So uh yeah. Pull up a chair and discuss the gak that really matters. With ol' Shadowbrand.

First topic.

"How long do you think humanity will exist?"

I personally think we could wipe ourselves out in as little as another century. Call me morbid, but everything seems to be going down the fething toilet.

Now it's your turn. Disagree, agree throw in your own two cents. just discuss, and hopefully you have more to say then I do. I'll post up a new topic every fort night or so.

I feel I was alittle vague. But humanity in recent years has seen to just stop caring. I can't help but feel there is a growing apathy in society. I could see something like say, a super virus or two big figure countries. the Uk,Russia or China etc picking a fight and as the whole circus erupts with exploding monkeys and cyborg strippers with laser nipple tassles we will just sit there, glued to some electronic device, eating popcorn.

Sounds accurate enough. What you're suggesting sounds like a mixture of V for Vendetta and i, Robot.

I think we'll keep on holding on for a while, but unless something really changes, then yeah, bad stuff is going to happen, and when it does, best be underground with ye dwarves.

I'll be drunk/old or dead too much to care when it does happen.

Wait...I'm just contributing to the problem now.

I think humans will be around for quite some time.

Could happen any time now. Already started. Economic turmoil, governments going broke, guess whats next?

snurl wrote:Could happen any time now. Already started. Economic turmoil, governments going broke, guess whats next?

An ecstatic orgy of sights and sounds to tantalize the senses and invigorate the spirit that goes on for hundreds of years. Everyone knows that.

snurl wrote:Could happen any time now. Already started. Economic turmoil, governments going broke, guess whats next?

Humans don't need the government, money, etc to live they are just social constructs that we choose to abide by, you can go live off the land if you really wanted to and never be affiliated with the

government whatsoever for example.

snurl wrote:Could happen any time now. Already started. Economic turmoil, governments going broke, guess whats next?

Said the Victorians.

Said rennaissance philosophers.

Said medieval writers.

Said every peasant in the field since history began.

Not really a particularly philosophical question.

They will gradually become more in the line, I just couldn't think of a better word to use and really. It's the deepest thoughts to walk into my mind. Philosophy seemed like the best word I could use.

Shadowbrand wrote:They will gradually become more in the line, I just couldn't think of a better word to use and really. It's the deepest thoughts to walk into my mind. Philosophy seemed like the best word I could use.

How about the "Future of Humanity"?

Define 'humanity' The human race might live on as feral cannibals when humanity is long gone...

Humanity as in our existence.

to put it as fething simple as possible. "How long does our race have until we go the way of the dodo bird?"

Phototoxin wrote:Define 'humanity' The human race might live on as feral cannibals when humanity is long gone...

hu·man·i·ty

/(h)yo͞oˈmanitē/

Noun:

1.The human race; human beings collectively.
2.The fact or condition of being human; human nature.
3.Humaneness; benevolence
4.Learning or literature concerned with human culture, esp. literature, history, art, music, and philosophy

Phototoxin wrote:Define 'humanity' The human race might live on as feral cannibals when humanity is long gone...

Well, Khorne will be pleased at least.

Shadowbrand wrote:Humanity as in our existence.

to put it as fething simple as possible. "How long does our race have until we go the way of the dodo bird?"

As long as it takes teenagers to stop pretending they have insight into philosophy.

snurl wrote:Could happen any time now. Already started. Economic turmoil, governments going broke, guess whats next?

Aptly enough, Xmas.

I think overpopulation will threaten our survival at some point. Global population has spiked within the last maybe 300 years. And I mean it has really spiked. Like, majorly, massively spiked.

As long it takes for some insane scientist to discover that we all are ruled by evil hamster overlords. Then we are all fethed

Skarwael wrote:I think overpopulation will threaten our survival at some point. Global population has spiked within the last maybe 300 years. And I mean it has really spiked. Like, majorly, massively spiked.

Just passed 7 billion last month. It took 12 years to grow from 6 billion. Thats a lotta people.

I think one century is jumping the gun a bit, maybe two, although I don't think we will ever be truly wiped out so much as reduced to a shadow of our former glory(if you want to call it that).

snurl wrote:

Skarwael wrote:I think overpopulation will threaten our survival at some point. Global population has spiked within the last maybe 300 years. And I mean it has really spiked. Like, majorly, massively spiked.

Just passed 7 billion last month. It took 12 years to grow from 6 billion. Thats a lotta people.

Yes, but it has been predicted that world population will stagnate around 2100 due to the LEDCs (less economically developed countries) beginning to adapt a style more similar to MEDCs (more " ").

As such they will have less children and world population will stagnate, especially because population in Europe will start to go down so much due to low birth rates. If you think there are a lot of Indian and Chinese people on the planet right now, just wait unitl 2100!

I just don't think we are supposed to live an interact so closely together.

Our base instincts and traits may get swamped by current social mores and ethics that we create ourselves. That is our downfall in a way.

Shadowbrand wrote:So uh yeah. Pull up a chair and discuss the gak that really matters. With ol' Shadowbrand.

First topic.

"How long do you think humanity will exist?"

I personally think we could wipe ourselves out in as little as another century. Call me morbid, but everything seems to be going down the fething toilet.

Now it's your turn. Disagree, agree throw in your own two cents. just discuss, and hopefully you have more to say then I do. I'll post up a new topic every fort night or so.

I feel I was alittle vague. But humanity in recent years has seen to just stop caring. I can't help but feel there is a growing apathy in society. I could see something like say, a super virus or two big figure countries. the Uk,Russia or China etc picking a fight and as the whole circus erupts with exploding monkeys and cyborg strippers with laser nipple tassles we will just sit there, glued to some electronic device, eating popcorn.

This isn't really philosophy though is it?!

I mean, it cant be. I have no interest at all in talking philosophy, but this subject intrigues me.

About 7 years ago I was in Afghanistan and my Dad sent me a pack of stuff to read. I had a quick look on google and had no luck, but basically one issue of New Scientist had a special about the 8 possible different directions of human evolution in the future. There was android hybrid human, gene-spliced mutant human, and most interestingly there was post apocalypse human, where the Scientists talked about how they would see us changing if in the future an apocalyptic event strikes the earth.

It made good reading, but basically they believed that even if 99.99% of the population was killed, we still have such vast numbers that a large amount of people would survive. And that the ones that survived would inside a few generations be the smartest and strongest humans having survived in such conditions.

Personally, that sounds cool to me.

I am a very strong misanthropist and have a deep rooted loathing for my own species. Its why I am always arguing with liberal hippy types, because I feel that their short sighted outlook of the world basically feths my life up. The "moral" high ground that they enjoy only exists because of our relative plenty. Put them on an island with only enough food to support one family, and I have no doubt at all that the majority of them would happily eat my kids. But that's a whole new thread anyway...

Yeah, Darwin must be spinning in his grave when our most educated and healthy stock breed so slowly, but toothless obese simpletons breed like rats. Have you seen the state of the UK? If you are educated to degree level you average 1.8 kids or something. If your an illiterate chav halfwit with diabetes, a club foot and a chemical addiction to nicotine you will have 16 kids. They will go next door and feth the 16 kids that the other couple who have been on the dole for 15 years, you know.. the one's with the whooping cough and the cleft pallet and voila! Inside two generations you have (16x16) 256 mutants. Ready to burgle/gang rape the 1.8 pleasant well meaning citizens that the doctor and the lawyer had!

In a nutshell, sure the worlds fethed up, but I disagree with your premise that we will wipe ourselves out. Even after a nuclear war plenty will live, and the strong will eat the weak. Like it should be!

Other than that, if were lucky enough to avoid any large scale wars, Its more likely that we will reach a tipping point, and do the smart thing that we should have done ages ago.

Stop fething so much.

There will be a major armed conflict this century, of that much I am certain. It will NOT involve nuclear exchange.

mattyrm wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:So uh yeah. Pull up a chair and discuss the gak that really matters. With ol' Shadowbrand.

First topic.

"How long do you think humanity will exist?"

I personally think we could wipe ourselves out in as little as another century. Call me morbid, but everything seems to be going down the fething toilet.

Now it's your turn. Disagree, agree throw in your own two cents. just discuss, and hopefully you have more to say then I do. I'll post up a new topic every fort night or so.

I feel I was alittle vague. But humanity in recent years has seen to just stop caring. I can't help but feel there is a growing apathy in society. I could see something like say, a super virus or two big figure countries. the Uk,Russia or China etc picking a fight and as the whole circus erupts with exploding monkeys and cyborg strippers with laser nipple tassles we will just sit there, glued to some electronic device, eating popcorn.

This isn't really philosophy though is it?!

I mean, it cant be. I have no interest at all in talking philosophy, but this subject intrigues me.

About 7 years ago I was in Afghanistan and my Dad sent me a pack of stuff to read. I had a quick look on google and had no luck, but basically one issue of New Scientist had a special about the 8 possible different directions of human evolution in the future. There was android hybrid human, gene-spliced mutant human, and most interestingly there was post apocalypse human, where the Scientists talked about how they would see us changing if in the future an apocalyptic event strikes the earth.

It made good reading, but basically they believed that even if 99.99% of the population was killed, we still have such vast numbers that a large amount of people would survive. And that the ones that survived would inside a few generations be the smartest and strongest humans having survived in such conditions.

Personally, that sounds cool to me.

I am a very strong misanthropist and have a deep rooted loathing for my own species. Its why I am always arguing with liberal hippy types, because I feel that their short sighted outlook of the world basically feths my life up. The "moral" high ground that they enjoy only exists because of our relative plenty. Put them on an island with only enough food to support one family, and I have no doubt at all that the majority of them would happily eat my kids. But that's a whole new thread anyway...

Yeah, Darwin must be spinning in his grave when our most educated and healthy stock breed so slowly, but toothless obese simpletons breed like rats. Have you seen the state of the UK? If you are educated to degree level you average 1.8 kids or something. If your an illiterate chav halfwit with diabetes, a club foot and a chemical addiction to nicotine you will have 16 kids. They will go next door and feth the 16 kids that the other couple who have been on the dole for 15 years, you know.. the one's with the whooping cough and the cleft pallet and voila! Inside two generations you have (16x16) 256 mutants. Ready to burgle/gang rape the 1.8 pleasant well meaning citizens that the doctor and the lawyer had!

In a nutshell, sure the worlds fethed up, but I disagree with your premise that we will wipe ourselves out. Even after a nuclear war plenty will live, and the strong will eat the weak. Like it should be!

Other than that, if were lucky enough to avoid any large scale wars, Its more likely that we will reach a tipping point, and do the smart thing that we should have done ages ago.

Stop fething so much.

Actually people are getting smarter.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18983_5-complaints-about-modern-life-that-are-statistically-b.s..html

Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Oh god, please don't let this turn into a hard science vs. soft science debate.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Oh god, please don't let this turn into a hard science vs. soft science debate.

There are only two questions:
Is it supported by evidence?
How conclusive is the evidence?
Everything else is fluff.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Oh god, please don't let this turn into a hard science vs. soft science debate.

There are only two questions:
Is it supported by evidence?
How conclusive is the evidence?
Everything else is fluff.

What is evidence?

If you don't know what evidence is, go back to your liberal arts college.

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

That is, quite possibly, one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

Science is as incomplete as when it started. For every awnser there are 200 questions. Your logic is beyond faulty if you feel that you can get truth from a textbook. Philosophy can be very childish, and foolhardy, true. But in the end, it is the only way we can ever find awnsers.

EDIT: Science is based upon philosophy. Try thinking.

Tlo1048 wrote:

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

That is, quite possibly, one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

Science is as incomplete as when it started. For every awnser there are 200 questions. Your logic is beyond faulty if you feel that you can get truth from a textbook. Philosophy can be very childish, and foolhardy, true. But in the end, it is the only way we can ever find awnsers.

Well that's bs for a start.
Science has given us medicine, a life expectancy twice that of our grandparents, a standard of life inconceivable even 100 years ago, a feth load more people around.
What has philosophy given us? I'm being serious. Give me a single thing that is better as a result of philosophy.
Even if you did, it'd be irrelevant. The good that science has given humanity is inconceivable. Every single aspect of our existence is improved because of it.
Philosophy is just an outlet for people with an infantile obsession with their own existence, given cadence by the fact that in ancient times scientific and philosophers were indistinguishable. Thankfully, we've moved on from those times.

Joey wrote:

Tlo1048 wrote:

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

That is, quite possibly, one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

Science is as incomplete as when it started. For every awnser there are 200 questions. Your logic is beyond faulty if you feel that you can get truth from a textbook. Philosophy can be very childish, and foolhardy, true. But in the end, it is the only way we can ever find awnsers.

Well that's bs for a start.
Science has given us medicine, a life expectancy twice that of our grandparents, a standard of life inconceivable even 100 years ago, a feth load more people around.
What has philosophy given us? I'm being serious. Give me a single thing that is better as a result of philosophy.
Even if you did, it'd be irrelevant. The good that science has given humanity is inconceivable. Every single aspect of our existence is improved because of it.
Philosophy is just an outlet for people with an infantile obsession with their own existence, given cadence by the fact that in ancient times scientific and philosophers were indistinguishable. Thankfully, we've moved on from those times.

Hahahaha, that is barely logical.
Where did science originate? Philosophy. How does science build? Philosophy.
Logically, if science gave us all of those things, then why can't we combat AIDS, Cancer, and what not? Every time we "advance" humanity, we take 10 steps backwards.
Unfortunately, we have moved on from those times...which is why we have so little logic in our world.

EDIT: These leaps and bounds you speak of are significant, yes. But we still dont understand MILLIONS of ideas, which makes humanity as infantile as it started.

Joey wrote:

Tlo1048 wrote:

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

That is, quite possibly, one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

Science is as incomplete as when it started. For every awnser there are 200 questions. Your logic is beyond faulty if you feel that you can get truth from a textbook. Philosophy can be very childish, and foolhardy, true. But in the end, it is the only way we can ever find awnsers.

Well that's bs for a start.
Science has given us medicine, a life expectancy twice that of our grandparents, a standard of life inconceivable even 100 years ago, a feth load more people around.
What has philosophy given us? I'm being serious. Give me a single thing that is better as a result of philosophy.
Even if you did, it'd be irrelevant. The good that science has given humanity is inconceivable. Every single aspect of our existence is improved because of it.
Philosophy is just an outlet for people with an infantile obsession with their own existence, given cadence by the fact that in ancient times scientific and philosophers were indistinguishable. Thankfully, we've moved on from those times.

Philosophy has given us Aristotle, Karl Marx, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Lao Tzu, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Paul Sartre and many other great minds.

Hahaha although I dont see Marx or Nietzsche, or even Kant as being that great IMO, you have a point.

I dislike them personally, but they were indeed "Great Minds".

Tlo1048 wrote:Hahaha although I dont see Marx or Nietzsche, or even Kant as being that great IMO, you have a point.

I dislike them personally, but they were indeed "Great Minds".

Some of there ideas weren't the greatest I'll agree with that and I didn't want list the things they did because I would have been all day on how philosophy has shaped science, politics society, economics, etc.

Also I just named the first philosophers that came off my head some of there work is so out there for me, I have no clue what they're talking about. Oh, and how could I forget Plato.

Cheesecat wrote:

Tlo1048 wrote:Hahaha although I dont see Marx or Nietzsche, or even Kant as being that great IMO, you have a point.

I dislike them personally, but they were indeed "Great Minds".

Some of there ideas weren't the greatest I'll agree with that and I didn't want list the things they did because I would have been all day on how philosophy has shaped science, politics society, economics, etc.

Also I just named the first philosophers that came off my head some of there work is so out there for me, I have no clue what they're talking about. Oh, and how could I forget Plato.

Hahaha good ol Plato haha xD

Agreed.

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Philosophy is based entirely around logical deduction. You can't use science to find the answers one would through philosophy. Science doesn't concern itself with concepts like the existence of 'thought' or 'justice.'

In other words, you have a gross misunderstanding of philosophy and science.

Oh, and feth Plato.

Tlo1048 wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Tlo1048 wrote:Hahaha although I dont see Marx or Nietzsche, or even Kant as being that great IMO, you have a point.

I dislike them personally, but they were indeed "Great Minds".

Some of there ideas weren't the greatest I'll agree with that and I didn't want list the things they did because I would have been all day on how philosophy has shaped science, politics society, economics, etc.

Also I just named the first philosophers that came off my head some of there work is so out there for me, I have no clue what they're talking about. Oh, and how could I forget Plato.

Hahaha good ol Plato haha xD

Agreed.

Not to be confused with...

Fafnir wrote:

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Philosophy is based entirely around logical deduction. You can't use science to find the answers one would through philosophy. Science doesn't concern itself with concepts like the existence of 'thought' or 'justice.'

In other words, you have a gross misunderstanding of philosophy and science.

Oh, and feth Plato.

Lol.

I've been around long enough to know that this world does not revolve in black and white. There have been recorded instances, throughout history, that defy the efforts of science to define them...

So what does that leave us with? Well if you believe in defining everything in black and white then if it cannot be defined by science then it doesn't exist...and that's just ignorant.

There is a grey area that defies explanation, this area has been attempted to be explained by religion, faith, superstition and philosophy. They all serve to give answers to questions we cannot answer with evidence in different and often contradicting ways.

Philosophy is for people who want to look deeper than just what they can prove and seek answers for what they cannot.

As for whether the world will end...at some point or another I suppose it has to. But I think it is beyond human minds to predict when and where and how.

Many have probably seen this before. I do find it funny one is debating against the importance of philosophy. Irony....

WARORK93 wrote:
Philosophy is for people who want to look deeper than just what they can prove and seek answers for what they cannot.

Actually, in philosophy, you DO have to prove your arguments. Otherwise they're invalid. Anything you can't prove is just an opinion, and has no place in philosophy.

I think, come what may, humanity will exist for a very, very long time.. how much of it continues existing, I am not sure. Probably gonna be a lot of death in my lifetime, especially when the oil crisis really hits the proverbial fan alongside the excrement.

How long humanity has?

well whats start the decline?

Massive astriods...its pretty damn big sky
Plague? Can you make it 28 Days
WWIII with nuclear?
Ice caps melt? now we're at water world level
Ice Age?
Resource exhaustion?...hence WWIII
Nature itself turns against us?

Jihadin wrote:How long humanity has?

well whats start the decline?

Massive astriods...its pretty damn big sky
Plague? Can you make it 28 Days
WWIII with nuclear?
Ice caps melt? now we're at water world level
Ice Age?
Resource exhaustion?...hence WWIII
Nature itself turns against us?

Despite all this, I believe humans will survive it somehow. The world's a big place.

Frankly, I hope we've mentally and culturally evolved sufficiently to be able to avoid such horrific disasters as conflict amongst ourselves.

What we need is a united world. No, don't need anyone reminding me of how incredibly unlikely that is.

Think a world gov't possible...I think most countries will try to keep it together while smaller countries align with larger countries on their border

Like Neitherlands Holland and Belguim aligning with either Germany or....France
UK...well UK is a pretty big island
US, Canada, and Mexico
South America
Australia....its a damn big island but probaly take Phillapines, Malayasia well..south pacific
Japan, South Korea, China....we find out like 5 yrs later with whoever is left
Russia....well....here we go again with the USSR


just a few

Think resource is going to be a drivng factor on nations

Jihadin wrote:Think a world gov't possible...I think most countries will try to keep it together while smaller countries align with larger countries on their border

Like Neitherlands Holland and Belguim aligning with either Germany or....France
UK...well UK is a pretty big island
US, Canada, and Mexico
South America
Australia....its a damn big island but probaly take Phillapines, Malayasia well..south pacific
Japan, South Korea, China....we find out like 5 yrs later with whoever is left
Russia....well....here we go again with the USSR


just a few

Think resource is going to be a drivng factor on nations

Well it'll only take one idiot behind a couple hundred nukes to screw up the whole "gak guys, we need to help each other" plan.

Then we go tribal...so be resources and females as the driving force. Everyone avoid the middle east. Putin I think will keep his finger hovering over the button though same as US...Actuallly we would have to really worry abot India and Pakistan going at it I think

Here I was hoping we woudl be talking about Philosophy.

You know, like what is real? What does it mean to be human? What is the purpose and definition of beauty? That kind of stuff.

Joey wrote:Philosophy is for people too stupid for science.
Sorry, but it's true. Want answers to things? Look in a textbook.

Yeah like Plato, Kant, Jung. What a bunch of r-tards.

I'm nt greek though

As for a warning sign. Well the financial situations of a lot of countries. Possible Iran/Isreal War with a nuke, and humans making human mistakes lately...Its a coming. 5-10 yrs. Think Financial be the one to get us all

One thing that's for sure, is that if humans didn't have civilisation we'd survive a lot longer.

Fafnir wrote:
Philosophy is based entirely around logical deduction. You can't use science to find the answers one would through philosophy. Science doesn't concern itself with concepts like the existence of 'thought' or 'justice.'

Yeah because those things are irrelevant. Philosophy was invented so middle class kids would be able to doss around their entire life. The poor make do with media studies.

Fafnir wrote:
In other words, you have a gross misunderstanding of philosophy and science.

Oh, and feth Plato.

philosophy is concerned with things that scientists find beneath them. Abstract, pointless things. Childish whimsies.

Be no internet, PS3's, Xbox360's, Warhammer, or the other goodies we're use to if there were no civilization infrastructure

Scientists still get depressed and kill themselves so they clearly don't have all the answers. Stupid people seem to be happier in general.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Scientists still get depressed and kill themselves so they clearly don't have all the answers. Stupid people seem to be happier in general.

Which begs the question...

Is it better to be ignorant and innocent, with no knowledge of the world and have the blessing of being happily oblivious...

or is it better to know, to be intelligent and well versed at the expense of having your soul ripped apart by the knowledge that the world is cruel?

It's better to be ignorant, otherwise nobody would drink or anything of the sort.

Scientists still get depressed and kill themselves so they clearly don't have all the answers. Stupid people seem to be happier in general

Whew...good thing it didn't happen to Daniel
McKay I wasn't so sure on..think he was going for a cardiac arrest at times
Katie is a hotty

Next topic.

Where the -feth- does the Hamster in the wheel think he is going?

I think he is trying to escape. Would you? Constantly being grabbed and squeezed by insolent children. I would escape, converse with my feral hamster brethren and march on the wretched day cares. Biting out the eyes and throat of every human and scream.

"VIVA LA HAMSTERS"

I suppose it's possible that it's actually trying to burn off excess energy.

Primal need for exercise, maybe?

That's something the human race could do with. >.>

^

Valid point.

so freaking valid.

Shadowbrand wrote:Next topic.

Where the -feth- does the Hamster in the wheel think he is going?

I think he is trying to escape. Would you? Constantly being grabbed and squeezed by insolent children. I would escape, converse with my feral hamster brethren and march on the wretched day cares. Biting out the eyes and throat of every human and scream.

"VIVA LA HAMSTERS"

Classic philosophy question.
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought. I therefore can disregard everything else that you say.
Seriously, please, please go read a book about science. It will enlighten you.

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

It'd be a philosophical answer, though. You'd ignore it.

Unless you have evidence that hamsters are capable of thought on the same level as humans, which is unlikely, then yes.
There are more important questions to be asked. Questions like "how do we make commerically viable nuclear fission?". But you need to be clever to answer those questions, so by all means continue to debate the motivations of a hamster.
It's just a middle-class version of debating who will win The X Factor (or America's Got Talent).

Joey wrote:Unless you have evidence that hamsters are capable of thought on the same level as humans, which is unlikely, then yes.

Who said they have to think at the level of a human to be considered capable of thought?

Moreso, how does one measure the ability of a human to think?

Also, the relative unimportance of a question doesn't render it unimportant.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Please do yourself a fething favor and stop speaking. If you dont like Philosophy, then do not plague us with your lack of intellectual prowess. You are not capable of seeing another side to your sideways thought process, and therefore have no business here. Go do something "scientific" and leave us philosophers to our philosophy.

Science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
Philosophy: "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods"

In short, you're logic is a fallacy.

Nerivant wrote:
Who said they have to think at the level of a human to be considered capable of thought?

Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all. Regardless, it's not important.

Nerivant wrote:
Also, the relative unimportance of a question doesn't render it unimportant.

It does. Everything is relative to something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tlo1048 wrote:

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
The hamster does not think, it is incapable of thought.

Where's the evidence for that?

uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Please do yourself a fething favor and stop speaking. If you dont like Philosophy, then do not plague us with your lack of intellectual prowess. You are not capable of seeing another side to your sideways thought process, and therefore have no business here. Go do something "scientific" and leave us philosophers to our philosophy.

Woah. You used the word "prowess" in a sentence. Then you use an unsourced definition to prove a point.
quod erat demonstrandum
Enjoy the warmth of your gak-smeared nappy.

Joey wrote:
Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all. Regardless, it's not important.

Evidence?

Really though, you demand scientific answers to philosophical questions. There's no middle ground where everyone will be satisfied.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all. Regardless, it's not important.

Evidence?

Really though, you demand scientific answers to philosophical questions. There's no middle ground where everyone will be satisfied.

But "philosophical questions" are whimsies, they're as relevent as the questions of children or drunkards. My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

I'm done with you and your boyish malcontent.

There are good people here who deserve my time.

EDIT: And on a side note, if something that cannot be explained scientifically is pointless, then explain life? You daft little boy.

Joey wrote:
My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

Which in your mind, invalidates every answer to your questions.

You've created a situation where you'll walk away "knowing" you're right regardless of outside input.

The same result can be achieved much easier by talking to oneself.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

Which in your mind, invalidates every answer to your questions.

You've created a situation where you'll walk away "knowing" you're right regardless of outside input.

The same result can be achieved much easier by talking to oneself.

But how can i know that anything outside my mind exists?
My opinion is therefore simultaneously valid and invalid. I exist, while denying my own existence.
This makes me irresistible to weak-minded philosophy students.

Joey wrote:
What has philosophy given us? I'm being serious. Give me a single thing that is better as a result of philosophy.

Science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
Human beings are barely, BARELY capable of thought. A vast majority of them/us are not actually capable of thought at all.

Joey wrote:
But how can i know that anything outside my mind exists?
My opinion is therefore simultaneously valid and invalid. I exist, while denying my own existence.
This makes me irresistible to weak-minded philosophy students.

a=b ^ a=/=b

Fun stuff.

Joey wrote:
But "philosophical questions" are whimsies, they're as relevent as the questions of children or drunkards. My point is anything that cannot be answered scientifically is irrelevant.

You know that scientific questions and philosophical questions are not mutually exclusive categories, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
uh. Nothing is true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU.

No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

Nerivant wrote:

a=b ^ a=/=b

Fun stuff.

Don't know what that means, but my education stopped at 16.

dogma wrote:
You know that scientific questions and philosophical questions are not mutually exclusive categories, right?

I don't know what "philosophy" is. As far as I can tell it's for people who want to sound clever without putting in any effort into scientific enquiry.
I tried reading Bertrand Russel at university but I stopped reading quite literally at page one. Boring, pointless questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

That's a contradictory statement. Evidence shows us what is true. The sentance ends there.

Fafnir wrote:Otherwise they're invalid. Anything you can't prove is just an opinion, and has no place in philosophy.

No place in analytic philosophy, the continentals generally see it differently, though.

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

That's a contradictory statement. Evidence shows us what is true. The sentance ends there.

Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

Hey Joey.

What kind of "Book on science" do you recommend?

I'm curious.

Shadowbrand wrote:Hey Joey.

What kind of "Book on science" do you recommend?

I'm curious.

I'd assume:

I have a question for you Joey...

If you are so convinced that philisophical arguments have no place in a scientific world, so convinced that nothing can come of the discussion of philosophy, so convinced that you are right in your deductions...

Why are you posting in a thread all about all the things you claim to be irrelevant? I'm sensing some other intentions besides "enlightening" all of us as you put it...

I'm just saying, I know that if I see a thread I find non realistic or silly, I jsut ignore it...

I played Fallout. I always liked trekking around in open range worlds.

Nerivant wrote:
Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

No they're not. Our perception of the world is soiled by our own humanity, everything we perceive is untrue to a certain extent. We are animals with animal emotions. We should be grateful for what rational capabilities we have.

Shadowbrand wrote:Hey Joey.

What kind of "Book on science" do you recommend?

I'm curious.

"A brief history of time" is good fun.
Also "QED" by Richard Feynman. Quantum physics (or at least his discription of it) really isn't as difficult to understand as you'd think.
Both those books got me through some tough times.

Joey wrote:
I don't know what "philosophy" is.

That much is obvious.

Joey wrote:
As far as I can tell it's for people who want to sound clever without putting in any effort into scientific enquiry. I tried reading Bertrand Russel at university but I stopped reading quite literally at page one. Boring, pointless questions.

I'm guessing you didn't read one of his more serious works, because Russel was one of the founders of the analytic tradition that deals in formal logic; which rests on the scientific method (which was developed by philosophers).

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:
No, that's wrong. Things are true or false irrespective of evidence. Evidence merely tells us what is true, it does not determine the truth of things.

That's a contradictory statement. Evidence shows us what is true. The sentance ends there.

No it isn't, there is a distinction between those factors which determine X and those factors which communicate X to an observer.

WARORK93 wrote:I have a question for you Joey...

If you are so convinced that philisophical arguments have no place in a scientific world, so convinced that nothing can come of the discussion of philosophy, so convinced that you are right in your deductions...

Why are you posting in a thread all about all the things you claim to be irrelevant? I'm sensing some other intentions besides "enlightening" all of us as you put it...

I'm just saying, I know that if I see a thread I find non realistic or silly, I jsut ignore it...

Because poor people who're thick take Media Studies and are ridiculed for it.
Middle class people who're thick take philosophy and expect some kind of respect (though most people in technical fields are dismissive of their 'acheivments').
It irks me, is all.

WARORK93 wrote:I have a question for you Joey...

If you are so convinced that philisophical arguments have no place in a scientific world, so convinced that nothing can come of the discussion of philosophy, so convinced that you are right in your deductions...

Why are you posting in a thread all about all the things you claim to be irrelevant? I'm sensing some other intentions besides "enlightening" all of us as you put it...

I'm just saying, I know that if I see a thread I find non realistic or silly, I jsut ignore it...

More amusingly, the claim that "philosophy is irrelevant" is a philosophical claim, and the argument made in support of that claim is a philosophical argument.

dogma wrote:
I'm guessing you didn't read one of his more serious works, because Russel was one of the founders of the analytic tradition that deals in formal logic; which rests on the scientific method (which was developed by philosophers).

I no longer have the book since it's been a few years since I tried to read it, but I think it was The Problems of Philosophy.

dogma wrote:
No it isn't, there is a distinction between those factors which determine X and those factors which communicate X to an observer.

Perception is irrelevant. If you don't know something, more fool you. The distinction is not important.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:
Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

No they're not. Our perception of the world is soiled by our own humanity, everything we perceive is untrue to a certain extent. We are animals with animal emotions. We should be grateful for what rational capabilities we have.

Our ability to perceive doesn't directly change the properties of what we perceive.

dogma wrote:
More amusingly, the claim that "philosophy is irrelevant" is a philosophical claim, and the argument made in support of that claim is a philosophical argument.

That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:
Something being true and us knowing something is true are two different things.

No they're not. Our perception of the world is soiled by our own humanity, everything we perceive is untrue to a certain extent. We are animals with animal emotions. We should be grateful for what rational capabilities we have.

Our ability to perceive doesn't directly change the properties of what we perceive.

No but it's fething irrelavent. You may as well argue about the properties of a fictional universe (as elsewhere on this site). The two are equal.
Both argue about abstract things that are of no importance.
Both regard themselves as far, far more important than they actually are.

Joey wrote:
Both argue about abstract things that are of no importance.

Importance is a philosophical concept.

Joey wrote:
Perception is irrelevant. If you don't know something, more fool you.

So, perception is irrelevant, but a person who does not know X is more a fool than a person who does know X, where knowledge is defined by perception?

Are you trying to claim that whether or not someone is a fool is irrelevant?

Joey wrote:
The distinction is not important.

But it exists, and therefore a statement made to illustrate it is not contradictory.

Two questions:

1. WTF are you all blathering on about?

2. Could someone pass the bong?

Joey wrote:Because poor people who're thick take Media Studies and are ridiculed for it.
Middle class people who're thick take philosophy and expect some kind of respect (though most people in technical fields are dismissive of their 'acheivments').
It irks me, is all.

Ah, as I expected, the problem is with people and not the subject...

This is something I can relate to on some level being in college...but is more a problem of human pride and vanity than it is with the subject of philosophy...

Joey wrote:
That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.

Oh, sweet irony.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
Perception is irrelevant. If you don't know something, more fool you.

So, perception is irrelevant, but a person who does not know X is more a fool than a person who does know X, where knowledge is defined by perception?

Are you trying to claim that whether or not someone is a fool is irrelevant?

Joey wrote:
The distinction is not important.

But it exists, and therefore a statement made to illustrate it is not contradictory.

You've out-worded me. I concede.

CT GAMER wrote:Two questions:

1. WTF are you all blathering on about?

2. Could someone pass the bong?

I have no idea.

Also, we have to prove the bong exists, first.

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.

Oh, sweet irony.

I'm really tempted to sig this, it encompasses a lot of what happens on Dakka OT...

Spam post

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:
That's because bullshitters (I refuse to use the term "philosophers" so as not to lump them in with ancient thinkers) dally the world up as they see it. If they say something is so, then it is so. It is therefore impossible to prove anything to them, as they will perceive the world as they wish.

Oh, sweet irony.

I am happy to accept my own lack of existence because I don't really care. I just want to get drunk and ingest as many chemicals as possible while I have the chance.
But telling other people randoms gak you made up in order to look clever is just pathetic.

No. Science is conducting research to generate evidence.
Philosophy is talking bs. The only way you can link the two is by using philosophy bs (i.e. spamming words until the people you're talking to lose interest).

Joey wrote:
No. Science is conducting research to generate evidence.

Why are you conducting research? Why are you trying to generate evidence? What is research? What is evidence?

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
No. Science is conducting research to generate evidence.

Why are you conducting research? Why are you trying to generate evidence? What is research? What is evidence?

Using a question mark proves nothing. Nor do words, actually.
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Joey wrote:
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Every answer started as a question.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Every answer started as a question.

Right. And what you just said had no relevance to anything that I'd said.
Is it so hard to accept that life is meaningless and random? And that you'll die without anyone or anything caring?

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
We've gone full circle. It is infantile to "question everything". Accept your own animal existence.

Every answer started as a question.

Right. And what you just said had no relevance to anything that I'd said.
Is it so hard to accept that life is meaningless and random? And that you'll die without anyone or anything caring?

It was completely relevant. Why not question everything, when everything was questioned? If we didn't we wouldn't know anything.

Also, that last bit is completely philosophical.

Nerivant wrote:
It was completely relevant. Why not question everything, when everything was questioned? If we didn't we wouldn't know anything.

Also, that last bit is completely philosophical.

But questions ARE irrelevant without context.
Why does 2+2=4?
Why are trees green?
These are pointless questions.
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.
And there is nothing there.
This is the great irony of "big questions". You're only REALLY questioning yourself, and since there is nothing there, you will never find an answer. But there'll always be questions.

Joey wrote:
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.

Any question that is founded on quantifiable grounds can be linked back to philosophy.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.

Any question that is founded on quantifiable grounds can be linked back to philosophy.

F13, actually.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Any question that is not founded on quantifiable grounds, i.e. mathematic or technical, is a question of human nature, you are simply questioning your own soul.

Any question that is founded on quantifiable grounds can be linked back to philosophy.

Yes...by philosophic reasoning. Why is it so hard to accept that we as humans are irrelevant and the only real things in the universe are mathematical?

Joey wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that we as humans are irrelevant and the only real things in the universe are mathematical?

You realize that statement is contradictory, right?

Irrelevance and "what is real" are both philosophical concepts. They're not mathematical concepts.

Chowderhead wrote:
F13, actually.

Some of us have F13 keys, actually.

Joey wrote:
But questions ARE irrelevant without context.
Why does 2+2=4?
Why are trees green?
These are pointless questions.

While the question regarding 2+2=4 is definitely esoteric, it is important when thinking about number theory, set theory, and a host of other concepts fundamental to math. It isn't pointless, its fundamental to the effective use of mathematics in science, it isn't simply a given.

The question regarding trees being green isn't quite so fundamental, but can be regarded as important both in terms of the mechanics of light, and the physical constitution of trees.

Joey wrote:
You're only REALLY questioning yourself, and since there is nothing there, you will never find an answer. But there'll always be questions.

Of course there are always questions, that's true even in hard sciences.

More to the point, there is apparently a thing, the self, which is being questioned, so there is something there. And, since people don't wander aimlessly about the planet, it seems that they manage to find answers when asking questions of themselves.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that we as humans are irrelevant and the only real things in the universe are mathematical?

You realize that statement is contradictory, right?

Irrelevance and "what is real" are both philosophical concepts. They're not mathematical concepts.

By YOUR definition.
As I have said before, "philosophers" make up the rules as they go along. Every disagreement is itself an affirmation of their own philosophical beliefs.
It's not !maths=philosophy.
But since every rational train of thought leads to the inescapable conclusion that life is finite and running out, it's irrelevant.
"Philosophical questions" are an attempt to escape this. They are the hissy fit of an 8 year old child who's just figured out that he'll die.

Joey wrote:
I am happy to accept my own lack of existence because I don't really care. I just want to get drunk and ingest as many chemicals as possible while I have the chance.

If you don't exist, then how can you get drunk?

Joey wrote:
But telling other people randoms gak you made up in order to look clever is just pathetic.

And yet more irony.

Joey wrote:
But since every rational train of thought leads to the inescapable conclusion that life is finite and running out, it's irrelevant.

But mathematics stay relevant... how, exactly?

dogma wrote:
While the question regarding 2+2=4 is definitely esoteric, it is important when thinking about number theory, set theory, and a host of other concepts fundamental to math. It isn't pointless, its fundamental to the effective use of mathematics in science, it isn't simply a given.

The question regarding trees being green isn't quite so fundamental, but can be regarded as important both in terms of the mechanics of light, and the physical constitution of trees.

Those questions were supposed to be examples of why questions are pointless. Throwing words at something doesn't prove a point.
I may well come across as a dick but unless something can be explained in logical axioms, I don't buy it.

dogma wrote:
Of course there are always questions, that's true even in hard sciences.

More to the point, there is apparently a thing, the self, which is being questioned, so there is something there. And, since people don't wander aimlessly about the planet, it seems that they manage to find answers when asking questions of themselves.

No, people wander the planet with chemicals telling them what to do. Those chemicals are a mixture of genetics and environment. There really isn't much more to human nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
But since every rational train of thought leads to the inescapable conclusion that life is finite and running out, it's irrelevant.

But mathematics stay relevant... how, exactly?

Well I quite enjoy being on bridges that don't collapse.

Joey wrote:
Well I quite enjoy being on bridges that don't collapse.

Well, why do you need a bridge? People got along fine without them.

Huh, there must have been some underlying desire to improve their ability to travel.


I guess mathematics made them do it.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Well I quite enjoy being on bridges that don't collapse.

Well, why do you need a bridge? People got along fine without them.

Huh, there must have been some underlying desire to improve their ability to travel.


I guess mathematics made them do it.

Bridges save time.
Time taken to go from point a to point b without a bridge=3 days
Time taken to go from point a to point b WITH a bride=2 hours
Plus economic bonus from goods/services moving from a to b and, yeah.

Joey wrote:
Bridges save time.
Time taken to go from point a to point b without a bridge=3 days
Time taken to go from point a to point b WITH a bride=2 hours
Plus economic bonus from goods/services moving from a to b and, yeah.

Why would they want to save time?

Really though, I can do this forever.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Bridges save time.
Time taken to go from point a to point b without a bridge=3 days
Time taken to go from point a to point b WITH a bride=2 hours
Plus economic bonus from goods/services moving from a to b and, yeah.

Why would they want to save time?

Really though, I can do this forever.

Yeah arguing with "philosophers" is pointless. They'll just take what you said and put a question mark on the end.
"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

Alright, let me put it this way.

For someone going on about the irrelevance of life and how time is fleeting, you're wasting an awful lot of time.

You continue to make statements about philosophy that you can't provide non-philosophical evidence for.

This is inane. Fun, definitely; I'm having a great time. But still, completely and utterly inane.

Nerivant wrote:Alright, let me put it this way.

For someone going on about the irrelevance of life and how time is fleeting, you're wasting an awful lot of time.

I'm drunk and have nothing better to do. Tomorrow I will be sober and have nothing better to do, but I will have a woman harassing me with things to do.

Nerivant wrote:
You continue to make statements about philosophy that you can't provide non-philosophical evidence for.

Because YOU are making up on the spot what is "philosophical" by virtue of it being whatever the feth you want it to be.

Nerivant wrote:
This is inane. Fun, definitely; I'm having a great time. But still, completely and utterly inane.

There is no nobler raison d'être than the pursuit of pleasure.

Joey wrote:
Because YOU are making up on the spot what is "philosophical" by virtue of it being whatever the feth you want it to be.

I could say the exact same to your claims of what is not philosophical.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Because YOU are making up on the spot what is "philosophical" by virtue of it being whatever the feth you want it to be.

I could say the exact same to your claims of what is not philosophical.

Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

I don't know if you're impetulant or just trolling me. I don't really care either way.

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

I don't know if you're impetulant or just trolling me. I don't really care either way.

Impetulant? Do you mean impetuous? Impertinent?

And no, I'm not trolling. You continue to extol the requirement of evidence while providing no evidence for your claims.

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Joey wrote:
Nothing is anything unless it is proved so, no you can't.

Prove it.

I don't know if you're impetulant or just trolling me. I don't really care either way.

Impetulant? Do you mean impetuous? Impertinent?

And no, I'm not trolling. You continue to extol the requirement of evidence while providing no evidence for your claims.

Apparently "impetulant" is not a word.
I'm bored now and it's half 4 in the morning so i'm going to bed.
Peace.

'Night. Hopefully the hangover is somewhat... manageable.

spam post

Every time I open the OT, this thread has a new post in it.

Madness I say, madness!

Joey wrote:
Those questions were supposed to be examples of why questions are pointless.

I know what you intended, my point is that its telling that the supplied questions each had clear, and relevant purposes with respect to the fields you're putting on pedestals.

Joey wrote:
Throwing words at something doesn't prove a point. I may well come across as a dick but unless something can be explained in logical axioms, I don't buy it.

That's all well and good, but logic is central to modern philosophy, so I'm wondering at what you're really complaining about.

Joey wrote:
No, people wander the planet with chemicals telling them what to do. Those chemicals are a mixture of genetics and environment. There really isn't much more to human nature.

I agree, for the most part, but that doesn't preclude the self. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Well damn, that was a very interesting, if a tad long, read.

I thank you all and return to the spectators stand.

A variety of off topic, spam filled and thoroughly unsuitable for this site posts removed. Please remember that the normal site rules do still aplly in the OT board as well.

Well....doesn't philosophy challenge another to prove them wrong? Without philosophy would we have come up with laws? Doesn't philosophy kick offa sceintific approach? I know I'm out the league here but curious. "cringing" incase the MOD gives this the ole arterial bleed

Well. I'm back from the Banhammer. I'm sporting a excruciating hangover. I honestly feel a tad BA. It's almost like the Mod team erases all evidence of me. Like i'm a taint,a cancer that can only be cured by Bolter and Chainsword.

Well to resurrect my thread. I plan on going a hike around the Terrace Area of BC. Because I love the forest. Even more in wintertime. Which leads me to ask.

Why on Midgard is trail mix so damn salty? I'm almost positive it would just be better to backpack it with a sandwich and you're canteen.

I would presume that it's salty because a lot of people tend to crave salt after long periods of exertion. I certainly do.

Because the people who are hired to package them have nut fetishes, and tend to give in to their urges during work.

Salt...Salt...

I personally go for a Ice cold -tall- glass of coke'o cola. Although I know for a fact there is salt in that.

Locked for a thoroughly pointless necro.

This is not a blog, or your live journal.