Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth; they were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those of mankind ...
@elmondo033057 How vague, the bible is full of gibberish that we can equate to anything at anytime. Thats basicly saying that locusts will come and only ravage those plants that can be eaten by humans. I don't see anything to do with electrodes or science in there. Now if science is so bad then get off your computer and the internet and live in a cave. Because everything that makes your life great and safe is because of science so fuck off.
And these people really think there so great, there well indoctrinated and enough bullied to loose the connection with there surroundings thats for sure.
Actually, if we could control praying mantises and if we could get input from them, we could build armies of mantises and build a natural (living) insecticide.
Noun: A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Saying insects aren't animals is like saying humans aren't animals just because we can talk.
Please contemplate who the 'idiot' is, before you go posting nonsense.
Thank you, but congratulating me is unnecessary. Its all obvious if you open your eyes and look around. Its a savage world, and we are at the apex. We are the human fucking race. Why don't you go preach to a rampaging elephant, or a king cobra up close and personal like. See what happens to you when your face to face with a grizzly bear or a crocodile. Your delusions of morality are the work of your own self inflictions. Get a grip on reality you filthy hippy.
Nice hippy remarks there, kiddo. I'll continue schooling you: I won't go preaching morality to a rampaging elephant or a cobra because. as I've said before, animals operate on instincts only. There's no choice. That's what makes humans different, but I see you're willing to diminish yourself to the level of a dumb mammal with no purpose, who only follows carnal instinct. You contradict yourself saying we're the human "fucking" race, bragging, then saying it's ok to be savage we're just animals.
Typical douchbag behavior to just state "schooling you" when your the one on the receiving end of a shit kicking. I'm absolutely willing to raise myself to the level of human. The likes of which dominate any obstacle placed before them. If you turn off the cartoons you would realize the real world does not share your delusional perceptions of sanctity of life. Its dog eat dog and fuck you buddy. Your problem is you've never taken your spoiled and pampered ass out into the REAL world.
You can't even hack the BASICS of that "real world", idiot. You take it all for granted, and couldn't give a shit about the source. Been to war or something? That's why you keep saying I haven't been to the "real world"? If so, congratulations. You followed orders for fake reasons, that's your "real world". If you're talking about hard life and the streets, think twice, I've been through shit you wouldn't last 2 minutes in. "Spoiled"? Please. Amuse me.
I can't speak about it because its classified, but what I can tell you for sure is, You know NOTHING! Educate yourself to this reality. The human race has earned the right to stand at the apex. We have invented the written language, we've developed society, civilizations, law, we taught ourselves to fly, we've even broken the bounds of the earth and reached into space! And here you are shitting on all of it. Your a traitor to your own species. Get the fuck out then we don't want bugs like you.
No, your the one stuck in the "mommy and daddy shielded me from the truth about how quickly the world will turn my ass inside out if it gets the chance" box. Ergo, I would much rather have pride in being a conquering human than a little spoiled hippy brat with a self-styled standard of normality based on self riotous delusions which would be dropped in 1 red second if it were your ass out there in the shit.
Self-styled? Fucking idiot, I talk about compassion towards others, that's "self-styled"? Man up, pussy, talking here about being hard while you can't even appreciate what makes you human, fucking weak. "Conquering", yeah, you've conquered a lot in your life, tell me about it. Army? Conquered something when the sarge told you to? Conquered your PC at home? Let's see where your "pride" comes from.
Either use both hemispheres or don't post third-grade big-man wannabe mumbling.
Compassion?! You'll find no high and mighty sense of compassion if you wandered your riotous ass out into the real world and away from your parents basement watching cartoons you putz. Do you truly think your void of the primal instincts inherent in all humans? Give me a fucking break. You would fight, and kill as much as the next guy if your life depended on it. Although in your case you would likely just get killed, or eaten alive because you sound like a hippy pussy bitch.
This stuff is tampering with God's work. You must burn in hell. I will ask Jesus Christ to burn your soul in eternity and I will enjoy it very much. just kidding.
how bout i fuck with your brain and stick an antena in your head. see how you like it. this is messed up. yeah sure thers those benifits but i jus dnt think experiments on other animals or insects can be justified. we'v got small enough cameras to look for disaster survivers already they jus dnt use them. fiber optic or tose CCD cameras they stick up your but in colonoscophy
Everything is justified if it benefits human society as a whole. If this experiment kills 1000 beetles but saves a handful of humans I believe it was worth it.
@SmokiSounds I agree, the statement is problematic. If morality is about protecting an individual's rights, by restricting my freedoms and vice versa (which it is), than certainly not everything can be justified. Harming a few to benefit the many cannot be justified, because it strips rights and freedoms from the few. Philosophers have been debating this statement for ages, however, because it is our instinct to survive "as a species", which may mean a sacrifice of the few for the many.
That "instinct to survive" is carnal, superficial and meaningless. Moral values are way more important, to me at least. Emotional connection, feelings, compassion...All that is much higher than just animal instincts.
@SmokiSounds Maybe so. The instinct may be carnal, but we humans are carnal creatures. Look at the world around you for sufficient proof of that statement. Indeed, you would not be disgusted if it were not so, nor would we even have to argue about it if it were not so in the first place. I don't know everything; I know there is lots I'm ignorant of, but I'm persuaded that human nature is no more respectable than bestial nature, and in many ways no different. We must have God and His nature in us
It's not more respectable than animals, agreed, but you'll also agree that it's much more morally valueable, precisely because of God's nature in us. It's what DOES make us different from just animals, but as you said, not entirely, basic instincts are still there. BUT - the greatest gift we have is being able to CONTROL those instincts, if we're strong enough - we can say "no, I won't eat just because my body says so", or "I won't fuck just because my body wants to". You know? It's amazing.
Humans have a choice. There's always a moral choice, not based on selfish animal instinct. Starting from food consumption all the way to life and death situations.
We are animals. Just because we have an ability to some degree choose things doesn't mean we aren't wholly driven by animal instinct.
For instance, if a hot female walked up to you with a condom in hand, and gave you a sensual deep sexy kiss, while she had your hand grab her ass, do you think you have any control afterwards?
Well, yes. To a degree, however small. But don't kid yourself in thinking we are superior.
Also, morality isn't just a human concept; it's biological.
If you're weak, you won't have any control. It starts with a choice to even let that woman walk up to you, to start with. Mind over matter - you fail at that, I guess.
Kid myself? The one who must be kidding is you, telling me morality is a biology-based concept. Good luck with that argument, because I haven't seen a chapter about morality in a biology book.
Of course we are superior to animals, even we only had 0,1% of something else apart from blind instict to base our decisions on.
Weakness has nothing to do with it. It's a basic animal instinct; unless you are trying to argue from a pious/religious stand point, and they are just ignorant to begin with. And to say mind over matter is just ridiculous, since your mind is based on how the matter is shaped in the brain, hence your mind IS matter.
My argument was based on the fact that impulses in our brains are based on our evolutionary biology, hence why it is very difficult to reject sexual propositions.
"Very difficult" but far from impossible. Which in itself contradicts the very principle of biological evolution: it wouldn't create species with such level of self-consciousness that they can choose not to follow carnal instincts that are, in turn, given to us by biological evolution. Do you see how that shatters the idea of morality and choice being only products of physical matter, let alone the process of evolution?
Dawkins can keep up 'intensive studies', nothing'll come out of it.
I'm sorry you lack any knowledge in biological sciences. And you fail to even understand the idea of what I'm saying; let alone, what the current theory behind evolutionary morality is.
Tell me first: "What is morality?/Define morality."
Lack of knowledge is what YOU seem to project, attributing morality to biology. I know perfectly well what the current theory contains. It all comes down to morality being part of evolution, while it fails to explain the vital issue - morality contradicts natural selection in its every way. If we have another criteria apart from animal instinct to base our decisions upon, with results that aren't beneficial to the species, it's as far from evolution as it can get.
"lol", yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't. Why? Because you've started by saying you can surely base morality in biology, and now you're asking me "oh hold up, but what exactly do you mean by morality?". Pffft please, kiddo. So common.
Smoki, please, don't side step the question like a coward. I'm asking you to define morality so that I can understand your perspective better and work from that angle to better educate you. If you are too scared to have a actual frank conversation, then please just tell me :D
Oh no, side step the question? I'm just wondering how pathetic do you have to be to FIRST say to me: "morality is based in biology", sounding so sure and important, and then "hold up, what do you mean by morality?"
If now, all of a sudden, you need to know exactly what morality is, wiki it, smarty. I'll save my 500 characters for "educating" you.
"Impulses in your brain" isn't what generates love and compassion. You can blabber about that idea, but never will give me a scientific formula for measuring love, for example. And there's a reason for that, and you're smart enough to know why.
Science just doesn't deal with non-material topics, it's got no say in it. There are too many things to life that science doesn't and never will touch upon, so face reality. You're stuck on the surface.
""Impulses in your brain" isn't what generates love and compassion."
Sorry, wrong again. Basic psychology shoots that statement right out of the sky. Love and compassion/altruism are basic biological functions hardwired not only into humans, but many other animals, most plainly mammals. If protecting your children with your life, and protecting the life of your family/community/species is all that it takes, most life applies.
Hardwired? Read two posts below, where I explain how love and compassion contradict the very goal of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. I'm not talking about defending your family. You can feel love or compassion towards a lion, but when you get close to cuddle it you'll get eaten. Why? That's right. They operate on instinct only, while we CHOOSE.
What is it, Christian the lion vid? That lion was raised by those two friends, it wasn't brought up in the wild. Of course there is a loyalty connection to those people. Dogs are the same. They'll know their master after 10+ years of separation. Now, let's watch those guys approach a lion born and raised in the wild.
Right, so, basically, you are stating that because christian was raised by them and cared by them he would....love them? Hm, seems like you just showed hypocrisy in your statements.
Yes, because he was raised and fed by them he's loyal to them. A dog that you raise and feed loves you precisely because of that too. And a cat. Hypocrisy? Please, this is reality.
You are right, science doesn't deal with non-material topics, because they have no connection to reality. However,to state that chemical interactions that occur in the brain aren't material is to be more than dishonest: just plain stupid/ignorant.
There have been a multitude of studies that have delved into the study of love; why don't you actually learn about it before you arbitrarily dismiss it. I'm sorry you are stuck in a place were actual facts fail to reach.
And don't give me that defensive bullshit about me not "learning" about the topic. I've read more related scientific literature you probably ever will, apart from that I hold 4+ years of theology studies behind my back, which gives me a WIDER basis for argument than you have. You only argue one side. I know both.
That's your perception of theology? Nice, nice. Now wonder you act like a misinformed idiot with a beef against Faith. I know your type too well.
No, theology doesn't just study religions, it analyzes the basis behind Faith, looks for reasons, purposes and motives in human behaviour from spiritual standpoint, and, of course, it studies moral principles. As I've said, I have two fields to base my opinions on, while you're stuck in one. Indeed, wop deedoo.
Lol. Right, so tell me, what studies have theology done? Can you give me any peer reviewed/published papers, that has it's findings thoroughly studied, and capable of duplicating it's findings consistently, in theology? No?
I didn't think so. Please don't try and make theology sound more impressive than what it really is: an outdated way to look at the human nature.
So, if there's no scientific formula for a logical conclusion or a stance on a subject, such stance means nothing to you? LOL, just proves how beautifully superficial you are, stuck in that box, LIMITED by only looking for material evidence, only waiting for science to explain some things. That's your faith, kiddo, the difference is you don't pray to testing tubes and probes. Yet.
? So you are basically telling that in infact are incapable or unaware of such studies conducted by theologians, that are able to have us better understand ourselves/each other? Well, thank you for your honesty.
And if you are stating that I'm blind because I will only accept what is proveable/testable aka: Reality, then yes, I guess limited to the real and not imaginary.
Faith is believing something without evidence; I have the evidence. You have the faith :D
Oh I have all the evidence I need, kiddo, starting with the world around me and ending with my feelings. That's what makes me human. I could give you a perfect argument for the logical necessity of a conscious, personal Creator or existence, but you wouldn't care. I'm telling you. You'll scream in denial :)
Viewing the world around you, and what you feel doesn't fit as evidence.
Evidence is/are verifiable results that were obtained by a disprovable hypothesis, conducted several thousand times, with strikingly similar results; and capable of being retested and obtaining similar results by other non-biased parties.
Your arguments are based on bronze aged beliefs, created in a time of ignorance of the finer understandings of our natural world; with no evidence to support you.
So, because I have yet to show a formula to you that explains love from step a to step b, you seem to think this means it is excluded from the material world?
So, are you saying that before we knew the exact interworkings of the body, and how/why we breath, all of our organs weren't material?Or that before we even knew black holes existed, that it too was immaterial?
Organs, black holes, all that can be touched, weighted, seen and analyzed. Feelings are abstract concepts. They have no source origin in matter, let alone a good scientific BASIS for their existence.
Fail logic is believing what you say, when you know as well as I do you'll NEVER get a scientific formula for love. Lol, I shall call you "science nut", with idiotic statements like that.
Well, this isn't true, since I actually can give you a formula for love. It's called heroin/cocaine. Love is actually a very simple process, where the brain releases a collection of endorphins and serotonin, in your brain. What is still the mystery is the very specific ways that it affects your brain.
Hence, why people who use heroin get blissful, amazing feelings/experiences that nothing can even top. Why? Because of the endorphins/serotonin.
And those who don't use drugs and feel love? Serotonin as well? Released only when you see/talk with a certain individual? Base on which criteria that individual is found, then. And what is the direct influence. You can't.
Smoki, have you actually even taken any courses in college? Because your lack of understanding in basic psychology is very revealing.
No, you don't have these chemical reactions with ONLY one induvidual. You have it based on what your genetics are; given to you by your parents. It's those encoded nucleic acids that determine how you will respond to other potential mates.
You know smoki, people once said we would never be able to fly. People said we would never be able to break the sound barrier. People said we would never understand the most basic building blocks of the universe, atoms.
People who know nothing, and do not try to know anything say these things a lot.
You seem eager, almost happy to continue the tradition of perpetuating ignorance and lack of progress; despite the fact it's benefited you. How hypocritical.
And I'm still waiting for you to give me your definition of morality, since I was the mature one and already gave you my explanation as to what I meant by morality being biologically based.
And I told you why it's not biologically based. Definition of the CONCEPT of morality is universal, so be "mature" and read it off a vocabulary for all I care, if you don't trust wiki. Again, why should I copy/paste if you're so lazy? Please. It doesn't work against my argument in ANY way.
um, no. You see, wikipedia isn't a credible source, and I don't know how you can't state that I need to go to it and read about morality there. You need a stronger defense than that and laziness, if you are incapable of explaining what you mean by morality.
I interested in what you think, not what a dictionary states. You've been so forthcoming with everything else, I find it strange that you can't simply give me your personal definition.
It's called personal experience. Inner experience. Perfectly used as evidence for their Faith by millions. What, you thought only formulas and test tubes? Please.
Personal experiences do not apply as evidence. If they did, then you are claiming that Zeus, Ra, Buddah, Santa Claus, leprechauns, faries, and a whole other variety of beliefs were once very seriously believed by millions of faithful, who also have personal experiences. Care to explain?
You've shown that the only studies you've done were lacking in any scientific knowledge, especially since you used the position of authority card. I'd love to see you debate an actual proffessor/scientist; it'd be laughable.
And you still need to define your specific meaning when you say morality.
Well I'd love to debate YOU publically, since you must have such knowledge on the topic. Or you need help from an ACTUAL scientist? Aw, you must have a back-up plan, c'mon.
Now, before you continue defending your silly materialistic faith, I'll say straight away that modern science, with 90% key researches and statements made in USA, has its sponsors. And those sponsors have an agenda. They give you money for your research, if you agree to promote what they want you to.
I won't go any deeper, because I already can tell you wouldn't even care. You're too happy eating that bullshit sandwich they feed you, and asking for more.
LOL. Right, so I guess the agenda of these sponsors convoluted the truth of our understanding in atomic structures; which is why we can't make things like microwaves, computers, atomic bombs, lasers,etc. Oh wait, we can!
Yes, they have an agenda: MONEY. And do you know what brings in money? New technology. And HOW do we get new/improved/better technology? A better understanding of the natural world.
Hm, it would seem that truth serves them better than lies.
Better understanding of natural world and adjusting evidence to suit your agenda are two different things. It's like recent climate change bullshit, scientists faking data in emails to prove a point. Desperate? Sure. But not the scientists. People behind them.
MONEY is just an instrument. POWER is the goal. Keeping your mind in check. Making you think we're nothing but animals following blind instinct.
Huh, wow. Why do you keep changing the subject. Ok, this is just sad now.
Why do you continue to act like an infantile child? When I said morality is biology based my exact meaning was that morality/altruism in animals are traits that have slowly evolved with our genetics, because of it's ability to perpetuate/continue the genetic pool of our/their species.
Now, please show some maturity and finally answer me: what is your definition of morality.
You've just posted some more nonsense. Shall I recap or what?
"morality in animals are traits that have slowly evolved with our genetics"
While I showed in previous posts how morality contradicts the very principle of survival of the fittest. Morality can result in actions NON-BENEFICIAL TO THE SPECIES using it. Do you or do you not understand.
As for wiki, I'm aware it isn't a credible source, but the simplest DEFINITIONS are correct, of course. So go READ. Talking about infantile...
Smoki, can you even give me the definition of evolution? Without running to wikipeida? Because you just showed your absolute ignorance as to the very foundation of biology.
Survival of the fittest is not the definition of evolution; in fact, no where close is it to the principle of evolution.
And to just humor you, please give an example as to how altruism/morality is nonbenificial to the species. Unless you are just going to side step this one as well.
Gladly. If I CHOOSE not to defend my territory from someone invading it, basing it on my Faith and love towards even my enemy, it'll result in my demise as a specimen. Evolution wouldn't've given humans the right of choice if it implies possibility of non-beneficial results for the species.
Natural selection, the mechanism on which evolution operates, apparently, overlooked that "choice" issue. Shame, shame.
"Natural selection, the mechanism on which evolution operates, apparently, overlooked that "choice" issue. Shame, shame. "
LOL. You just tipped your hand, and you have been revealed as uneducated in biology.
No, this fits natural selection perfectly, and evolution as well. If a member of a species allows a contender of it's same species to invade and kill it, you are then unable to procreate; and spread the stupid that was in the gene.
Really now, smarty? So then, how come no humans are born with NO capacity for CHOOSING to give in? After so many "failed experiments", so many people who lay down weapons in the name of their Faith, how come your beloved natural selection didn't fix that "gene" yet?
"Really now, smarty? So then, how come no humans are born with NO capacity for CHOOSING to give in?"
What are you even saying? Can you better enunciate your meaning? Your ability to explain the subject in your sentence is deplorable.
And why hasn't natural selection "fixed" this gene, that allows compassion. Well, it can be for a multitude of reasons. The first most obvious one is that it has some beneficial use that continues to allow it to remain in the population.
Another reason could be that with the advancements in medicine, and our understanding in curing diseases, and fixing wounds, we have eliminated the majority of pressures that would have eventually weeded out that gene.
And last/most probable, the gene itself is probably tied to many other genes or a group of them, that interact in complex ways that benefit us, and that the specific part (faith) is just some extreme bi-product.
"You're a fucking idiot, I know now. Clear as day"
Oh smoki, your anger and ignorance has finally surfaced :D
You are blinded by your inability to learn, showing a clear lack of understanding in basic biology, psychology, logic, and critical thinking. I'm sorry that my position, logic, and concepts are too difficult to understand and threatening to your beliefs.
There's nothing to "surface", you've been an idiot to me since the first posts, telling me love, feelings, reason etc are mere biological impulses. It's ok, kiddo, I'll let you wave your fists.
You have no substance, providing empty platitudes, fail logic, and lack of evidence/facts to support you.
It's ok that you don't understand what i'm saying, or that you don't accept it. But know that what I do say is verifiable by facts and research, that have benefited the majority of our society.
It's ok buddy. I'd advise retaking college, since you missed out on the majority of it.
College is where they brainwashed your sorry ass, that's for sure. At least on these subjects.
Verifiable by facts, material evidence, bla bla. Been there, done that. Superficial idiots stuck in the science box, lol, I watch and laugh. Let's end it right here, shall we. You don't even analyze the source for the basics, what do I expect? Meh.
"You don't even analyze the source for the basics, what do I expect? Meh. "
What are you talking about? You seriously need to retake your english classes, since you seem at times incapable of expressing your point clearly.
So, you claim that science is stuck in a box? Well, if thats the case, then why don't you leave the box behind, and not use it: don't use your computer, car, house, grocery store, phone, medicine/hospital, etc; ALL of them produced/enhanced by this materialistic box, science.
You use the fruits of science, and then call it all hog wash and bullshit. You are the very definition of hypocrite. If there was a hell, you'd have a special place in it for your arrogance and dismissive ignorance.
And I guess I can stop waiting for you to answer any of my questions (like the morality one), and will simply take your silence as defeat; since you haven't answered the majority of them.
If you want, I'll just go away, so you can continue your weak ad homenium attacks, while screaming now, and providing no evidence to support your position.
now, when you live in a tribe/group/community, where you have to work together to not only survive, but greatly benefit compared to working alone (like gorillas, elephants, lions, humans do), those same killing/violent instincts would be detrimental if you didnt have some control, and killed randomly for no reason. Thus, the reasoning behind parenthood, and altruistic feelings. You would protect your friends more than you would protect a stranger, right? Same applies to animals.
It's not "control", it's blood ties or group ties. Same instinct for survival. Those animal tribes still can't CHOOSE not to attack an invader. Once again, I'm not talking about protecting my friends, I talk about protecting myself (much more important in evolutionary terms, apparently). I can CHOOSE not to do so. Animals can't, they only retreat if they're weaker.
so, you are saying that every animal that meets every other animal, including humans meeting these animals, will all inevitable result in a attack? Well, that's just fail logic; not to mention completely wrong to say evolutionarily wise.
It wouldn't be beneficial for animals of the same species, or other species to just arbitrarily fight. If it where, then why do we have snakes that use warning signs, like rattles and color indicators? Because they use them to warn others to leave them alone. They don't want to fight.
Same applies to the majority of animals. They only fight/kill when they have to. They decide based on the level of threat posed to them. To be injured from arbitrary confrontation is stupid, and would kill them.
And you seem to not have a real understanding of what happens in the wild.
Ok, in the wild, they don't have supermarkets, and food stamps. Food is scarce, and animals have to compete. Lets say that there is a wolf pack, and in their territory, there isn't anymore large game/sustainable quantities of meat. Now they have two choices, die or widen the territory. Since genetically, they are built with a strong sense of survival, aka they want to live, they widen the territory.
Now lets say that as they widen the territory they live in, it is found that they are in direct confrontation with another pack that live in a territory they've "invaded".
The first pack is starving, and have found that there is easy and plentiful game to have in the second pack's terr. The second pack will attack them if the 1st proceed.
Now, tell me, if you were starving, had a strong sense of survival, and want to live, and must fight to live, how much choice do you have?
I have all the choice in the world if I'm starving. I won't go killing for food. Why? Because I'm not an animal, I control my desire. Mind over matter. That basically answers all other points in the 10 posts of yours, it all comes down to this. Which was my initial position. We are not just animals. If you're willing to keep denying that, and lowering humans to the level of an advanced animal, just do so. I won't bother.
We can control desires that are based on primitive instincts.
Wrong. You don't control the desire, you just control your actions. And yes, you may stop yourself from eating, that that doesn't mean you aren't an animal.
But you failed to see my point. Which was the label that we are "superior" is misguided, since the word is relative to what you specifically mean. But more than that, it's bias, since we are humans, and can only account for the human experience.
No, I can tell you from experience, same as MILLIONS of other believers, that I can cut off the itself desire if I want to. The very root of it, the second it comes. I CONTROL it. Keep telling me I don't.
Oh smoki, you have no idea what I was saying, do you. I meant that the desire/feeling of hunger itself you can't control; in simpler words for the ignorant child, you can't simply make the feelings of hunger disappear by will.
But you can choose to not eat/continue to not eat by choice. That is the control; over yourself, not the desire.
And you've still failed to provide me with your view/explanation as to what you specifically mean by moral/morality. If you don't answer, I'll just have to view this as running with your tail in between your legs, since your page makes it obvious that you are very outspoken, and will debate endlessly.
And you still didn't admit you FIRST told me "yea yea morality is based in biology", and THEN asked me what do I mean by morality. Running away? Please. From misinformed kids like yourself? lol.
As I've said, wiki it. Why would I copy/paste and waste my character limit? Can't read? Lazy? Nothing else to say?
saying that the sponsors have an agenda, and having this as your sole reason to not trust them is as retarded as saying that you won't take any medicine, because pharmaceutical companies have an agenda.
Yeah, it's to make money. I'm pretty sure they want to make good products/discover real truths, so that they can keep you alive, and make more money.
Unless you are showing yourself to be another conspiracy nut; who isn't interested in logic or truth.
lol "conspiracy nut". Common escape route for scared little PUSSIES like yourself. If I can connect the dots, and you can't, it's your problem, not mine. Those "sponsors" are ALL part of shadow societies/cults. ALL of them. Either coming from Rothschilds or Rockerfellers dynasties. You know anything about that? Wait, those people must be dumb as hell too! I mean, they have their Faith as well, have their rituals, their religious goals, while paying scientists. Weird, huh?...
lol. "Conspiracy nut". How cute, how common. Pussy. Hiding behind those labels. I know your kind. Apophenia? Yeah, it's when you connect love to biology, lol. When I connect FACTS of secret societies sponsoring scientific research, it's called common sense. Something you're not familiar with, kid.
oh, and can you explain to me how reading related scientific literature is equivalent to actually going to college, taking the courses, and acutally learning the subject?
Oh yeah, it's not equivalent at all. You're basically a poser, who claims to understand the concepts, when the entirety of our conversation shows you have no understanding of even the basic ideas behind biology.
Please, stop trying to impress me with your fail knowledge, and lack of education.
And on the matter of morality, so you claim that just because a subject isn't in a high school text book, it's not a fact? Well, I guess then quantum mechanics isn't a fact, since I don't remember seeing it in my physics text book; or that Cosmological evolution isn't a fact since I didn't see that either.
Many prominent scientists in major fields of biology have voice not only support in biological morality, but also intensive studies on it; Richard Dawkins is an example.
Upon the subject of superiority, not one scientist or even biology teacher will say that humans are superior to other animals; for the reason that the idea is bunk.
By superiority, what do you mean? Do you mean the capacity to create the wonderful objects we have today? To understand the inner workings of reality, and ourselves?
And in 1 billion years, when we are all dead, our achievements destroyed, and microorganisms are still alive, will you still claim superiority?
So, using that definition of superiority, animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas, dogs, cats, and a variety of many other animals that have shown that they too hold the ability to base their actions on a wider path than just instinct allows them to be called superior.
Can you now explain what makes us more superior than them?
Gorillas and dogs might use a wider path to base their actions, but the necessity of such action comes down to instinct: eat, fornicate or hunt. They cannot say "no" to any of that, they can variate the way the fulfill those necessities, but not control the instinct itself.
While us humans can. Because there is much more to us than blindly following carnal calls.
The animals I've stated have shown themselves to be able to defy these needs multiple times; where lions, elephants, and dogs would mourn the loss of a fellow, or master, and refuse to eat, killing themselves. You are completely lacking any knowledge in this apparently.
The greater good. Just like in Watchmen. Eliminate millions to save billions. What is this obsession with sustaining EVERY life be it human or animal or insect? Could you imagine what life would be like if every living thing lived a full life. Thats unthinkable and unimaginable. Besides, humans are the dominant species. Its our right to conquer and dominate without limit.
Says who, you? Talk about megalomaniacs. That "right to conquer and dominate without limit" is self-inflicted. Who gave it to you? Keep watching hollywood blockbusters, designed to keep your mind in check. It's working, congratulations.
I agree that it is wrong. But you eat beef and chicken don't you? We are controlling another living thing (ex. cow) against its will so we can enjoy that hamburger or fried chicken.
Yes, we're controlling the cow with care, giving it good conditions to live in, fresh grass and water, and then make sure it's slaughtered instantly and painlessly with electroshock. But this? This here is a constant physical influence, electrically I might add, over a living being. Your comparison with eating meat fails miserably.
You're equally sick for taking 1000 lives without their consent. If they volunteer, it's different. But you're just as much a monster killing a 1000. Who the fuck are you to have the RIGHT to sacrifice those 1000?...
They did something like this with a rat too. They could make him think of a direction and reward or punish him if he chose the good or wrong direction.
But the beetle's way more awesome. Needs some work on the landing though.
There landing isn't managed here since it's simply halting impulse to the wing muscle and letting gravity deal with the rest. a few more years and it'll feel like controlling a remote-controlled plane.
Calm down. It's a logical necessity. The only other options we have are 1) Experiment of other humans and 2) halt our technological growth. This is the more Ethical and beneficial way.
Experimentation like this will pave the way for technology that improved cognitive ability, better prosthetics, rescue spy bugs and more.
If it wasn't the thousands of lab rats that die each day. We wouldn't be where we are today.
They might even use this to humans.
missionagainstterro1 7 months ago
Yea, yea, yea, using insects preparing for war and as weapons. ( congratulation Science! )
missionagainstterro1 7 months ago
revelation 9
Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth; they were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those of mankind ...
elmondo033057 10 months ago
@elmondo033057 How vague, the bible is full of gibberish that we can equate to anything at anytime. Thats basicly saying that locusts will come and only ravage those plants that can be eaten by humans. I don't see anything to do with electrodes or science in there. Now if science is so bad then get off your computer and the internet and live in a cave. Because everything that makes your life great and safe is because of science so fuck off.
DemonAMVs 8 months ago 8
DO A FLIP !!!!!!
bradybrave001 11 months ago 2
Arm Vs Core
ClTIZEN 1 year ago
Do a how-to!
dj7310 1 year ago
After 50 years 'The Birds (1963)' became to be real !!! ;)
kenorb2 1 year ago
Your turn Chan... Zombie surgery! LET'S DO THIS!
MAJIKVEGGIE 1 year ago
Superb. next step, cybernetic humans. Last step? Global control.
MartyredxMaiden 1 year ago
more like crash than land
konrad12xpl 1 year ago 7
good stuff
conillusionist 1 year ago
And these people really think there so great, there well indoctrinated and enough bullied to loose the connection with there surroundings thats for sure.
woutvsas 1 year ago
no respect for animals is what i see.
woutvsas 1 year ago
these animals behave only upon instinct.
the don't have a photographic memory.
alienjoe123 1 year ago
@woutvsas stfu you hippie.
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 year ago
keep it to videogames fag
woutvsas 1 year ago
@woutvsas lol go die u sad hippie cunt.
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 year ago
haha dont fall on your back you will die
woutvsas 1 year ago
Actually, if we could control praying mantises and if we could get input from them, we could build armies of mantises and build a natural (living) insecticide.
If not.
KAMIKAZE TIME!
strilight 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
"College is where they brainwashed your sorry ass, that's for sure."
watch?v=kIj8PXOe9Cc
Another person putting into perspective how stupid/retarded your statements on education are.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
I would also stop if I were getting electrocuted
rukieishere 1 year ago
Rofl, I knew if I looked in the comments I'd see a bunch of Animal Rights Activists.
Just to fuckin' clarify, you idiots. Insects aren't Animals. You probably crush like 300 of them a year, just by walking.
xBackflipz 1 year ago
@xBackflipz Err, insects are animals. Quote:
ANIMAL
Noun: A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Saying insects aren't animals is like saying humans aren't animals just because we can talk.
Please contemplate who the 'idiot' is, before you go posting nonsense.
PrimordialSeries 5 months ago 3
You are all going to hell!
God's creatures weren't meant for this! He will smite you for taking away his gift of free will!
Heathens rot in hell!
ColonPatrol 1 year ago
Thank you, but congratulating me is unnecessary. Its all obvious if you open your eyes and look around. Its a savage world, and we are at the apex. We are the human fucking race. Why don't you go preach to a rampaging elephant, or a king cobra up close and personal like. See what happens to you when your face to face with a grizzly bear or a crocodile. Your delusions of morality are the work of your own self inflictions. Get a grip on reality you filthy hippy.
Razlo5000 1 year ago
Nice hippy remarks there, kiddo. I'll continue schooling you: I won't go preaching morality to a rampaging elephant or a cobra because. as I've said before, animals operate on instincts only. There's no choice. That's what makes humans different, but I see you're willing to diminish yourself to the level of a dumb mammal with no purpose, who only follows carnal instinct. You contradict yourself saying we're the human "fucking" race, bragging, then saying it's ok to be savage we're just animals.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Typical douchbag behavior to just state "schooling you" when your the one on the receiving end of a shit kicking. I'm absolutely willing to raise myself to the level of human. The likes of which dominate any obstacle placed before them. If you turn off the cartoons you would realize the real world does not share your delusional perceptions of sanctity of life. Its dog eat dog and fuck you buddy. Your problem is you've never taken your spoiled and pampered ass out into the REAL world.
Razlo5000 1 year ago
You can't even hack the BASICS of that "real world", idiot. You take it all for granted, and couldn't give a shit about the source. Been to war or something? That's why you keep saying I haven't been to the "real world"? If so, congratulations. You followed orders for fake reasons, that's your "real world". If you're talking about hard life and the streets, think twice, I've been through shit you wouldn't last 2 minutes in. "Spoiled"? Please. Amuse me.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
I can't speak about it because its classified, but what I can tell you for sure is, You know NOTHING! Educate yourself to this reality. The human race has earned the right to stand at the apex. We have invented the written language, we've developed society, civilizations, law, we taught ourselves to fly, we've even broken the bounds of the earth and reached into space! And here you are shitting on all of it. Your a traitor to your own species. Get the fuck out then we don't want bugs like you.
Razlo5000 1 year ago
Hence, the one who needs to face "reality" and see beyond the surface is you, not me. I'm not stuck in that little defensive box of ignorance.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
No, your the one stuck in the "mommy and daddy shielded me from the truth about how quickly the world will turn my ass inside out if it gets the chance" box. Ergo, I would much rather have pride in being a conquering human than a little spoiled hippy brat with a self-styled standard of normality based on self riotous delusions which would be dropped in 1 red second if it were your ass out there in the shit.
Razlo5000 1 year ago
Self-styled? Fucking idiot, I talk about compassion towards others, that's "self-styled"? Man up, pussy, talking here about being hard while you can't even appreciate what makes you human, fucking weak. "Conquering", yeah, you've conquered a lot in your life, tell me about it. Army? Conquered something when the sarge told you to? Conquered your PC at home? Let's see where your "pride" comes from.
Either use both hemispheres or don't post third-grade big-man wannabe mumbling.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Compassion?! You'll find no high and mighty sense of compassion if you wandered your riotous ass out into the real world and away from your parents basement watching cartoons you putz. Do you truly think your void of the primal instincts inherent in all humans? Give me a fucking break. You would fight, and kill as much as the next guy if your life depended on it. Although in your case you would likely just get killed, or eaten alive because you sound like a hippy pussy bitch.
Razlo5000 1 year ago
The Delta force has been using these for years
dcorelone 1 year ago
This stuff is tampering with God's work. You must burn in hell. I will ask Jesus Christ to burn your soul in eternity and I will enjoy it very much. just kidding.
jl575 1 year ago
On the contrary,
The is obviously no fucking God.
brendankhoury 1 year ago
the movie Gamer anyone?
TexTK 1 year ago 2
Just working their way up the evolutional ladder.
Roan1414 2 years ago 2
That's not landing... Thats crashing..
502502 2 years ago
Comment removed
threeys 2 years ago
careful. they might start using this technology on humans next.
kingGOTTi12349 2 years ago 8
add a camera :))
hackertc 2 years ago
"Land" LoL
Pretty cool, but it doesn't seem to be that cool for the beetle ^__^;
poor thingy...
DarkZholt 2 years ago 4
how bout i fuck with your brain and stick an antena in your head. see how you like it. this is messed up. yeah sure thers those benifits but i jus dnt think experiments on other animals or insects can be justified. we'v got small enough cameras to look for disaster survivers already they jus dnt use them. fiber optic or tose CCD cameras they stick up your but in colonoscophy
sexyrobotdancer 2 years ago
@sexyrobotdancer
Everything is justified if it benefits human society as a whole. If this experiment kills 1000 beetles but saves a handful of humans I believe it was worth it.
jl575 1 year ago
"Everything is justified if it benefits human society"
Disgusting. I'm sure killing a 1000 humans without their consent to figure out a cure for a global disease would be ok with you as well.
People like you make me SICK.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds I agree, the statement is problematic. If morality is about protecting an individual's rights, by restricting my freedoms and vice versa (which it is), than certainly not everything can be justified. Harming a few to benefit the many cannot be justified, because it strips rights and freedoms from the few. Philosophers have been debating this statement for ages, however, because it is our instinct to survive "as a species", which may mean a sacrifice of the few for the many.
Iaxobus 1 year ago
That "instinct to survive" is carnal, superficial and meaningless. Moral values are way more important, to me at least. Emotional connection, feelings, compassion...All that is much higher than just animal instincts.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Maybe so. The instinct may be carnal, but we humans are carnal creatures. Look at the world around you for sufficient proof of that statement. Indeed, you would not be disgusted if it were not so, nor would we even have to argue about it if it were not so in the first place. I don't know everything; I know there is lots I'm ignorant of, but I'm persuaded that human nature is no more respectable than bestial nature, and in many ways no different. We must have God and His nature in us
Iaxobus 1 year ago
It's not more respectable than animals, agreed, but you'll also agree that it's much more morally valueable, precisely because of God's nature in us. It's what DOES make us different from just animals, but as you said, not entirely, basic instincts are still there. BUT - the greatest gift we have is being able to CONTROL those instincts, if we're strong enough - we can say "no, I won't eat just because my body says so", or "I won't fuck just because my body wants to". You know? It's amazing.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
How is humans diffrent from thees other animals? and whats a diffrance between 2 animals? could the human be one of them?
FubarAndBoner 1 year ago
@FubarAndBoner
Humans have a choice. There's always a moral choice, not based on selfish animal instinct. Starting from food consumption all the way to life and death situations.
Animals operate solely on instinct.
We're very, very different.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
We are animals. Just because we have an ability to some degree choose things doesn't mean we aren't wholly driven by animal instinct.
For instance, if a hot female walked up to you with a condom in hand, and gave you a sensual deep sexy kiss, while she had your hand grab her ass, do you think you have any control afterwards?
Well, yes. To a degree, however small. But don't kid yourself in thinking we are superior.
Also, morality isn't just a human concept; it's biological.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
If you're weak, you won't have any control. It starts with a choice to even let that woman walk up to you, to start with. Mind over matter - you fail at that, I guess.
Kid myself? The one who must be kidding is you, telling me morality is a biology-based concept. Good luck with that argument, because I haven't seen a chapter about morality in a biology book.
Of course we are superior to animals, even we only had 0,1% of something else apart from blind instict to base our decisions on.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
Weakness has nothing to do with it. It's a basic animal instinct; unless you are trying to argue from a pious/religious stand point, and they are just ignorant to begin with. And to say mind over matter is just ridiculous, since your mind is based on how the matter is shaped in the brain, hence your mind IS matter.
My argument was based on the fact that impulses in our brains are based on our evolutionary biology, hence why it is very difficult to reject sexual propositions.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
"Very difficult" but far from impossible. Which in itself contradicts the very principle of biological evolution: it wouldn't create species with such level of self-consciousness that they can choose not to follow carnal instincts that are, in turn, given to us by biological evolution. Do you see how that shatters the idea of morality and choice being only products of physical matter, let alone the process of evolution?
Dawkins can keep up 'intensive studies', nothing'll come out of it.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
I'm sorry you lack any knowledge in biological sciences. And you fail to even understand the idea of what I'm saying; let alone, what the current theory behind evolutionary morality is.
Tell me first: "What is morality?/Define morality."
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Lack of knowledge is what YOU seem to project, attributing morality to biology. I know perfectly well what the current theory contains. It all comes down to morality being part of evolution, while it fails to explain the vital issue - morality contradicts natural selection in its every way. If we have another criteria apart from animal instinct to base our decisions upon, with results that aren't beneficial to the species, it's as far from evolution as it can get.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Lol, no, you have no idea what you or I am talking about.
Please, at least tell me what you specifically mean by moral/morality, before I can define the exact position of it on biology.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
"lol", yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't. Why? Because you've started by saying you can surely base morality in biology, and now you're asking me "oh hold up, but what exactly do you mean by morality?". Pffft please, kiddo. So common.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
Smoki, please, don't side step the question like a coward. I'm asking you to define morality so that I can understand your perspective better and work from that angle to better educate you. If you are too scared to have a actual frank conversation, then please just tell me :D
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Oh no, side step the question? I'm just wondering how pathetic do you have to be to FIRST say to me: "morality is based in biology", sounding so sure and important, and then "hold up, what do you mean by morality?"
If now, all of a sudden, you need to know exactly what morality is, wiki it, smarty. I'll save my 500 characters for "educating" you.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
"Impulses in your brain" isn't what generates love and compassion. You can blabber about that idea, but never will give me a scientific formula for measuring love, for example. And there's a reason for that, and you're smart enough to know why.
Science just doesn't deal with non-material topics, it's got no say in it. There are too many things to life that science doesn't and never will touch upon, so face reality. You're stuck on the surface.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
""Impulses in your brain" isn't what generates love and compassion."
Sorry, wrong again. Basic psychology shoots that statement right out of the sky. Love and compassion/altruism are basic biological functions hardwired not only into humans, but many other animals, most plainly mammals. If protecting your children with your life, and protecting the life of your family/community/species is all that it takes, most life applies.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Hardwired? Read two posts below, where I explain how love and compassion contradict the very goal of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. I'm not talking about defending your family. You can feel love or compassion towards a lion, but when you get close to cuddle it you'll get eaten. Why? That's right. They operate on instinct only, while we CHOOSE.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Ah, so the lion will eat us on only instinct? Explain this video then:
watch?v=rqhJuwUukX8&feature=related
How does that fit into your idea that only humans can feel compassion/love?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
What is it, Christian the lion vid? That lion was raised by those two friends, it wasn't brought up in the wild. Of course there is a loyalty connection to those people. Dogs are the same. They'll know their master after 10+ years of separation. Now, let's watch those guys approach a lion born and raised in the wild.
Not impressed? Makes two of us.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Right, so, basically, you are stating that because christian was raised by them and cared by them he would....love them? Hm, seems like you just showed hypocrisy in your statements.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Yes, because he was raised and fed by them he's loyal to them. A dog that you raise and feed loves you precisely because of that too. And a cat. Hypocrisy? Please, this is reality.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
You are right, science doesn't deal with non-material topics, because they have no connection to reality. However,to state that chemical interactions that occur in the brain aren't material is to be more than dishonest: just plain stupid/ignorant.
There have been a multitude of studies that have delved into the study of love; why don't you actually learn about it before you arbitrarily dismiss it. I'm sorry you are stuck in a place were actual facts fail to reach.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And don't give me that defensive bullshit about me not "learning" about the topic. I've read more related scientific literature you probably ever will, apart from that I hold 4+ years of theology studies behind my back, which gives me a WIDER basis for argument than you have. You only argue one side. I know both.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Lol, i'm sorry, but I'm not impressed at all. Theology is the study of biased old bronze age beliefs. Wop deedoo.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
That's your perception of theology? Nice, nice. Now wonder you act like a misinformed idiot with a beef against Faith. I know your type too well.
No, theology doesn't just study religions, it analyzes the basis behind Faith, looks for reasons, purposes and motives in human behaviour from spiritual standpoint, and, of course, it studies moral principles. As I've said, I have two fields to base my opinions on, while you're stuck in one. Indeed, wop deedoo.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Lol. Right, so tell me, what studies have theology done? Can you give me any peer reviewed/published papers, that has it's findings thoroughly studied, and capable of duplicating it's findings consistently, in theology? No?
I didn't think so. Please don't try and make theology sound more impressive than what it really is: an outdated way to look at the human nature.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Peer reviewed theology? You're kidding me?
So, if there's no scientific formula for a logical conclusion or a stance on a subject, such stance means nothing to you? LOL, just proves how beautifully superficial you are, stuck in that box, LIMITED by only looking for material evidence, only waiting for science to explain some things. That's your faith, kiddo, the difference is you don't pray to testing tubes and probes. Yet.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
? So you are basically telling that in infact are incapable or unaware of such studies conducted by theologians, that are able to have us better understand ourselves/each other? Well, thank you for your honesty.
And if you are stating that I'm blind because I will only accept what is proveable/testable aka: Reality, then yes, I guess limited to the real and not imaginary.
Faith is believing something without evidence; I have the evidence. You have the faith :D
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Oh I have all the evidence I need, kiddo, starting with the world around me and ending with my feelings. That's what makes me human. I could give you a perfect argument for the logical necessity of a conscious, personal Creator or existence, but you wouldn't care. I'm telling you. You'll scream in denial :)
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
Viewing the world around you, and what you feel doesn't fit as evidence.
Evidence is/are verifiable results that were obtained by a disprovable hypothesis, conducted several thousand times, with strikingly similar results; and capable of being retested and obtaining similar results by other non-biased parties.
Your arguments are based on bronze aged beliefs, created in a time of ignorance of the finer understandings of our natural world; with no evidence to support you.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
MATERIAL EVIDENCE isn't the only evidence. I'd gladly see your material evidence for love, and show me a formula to calculate it. Really.
You can cut that scientific talk, it'll only keep proving how stuck you are in that hole. It's amusing to watch.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
So, because I have yet to show a formula to you that explains love from step a to step b, you seem to think this means it is excluded from the material world?
So, are you saying that before we knew the exact interworkings of the body, and how/why we breath, all of our organs weren't material?Or that before we even knew black holes existed, that it too was immaterial?
Can you say fail logic?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Organs, black holes, all that can be touched, weighted, seen and analyzed. Feelings are abstract concepts. They have no source origin in matter, let alone a good scientific BASIS for their existence.
Fail logic is believing what you say, when you know as well as I do you'll NEVER get a scientific formula for love. Lol, I shall call you "science nut", with idiotic statements like that.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Well, this isn't true, since I actually can give you a formula for love. It's called heroin/cocaine. Love is actually a very simple process, where the brain releases a collection of endorphins and serotonin, in your brain. What is still the mystery is the very specific ways that it affects your brain.
Hence, why people who use heroin get blissful, amazing feelings/experiences that nothing can even top. Why? Because of the endorphins/serotonin.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And those who don't use drugs and feel love? Serotonin as well? Released only when you see/talk with a certain individual? Base on which criteria that individual is found, then. And what is the direct influence. You can't.
YOU CAN'T.
And never will be able to :)
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
Smoki, have you actually even taken any courses in college? Because your lack of understanding in basic psychology is very revealing.
No, you don't have these chemical reactions with ONLY one induvidual. You have it based on what your genetics are; given to you by your parents. It's those encoded nucleic acids that determine how you will respond to other potential mates.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
"And never will be able to :) "
You know smoki, people once said we would never be able to fly. People said we would never be able to break the sound barrier. People said we would never understand the most basic building blocks of the universe, atoms.
People who know nothing, and do not try to know anything say these things a lot.
You seem eager, almost happy to continue the tradition of perpetuating ignorance and lack of progress; despite the fact it's benefited you. How hypocritical.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And I'm still waiting for you to give me your definition of morality, since I was the mature one and already gave you my explanation as to what I meant by morality being biologically based.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And I told you why it's not biologically based. Definition of the CONCEPT of morality is universal, so be "mature" and read it off a vocabulary for all I care, if you don't trust wiki. Again, why should I copy/paste if you're so lazy? Please. It doesn't work against my argument in ANY way.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
um, no. You see, wikipedia isn't a credible source, and I don't know how you can't state that I need to go to it and read about morality there. You need a stronger defense than that and laziness, if you are incapable of explaining what you mean by morality.
I interested in what you think, not what a dictionary states. You've been so forthcoming with everything else, I find it strange that you can't simply give me your personal definition.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And if material evidence isn't the only evidence, I would love to hear some examples of evidence that we can't see, hear, touch, taste, or observe.
Wait, isn't that impossible?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
It's called personal experience. Inner experience. Perfectly used as evidence for their Faith by millions. What, you thought only formulas and test tubes? Please.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Personal experiences do not apply as evidence. If they did, then you are claiming that Zeus, Ra, Buddah, Santa Claus, leprechauns, faries, and a whole other variety of beliefs were once very seriously believed by millions of faithful, who also have personal experiences. Care to explain?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
You've shown that the only studies you've done were lacking in any scientific knowledge, especially since you used the position of authority card. I'd love to see you debate an actual proffessor/scientist; it'd be laughable.
And you still need to define your specific meaning when you say morality.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Well I'd love to debate YOU publically, since you must have such knowledge on the topic. Or you need help from an ACTUAL scientist? Aw, you must have a back-up plan, c'mon.
Pathetic...
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
"Aw, you must have a back-up plan, c'mon.
Pathetic... "
:D oh smoki, your true colors of ignorance and anger are showing.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Now, before you continue defending your silly materialistic faith, I'll say straight away that modern science, with 90% key researches and statements made in USA, has its sponsors. And those sponsors have an agenda. They give you money for your research, if you agree to promote what they want you to.
I won't go any deeper, because I already can tell you wouldn't even care. You're too happy eating that bullshit sandwich they feed you, and asking for more.
Keep going.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
LOL. Right, so I guess the agenda of these sponsors convoluted the truth of our understanding in atomic structures; which is why we can't make things like microwaves, computers, atomic bombs, lasers,etc. Oh wait, we can!
Yes, they have an agenda: MONEY. And do you know what brings in money? New technology. And HOW do we get new/improved/better technology? A better understanding of the natural world.
Hm, it would seem that truth serves them better than lies.
You fail :D
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Nope, the one who just failed is you. Again.
Better understanding of natural world and adjusting evidence to suit your agenda are two different things. It's like recent climate change bullshit, scientists faking data in emails to prove a point. Desperate? Sure. But not the scientists. People behind them.
MONEY is just an instrument. POWER is the goal. Keeping your mind in check. Making you think we're nothing but animals following blind instinct.
Good luck with that.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Huh, wow. Why do you keep changing the subject. Ok, this is just sad now.
Why do you continue to act like an infantile child? When I said morality is biology based my exact meaning was that morality/altruism in animals are traits that have slowly evolved with our genetics, because of it's ability to perpetuate/continue the genetic pool of our/their species.
Now, please show some maturity and finally answer me: what is your definition of morality.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
You've just posted some more nonsense. Shall I recap or what?
"morality in animals are traits that have slowly evolved with our genetics"
While I showed in previous posts how morality contradicts the very principle of survival of the fittest. Morality can result in actions NON-BENEFICIAL TO THE SPECIES using it. Do you or do you not understand.
As for wiki, I'm aware it isn't a credible source, but the simplest DEFINITIONS are correct, of course. So go READ. Talking about infantile...
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
Smoki, can you even give me the definition of evolution? Without running to wikipeida? Because you just showed your absolute ignorance as to the very foundation of biology.
Survival of the fittest is not the definition of evolution; in fact, no where close is it to the principle of evolution.
And to just humor you, please give an example as to how altruism/morality is nonbenificial to the species. Unless you are just going to side step this one as well.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Gladly. If I CHOOSE not to defend my territory from someone invading it, basing it on my Faith and love towards even my enemy, it'll result in my demise as a specimen. Evolution wouldn't've given humans the right of choice if it implies possibility of non-beneficial results for the species.
Natural selection, the mechanism on which evolution operates, apparently, overlooked that "choice" issue. Shame, shame.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokieSounds:
"Natural selection, the mechanism on which evolution operates, apparently, overlooked that "choice" issue. Shame, shame. "
LOL. You just tipped your hand, and you have been revealed as uneducated in biology.
No, this fits natural selection perfectly, and evolution as well. If a member of a species allows a contender of it's same species to invade and kill it, you are then unable to procreate; and spread the stupid that was in the gene.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Really now, smarty? So then, how come no humans are born with NO capacity for CHOOSING to give in? After so many "failed experiments", so many people who lay down weapons in the name of their Faith, how come your beloved natural selection didn't fix that "gene" yet?
You're a fucking idiot, I know now. Clear as day.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
"Really now, smarty? So then, how come no humans are born with NO capacity for CHOOSING to give in?"
What are you even saying? Can you better enunciate your meaning? Your ability to explain the subject in your sentence is deplorable.
And why hasn't natural selection "fixed" this gene, that allows compassion. Well, it can be for a multitude of reasons. The first most obvious one is that it has some beneficial use that continues to allow it to remain in the population.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Another reason could be that with the advancements in medicine, and our understanding in curing diseases, and fixing wounds, we have eliminated the majority of pressures that would have eventually weeded out that gene.
And last/most probable, the gene itself is probably tied to many other genes or a group of them, that interact in complex ways that benefit us, and that the specific part (faith) is just some extreme bi-product.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
"You're a fucking idiot, I know now. Clear as day"
Oh smoki, your anger and ignorance has finally surfaced :D
You are blinded by your inability to learn, showing a clear lack of understanding in basic biology, psychology, logic, and critical thinking. I'm sorry that my position, logic, and concepts are too difficult to understand and threatening to your beliefs.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
There's nothing to "surface", you've been an idiot to me since the first posts, telling me love, feelings, reason etc are mere biological impulses. It's ok, kiddo, I'll let you wave your fists.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
You have no substance, providing empty platitudes, fail logic, and lack of evidence/facts to support you.
It's ok that you don't understand what i'm saying, or that you don't accept it. But know that what I do say is verifiable by facts and research, that have benefited the majority of our society.
It's ok buddy. I'd advise retaking college, since you missed out on the majority of it.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
College is where they brainwashed your sorry ass, that's for sure. At least on these subjects.
Verifiable by facts, material evidence, bla bla. Been there, done that. Superficial idiots stuck in the science box, lol, I watch and laugh. Let's end it right here, shall we. You don't even analyze the source for the basics, what do I expect? Meh.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
"You don't even analyze the source for the basics, what do I expect? Meh. "
What are you talking about? You seriously need to retake your english classes, since you seem at times incapable of expressing your point clearly.
So, you claim that science is stuck in a box? Well, if thats the case, then why don't you leave the box behind, and not use it: don't use your computer, car, house, grocery store, phone, medicine/hospital, etc; ALL of them produced/enhanced by this materialistic box, science.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
You use the fruits of science, and then call it all hog wash and bullshit. You are the very definition of hypocrite. If there was a hell, you'd have a special place in it for your arrogance and dismissive ignorance.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And I guess I can stop waiting for you to answer any of my questions (like the morality one), and will simply take your silence as defeat; since you haven't answered the majority of them.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
If you want, I'll just go away, so you can continue your weak ad homenium attacks, while screaming now, and providing no evidence to support your position.
:D
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
now, when you live in a tribe/group/community, where you have to work together to not only survive, but greatly benefit compared to working alone (like gorillas, elephants, lions, humans do), those same killing/violent instincts would be detrimental if you didnt have some control, and killed randomly for no reason. Thus, the reasoning behind parenthood, and altruistic feelings. You would protect your friends more than you would protect a stranger, right? Same applies to animals.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
It's not "control", it's blood ties or group ties. Same instinct for survival. Those animal tribes still can't CHOOSE not to attack an invader. Once again, I'm not talking about protecting my friends, I talk about protecting myself (much more important in evolutionary terms, apparently). I can CHOOSE not to do so. Animals can't, they only retreat if they're weaker.
Face it already, you're struggling.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
so, you are saying that every animal that meets every other animal, including humans meeting these animals, will all inevitable result in a attack? Well, that's just fail logic; not to mention completely wrong to say evolutionarily wise.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
It wouldn't be beneficial for animals of the same species, or other species to just arbitrarily fight. If it where, then why do we have snakes that use warning signs, like rattles and color indicators? Because they use them to warn others to leave them alone. They don't want to fight.
Same applies to the majority of animals. They only fight/kill when they have to. They decide based on the level of threat posed to them. To be injured from arbitrary confrontation is stupid, and would kill them.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
And you seem to not have a real understanding of what happens in the wild.
Ok, in the wild, they don't have supermarkets, and food stamps. Food is scarce, and animals have to compete. Lets say that there is a wolf pack, and in their territory, there isn't anymore large game/sustainable quantities of meat. Now they have two choices, die or widen the territory. Since genetically, they are built with a strong sense of survival, aka they want to live, they widen the territory.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Now lets say that as they widen the territory they live in, it is found that they are in direct confrontation with another pack that live in a territory they've "invaded".
The first pack is starving, and have found that there is easy and plentiful game to have in the second pack's terr. The second pack will attack them if the 1st proceed.
Now, tell me, if you were starving, had a strong sense of survival, and want to live, and must fight to live, how much choice do you have?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
I have all the choice in the world if I'm starving. I won't go killing for food. Why? Because I'm not an animal, I control my desire. Mind over matter. That basically answers all other points in the 10 posts of yours, it all comes down to this. Which was my initial position. We are not just animals. If you're willing to keep denying that, and lowering humans to the level of an advanced animal, just do so. I won't bother.
We can control desires that are based on primitive instincts.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@Smoki
Wrong. You don't control the desire, you just control your actions. And yes, you may stop yourself from eating, that that doesn't mean you aren't an animal.
But you failed to see my point. Which was the label that we are "superior" is misguided, since the word is relative to what you specifically mean. But more than that, it's bias, since we are humans, and can only account for the human experience.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
No, I can tell you from experience, same as MILLIONS of other believers, that I can cut off the itself desire if I want to. The very root of it, the second it comes. I CONTROL it. Keep telling me I don't.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@Smoki
Oh smoki, you have no idea what I was saying, do you. I meant that the desire/feeling of hunger itself you can't control; in simpler words for the ignorant child, you can't simply make the feelings of hunger disappear by will.
But you can choose to not eat/continue to not eat by choice. That is the control; over yourself, not the desire.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Face it, you're struggling :D
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
And you've still failed to provide me with your view/explanation as to what you specifically mean by moral/morality. If you don't answer, I'll just have to view this as running with your tail in between your legs, since your page makes it obvious that you are very outspoken, and will debate endlessly.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
And you still didn't admit you FIRST told me "yea yea morality is based in biology", and THEN asked me what do I mean by morality. Running away? Please. From misinformed kids like yourself? lol.
As I've said, wiki it. Why would I copy/paste and waste my character limit? Can't read? Lazy? Nothing else to say?
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
Wiki it? You know wiki isn't a credible source right?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds:
saying that the sponsors have an agenda, and having this as your sole reason to not trust them is as retarded as saying that you won't take any medicine, because pharmaceutical companies have an agenda.
Yeah, it's to make money. I'm pretty sure they want to make good products/discover real truths, so that they can keep you alive, and make more money.
Unless you are showing yourself to be another conspiracy nut; who isn't interested in logic or truth.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
lol "conspiracy nut". Common escape route for scared little PUSSIES like yourself. If I can connect the dots, and you can't, it's your problem, not mine. Those "sponsors" are ALL part of shadow societies/cults. ALL of them. Either coming from Rothschilds or Rockerfellers dynasties. You know anything about that? Wait, those people must be dumb as hell too! I mean, they have their Faith as well, have their rituals, their religious goals, while paying scientists. Weird, huh?...
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokieSounds:
Oh my god. Well, if I knew you were a conspiracy nut, then I wouldn't have said anything to you, since you just can't see reason.
Do you know what the definition of apophenia is? It's seeing connections to things where none exist. AKA, conspiracy people.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
lol. "Conspiracy nut". How cute, how common. Pussy. Hiding behind those labels. I know your kind. Apophenia? Yeah, it's when you connect love to biology, lol. When I connect FACTS of secret societies sponsoring scientific research, it's called common sense. Something you're not familiar with, kid.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
oh, and can you explain to me how reading related scientific literature is equivalent to actually going to college, taking the courses, and acutally learning the subject?
Oh yeah, it's not equivalent at all. You're basically a poser, who claims to understand the concepts, when the entirety of our conversation shows you have no understanding of even the basic ideas behind biology.
Please, stop trying to impress me with your fail knowledge, and lack of education.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
And on the matter of morality, so you claim that just because a subject isn't in a high school text book, it's not a fact? Well, I guess then quantum mechanics isn't a fact, since I don't remember seeing it in my physics text book; or that Cosmological evolution isn't a fact since I didn't see that either.
Many prominent scientists in major fields of biology have voice not only support in biological morality, but also intensive studies on it; Richard Dawkins is an example.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Upon the subject of superiority, not one scientist or even biology teacher will say that humans are superior to other animals; for the reason that the idea is bunk.
By superiority, what do you mean? Do you mean the capacity to create the wonderful objects we have today? To understand the inner workings of reality, and ourselves?
And in 1 billion years, when we are all dead, our achievements destroyed, and microorganisms are still alive, will you still claim superiority?
It's all relative.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
By superiority I mean the variety of criteria that humans can base their actions upon, much wider that simple animal instinct.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
So, using that definition of superiority, animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas, dogs, cats, and a variety of many other animals that have shown that they too hold the ability to base their actions on a wider path than just instinct allows them to be called superior.
Can you now explain what makes us more superior than them?
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
Gorillas and dogs might use a wider path to base their actions, but the necessity of such action comes down to instinct: eat, fornicate or hunt. They cannot say "no" to any of that, they can variate the way the fulfill those necessities, but not control the instinct itself.
While us humans can. Because there is much more to us than blindly following carnal calls.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@Smokisounds
The animals I've stated have shown themselves to be able to defy these needs multiple times; where lions, elephants, and dogs would mourn the loss of a fellow, or master, and refuse to eat, killing themselves. You are completely lacking any knowledge in this apparently.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
The greater good. Just like in Watchmen. Eliminate millions to save billions. What is this obsession with sustaining EVERY life be it human or animal or insect? Could you imagine what life would be like if every living thing lived a full life. Thats unthinkable and unimaginable. Besides, humans are the dominant species. Its our right to conquer and dominate without limit.
Razlo5000 1 year ago
Says who, you? Talk about megalomaniacs. That "right to conquer and dominate without limit" is self-inflicted. Who gave it to you? Keep watching hollywood blockbusters, designed to keep your mind in check. It's working, congratulations.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
i kill roaches and bugs but the fact that you are controlling another living thing with technology against its will seems wrong
ieatblackdogg 2 years ago
@ieatblackdogg
I agree that it is wrong. But you eat beef and chicken don't you? We are controlling another living thing (ex. cow) against its will so we can enjoy that hamburger or fried chicken.
jl575 1 year ago
Yes, we're controlling the cow with care, giving it good conditions to live in, fresh grass and water, and then make sure it's slaughtered instantly and painlessly with electroshock. But this? This here is a constant physical influence, electrically I might add, over a living being. Your comparison with eating meat fails miserably.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds
You would rather want 2million dead than to sacrifice 1000 u're the sick human.
jl575 1 year ago
You're equally sick for taking 1000 lives without their consent. If they volunteer, it's different. But you're just as much a monster killing a 1000. Who the fuck are you to have the RIGHT to sacrifice those 1000?...
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
0:16 no that isn't a landing its a crash :D
Tommyboiuk1992 2 years ago 5
Yeah forget the fact that A HUMAN IS CONTROLLING a living insect. Let's focus on the terms used :-P
Bitts1 2 years ago 2
spyresuce no it will be the coolest toy
coloranimations 2 years ago
So when will this hit Wallmart?? I Want one!! =D
badboybitch69 2 years ago 3
Which idea came first, this ...or alien abduction?
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago
wow!
joblagz 2 years ago
i want one
kitinan1234 2 years ago
Mommy i want that remote controlled bug!!!!
markojen 2 years ago
@markojen no son its FAKE AND GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
killm360 2 years ago
i think this is wrong, seems cruel
MatthewHudghton 2 years ago
@MatthewHudghton seems FAKE AND GAY!!!!!!!!TO me
killm360 2 years ago
This feels wrong... disrespectful.
dujl 2 years ago
Thats was cool
WLotus 2 years ago
That controlling guy must feel like a fucking GOD or something!
SebbeLundblad 2 years ago 6
:')
brettcvale 2 years ago
They did something like this with a rat too. They could make him think of a direction and reward or punish him if he chose the good or wrong direction.
But the beetle's way more awesome. Needs some work on the landing though.
drilli312 2 years ago
There landing isn't managed here since it's simply halting impulse to the wing muscle and letting gravity deal with the rest. a few more years and it'll feel like controlling a remote-controlled plane.
Transcentity 2 years ago
fucking humans, you are so fucking cruel. fuck you, fuck you all, this is not technological growth, this is INVOLUTION, i cant believe this
Tritono9 2 years ago 3
Calm down. It's a logical necessity. The only other options we have are 1) Experiment of other humans and 2) halt our technological growth. This is the more Ethical and beneficial way.
Experimentation like this will pave the way for technology that improved cognitive ability, better prosthetics, rescue spy bugs and more.
If it wasn't the thousands of lab rats that die each day. We wouldn't be where we are today.
Transcentity 2 years ago 4
Amen
marvincontendo 2 years ago
shutup
warrat300 2 years ago
Kinda sucks for the beetle, though.
DeathToTheseWalls 2 years ago 9
Yeah poor thing, I doubt the damage to its brain tissue is reversible. It is but a small price to pay for enormous technological growth.
Transcentity 2 years ago 2
Cyborg pirate ninja Jesus
LehdaRi 2 years ago 2
Definite "MUAHAHAHA" moment ^^
heineisallmighty 2 years ago 3
I couldn't help with the evil laugh either (6)
Transcentity