Turn on thread page Beta

The purpose of living? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepyeba)
    please, continue proving me right!
    Care to elaborate on how exactly I'm proving anything you've said right? With quotes, if you please
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    humans are a discrace, boiling lobsters alive just cause they want to eat them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saturn)
    humans are a discrace, boiling lobsters alive just cause they want to eat them
    lol here come the lobsters again
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saturn)
    humans are a discrace, boiling lobsters alive just cause they want to eat them
    Yup. That sure is the worst thing a human has ever done.

    Are you retarded? That's like saying "Lions are a disgrace! Chasing terrified antelopes across the plains and ripping them to pieces before killing them, just because they want to eat them".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toy Soldier)
    Care to elaborate on how exactly I'm proving anything you've said right? With quotes, if you please
    Okay, it'll be a pleasure
    From the beginning...

    (Original post by sleepyeba)
    regarding my humans are pollution comment - no i didn't mean it in a matrix way (although it's a great film).
    its just that apart, from mutual happiness, the earth would actually be a better place without us. the rainforests, all those forests in england, all those extinct animals, the atmosphere, rivers and seas...
    just finished reading Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything - that book ends with the fact that thousands of species are going extinct every week, and humans are responsible for a lot of that.

    If there is one thing humans do that comes close to making up for being humans, it is music. (Although again, nature does pretty well without us with birds and who knows what else that we can't hear with our feeble ears)

    yep. humans are the biggest pollution humans have ever made.
    To which you said:
    (Original post by Toy Soldier)
    Who gives a f*ck? I say we're here to have a good time. Who cares what we mess up doing it? It's all gonna be gone in a few billion years anyway... it's not like we're destroying something that would have lasted forever.
    Yeh, can you see how you are basically backing up my point that humans are just a pollutant?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepyeba)
    Yeh, can you see how you are basically backing up my point that humans are just a pollutant?
    Not really, no. Very distantly, maybe. What I was getting at is that it doesn't matter either way. We're dominant, we take advantage of it. That's natural order. Basically what I'm getting at is that I don't like the term "pollutant". As opposed to... what, exactly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toy Soldier)
    Yup. That sure is the worst thing a human has ever done.

    Are you retarded? That's like saying "Lions are a disgrace! Chasing terrified antelopes across the plains and ripping them to pieces before killing them, just because they want to eat them".
    Toy Soldier, who said that first line? You sound a little like a schizomanic.
    Well, lions don't happen to have a large food range open to them. Nor do they have the same mental capacity to realise that they are causing pain. (There's a proper term for this, but I don't study psycology or philosophy)

    Apart from hurting lobsters, I would say rape and murder would rate alongside the worst things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepyeba)
    Toy Soldier, who said that first line? You sound a little like a schizomanic.
    Well, lions don't happen to have a large food range open to them. Nor do they have the same mental capacity to realise that they are causing pain. (There's a proper term for this, but I don't study psycology or philosophy)

    Apart from hurting lobsters, I would say rape and murder would rate alongside the worst things.
    Did I? Only if I'd expressed distaste at the 'bad things' humans do. I personally don't really care if people boil lobsters.

    Are you saying that because we know it causes a lobster pain to be boiled, we shouldn't boil it? We should find a humane way to boil lobsters? I'd be interested to see some research into whether or not lobsters actually feel pain, by the way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toy Soldier)
    Yup. That sure is the worst thing a human has ever done.

    Are you retarded? That's like saying "Lions are a disgrace! Chasing terrified antelopes across the plains and ripping them to pieces before killing them, just because they want to eat them".

    well i can tell ya ive thought one step ahead of that retarded point, lions do it for survival, they have to! humans dont have to eat lobsters,
    also just cause that happens in the wild doesn't mean we have to boil lobsters, or does it? no they can be killed in less cruel ways (thats if humans crave them so much that they have to be eaten in the first place.

    btw the shellfish association are calling for a ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/301402.stm as your probably gonna say next that should enlighten my sad little life :party:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toy Soldier)
    Not really, no. Very distantly, maybe. What I was getting at is that it doesn't matter either way. We're dominant, we take advantage of it. That's natural order. Basically what I'm getting at is that I don't like the term "pollutant". As opposed to... what, exactly?
    I didn't really think of the dictionary definition when i wrote that, but here it is anyway:

    pol·lute (pə-lūt')
    tr.v., -lut·ed, -lut·ing, -lutes.
    1. To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter. See synonyms at contaminate.
    2. To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors
    3. To render impure or morally harmful; corrupt.
    4. To make ceremonially impure; profane: “Churches and altars were polluted by atrocious murders” (Edward Gibbon).

    Obviously, only a few there apply to this context. Basically, humans certainly do nothing to help nature (farming doesn't count - carrots don't need to be grown in rows. And preventing species from going extinct in certain conservation projects is great.. but insignificant compared to the millions of extinctions we have played a part in) and unarguably hinder it.
    Think of a world without humans. Apart from obvious lack of er.. people, its not much different to what we try and achieve today and hold as our "ideal utopia".
    Think of a world in 1000 years, almost completely urbanised, and resultant effects, both in human and environmental terms.

    Anyway, I'm drifting. My point is that humans pollute by definitions 1 and 2, and you could argue 3.

    I say 3 because there is evidence that species of jellyfish (or something, i forget now, getting old ) do terrible things like caniballism and are very very aggressive to fishermen. That was because the way they caught the jellyfish was so violent, that the animals copied the humans. (The lines are reverse spiked, flared and are incredibly painful and inhumane)
    In a habitat without fishermen (humans) the jellyfish were perfectly amiable (in this case to a camera crew). There was no aggresive behaviour at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My purpose in life is to shag the tits off as many girls as possible
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ramroff)
    My purpose in life is to shag the tits off as many girls as possible
    thanks 4 sharing....... :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toy Soldier)
    Did I? Only if I'd expressed distaste at the 'bad things' humans do. I personally don't really care if people boil lobsters.

    Are you saying that because we know it causes a lobster pain to be boiled, we shouldn't boil it? We should find a humane way to boil lobsters? I'd be interested to see some research into whether or not lobsters actually feel pain, by the way.
    If it was a kitten would you want scientific research too?
    Although I see your point - you could go the other way and say we shouldn't cook plants.
    But are you telling me that you honestly believe that throwing a live lobster into boiling water will do it no pain? It might not make vocal indications of it, but does that mean a person with no vocal cords feels no pain?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -EL-)
    Is there a purpose of living? If so, what is it?
    Just remember that your standing on a planet thats revolving, revolving at nine million miles an hour.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Mark KK's siggy: British Summertime Starts Friday 11th February
    What?! It starts tomorrow! F***! Summer = exams = revision = hell
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepyeba)
    I didn't really think of the dictionary definition when i wrote that, but here it is anyway:

    pol·lute (pə-lūt')
    tr.v., -lut·ed, -lut·ing, -lutes.
    1. To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter. See synonyms at contaminate.
    2. To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors
    3. To render impure or morally harmful; corrupt.
    4. To make ceremonially impure; profane: “Churches and altars were polluted by atrocious murders” (Edward Gibbon).

    Obviously, only a few there apply to this context. Basically, humans certainly do nothing to help nature (farming doesn't count - carrots don't need to be grown in rows. And preventing species from going extinct in certain conservation projects is great.. but insignificant compared to the millions of extinctions we have played a part in) and unarguably hinder it.
    Think of a world without humans. Apart from obvious lack of er.. people, its not much different to what we try and achieve today and hold as our "ideal utopia".
    Think of a world in 1000 years, almost completely urbanised, and resultant effects, both in human and environmental terms.

    Anyway, I'm drifting. My point is that humans pollute by definitions 1 and 2, and you could argue 3.

    I say 3 because there is evidence that species of jellyfish (or something, i forget now, getting old ) do terrible things like caniballism and are very very aggressive to fishermen. That was because the way they caught the jellyfish was so violent, that the animals copied the humans. (The lines are reverse spiked, flared and are incredibly painful and inhumane)
    In a habitat without fishermen (humans) the jellyfish were perfectly amiable (in this case to a camera crew). There was no aggresive behaviour at all.
    You'll note that point one says "to living species" - not to other living species. Most of what the human race has done that is harmful to other species has been to benefit our own. Hence the huge and ongoing population increase of humans.

    Point 2, to make less suitable for an activity. What activity, exactly? And factors unwanted by whom? It says nothing of making a place less suitable for one activity in favour of another (i.e. urbanisation).

    Point 3 doesn't make much sense in context - as you're claiming that people are a pollutant of the earth. How exactly can a planet be made "morally corrupt"? If you're talking about PEOPLE being morally corrupt - then it still doesn't make sense. How can the pollutant be polluting itself?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepyeba)
    If it was a kitten would you want scientific research too?
    Although I see your point - you could go the other way and say we shouldn't cook plants.
    But are you telling me that you honestly believe that throwing a live lobster into boiling water will do it no pain? It might not make vocal indications of it, but does that mean a person with no vocal cords feels no pain?
    The mistake you're making here is assuming that shellfish experience physical sensation the same way mammals to. So why SHOULD I assume, without evidence, that throwing one in a pot of boiling water causes it 'pain'? Now, I'm not crustacean expert, but I'd assume they don't do much thinking and operate on instinct... so who says they even have any concept of pain? They almost certainly don't experience fear, or know what death is. Then again - I could be wrong. Anyone got anything to add on lobster brain function?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "Hence the huge and ongoing population increase of humans" - is this really a good thing? Populations of everything always increase naturally anyway to the point at which their resources can sustain them. All humans have done is exploit their resources to their advantage. And usually, unsustainable exploitation.

    I was talking outside of the human race when I meant pollution - benefit to humans... gosh aren't we making each other happy with all our wars and inequality .

    Point 2:
    Activity being... life, and factors being general human activity waste.
    I don't understand your urbanisation point - dirty sprawling cities are no replacement for green forests.

    Point 3 is a little abstract I admit. Again, that jellyfish example is the only case I know, but then again, I know very little, wouldn't you agree Toy Soldier?
    It's just that the introduction of humans to their habitat resulted in such obvious changes in behaviour for the worse... we polluted their minds.

    (Now we're going to argue whether jellyfish have minds)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The purpose of us all lies in fulfilling our morris dancing potential, just dancing, no chasing lobsters across plains to catch them and let the lions pollute them or whatever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh god will you guys chill out this isn't a Bush press conference all the long words and conniving posts
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

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

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