OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

[disabled]

The bible does not make a difference between man/human/humanity. Therefore in my statements prior, I also did not make the difference.

Sadly, most religions look upon men and women as totally different species. This is one of the main problems that slow humanity's advancements.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

If you are going to make such claims against me, you have to make them equally against the other parties of this debate, as they provided no evidence of their claims. So, singling me out is quite wrong to do. Even you provided no evidence for your claims up until this post.

Fyron the following is only my opinion, so I am the first person to say I may be wrong and out to lunch.

I mentioned humility in a earlier post, but maybe I should be a bit more blunt.

There is a fundamental difference in how you present a claim and how most of the others in the threads present their claim.

"Me right, you wrong!" attitude doesn't normally promote an open and honest dialogue. By taking such a rigid position, other participants in the threads may feel compelled to take an opposing position which can be just as rigid.

Lord knows all of us have been guilty of the "Me right, you wrong" attitude. The difference is that you seem to take it further than most.

As such, it is inflamatory. And I suspect that may be the reason some participants "single you out". If so, you shouldn't (but still have the right to) complain about being singled out.

Change the behaviour and you will not be singled out as much.

You did ask. And this is my 2 cents worth.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I can understand you wondering why I only question you and not the others, well, you are the ruler of the World!!

Still. If you start doing the math I don't see that there has been 6 billion people before that has died! I can agree that it's a close match though.

Take 1930 for example. Alot of those 2 billions are still alive, well into their 70-90 years of age. (In the 3:d world life age expactancy is low due to high child mortality, but many of those who survive childhood becomes quite old. This is also the same in the rest of the world in earlier years of our history and prehistory)

The curve only show prevalence of population not incidence of births and/or deaths.

(And yes, I'm quite ashamed. I did the same thing I accused you of, I stand corrected in that area!)

No, most of those people that were alive in 1930 are dead now. Remember, India and China have a very large proportion of the world's population in them, and those countries do not have (and have not had) the greates of medical systems.

Even if you take an average of, say, 10 million people (which is probably a low estimate) being alive for each 50 year period (as average life spans were about that many 1000s of years ago (or maybe less)) of the 50,000 years (a rough estimate of how long our direct ancestors have been around) before the beginning of your graph, that gets you about 10 million x 50,000 / 50 = 10 billion people. That is 10 billion people that were alive that could not be alive today. Of course, these figures are not exact, and were made up for illustrative purposes. But, they are close enough to what the actual values would be, so they work to show you my point. Even if you only want to go back to 30,000 BC, that still gives 6 billion people that were alive before 1 AD. Combined with at least 2 billion people that were alive from 1 AD to sometime before the present date, but are not alive today, that gives more people than are alive today. I forget how long ago our ancestors evolved, but I know it was at least 30,000 years ago, and probably a lot longer.

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
The bible does not make a difference between man/human/humanity. Therefore in my statements prior, I also did not make the difference.

Sadly, most religions look upon men and women as totally different species. This is one of the main problems that slow humanity's advancements.

Interesting... so you are saying that religion is one of the main problems that slow humanity's advancements? Technically, the Catholic Church did perpetuate the European Dark Ages for many more centuries than it would have Lasted otherwise by persecuting any scientists that cropped up as heretics (eg: Galileo). Confucianism in China also apparently stagnated advancements during about the same period as the European Dark Ages.

[ March 07, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[tesco samoa]

And don't forget China had the 20 years of war their with Japan , and the nationists...

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Technically, the Catholic Church did perpetuate the European Dark Ages for many more centuries than it would have Lasted otherwise by persecuting any scientists that cropped up as heretics (eg: Galileo).

Fyron, I'm curious about your argument on this point. Aside from Galileo, did you have anyone else in mind? If you go by the meta-narrative presented by most textbooks of "Western Civ," the "Middle Ages" were over by the time of Galileo (1564-1642). The usual periodization has them come to a close with the Italian Renaissance (1350-1550). So, he's not the best example to support your argument.

The "church versus science" theme is still a very strong one in our perceptions of history, so I'm intrigued by your position, and would like to hear more of your argument.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 07, 2003, 22:25: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Ruatha]

Ok, I give up.
You are right about the pop issue I guess

[Wardad]

The Church supressed science for Centuries.
Some may think that is a bad thing.
But... If science gives us the power to kill all life on earth and we do it.
Then the Church simply gave us a few more centuries of life.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Fyron, I'm curious about your argument on this point. Aside from Galileo, did you have anyone else in mind? If you go by the meta-narrative presented by most textbooks of "Western Civ," the "Middle Ages" were over by the time of Galileo (1564-1642). The usual periodization has them come to a close with the Italian Renaissance (1350-1550). So, he's not the best example to support your argument.

The "church versus science" theme is still a very strong one in our perceptions of history, so I'm intrigued by your position, and would like to hear more of your argument.

Edit: I can't spell...

There are many examples, I just can't think of most of them at the moment. Copernicus' radical theory that the Sun was the center of the universe instead of the Earth was rejected by proponents of the Catholic Church, amonst other highly religious people of the times. Of course, the Church was not as adamant about burning all who questioned it at the stake as it was centuries prior. And as the Church was wrong about some of the most basic facts about the universe, people making scientific progress would naturally have to question some of the Church's claims (such as the Earth being the center of the universe).

[ March 07, 2003, 23:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[TerranC]

How did rating fyron turn into a debate about gods, christians, et cetera?

Methinks that Fyron should change the title once more.

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
God creates man in his image.
-omitted statement-
-omitted statement-
Man is victorious
Man Creates AI in his image.
AI is more powerful than man.
Man grows jealous of AI and attempts to destroy it.
AI is Victorious

And Iggiboo, on the above, how can we be more powerful than god, if a such thing exists? And Why would we choose to kill off gods? Why/How would AIs be more powerful than us if we create them into our image? And Why would we choose to destroy AIs if we created them into our own image? Does a parent shoot it's offspring just because it has become more powerful?

[Fyron]

The rating Fyron came from a thread where that was being discussed, and people were giving me 1s. I only wanted to know who was doing that (as you should never insult someone behind their back; do it to their face; and this is what a rating of 1 is equivalent to), but the people that gave me a 1 did not fess up (well... I think 1 did, but the rest did not).