|
Post by wolf on Mar 25, 2010 12:35:22 GMT -5
no it doesn't.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on Mar 25, 2010 12:57:41 GMT -5
Hey, so, nice to meet you too. Jay's argument (I think roaringinside is Jay?) might not be bulletproof, it makes a few assumptions I don't really feel comfortable in making, but the basic idea, as I understand it, is pretty sound. It is not nearly as ridiculous as religiously institutionalized racism.
To clarify, my understanding of your argument was that if we lived with the earth, insofar as that is possible, instead of living in complete and utter defiance of the earth we would benefit. Ya?
|
|
|
Post by dellicious on Mar 25, 2010 14:25:38 GMT -5
It is not nearly as ridiculous as religiously institutionalized racism. Why not? Even roaringinside's (gelastic) idea of living in harmony with natural disasters stratifies the way we (those of us posting on this forum) live and the way nomadic hunter gatherers live. It's also a ridiculous notion to say that humans have evolved to live in "small bands" of said gatherer-hunters. If this were truly the case we wouldn't be sitting in front of computers with priorities other than gathering food for supper. To clarify, my understanding of your argument was that if we lived with the earth, insofar as that is possible, instead of living in complete and utter defiance of the earth we would benefit. Ya? I feel like this goes without saying, so I'll choose to respond like this -- duh?
|
|
|
Post by xmackx on Mar 25, 2010 15:51:47 GMT -5
who is this dellicious person? kind of a breath of fresh air in an overly homogenized anarchist ghetto.
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Mar 25, 2010 21:41:05 GMT -5
the air tastes pretty stale to me. those are the kinds of responses i get from the average person when making the kind of statement jay just made. but whatever floats yer boat.
|
|
|
Post by dellicious on Mar 25, 2010 22:43:53 GMT -5
the air tastes pretty stale to me. those are the kinds of responses i get from the average person when making the kind of statement jay just made. but whatever floats yer boat. You mean more average than agreeing with him for the sake of agreeing, like you seem to be doing? Please, humor me by asserting yourself with a more individualistic response before you call ME average, sweetheart.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 26, 2010 2:17:44 GMT -5
funny thing is, this: If we lived how we have evolved to live (small bands of nomadic gatherer-hunters), these "disasters" wouldn't have such a devastating effect. If we weren't living in glorified death traps like houses, we might be celebrating and gathering nuts and fruits that get knocked off the trees when the ground shakes. Not to mention we'd be so in-tune with the natural world that things like storms and tsunamis would be anticipated easily (see: indigenous people escaping the tsunami that happened a few years ago). Gaia will do what she must... sounds equally as ridiculous as this: It is the wrath of God in His dissatisfaction with those Humans who are unable to follow Christ with all their hearts. Obviously. I wanna say its not as ridiculous because what roaringinside is saying isn't that these disasters are happening because of how we live or insisting that we have any control over them what so ever so much as saying that if we lived differently, the disasters wouldn't affect us as badly. religious freaks would like to think our actions affect the disasters, and its god's way of showing us his disapproval. does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by dellicious on Mar 26, 2010 3:48:24 GMT -5
I wanna say its not as ridiculous because what roaringinside is saying isn't that these disasters are happening because of how we live or insisting that we have any control over them what so ever so much as saying that if we lived differently, the disasters wouldn't affect us as badly. religious freaks would like to think our actions affect the disasters, and its god's way of showing us his disapproval. does that make sense? I understood the sentiment of what was said, but the Gaia crap at the end made the statement read senseless.
|
|
arjay
still a stranger
Posts: 29
|
Post by arjay on Mar 26, 2010 11:57:20 GMT -5
I wouldn't describe every different idea that crosses my path as "fresh air". Fresh air is, to me, something that challenges me and forces me to reevaluate who I am rather than wallowing in the stagnation that homogeny so often breeds. While dellicious may have a different argument than most of the people on this forum different doesn't mean better and, no offense meant to dellicious, but I think i'll keep this ghetto thug life goin till I hear some argument that is undeniably better.
|
|
|
Post by xmackx on Mar 26, 2010 14:30:07 GMT -5
alright, alright--i guess i'll weigh in now.
i think dellicious brings up a good point, one that is neglected often by "anarchist" kids or whatever. there's this entire line of thought that human beings and human nature IS one thing or another. i've gotten into this in a different thread for different reasons with clayne, and i don't think you can actually prove that--and even if for argument purposes you "could" you would never know when you got to that end, because there'd be nothing to judge it up against. that's why this whole "humans are this, humans should be this based on history" is something that i'm completely tired of. sure, you could make a pretty valid argument that people are coerced into doing the things that they do, but those things had to have started somewhere right? did humans not start these processes, and do humans not continue them? one way might be more beneficial to how you choose to view the world, and you could have all the "evidence" in the world, but this seemingly is something that would be increasingly difficult to actually prove. to me, it seems like humans have incredibly abilities to adapt to different circumstances and material conditions, and i have a hard time saying that human nature=X.
i meant "breath of fresh air" because quite frankly i'm tired of primitivist kids acting like they've got it all figured out. the sooner we admit that we don't (in my opinion) the better off we'll be because we won't be throwing out these seemingly unarguable facts about the way humans are and should be--and we can begin to actually discuss in a way that may be conducive to a further understanding, is all.
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Mar 26, 2010 18:06:43 GMT -5
the air tastes pretty stale to me. those are the kinds of responses i get from the average person when making the kind of statement jay just made. but whatever floats yer boat. You mean more average than agreeing with him for the sake of agreeing, like you seem to be doing? Please, humor me by asserting yourself with a more individualistic response before you call ME average, sweetheart. Sweetheart? Go fuck yourself. Seriously. I don't know you. Would you have called me sweetheart if I put my gender down as male? Your argument isn't founded in anything. Why am I agreeing for the sake of agreeing? You don't even make an argument for why my comment is not "individualistic" enough for you. All you're doing is making inflammatory remarks.
|
|
|
Post by xmackx on Mar 26, 2010 21:20:35 GMT -5
You mean more average than agreeing with him for the sake of agreeing, like you seem to be doing? Please, humor me by asserting yourself with a more individualistic response before you call ME average, sweetheart. Sweetheart? Go fuck yourself. Seriously. I don't know you. Would you have called me sweetheart if I put my gender down as male? wow, seriously? i'm not even sure what the HELL that's supposed to mean. people can't call males sweetheart now? are you trying to say that only women can be called sweetheart? i literally laughed out loud when i read this because it's so ridiculous! my fucking dad calls me sweetheart. this is insane.
|
|
|
Post by colinxnaked on Mar 26, 2010 21:47:09 GMT -5
Sweetheart? Go fuck yourself. Seriously. I don't know you. Would you have called me sweetheart if I put my gender down as male? wow, seriously? i'm not even sure what the HELL that's supposed to mean. people can't call males sweetheart now? are you trying to say that only women can be called sweetheart? i literally laughed out loud when i read this because it's so ridiculous! my fucking dad calls me sweetheart. this is insane. your dad has a nickname for everyone just about though.
|
|
|
Post by trumpetinggiamatti on Mar 26, 2010 22:29:28 GMT -5
Sweetheart? Go fuck yourself. Seriously. I don't know you. Would you have called me sweetheart if I put my gender down as male? wow, seriously? i'm not even sure what the HELL that's supposed to mean. people can't call males sweetheart now? are you trying to say that only women can be called sweetheart? i literally laughed out loud when i read this because it's so ridiculous! my fucking dad calls me sweetheart. this is insane. I kinda wish people called ME sweetheart more often
|
|
|
Post by dellicious on Mar 27, 2010 3:56:29 GMT -5
y'all can keep ignoring all the anthropology, humyn biology, and ecology that you want, but it won't make a difference. i don't know what "ghetto" i'm stuck in, since i come to these conclusions based on reading, thinking, and my own life experiences, not by adhering to some ideology made by people i have no contact or association with. It's odd that you mention this, because your previous argument seemed to be ignoring the very things accused here. You cannot speak of humankind without addressing each variation of it. I'm not ignoring the fact that the nomadic lifestyle was once successful, or even the possibility that those people were happy people, but I'm also not going to pretend certain groups have not transposed past them. And not to pick your words apart, but I do believe the conclusions you've made were based in part by people who you have no contact with. A unique thought is a rare occurrence, which is why we adhere to the ones we connect to, no matter how contemptuous they are. I think living primitively would be awesome, but I'm not clinging to the idea that it's a solution to the world's (or even just my own) problems. do we still just call things a ghetto to ignore the fact that some of us are trying to find a way out of this death trap existence while others feel content with sitting back and doing nothing but criticizing those who try. The only critique I have is that you're accusing me of not trying, without knowing who I am or how I live my life. You suggest trailing back to Homo sapiens feral years and living your life as some crossbreed between one who grew up with the luxuries and inconveniences of modern day and one who adjusted to live their life without leaving any trace of existence. Is this something you honestly think would make you happy? And if it is, why haven't you cut the parts of your life out that don't coincide? have fun with the armchair politics of masked apathy and pretending to care about things only when it allows you the opportunity to put other people down I am not masking my apathy. In fact, if apathy were a flag I would hoist it up the tallest staff.
|
|