Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,648 Year: 970/6,935 Month: 251/719 Week: 39/204 Day: 23/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Man's Successor
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 35 (459525)
03-08-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sstaubin
03-05-2008 5:15 PM


In the future, we shall of course all be strict cladists.
Hence, we will not rename our species until it evolves into two reproductively isolated species, at which point we shall have to give new names to both of them.
Homo terra and Homo centauri?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sstaubin, posted 03-05-2008 5:15 PM sstaubin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 35 (461252)
03-23-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Agobot
03-22-2008 11:19 AM


I really don't think you've thought that one through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Agobot, posted 03-22-2008 11:19 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Agobot, posted 03-24-2008 7:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 35 (461378)
03-25-2008 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Agobot
03-24-2008 7:06 PM


Whether you like it or not, the tolerance experiment has failed. And so did the experiement for the integration of people of different religions into one society. Both have failed miserably in the EU and the US.
No they haven't. Not from where I'm sitting. (Leicester, UK.)
If we continue to turn a blind eye to the growing islamic threat, the civilisations clash is inevitable. If we want a successor, a total ban on religions is a must before they get hold of nuclear weapons and wack us in the name of god.
I still think that you haven't thought this through.
First, the people who wish to ban religion are a minority. They are a minority even among the irreligious. How are "we" meant to ban religion? Some sort of un-Holy War? But "we" are outnumbered. And I, for one, despite my lack of belief, would fight on the other side.
Secondly, any such attempt would precipitate exactly the sort of crisis you wish to avoid.
Finally, your proposition is grossly immoral, for exactly the same reason that the worst excesses of religion are immoral: because you wish to introduce compulsion into matters of conscience. What, pray tell me, are "we" meant to do with the believers who do not respect "our" ban on religion? Burn them at the stake? Stone them to death? Do explain.
---
N.B: I notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Agobot, posted 03-24-2008 7:06 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 03-25-2008 7:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 35 (461406)
03-25-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Agobot
03-25-2008 7:18 AM


Oh really? Did christians blow up busses in London? Was it again christians that drove burning cars into Heathrow airport? Or are you just saying that in your city this has not happen, so it doesn't concern you?
As a proportion of the religious population in the UK, these people seem insufficient to start a civil war over.
So you wish to fight radicalism with peaceful means and keeping good ethics and morality?
The sort of radicalism that involves blowing people up? I see no reason to fight them through peaceful means. However, you were speaking of "banning religion", and since there is no peaceful and ethical way of doing that, my vote is that we don't do it at all.
There is already a ban on blowing people up.
It's still on topic - we are discussing why there could be no successor to man after the clash of civilisations.
A clash of civilazations that you seem peculiarly keen to bring about.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 03-25-2008 7:18 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025