Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The end of humanity is coming. The Transhumanist agenda exists. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Okay, your argument that artists portray symbolism in their works in no way justifies the comment that Black Eyed Peas are advertisers for "the Agenda". If anything, Occam's Razor suggests that they put it in because robots are cool and it gives a futuristic vibe. Also, symbolism in artists' works doesn't mean that they are part of some "mysterious, closely-knitted organisation that is the Transhumanism Agenda" and I don't know how you must think about it to make it so.



    Excuse me, but how does this directly pertain to our discussion? I know perfectly well what transhumanism is and what it means and whilst the little fact about the Huxley brothers is interesting it isn't relevant. However, connecting Aldous' dystopian "Brave New World" to Transhumanism because Julian was Aldous' brother and Julian invented the term seems exactly the kind of mumbo-jumbo "logic" that creates these conspiracy theories.



    What?:confused:
    I don't understand what exactly do you mean by "voluntary eugenics" and your article doesn't do **** to explain it. Neither does wikipedia know what it means(I looked at the "Eugenics" and "Transhumanism" pages).

    But this doesn't matter because the whole paragraph is irrelevant rubbish. Yes, of course the extermination of "undesired races" will be involuntary... How does that extermination relate to transhumanism?

    And since when did Transhumanism become about "voluntary eugenics" and racial (or other) segregation? "Improving the species" doesn't equate to sterilising people deemed "undesirable". You can improve it by giving people better memories or by giving amputees very functional prostheses. Naturally, you can make it something that promotes segregation, but you can make this argument for practically anything: "Let's not invent reading and writing because then a certain group of people will know how to do it and the underprivileged won't."; "Let's not invent phones because those with power and money will be able to communicate much faster than the plebs and in case of a war we will have a significant disadvantage." and so on.

    Of course, I understand that theoretically there can be segregation issues due to a certain group of people being able to afford the upgrades. But consider this: until it becomes widely available only very few people will be able to afford it - that number won't be enough to cause serious trouble. When it becomes more available it will be very difficult to keep it from the "non-elite". Also, if mega-rich-corporations are so keen on making all less powerful than them slaves why don't they do it now? Why wait until transhumanism kicks in? They certainly have the means - biological weapons, atomic weapons, private military power, all enough to turn people into scared sheep and make them labour for them. I doubt that robotic arms on a billionaire will suddenly make him more able to conquer the world.

    Anyway, all of the points in that paragraph are so out of context and so far-fetched that it took me quite a while to figure out what was the point(there is no relevant one, really) , all very common signs of pseudo-science/logic gibberish going on. Of course, here I don't have to look at the signs of gibberish because the gibberish is on the face of it.



    Again, I know what psychological warfare is and it's, again, irrelevant to our discussion. The term you're looking for is propaganda. Psychological warfare, in general, is when you mislead, demoralise, frighten, or otherwise psychologically influence your opponent.

    Now explain to me, how is the "Imma Be" video an example of this propaganda. I actually took the time to watch it (I found it quite upbeat and catchy, except for Fergie's part ) and in no conceivable way does it influence you to become pro-Bee Hive or make you want to eradicate "the lesser races" or become some sort of "technological-elitist posthuman-master race member". It's just cool robots dancing, for God's sake. By this logic Daft Punk, the Deux Ex series, and everything to do with science fiction and futurism is an agent of "the Agenda".

    Yes, I agree, it's an advertisement of that robots are cool, but that is because they bloody are cool and the idea that they are cool is very innocuous.

    Retrospection time:

    The reason I started this discussion with you is that I really thought you had a point and perhaps you could persuade me with it so I could know more about transhumanism and its dangers. Now after studying your *cough cough* arguments closely, I have come to the infallible conclusion that you have absolutely no intelligent point at all and I have wasted my time. Well, next time I'll know not to seek too much enlightenment on public forums and to avoid links to sites with questionable content.

    I'm sure you'll detect a sneering, patronising tone in my writing, and as much as I tried I couldn't feel guilty enough to not use it. You deserve it. I had to sit sift through all that garbage only to find nothing, whilst you just posted a couple of rubbish quotes. If you were a troll(and I can tell you're not - you believe in this crap) this would be a masterpiece of a trap, but as it is it's just a waste of time and opportunity. But like they say, fool me once - shame on you.

    Say "Hello" to Tinfoilhat-Land for me.


    Still, I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I can do it as well but I will refrain. Or not.

    It seems that you haven't read the article at all because the rubbish you're saying is appalling. There is a clear indication of what eugenics is. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Improving upon something means that what already existed is not desirable, The first iPhone was good yes but it is improved upon now and is undesirable. You completely disregarded all that was said about the meta communication as well. Why is that? The songs and videos are not supposed to be an insta-hypnosis. Where did I or the article say that? The music is supposed to be likeable and catchy.

    Again, did you read the article? Because it explicitly states how this is related to the transhumanist agenda. The rest of your post is ramblings and you using straw man fallacies and what not.

    Read this before you reply to me again

    Name:  1404619690601.jpg
Views: 49
Size:  106.0 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    [/spoiler]

    Still, I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I can do it as well but I will refrain. Or not.

    It seems that you haven't read the article at all because the rubbish you're saying is appalling. There is a clear indication of what eugenics is. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Improving upon something means that what already existed is not desirable, The first iPhone was good yes but it is improved upon now and is undesirable. You completely disregarded all that was said about the meta communication as well. Why is that? The songs and videos are not supposed to be an insta-hypnosis. Where did I or the article say that? The music is supposed to be likeable and catchy.

    Again, did you read the article? Because it explicitly states how this is related to the transhumanist agenda. The rest of your post is ramblings and you using straw man fallacies and what not.

    Read this before you reply to me again

    Name:  1404619690601.jpg
Views: 49
Size:  106.0 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    First of all, I have explicitly told you that I haven't read the article in detail because: 1)the burden of proof is on you and 2)I simply didn't find the article interesting or worth reading.

    All my answers were to the excerpts you have provided me with. The fact that you ask me whether I have read the article at all despite me telling you that I have no interest in doing so genuinely perplexes me.

    There is a clear indication of what eugenics is.
    There's a clear indication of what eugenics is but no indication of what "voluntary eugenics" is, which was my whole point.

    Improving upon something means that what already existed is not desirable, The first iPhone was good yes but it is improved upon now and is undesirable.
    And what do you imply by explaining to me the meaning of "improving upon"? I never said that the phrase confused me nor do I think that anywhere in my answer you can find indications that I fail to understand the meaning of this phrase.

    The songs and videos are not supposed to be an insta-hypnosis. Where did I or the article say that? The music is supposed to be likeable and catchy.
    And "likeable and catchy" doesn't translate to brainwashing or propaganda of some elitist agenda, which the article suggests.



    Like I said, "fool me once - blame on you; fool me twice - blame on me", so I will not indulge you and read through that article again. As I've said before, you're making the claim that "humanity is under threat because of Transhumanism" and it is your burden to prove it.

    However, I did indulge you in another way and read through the "10 Commandments of Logic" - thank you, by the way, I've been searching for something like this for quite a while. And I shall show you where you yourself have trespassed the Commandments:

    3)"Hasty generalization" - by looking at the "Transhumanism Agenda" you quickly assumed that all of Transhumanism relates to it.

    8)"Burden of proof reversal" - I have told you this many times, if you make the claim it is your obligation to prove it. Don't make me read through your articles.

    9)"Non Sequitur" - you, and the article, have made plenty of jumps that are unsupported by logic.

    I might be able to squeeze 1 or 2 more Commandments but I really don't think it's worth the time. Your claim is unsubstantial enough as it is. If you can make serious and supported claims of me trespassing those commandments - then, please, do so, I'll be more than happy to evaluate them together with you.

    But to be honest, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. You bore me with your silly and unsubstantial attempts to disprove what I say by saying that my logic is wrong, when your logic is so ridiculous that it took me ages to actually figure out what was the connection between your premise and your conclusion(as I said before, there's none). And don't try to twist the last sentence into an "ad hominem" attack by me; your arguments are unsubstantial independently, and your claims that my arguments are wrong are also unsubstantial independently(at least to me, perhaps fellow TSR members can help us decide who is right here).

    So, please, unless you have something good to say this time, don't bother replying or I will add you to my ignore list.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    First of all, I have explicitly told you that I haven't read the article in detail because: 1)the burden of proof is on you and 2)I simply didn't find the article interesting or worth reading.

    All my answers were to the excerpts you have provided me with. The fact that you ask me whether I have read the article at all despite me telling you that I have no interest in doing so genuinely perplexes me.



    There's a clear indication of what eugenics is but no indication of what "voluntary eugenics" is, which was my whole point.



    And what do you imply by explaining to me the meaning of "improving upon"? I never said that the phrase confused me nor do I think that anywhere in my answer you can find indications that I fail to understand the meaning of this phrase.



    And "likeable and catchy" doesn't translate to brainwashing or propaganda of some elitist agenda, which the article suggests.



    Like I said, "fool me once - blame on you; fool me twice - blame on me", so I will not indulge you and read through that article again. As I've said before, you're making the claim that "humanity is under threat because of Transhumanism" and it is your burden to prove it.

    However, I did indulge you in another way and read through the "10 Commandments of Logic" - thank you, by the way, I've been searching for something like this for quite a while. And I shall show you where you yourself have trespassed the Commandments:

    3)"Hasty generalization" - by looking at the "Transhumanism Agenda" you quickly assumed that all of Transhumanism relates to it.

    8)"Burden of proof reversal" - I have told you this many times, if you make the claim it is your obligation to prove it. Don't make me read through your articles.

    9)"Non Sequitur" - you, and the article, have made plenty of jumps that are unsupported by logic.

    I might be able to squeeze 1 or 2 more Commandments but I really don't think it's worth the time. Your claim is unsubstantial enough as it is. If you can make serious and supported claims of me trespassing those commandments - then, please, do so, I'll be more than happy to evaluate them together with you.

    But to be honest, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. You bore me with your silly and unsubstantial attempts to disprove what I say by saying that my logic is wrong, when your logic is so ridiculous that it took me ages to actually figure out what was the connection between your premise and your conclusion(as I said before, there's none). And don't try to twist the last sentence into an "ad hominem" attack by me; your arguments are unsubstantial independently, and your claims that my arguments are wrong are also unsubstantial independently(at least to me, perhaps fellow TSR members can help us decide who is right here).

    So, please, unless you have something good to say this time, don't bother replying or I will add you to my ignore list.
    Firstly, where did I say I believed any of this? The first post stated discuss and that is exactly what I've been doing. You on the other hand have only resorted to minimal thinking and analysis and then acting superior as if you've said something worthwhile.

    Still, the key points in the arguments you still have not addressed. All you can apparently do is boil down to veiled insults so you probably won't get a warning. It is ad hominem whether you'd like to admit it or not.

    The only thing that is not logical here is your attempts of arguing a point.

    I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of guess what Transhumanism so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism.

    I did not ask you to prove my claim is false. I simply ask you to read the article that may contain proof. You cannot differentiate between the two?

    Put me on your ignore list and see if I care.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Too small a group, too great expectation re technology, too conservative a definition of human.

    The transhumanist agenda exists only in the sense that some people believe it. It's just an abstract idea, it exists no more than the zoroastrian agenda for world take over or the movement whereby everyone is supposed to sterilise themselves (genuine). Not really much of an issue.

    Nevertheless, the end of humanity IS coming, the Sun will die in a couple of billion years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arieisit)
    Firstly, where did I say I believed any of this? The first post stated discuss and that is exactly what I've been doing. You on the other hand have only resorted to minimal thinking and analysis and then acting superior as if you've said something worthwhile.

    Still, the key points in the arguments you still have not addressed. All you can apparently do is boil down to veiled insults so you probably won't get a warning. It is ad hominem whether you'd like to admit it or not.

    The only thing that is not logical here is your attempts of arguing a point.

    I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of guess what Transhumanism so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism.

    I did not ask you to prove my claim is false. I simply ask you to read the article that may contain proof. You cannot differentiate between the two?

    Put me on your ignore list and see if I care.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Still, the key points in the arguments you still have not addressed. All you can apparently do is boil down to veiled insults so you probably won't get a warning. It is ad hominem whether you'd like to admit it or not.
    Sorry, what "key points"? You had the chance to address them to me and, in my opinion, you have failed to do so. All you have done is given me some paragraphs that hardly have any connection to what you call the "main argument".

    And do show me how my arguments are ad hominem. I have only resorted to insulting you personally(and I wasn't really clandestine about it) when it wasn't related to the argument I was making. It's perhaps needless, but I'll still elaborate - ad hominem would be to state "You're argument is wrong because you're an idiot therefore you can't made valid arguments".

    The only thing that is not logical here is your attempts of arguing a point.
    Evidence, please.

    I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of guess what Transhumanism so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism.
    Pardon? I find difficulty in interpreting that sentence but if I have figured out where to put the commas correctly it should be "I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of, guess what, Transhumanism, so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism."

    And, by the way, NO. The Transhumanist Agenda =/= Transhumanism. I think it's futile to try and explain this any further. Maybe read the wiki page on transhumanism or something.

    I did not ask you to prove my claim is false. I simply ask you to read the article that may contain proof. You cannot differentiate between the two?
    Okay, you said "discuss" and I have given you my ideas why I think your claim(or the claim of the article, anyway) is wrong. You have then told me I was wrong, and you have given me the link to another article. I have glanced through the second article, found it uninteresting and have said that I have no interest in reading this article in detail and that it is your burden to prove your claims anyway, since you have made the claim that my views are wrong i.e. that "transhumanism is a threat".

    So following this, you didn't "ask" me to prove that your initial claim is false, you asked me to discuss your claim. You have then stated that my claim is wrong and I have retorted by stating why your initial claim is wrong(i.e. why my claim that your claim is wrong is right). I can differentiate perfectly between the two. It seems that you can't since you have just confused them.

    But regardless, by challenging my claim with your claim, you automatically challenge me to falsify your claim. That's how proper arguments work. If your claim(that my claim is wrong) is valid, then my claim becomes moot and vice versa - if my claim is valid then your claim that my claim is wrong becomes moot.

    Anyway, I have read through the article more or less closely(when I was considering your arguments) and the fact that you have incoherently represented it is not a big loss, since the article is pseudo-logical rubbish anyway. If someone could validly prove that it is logical I'll give him £10. Hell, he'll probably get a Fields Medal in Mathematics since that will be a true breakthrough in Logic.

    Good day to you, "kind sir"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HexBugMaster)
    Sorry, what "key points"? You had the chance to address them to me and, in my opinion, you have failed to do so. All you have done is given me some paragraphs that hardly have any connection to what you call the "main argument".

    And do show me how my arguments are ad hominem. I have only resorted to insulting you personally(and I wasn't really clandestine about it) when it wasn't related to the argument I was making. It's perhaps needless, but I'll still elaborate - ad hominem would be to state "You're argument is wrong because you're an idiot therefore you can't made valid arguments".



    Evidence, please.



    Pardon? I find difficulty in interpreting that sentence but if I have figured out where to put the commas correctly it should be "I don't know if you realised but the Transhumanist agenda is the coming forth of, guess what, Transhumanism, so of course it is ALL of Transhumanism."

    And, by the way, NO. The Transhumanist Agenda =/= Transhumanism. I think it's futile to try and explain this any further. Maybe read the wiki page on transhumanism or something.



    Okay, you said "discuss" and I have given you my ideas why I think your claim(or the claim of the article, anyway) is wrong. You have then told me I was wrong, and you have given me the link to another article.I have glanced through the second article, found it uninteresting and have said that I have no interest in reading this article in detail and that it is your burden to prove your claims anyway, since you have made the claim that my views are wrong i.e. that "transhumanism is a threat".

    So following this, you didn't "ask" me to prove that your initial claim is false, you asked me to discuss your claim. You have then stated that my claim is wrong and I have retorted by stating why your initial claim is wrong(i.e. why my claim that your claim is wrong is right). I can differentiate perfectly between the two. It seems that you can't since you have just confused them.

    But regardless, by challenging my claim with your claim, you automatically challenge me to falsify your claim. That's how proper arguments work. If your claim(that my claim is wrong) is valid, then my claim becomes moot and vice versa - if my claim is valid then your claim that my claim is wrong becomes moot.


    Anyway, I have read through the article more or less closely(when I was considering your arguments) and the fact that you have incoherently represented it is not a big loss, since the article is pseudo-logical rubbish anyway. If someone could validly prove that it is logical I'll give him £10. Hell, he'll probably get a Fields Medal in Mathematics since that will be a true breakthrough in Logic.

    Good day to you, "kind sir"
    If you need me to tell you still what are the key points then you should probably stop replying.

    It was ad hominem. "Tin foil hat" and "you actually believe this" rings any bells?

    Evidence? I already explained why your arguments are not good. Do I need to say "this is to address x" "this is to address y" "this is to address z" in every sentence for you to follow and understand what I'm saying?

    Did you see where I said COMING FORTH? No? Read it again.

    Were you going for irony? You are arguing about logic and that part in bold makes absolutely no sense at all. Sort out your mind before you post. "Why my claim that your claim is wrong is right" :ahee:

    Again you say it is pseudo logical rubbish. You have made this claim and it is independent of my claim. Prove it is pseudo logical rubbish because I stated earlier that he adheres to basic researching principles which are validity and reliability. I see no false logic in that article.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Humanity could actually manifest its own destruction, if we all went along with the fear and ww3 porn.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 6, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.