Birds are superior to human beings

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

For any practical purposes we can run out of water. What do you think people talk about when they talk about the Water Crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis

Palantas

This was already rebutted. I'll basically repeat that rebuttal; I get used to repeating myself when exchanging with kuraimen:

The planet is not running out of water, in the same way that other resources like oil are becoming rarer. It is becoming more costly go get potable water to certain areas. We could get water everywhere it needs to be. That's an issue of cost and politics, and not one of "Oh crap! We're out of water!" Of course, the above statement is dependent on whether we're invoking kuraimen's First Order Logic 101 course or not. If we are, then because the galaxy is finite, all resources are finite; considering the Earth's resources is irrelevant.

I have explained why I think the current plan is stupid...

kuraimen

No you didn't. You just said it was. You also said that plans on this scale can only be devised and implimented by groups of people. I just want to know how you, and individual,determined that the current plan is stupid, which apparently is endorsed by the entire species.

Those "mental gymnastics" you talk about come quite easily to a lot of people maybe only autistic people are the ones who have more trouble with them. Human language is not literal it is filled with similes, metaphors, exagerations, references, allusions, etc. Maybe a tv manual is literal but not much else. I shouldn't have to explain my thought processes like a tv manual cause I assume I'm not talking to a computer but a human being.

kuraimen

You claim to base your statements in logic, then compare them to mathematics, and then tell me I should have to interpret your similies, metaphors, et cetera.What? Just...what? For someone who has taken First Order Logic 101, I'm not sure why I have to explain to you that logic is not full of similies, metaphors, and so on. Logic contains only precise statements that have a singular meaning. I'm not sure how you are unaware of this, unless of course, you are completely unfamiliar with "First Order Logic 101," in which case you should not attempt to use it, and certainly should not criticize others for their supposed misuse of it.

The fact that we can't make it more practical because of a political issues and money issues further proves our stupidity as a species.kuraimen

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't mean we're running out of water. I'm not the only person here to have pointed this out to you.

EDIT: Though...given that you think the rest of the species is stupid, I guess that other people disagreeing with you is unlikely to change your opinion on anything.

No you didn't. You just said it was. You also said that plans on this scale can only be devised and implimented by groups of people. I just want to know how you, and individual,determined that the current plan is stupid, which apparently is endorsed by the entire species.Palantas

You claim to base your statements in logic, then compare them to mathematics, and then tell me I should have to interpret your similies, metaphors, et cetera.What? Just...what? For someone who has taken First Order Logic 101, I'm not sure why I have to explain to you that logic is not full of similies, metaphors, and so on. Logic contains only precise statements that have a singular meaning. I'm not sure how you are unaware of this, unless of course, you are completely unfamiliar with "First Order Logic 101," in which case you should not attempt to use it, and certainly should not criticize others for their supposed misuse of it.Palantas

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]The fact that we can't make it more practical because of a political issues and money issues further proves our stupidity as a species.Palantas

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't mean we're running out of water. I'm not the only person here to have pointed this out to you.

EDIT: Though...given that you think the rest of the species is stupid, I guess that other people disagreeing with you is unlikely to change your opinion on anything.

I have explained why I think the current plan is stupid and also explaining a very fundamental thing I think we should change so that we can change priorities.

kuraimen

Okay. I get that you think things are stupid. I was asking what your basis is for that assessment. A restatement of your hypothesis is not support for it.

LOL Again Palantas when I talk about First Order Logic I do it from a sarcastic perspective...

kuraimen

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense. So you meant to say that you don't apply basic logic to your statements? So how am I to know when you're attempting to make a logical argument and failing, versus deliberately writing nonsensical statements? And more importantly, what's the difference?

Like this:

No I have met lots of intelligent people but as a species is very apparent to me that we act stupidly for our potential. Even more since we insist on calling ourselves "superior" to other species. Well if superior means doing to the world what we are doing then I think inferior is the way to go. kuraimen

Is this literal? Am I supposed to believe that you think the species acts stupidly...or that you actually mean it doesn't act stupidly? I think I'm going to continue interpreting what you say as it is actually written, as opposed to giving you wiggle room to revise your arguments after they've been logically dismantled.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I have explained why I think the current plan is stupid and also explaining a very fundamental thing I think we should change so that we can change priorities.

Palantas

Okay. I get that you think things are stupid. I was asking what your basis is for that assessment. A restatement of your hypothesis is not support for it.

LOL Again Palantas when I talk about First Order Logic I do it from a sarcastic perspective...

kuraimen

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense. So you meant to say that you don't apply basic logic to your statements? So how am I to know when you're attempting to make a logical argument and failing, versus deliberately writing nonsensical statements? And more importantly, what's the difference?

Like this:

No I have met lots of intelligent people but as a species is very apparent to me that we act stupidly for our potential. Even more since we insist on calling ourselves "superior" to other species. Well if superior means doing to the world what we are doing then I think inferior is the way to go. kuraimen

Is this literal? Am I supposed to believe that you think the species acts stupidly...or that you actually mean it doesn't act stupidly? I think I'm going to continue interpreting what you say as it is actually written, as opposed to giving you wiggle room to revise your arguments after they've been logically dismantled.

I said why I think things are stupid several times. Because the core of society, what drives society is monetary gain, production and consumption. We make policies based on how much gain they produce. That's why destroying an entire ecosystem is seen as ok and allowed if it is in favor of "progress" and in favor of the "productive" society. If we don't change that basic core issue then we are a very stupid species I insist since we put immediate monetary gain above some basic premises like not depleting the world of resources.kuraimen

Which of the above is to be taken literally?

I said it before, I think most people would take my First Order Logic comment as it is, a sarcastic comment made to get a point across not a completely literal statement.

kuraimen

It's good for you that you think that way; I don't really care. You've written statements that are not cogent, and in explanation, stated that you don't intend to write literal, logical statements.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I said why I think things are stupid several times. Because the core of society, what drives society is monetary gain, production and consumption. We make policies based on how much gain they produce. That's why destroying an entire ecosystem is seen as ok and allowed if it is in favor of "progress" and in favor of the "productive" society. If we don't change that basic core issue then we are a very stupid species I insist since we put immediate monetary gain above some basic premises like not depleting the world of resources.Palantas

Which of the above is to be taken literally?

I said it before, I think most people would take my First Order Logic comment as it is, a sarcastic comment made to get a point across not a completely literal statement.

kuraimen

It's good for you that you think that way; I don't really care. You've written statements that are not cogent, and in explanation, stated that you don't intend to write literal, logical statements.

I always end up arguing about semantics and syntaxis with you. Normal human conversation shouldn't degrade to that level since it deviates from the central issues of the debate into trivial matters but oh well... semantic arguments bore me.kuraimen

Oh? Which of this is supposed to be taken literally? You stated that sometimes your write statements intended to pass logical scrutiny, whereas other times you write light-hearted nonsense. So which is the above?

How do you know the bird that was chirping didn't attack the dying bird? Maybe the chirping was its battle cry or something.PernicioEnigma

It's been a few posts since you've said anything relating to any of your points, so I'll just ask this again:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I said why I think things are stupid several times. Because the core of society, what drives society is monetary gain, production and consumption. We make policies based on how much gain they produce. That's why destroying an entire ecosystem is seen as ok and allowed if it is in favor of "progress" and in favor of the "productive" society. If we don't change that basic core issue then we are a very stupid species I insist since we put immediate monetary gain above some basic premises like not depleting the world of resources.I

Which of the above is to be taken literally?

Is logic to be applied to this, or are you going to argue the above points for numerous posts, and then decide that logic does not apply to it?

Birds have Bird Flu which spreads to people causing millions of Asians and other people to look like total dorks wearing silly white masks and repells the opposite sex in public. The cause, a whole generation of humans that will never be born.

is it fair to compare the succes of a specific speicies to the success of an entire class of animals?

Nothing beats a good Bird thread fight :)

Hahahahahaha!! Dude … you've got to be kidding!

Oh well, I guess you proved your point by starting such a thread. A superior species wouldn't waste their time on such idiotic dribble as this.:|

So in other words, birds are superior because they can chirp while chillin' next to a dying bird? :|

haha I like the tagKiIIyou

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I ate chicken for dinner the past two nights in a row. Me > birds.noxboxlive

or did the chicken eat you?

'spooky music'

lol'd

After going over the "humans haven't a good enough plan" argument, and disregarding how well Palantas is at articulating his points across, I've noticed, Palantas, that you take the time to change the quote line to say "I wrote" instead of the default "palantas wrote". This, while going out of your way, a lot of the times, to refer to yourself in the 3rd person. That's, like, really weird and stuff. grape_of_wrath

:lol: I guess that is kinda weird. I might sig your quote if I were into making signatures.

Theory of the century right there!

I did some research on TC......This is what I found:

The cat's out of the bag, TC.

The bird was laughing and taunting the dying bird.cd_rom

I said why I think things are stupid several times. Because the core of society, what drives society is monetary gain, production and consumption. We make policies based on how much gain they produce. That's why destroying an entire ecosystem is seen as ok and allowed if it is in favor of "progress" and in favor of the "productive" society. If we don't change that basic core issue then we are a very stupid species I insist since we put immediate monetary gain above some basic premises like not depleting the world of resources. I said it before, I think most people would take my First Order Logic comment as it is, a sarcastic comment made to get a point across not a completely literal statement. That you choose to take it as one is what's weird not the other way. I think the species acts stupidly yes given my above statement I have been saying that all the time.kuraimen

Uh, dude...implementing GLOBAL change is only slightly more feasible than implementing a long term public works plan spanning several thousands of years.

It's a matter of scale.

As Palantas said, there's no reason to believe that long-term planning is even possible. That's largely because we don't all agree on what the future should be like. And it's ESPECIALLY hard to get everyone to agree on that when the human population is a good seven billion people. It's a very similar instance with stuff like environmental damage. With this many people on the planet, it's impossible to get everyone to THINK on a global scale. Most people are going to first and foremost be concerned with their OWN benefits in the SHORT TERM.

So like...if you have a struggling community that could be revitalized by opening a new plant, and if that new plant just happens to dump toxins into some OTHER community's backyard, then guess what? They're generally going to go with the solution that benefits THEMSELVES at the expense of someone else. Generally speaking, that's how people work. Thinking on a global scale is not natural for us, we are shockingly bad at it, and there's no way to fix that without somehow getting nearly everyone on Earth to agree on the same stuff.

Birds love watching other animals fight, they love looting, they love to poop on our new shiny cars, they love to joke, they like to steal things from stores.

Birds build these: humans build these:

Humans > Birds

Yet a birds nest is 10 times stronger than any building we can build. They can sruvive an earthquake.

Yet a birds nest is 10 times stronger than any building we can build. They can sruvive an earthquake.

feared4power

If I build a little bowl out of iron, you're telling me it A.) Won't be as strong as a bird's next, and B.) It won't survive an earthquake?

[QUOTE="feared4power"]

Yet a birds nest is 10 times stronger than any building we can build. They can sruvive an earthquake.

Palantas

If I build a little bowl out of iron, you're telling me it A.) Won't be as strong as a bird's next, and B.) It won't survive an earthquake?

Today, as I was walking into Home Depot, I saw a dying bird lying on the ground, chest heaving. There was another bird standing next to it, chirping its lungs out. Perhaps it was calling for help. Maybe it was just staying with the dying bird in its last moments.

The birds were of two completely different species.

Human beings kill each other because of our differences, whether it's a difference in race, religion, or anything else.

Therefore, humans are inferior to birds.

Discuss.

feared4power