Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

If it were true, we'd expect similarities between ancient stories. How do you know that the Genesis account came after Gilgamesh?

Rip off of ancient texts and not just Gilgamesh. Polytheism was around far before. I guess I will go worship one of the Egyptian gods.

[Giancarlo]

Civilization, by definition presupposes that people are not animals. This is a contradiction. How do you resolve this, Gian? If you believe our human nature makes us no better than animals, how does it make sense to turn around and say that there can be such a thing as human society?

We are not better than animals. You are incapable of reading. Take a look at the last two centuries... Not even any animal species would this to their own. How many millions have died? You are a contradiction. You are also a liar.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rip off of ancient texts and not just Gilgamesh. Polytheism was around far before. I guess I will go worship one of the Egyptian gods.

Again, how do you know when the Genesis account occurred? If there are similarities, then would it not make sense that they are both talking about the same thing?

[Ben Kenobi]

We are not better than animals.

Then how can you take a step back and say that one is civilized or not? If we are just like animals, there's no civilization. If there is civilization, which sets us apart - then we are different.

Not even any animal species would this to their own. How many millions have died? You are a contradiction. You are also a liar.

Actually, yes they would. The only reason there are millions is because of human civilization allowing more people to live together than otherwise possible.

[Giancarlo]

Again, how do you know when the Genesis account occurred? If there are similarities, then would it not make sense that they are both talking about the same thing?

No such thing happened. People were primitive back then. They believed anything. Genesis is pure fantasy.

Every religion has their own version of how everything was created and it's all crock of ****.

[Giancarlo]

Then how can you take a step back and say that one is civilized or not? If we are just like animals, there's no civilization. If there is civilization, which sets us apart - then we are different.



Actually, yes they would. The only reason there are millions is because of human civilization allowing more people to live together than otherwise possible.

Back to his bull**** as always... lying and lying some more.

His dumb ass religion has warped his view of the world. He views everything as being under the control of humans.

This idiot does not realize how fragile humans really are.

[Proteus_MST]

Civilization, by definition presupposes that people are not animals. This is a contradiction. How do you resolve this, Gian? If you believe our human nature makes us no better than animals, how does it make sense to turn around and say that there can be such a thing as human society?

Social insects have "societies" with distinct castes/jobs
Non human apes can develope techniques and give them to the next generation as local traditions
Example: One tribe of japanese macaques (in the wild) has developed the technique to wash potatoes in saltr water, this way not only freeing them from dirt, but also making them tastier. Another macaque tribe has developed the technique to crack open nuts by using 2 stones as hammer and anvil.
Both of these techniques are given to the next generation by their parents techning them to the kids and those 2 techniques are limited to exactly one tribe ... no other macaque tribes in the region possess/use the techniques despite having the means (like stones or acess to salt water) to use them ... they are specializations of single tribes.

Bonobos (that's, the chimpanzee species whose sexual morals will make every catholic theologian mad) have the ability to use herbal medicines ... that means, they know which plants to use when they have this or that medical problem and give3 it to their children.
Bonobos also have prostitution

Also non human ape species possess protolanguages with which they can, for example, warn others of specific types of predators, or tell them that they can find food here. It has also been an observed behavior in the wild (for example in Cercopithecus aethiopos) that some individuals use the language to lie (for example, to falsely warn the others that there is an airborne predator, just to afterwards steal the food they left behind when fleeing ... it has also been shown that the other members of the ape tribe will take note of falsely uttered warnings and will cease to react on warnings if they are uttered by individuals that were repeatedly caught lying.

Also, as apes like Kanzi or Washoe show, that they can learn modes of communication with humans, also using it to express their own wishes. Kanzi for example has learned to cook and uses the symbol language to request specific ingredients for the things he wants to cook.
(due to the lack of a as well developed vocal chord as humans, non human apes won't be able to verbally speak to humans, however ... but Kanzi for example is known to at least try, forming the words, he expresses with the symbol language, with his mouth)

The only thing that seems to be rare among other animal species (than the human) seems to be, to verbally express questions about themselves or their environment. The non human animal that was best in this, interestingly enough is Ales, a grey parrot.

Sorry, but the belief that humans are no animals is outdated and not covered by scientific fasts.

We share 98.8 % of our genetic setup with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and the development of human civilizations can very well explained by evolution supplying us with a better vocal chord.
That allowed us to develope better modes of communication, thereby gradually enabling us to communicate more ideas/concept to others, to develope better tools and also to better trade the knowledge of our generation to the next generations.
Not to mention that later, when we developed cave paintings (and still later, a system of writing), that allowed us to even better trade things from one generation to another (Cave paintings in aiding us to tell stories of our ancestors, and later even, books to enabling othe rgenerations tpo read things of ancestors for themselves (of course, "books" also led to "burning books" in order to erradicate ancestral stories, for example, because they contained stories about rival belief systems, thereby making the rival belief systems becoming forgotten within 1-2 generations))

[Ben Kenobi]

No such thing happened. People were primitive back then. They believed anything. Genesis is pure fantasy.

Yet those same 'primitives' built the pyramids.

I suppose you think that ancient times had dinosaurs and cavemen too.

Every religion has their own version of how everything was created and it's all crock of ****.

Given the area in which Gilgamesh was written, and the area in which the Genesis account was written - there is a significant argument that Abraham came from the same area as the Mesopotamians. In that case, it would be understood that the stories that vastly predate him (Genesis 1 through 9), could be shared by both.

His dumb ass religion has warped his view of the world. He views everything as being under the control of humans.

You undermine the basis by which civilization exists. If we can kill people like we kill animals, there no need to restrict and protect people from murder. Quite simply, there is a distinction and you cannot run a human society without it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, but the belief that humans are no animals is outdated and not covered by scientific fasts.

There is a distinction. Arguing that humans are merely animals is not corroborated by any assessment of biological and genetic difference between the two. We know better today - we can distinguish between species and we can make right determinations between individual species.

People are not animals. If that were so, we could put down people, kill them, eat them, etc. We do not. Why?

That is the fundamental problem with your argument. You talk about the social 'society of insects' - whereas my argument is, that is an attempt by human beings to impose our ideas on the natural world in order that we might be able to understand it.

What empirical sense does it make to compare the two? There may be superficial similarities, but that's as far as it goes.

We share 98.8 % of our genetic setup with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and the development of human civilizations can very well explained by evolution supplying us with a better vocal chord.

You say that as if that difference were insignificant. It is not. It is a significant difference. Why are you peddling outdated nonsense? We don't know how proteins operate - how they interact with the aggregate, etc. The point is that every codon is important. Every letter is important. One shift, one letter will have implications that we don't even know.

There are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genetic code. That means that there are 3 billion pieces interacting with each other. We will likely never fully understand how they all interact together.

That 4 percent difference is a total of 120 million base pairs. Why don't you express that argument that way? Because it sounds like a tremendous amount (which it is).

(of course, "books" also led to "burning books" in order to erradicate ancestral stories, for example, because they contained stories about rival belief systems, thereby making the rival belief systems becoming forgotten within 1-2 generations))

You say it like it's a flippant point. It is not. Study ancient history sometime. You will weep when you realize the narrowness of our sources for anything at all to survive the upheaval of the fall of Rome. And we are fortunate to have that which we do have.

You can take every book that we possess from the ancients and put in your bookshelf, a 6 by 4 bookshelf, and have room to spare.

Ponder that for a moment.

[rah]

Bonobos (that's, the chimpanzee species whose sexual morals will make every catholic theologian mad) have the ability to use herbal medicines ... that means, they know which plants to use when they have this or that medical problem and give3 it to their children.
Bonobos also have prostitution

Also non human ape species possess protolanguages with which they can, for example, warn others of specific types of predators, or tell them that they can find food here. It has also been an observed behavior in the wild (for example in Cercopithecus aethiopos) that some individuals use the language to lie (for example, to falsely warn the others that there is an airborne predator, just to afterwards steal the food they left behind when fleeing ... it has also been shown that the other members of the ape tribe will take note of falsely uttered warnings and will cease to react on warnings if they are uttered by individuals that were repeatedly caught lying.

Also, as apes like Kanzi or Washoe show, that they can learn modes of communication with humans, also using it to express their own wishes. Kanzi for example has learned to cook and uses the symbol language to request specific ingredients for the things he wants to cook.
(due to the lack of a as well developed vocal chord as humans, non human apes won't be able to verbally speak to humans, however ... but Kanzi for example is known to at least try, forming the words, he expresses with the symbol language, with his mouth)

And then there are those that heave feces at those they wish to ostracize. Puff up and screech. They're called the Poly OT.

[Giancarlo]

Yet those same 'primitives' built the pyramids.

I suppose you think that ancient times had dinosaurs and cavemen too.

They built pyramids to worship fake deities. You are an idiot. You couldn't even address the point and now you proceeded to make something else up.

Given the area in which Gilgamesh was written, and the area in which the Genesis account was written - there is a significant argument that Abraham came from the same area as the Mesopotamians. In that case, it would be understood that the stories that vastly predate him (Genesis 1 through 9), could be shared by both.

Lying once again!

You undermine the basis by which civilization exists. If we can kill people like we kill animals, there no need to restrict and protect people from murder. Quite simply, there is a distinction and you cannot run a human society without it.

You think too highly of people. People have engaged in mass slaughter of other people all the time and it still continues to this day. Civilizations and empires were often based on mass slaughter.

You are just ignorant. You don't know what you are talking about once again.

[Giancarlo]

And goodness me... Ben's argument about genetics shows exactly why he couldn't complete his science degree. This man is a total idiot.

[Proteus_MST]

There is a distinction. Arguing that humans are merely animals is not corroborated by any assessment of biological and genetic difference between the two. We know better today - we can distinguish between species and we can make right determinations between individual species.

People are not animals. If that were so, we could put down people, kill them, eat them, etc. We do not. Why?

Uh what?
Well, if you argue on this line of thought ...
people do put down people ... soldiers kill other soldiers in war, people murder people ...
also there is this interesting thing called death penalty ... Many states around the world (including several US states, like Texas) have death penalty ... the catholic church caused lots of people getting put down for heresy ... even the bible contains passage advocating putting down people (for example married whomen who get raped in a city and aren't heard screaming for help)

Likewise cannibalism has been widespread in human history ... we know of ritualistic cannibalism by stone age people in europe (and other regions of the world) and in some regions of the world cannibalism stopped just a few hundred years ago.

If you look at Bonobos, for example, they are much more peacefuzl animals than humans are and are much less likely to kill eachother
Maybe, sex is a much better measure to solve quarrels than war

You say that as if that difference were insignificant. It is not. It is a significant difference. Why are you peddling outdated nonsense? We don't know how proteins operate - how they interact with the aggregate, etc. The point is that every codon is important. Every letter is important. One shift, one letter will have implications that we don't even know.

There are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genetic code. That means that there are 3 billion pieces interacting with each other. We will likely never fully understand how they all interact together.

That 4 percent difference is a total of 120 million base pairs. Why don't you express that argument that way? Because it sounds like a tremendous amount (which it is).

The real meaningful difference is just 1.2 %, as 2.7% is just copies of known genes.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes_2.html

IIRC the differences between individual humans are bigger than that

Also, I didn't rest my case on genetic evidence alone, but cited many edivences for the capabilities of non human primates.
Evidences that IMHO clearly show how small the socket atuallöy is, on which humans can put themselves ... a socket that becomes smaller and smaller, the more biology learns about other animals (and especially non human primates)

You say it like it's a flippant point. It is not. Study ancient history sometime. You will weep when you realize the narrowness of our sources for anything at all to survive the upheaval of the fall of Rome. And we are fortunate to have that which we do have.

You can take every book that we possess from the ancients and put in your bookshelf, a 6 by 4 bookshelf, and have room to spare.

Ponder that for a moment.

Oh, I know that we only have a small percentage of the books remaining ...
which is why I cannot see in christianity (and judaism and islam) more than offsprings of cults that were more ruthless and successful than other cults in erasing the historical footprints of their competition

[Proteus_MST]

And then there are those that heave feces at those they wish to ostracize. Puff up and screech. They're called the Poly OT.

I think we can generalize that to "they are called social internet users" ... examples like Facebook show, that Apolyton OT houses only a small part of that population

[kentonio]

Well, did the Americans win the Korean war despite stalemating? I can't see an Asian war or a war against Russia really giving the Americans a solid victory.

America did not win the Korean war for the reasons already discussed. The cost to China of tying what was a fair small local conflict however was absolutely horrendous even with the limited US technology back then.

There's also more of a chance for them to go wrong.

No, there isn't. Humans make mistakes a lot more frequently than computers, especially when that human is in an incredibly stressful life or death situation and being subjected to extreme gravitational forces.

It's not really an either/or question. There's benefits to having both. Why put yourself at a disadvantage? As for software - yes, it's the weakest link right now. There's all sorts of things that can go wrong when the plane is in the air, and having a pilot there will allow the plane to continue to fly even if the plane has troubles. The F-35 software isn't reliable enough. Could it get there? Sure. But it's not there yet.

If the technology fails, then the likelihood is that the human dies as well. We're not talking about todays technology though, we're talking about the next generation, and there is basically no justification for including a human pilot in that.

Actually it does matter because there's not enough labor out there to fill the shortage. Those are also year over year numbers. 2010 was short 5 million, 2011, 5 million, 2012, 5 million. In a decade you're looking at a shortage of 50 million, which is 10 percent of the Chinese workforce total. The law of large numbers also mean that 40 years of this is already baked in and there's nothing China can do. I'm not worried about China - average age is already older than the US.

You're talking about a labor shortage as if it actually means anything, it doesn't. What is it that this labor shortage is actually holding back? If its exports, then that is counterbalanced by China moving from being a cheap labor/crappy goods economy to a more developed economy making more advanced goods anyway.

The problem is that other countries have labor shortages too and China is in competition with them. At this point, it's possible for China to fulfill their labor requirements with most of Asia, but that assumes that the Philippines will prefer China to the US, which is not something that we see.

It's nothing to do with preference, its about money. If the Chinese demand for goods is high enough then people will sell to China, and when you're talking about countries that actually neighbour China, why would they want to ship goods halfway across the planet if they can sell them next door? You really need to think about this labor shortage thing you keep talking about though, if there's a demand for goods that demand will be met either by increased production or reduced by higher prices. If its higher prices then that hurts the west just as much as it would Chinese consumers.

Because their retiree - worker ratio will be greater than 1 - you can't feed a country on that. As for India, what do they really need from the west?

Feed a country? China has a huge challenge feeding its citizens, but that doesn't equate into the number of people working in agriculture. They'll continue to modernize their production methods and import from abroad. This isn't Victorian times, you don't need a vast number of people working the fields.

That's just what it's doing and the points you make here - are indications that America's on the downswing. America isn't progressing, it has been standing still for a long time now.

This is just completely and provably untrue, and you actually contradict yourself in your next point. China is racing to try and catch up with America, but the gap was so huge that its basically an impossible task, especially when you consider that America continues to spend nearly 3 times as much each year on its military than China do. That was why I mentioned the anti-ship missiles specifically, China are trying to focus on very specific areas where they can potentially do the most to hinder the American war machine if they ever need to. Being able to potentially drive away an American carrier group is a massive part of that.

The point is to develop new versions of unstealthy planes that are better than the F-15/F-18.

This is the contradiction I mentioned. America are spending vast sums developing technology that is far ahead of its rivals. The stealth program was a shining example of this. What you're doing is on one hand saying you want them to be ahead, but on the other hand saying they should stop developing future techs and focus on small improvements to current technologies. There's basically no better way of giving the Chinese and Russians a chance to catch up.

Anti-air technologies are getting more advanced every year. The whole point of stealth is to counter-balance that. Why do you have an issue with that approach?