way referring to technology. I have no idea what you were doing on http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Succession or if you even got it from there, but you took one giant leap in taking a biological term of succession (which in this case references forest destruction and regrowth, a continuous process), and applied it to the advancement of technology as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if the hundreds of thousands of years of human-kind history isn't enough for you, but humans have always been evolving our technology. Fire probably was scary at first. People probably thought it was the end of safety as they knew it. People feared machinery, people feared steam boats, people feared most new technologies. But there's no reason to!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technology never destroyed us. As much as the technology seems to get scarier to you, the defenses against this technology also increases. We won't be facing any apocalypse any time soon, don't worry. Technology is in no way a continuous destructive process that can only lead to our downfall as much as you'd like to think it is. Technology aides in our daily lives and only makes life that much better.

First off I never said I was against technology. I was simply pointing out a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second off, your fire analogy only proves that technology is taking over. How could we survive without fire? Its part of our livelihood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Third off I'm not afraid of technology, but it shouldn't be in the wrong hands which is an entirely different topic all together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourth off the apocalypse hasn't happened so there is no way to know when it will. Saying that it wont happen for along time may be right, but it is way too uncertain to be flaunting as fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally technology aides our lives, but who is to say this is better? Technology that aides my life can make someone else's life worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ the bold: No I wasn't at some biology site. I was at an online dictionary. But in case the definition of succession is to hard for you to comprehend take it one step at a time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

taking over

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

succession: acquisition of property by descent or by will

 

 

 

 

 

 

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or if you want a very easy to follow definition of succession look at my previous post.

[Adam007]

First off I never said I was against technology. I was simply pointing out a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second off, your fire analogy only proves that technology is taking over. How could we survive without fire? Its part of our livelihood.

 

 

 

Again as others said, just because technology aids in our lives does not mean it has 'taken over.' We're not slaves to our technology. But that shouldn't even matter! What point are you trying to make here? Yes, if we lost the ability to create fire, we would have some trouble. What's your point? That seems so out of the blue to me, yet you're trying to use it to argue a point. Maybe I'm not getting it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourth off the apocalypse hasn't happened so there is no way to know when it will. Saying that it wont happen for along time may be right, but it is way too uncertain to be flaunting as fact.

 

 

 

Whoops, I shouldn't have brought up the apocalypse. I like how you bolded 'when' it will. An apocalypse in the religious sense you're talking about is an 'if,' not a 'when.' But there's no point in me trying to tell you that. Your mind's been made up years ago. I don't even know why I'm debating this with you. You're proven wrong all the time across the board by half of the users of this forum yet you still don't get things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally technology aides our lives, but who is to say this is better? Technology that aides my life can make someone else's life worse.

 

 

 

Good technology vastly outnumbers bad technology. Not that you're making any point with that statement that's even debatable so I don't know why you even said it, but without technology we'd all be ignorant and living like it was biblical times, accepting everything everyone told us and not knowing any better. I for one wouldn't like that kind of a life. Would you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ the bold: No I wasn't at some biology site. I was at an online dictionary. But in case the definition of succession is to hard for you to comprehend take it one step at a time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

taking over

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

succession: acquisition of property by descent or by will

 

 

 

 

 

 

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or if you want a very easy to follow definition of succession look at my previous post.

 

 

 

Whoop-dee-doo. You found some more definitions of the word succession to go alongside your biological definition referring to forests. What point are you trying to make with this? That somehow succession is synonymous with technology, and because the idea of succession can sometimes encompass destruction or taking over then therefore technology is destructive or takes us over? If I'm missing something, please fill in some blanks for me.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

First off I never said I was against technology. I was simply pointing out a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second off, your fire analogy only proves that technology is taking over. How could we survive without fire? Its part of our livelihood.

 

 

 

Again as others said, just because technology aids in our lives does not mean it has 'taken over.' We're not slaves to our technology. But that shouldn't even matter! What point are you trying to make here? Yes, if we lost the ability to create fire, we would have some trouble. What's your point? That seems so out of the blue to me, yet you're trying to use it to argue a point. Maybe I'm not getting it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourth off the apocalypse hasn't happened so there is no way to know when it will. Saying that it wont happen for along time may be right, but it is way too uncertain to be flaunting as fact.

 

 

 

Whoops, I shouldn't have brought up the apocalypse. I like how you bolded 'when' it will. An apocalypse in the religious sense you're talking about is an 'if,' not a 'when.' But there's no point in me trying to tell you that. Your mind's been made up years ago. I don't even know why I'm debating this with you. You're proven wrong all the time across the board by half of the users of this forum yet you still don't get things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally technology aides our lives, but who is to say this is better? Technology that aides my life can make someone else's life worse.

 

 

 

Good technology vastly outnumbers bad technology. Not that you're making any point with that statement that's even debatable so I don't know why you even said it, but without technology we'd all be ignorant and living like it was biblical times, accepting everything everyone told us and not knowing any better. I for one wouldn't like that kind of a life. Would you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ the bold: No I wasn't at some biology site. I was at an online dictionary. But in case the definition of succession is to hard for you to comprehend take it one step at a time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

taking over

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

succession: acquisition of property by descent or by will

 

 

 

 

 

 

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or if you want a very easy to follow definition of succession look at my previous post.

 

 

 

Whoop-dee-doo. You found some more definitions of the word succession to go alongside your biological definition referring to forests. What point are you trying to make with this? That somehow succession is synonymous with technology, and because the idea of succession can sometimes encompass destruction or taking over then therefore technology is destructive or takes us over? If I'm missing something, please fill in some blanks for me.

Look carefully at the bold words taking and taken. Stop wasting both of our time going back to things that have already been pointed out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the green: When did I say anything about a religious apocalypse? Most people accept that there was a beginning of the world and there will be an end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the olive: In Biblical times there was technology. Stop being ignorant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like how you don't even try to stay on topic but rather take everything I say and try to make some BS argument against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I am wrong. Then how is technology not TAKING over.