Warp wrote:
>   Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> avoidable.

It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.

  That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.

  The vast majority of votes are done for irrelevant reasons like "I have
always voted for this party", "my father has always voted for this party
and taught me to do so as well", "he made such a good speech" (without
ever hearing anyone else's speeches), "she is a woman, and as a woman I have
to support her", or even "he is so handsome". Reasons for *not* voting for
someone include ridiculous ones like "according to polls he won't win, so
I'm not going to waste my vote on him".

  Yeah, this is a sad state of affairs. But my point is that if you are
voting as a symbol of celebration for suffrage, then it's probably a much
better reason than most. (In fact, I would say that if you are doing it
as a symbolic act, you are very likely to be more aware of the politics
of your country than most other voters.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> > the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> > species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> > avoidable.

> It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.

  Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
meteorite can't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fc7bfa@news.povray.org...
> On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:

> > People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the
other
> > hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> > general election by his or her vote,

> By general, do you mean national?

More or less. Anything with voters in the thousands or more.

> There have certainly been cases where national elections have been
> decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's
> never come down to a single vote before.
>
> On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more
> immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen
> votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.

Possible, since there are so many elections everyday somewhere, but highly
improbable for any single election that I had a right to vote.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
>> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.
> 
>   That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.

	Dunno. Most people I know who vote seem to be fairly ignorant on many
of the issues. That's a side effect of the reason they don't vote -
they're just not interested in the issues.

-- 
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
>> species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
>> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
>> another species came along and bumped them off.
> 
>> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
>> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
>> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.
> 
>> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
>> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
>> man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
>> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
>> cause a massive die-off as well.
> 
>> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
>> for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
>> that our niche was vacant when we came along.
> 
>   You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
> selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.

Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the 
effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a 
different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product 
of nature, this is illogical.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the 
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a 
> different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product 
> of nature, this is illogical.

  Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.

  A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
a sentient malevolent being.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
> different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product
> of nature, this is illogical.

	Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.

	Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.

  I think his point is that since man is a product of nature (at least in
the atheistic view), then man cannot behave in unnatural ways.

  This goes down to the philosophical definition of a sentient being,
and whether sentience makes humans to be above nature (in the sense that
humans are capable of unnatural behavior and thus can be held morally
responsible for it).

  As I said, contrast a meteor smashing the Earth, and mankind making
the same kind of damage as a conscious, deliberate act (caused by
selfishness and greed). The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
because it's not a sentient being and thus doesn't make decisions, but
humans can.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> No prob.  Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
> 
> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz  :)
> 

I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P

Post a reply to this message