Celebrating Death, the Dead, and the Dying
- Thread starter Zero Phoenix
- Start date
So, education and a larger codependency is what makes someone civilized. You are civilized because you have those two things then when others do not. Just as the nobles from the middle ages found themselves civilized compared to the peasants, because they had table manners and a better education (btw, in case it interests you, it was Erasmus who wrote that in his book 'A handbook on manners for children'. At least, the part of what he believed to be important in order to be civilized and raise your kids in a civilized way) . Most people do tend to pick the things that they have and others do not, for only one purpose: to feel better about themselves. The definition of civilized will change according to what the person has achieved and what sets him apart from others. Its just a method to elevate yourself above the rest of the people.
I can ask any American who lacks the things you just described, and he will still consider himself as a civilized person. Because he lives in a democratic country, compared to all the poor barbarous sods in the middle east, or because he is 'free' and the rest of the world isnt or whatever. Fill in anything you want there, fact remains that people have this wonderful psychological urge to make themselves feel better about themselves, and being civilized is just one of those ways to make yourself feel superior.
That is why its pointless to try and draw a clear line between barbarity. Youll never get anyone to agree with it precisely.
I can ask any American who lacks the things you just described, and he will still consider himself as a civilized person. Because he lives in a democratic country, compared to all the poor barbarous sods in the middle east, or because he is 'free' and the rest of the world isnt or whatever. Fill in anything you want there, fact remains that people have this wonderful psychological urge to make themselves feel better about themselves, and being civilized is just one of those ways to make yourself feel superior.
That is why its pointless to try and draw a clear line between barbarity. Youll never get anyone to agree with it precisely.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']You are civilized because you have those two things then when others do not.
[/QUOTE]
False, as I have stated before. Give me a reason why everyone can't be educated and codependent, or your statement does not hold water.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
Just as the nobles from the middle ages found themselves civilized compared to the peasants, because they had table manners and a better education (btw, in case it interests you, it was Erasmus who wrote that in his book 'A handbook on manners for children'. At least, the part of what he believed to be important in order to be civilized and raise your kids in a civilized way) . Most people do tend to pick the things that they have and others do not, for only one purpose: to feel better about themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
The definition of civilized will change according to what the person has achieved and what sets him apart from others. Its just a method to elevate yourself above the rest of the people.
[/QUOTE]
False. Explained above.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
I can ask any American who lacks the things you just described, and he will still consider himself as a civilized person. Because he lives in a democratic country, compared to all the poor barbarous sods in the middle east, or because he is 'free' and the rest of the world isnt or whatever.
[/QUOTE]
This is an unsound hypothesis. If you are going to use it, elaborate.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
Fill in anything you want there, fact remains that people have this wonderful psychological urge to make themselves feel better about themselves, and being civilized is just one of those ways to make yourself feel superior.
That is why its pointless to try and draw a clear line between barbarity. Youll never get anyone to agree with it precisely.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's false.
[/QUOTE]
False, as I have stated before. Give me a reason why everyone can't be educated and codependent, or your statement does not hold water.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
Just as the nobles from the middle ages found themselves civilized compared to the peasants, because they had table manners and a better education (btw, in case it interests you, it was Erasmus who wrote that in his book 'A handbook on manners for children'. At least, the part of what he believed to be important in order to be civilized and raise your kids in a civilized way) . Most people do tend to pick the things that they have and others do not, for only one purpose: to feel better about themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
The definition of civilized will change according to what the person has achieved and what sets him apart from others. Its just a method to elevate yourself above the rest of the people.
[/QUOTE]
False. Explained above.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
I can ask any American who lacks the things you just described, and he will still consider himself as a civilized person. Because he lives in a democratic country, compared to all the poor barbarous sods in the middle east, or because he is 'free' and the rest of the world isnt or whatever.
[/QUOTE]
This is an unsound hypothesis. If you are going to use it, elaborate.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79686']
Fill in anything you want there, fact remains that people have this wonderful psychological urge to make themselves feel better about themselves, and being civilized is just one of those ways to make yourself feel superior.
That is why its pointless to try and draw a clear line between barbarity. Youll never get anyone to agree with it precisely.[/QUOTE]
Once again, that's false.
[quote name='noex1337']False, as I have stated before. Give me a reason why everyone can't be educated and codependent, or your statement does not hold water. [/QUOTE]
Now thats irrelevant. Sure, you can hypothetically educate everyone, but in that case people are just going to use other ways to set themselves apart from those they perceive as inferior. Everyone is equal, but some are just more equal then others.
You gotta do better then this. You explained nothing. You just said 'false, because everyone can be educated'. Yeah, everyone can be educated, but do you really think that will stop people from seeing themselves as better then the rest. They will just find something else to feel themselves better about and call it civilized. Like I said, 500 years ago, Erasmus felt that civilized people had certain table manners, like not farting while at the table, and dont wipe your nose on the table cloth. That made you civilized back then. Now everyone does that, so its no longer special. Once the entire world has been educated of a sufficient level, someone is just gonna invent another meaning for what it is to be truly civilized.
Hypothesis: most human beings do not regard themselves as barbaric, or 'not civilized'.
What, the part about the need of humans to feel better about themselves? No, thats most certainly not false. Or the part that says that civilized is just one of the many ways you can do that.
Now thats irrelevant. Sure, you can hypothetically educate everyone, but in that case people are just going to use other ways to set themselves apart from those they perceive as inferior. Everyone is equal, but some are just more equal then others.
You gotta do better then this. You explained nothing. You just said 'false, because everyone can be educated'. Yeah, everyone can be educated, but do you really think that will stop people from seeing themselves as better then the rest. They will just find something else to feel themselves better about and call it civilized. Like I said, 500 years ago, Erasmus felt that civilized people had certain table manners, like not farting while at the table, and dont wipe your nose on the table cloth. That made you civilized back then. Now everyone does that, so its no longer special. Once the entire world has been educated of a sufficient level, someone is just gonna invent another meaning for what it is to be truly civilized.
Hypothesis: most human beings do not regard themselves as barbaric, or 'not civilized'.
What, the part about the need of humans to feel better about themselves? No, thats most certainly not false. Or the part that says that civilized is just one of the many ways you can do that.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']Now thats irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
Once again false. If you are going to attack my definition of civility, then it's relevant if I ask you to justify it.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
Sure, you can hypothetically educate everyone, but in that case people are just going to use other ways to set themselves apart from those they perceive as inferior. Everyone is equal, but some are just more equal then others.
[/QUOTE]
Civility has nothing to do with equality. That, and your last sentence made no sense.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
You gotta do better then this. You explained nothing. You just said 'false, because everyone can be educated'. Yeah, everyone can be educated, but do you really think that will stop people from seeing themselves as better then the rest. They will just find something else to feel themselves better about and call it civilized.
[/QUOTE]
Explained above.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
Like I said, 500 years ago, Erasmus felt that civilized people had certain table manners, like not farting while at the table, and dont wipe your nose on the table cloth. That made you civilized back then. Now everyone does that, so its no longer special. Once the entire world has been educated of a sufficient level, someone is just gonna invent another meaning for what it is to be truly civilized.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
Hypothesis: most human beings do not regard themselves as barbaric, or 'not civilized'.
[/QUOTE]
So?
[/QUOTE]
Once again false. If you are going to attack my definition of civility, then it's relevant if I ask you to justify it.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
Sure, you can hypothetically educate everyone, but in that case people are just going to use other ways to set themselves apart from those they perceive as inferior. Everyone is equal, but some are just more equal then others.
[/QUOTE]
Civility has nothing to do with equality. That, and your last sentence made no sense.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
You gotta do better then this. You explained nothing. You just said 'false, because everyone can be educated'. Yeah, everyone can be educated, but do you really think that will stop people from seeing themselves as better then the rest. They will just find something else to feel themselves better about and call it civilized.
[/QUOTE]
Explained above.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
Like I said, 500 years ago, Erasmus felt that civilized people had certain table manners, like not farting while at the table, and dont wipe your nose on the table cloth. That made you civilized back then. Now everyone does that, so its no longer special. Once the entire world has been educated of a sufficient level, someone is just gonna invent another meaning for what it is to be truly civilized.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
[quote name=''[lexus'];79742']
Hypothesis: most human beings do not regard themselves as barbaric, or 'not civilized'.
[/QUOTE]
So?
[quote name='noex1337']Civility has nothing to do with equality. That, and your last sentence made no sense.[/QUOTE]
Thats what Ive been trying to explain to you for the last 2 pages of this discussion. Civility is a way for humans to create inequality. To set themselves apart from the rest because humans have this inherent need to feel that they are special compared to other people. Civility is just one of the many forms of it. And the last sentence is from animal farm, read it and it will make sense to you.
You asked for a hypothesis, you got one. And this is just in direct response to your claim that people who under your definition are not civilized will also think of themselves as uncivilized.
Thats what Ive been trying to explain to you for the last 2 pages of this discussion. Civility is a way for humans to create inequality. To set themselves apart from the rest because humans have this inherent need to feel that they are special compared to other people. Civility is just one of the many forms of it. And the last sentence is from animal farm, read it and it will make sense to you.
You asked for a hypothesis, you got one. And this is just in direct response to your claim that people who under your definition are not civilized will also think of themselves as uncivilized.
[quote name=''[lexus'];80215']Thats what Ive been trying to explain to you for the last 2 pages of this discussion. Civility is a way for humans to create inequality. To set themselves apart from the rest because humans have this inherent need to feel that they are special compared to other people. Civility is just one of the many forms of it.
[/QUOTE]
Except it's not. While civility can be used as a means for disparity, it does not need to be. You have yet to prove why everyone can't be civil according to my definition.
[quote name=''[lexus'];80215']
You asked for a hypothesis, you got one. And this is just in direct response to your claim that people who under your definition are not civilized will also think of themselves as uncivilized.[/QUOTE]
If you don't agree with my claim, then prove me wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Except it's not. While civility can be used as a means for disparity, it does not need to be. You have yet to prove why everyone can't be civil according to my definition.
[quote name=''[lexus'];80215']
You asked for a hypothesis, you got one. And this is just in direct response to your claim that people who under your definition are not civilized will also think of themselves as uncivilized.[/QUOTE]
If you don't agree with my claim, then prove me wrong.
[quote name='noex1337']Except it's not. While civility can be used as a means for disparity, it does not need to be. You have yet to prove why everyone can't be civil according to my definition.
If you don't agree with my claim, then prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
Sure, according to your definition everyone can be civil. But the point is that the definition is not a set in stone definition. Its personal, and is different for each person. The point is, you cant use it to make general statements about roughly 6 billion people and then expect the rest of the world to agree with it.
And just look at your history book, and youll see that there existed a docent definitions of civility at any given moment in time, and each time civil only included a select group of people the guy that came up with the definition could identify with. First French nobles compared to the peasants, but these peasants were still more civilized then German peasants. However, all the Europeans were more civilized then anyone deemed non European. Even if there hardly was a difference between Germans and French other then the language, the French still considered themselves to be more civilized. Its basic group forming and civility is just a tool for that.
Besides, whether its possible or not is irrelevant. My definition of being selfless is hypothetically possible as well. Just highly unlikely, just as your definition.
If you don't agree with my claim, then prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
Sure, according to your definition everyone can be civil. But the point is that the definition is not a set in stone definition. Its personal, and is different for each person. The point is, you cant use it to make general statements about roughly 6 billion people and then expect the rest of the world to agree with it.
And just look at your history book, and youll see that there existed a docent definitions of civility at any given moment in time, and each time civil only included a select group of people the guy that came up with the definition could identify with. First French nobles compared to the peasants, but these peasants were still more civilized then German peasants. However, all the Europeans were more civilized then anyone deemed non European. Even if there hardly was a difference between Germans and French other then the language, the French still considered themselves to be more civilized. Its basic group forming and civility is just a tool for that.
Besides, whether its possible or not is irrelevant. My definition of being selfless is hypothetically possible as well. Just highly unlikely, just as your definition.
[quote name=''[lexus'];80803']Sure, according to your definition everyone can be civil. But the point is that the definition is not a set in stone definition. Its personal, and is different for each person. The point is, you cant use it to make general statements about roughly 6 billion people and then expect the rest of the world to agree with it.
And just look at your history book, and youll see that there existed a docent definitions of civility at any given moment in time, and each time civil only included a select group of people the guy that came up with the definition could identify with. First French nobles compared to the peasants, but these peasants were still more civilized then German peasants. However, all the Europeans were more civilized then anyone deemed non European. Even if there hardly was a difference between Germans and French other then the language, the French still considered themselves to be more civilized. Its basic group forming and civility is just a tool for that.
Besides, whether its possible or not is irrelevant. My definition of being selfless is hypothetically possible as well. Just highly unlikely, just as your definition.[/QUOTE]
Bring evidence for your claims, if not then it's irrelevant and/or BS. And stop trying to bring this into the realm of relativism.
Recapping once again:
Your definition of civility is foolish
Civilized society does exist
Celebrating the death of another human being is barbaric (think back to the roman gladiator fights)
The americans in that video were not acting in a manner befitting those living in a civilized society
Until you can prove me wrong on any of these you do not have an argument.
And just look at your history book, and youll see that there existed a docent definitions of civility at any given moment in time, and each time civil only included a select group of people the guy that came up with the definition could identify with. First French nobles compared to the peasants, but these peasants were still more civilized then German peasants. However, all the Europeans were more civilized then anyone deemed non European. Even if there hardly was a difference between Germans and French other then the language, the French still considered themselves to be more civilized. Its basic group forming and civility is just a tool for that.
Besides, whether its possible or not is irrelevant. My definition of being selfless is hypothetically possible as well. Just highly unlikely, just as your definition.[/QUOTE]
Bring evidence for your claims, if not then it's irrelevant and/or BS. And stop trying to bring this into the realm of relativism.
Recapping once again:
Your definition of civility is foolish
Civilized society does exist
Celebrating the death of another human being is barbaric (think back to the roman gladiator fights)
The americans in that video were not acting in a manner befitting those living in a civilized society
Until you can prove me wrong on any of these you do not have an argument.
[quote name='noex1337']Bring evidence for your claims, if not then it's irrelevant and/or BS. And stop trying to bring this into the realm of relativism.
Recapping once again:
Your definition of civility is foolish
Civilized society does exist
Celebrating the death of another human being is barbaric (think back to the roman gladiator fights)
The americans in that video were not acting in a manner befitting those living in a civilized society
Until you can prove me wrong on any of these you do not have an argument.[/QUOTE]
Definition of civilized found in a dictionary
[quote name='random online dictionary']1. Having a highly developed society and culture.2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.[/QUOTE]
Number 1 and 2 are broad enough to include both our definitions, number 3 refers to table manners.
[quote name='Merriam Webster'] : characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint [/QUOTE]
Not even a mention of being highly educated unless you want to put it under refinement. Restraint? Well that can include my definition again as well. A selfless person would be highly restrained when it comes to pursuing and achieving his or her personal desires.
So, there is proof that my definition is far from foolish, as it can easily be included in the definition of civilized. Furthermore, note that it nowhere says how much of these things must be achieved in order to call yourself civilized. Civilized only makes sense when you put it in a broad context, when you are capable of defining yourself compared to others. So, someone who graduated from Harvard will obviously feel he is more civilized then a guy who dropped out of highschool and works at the McDonalds. However, that same guy at the McDonalds will also feel he is more civilized then the poor sod that works in some sweatshop under terrible conditions. That person will again feel himself more civilized then the homeless bum sleeping on the streets. And the homeless bum will feel himself to be more civilized because hes not a monkey or because he feels hes still more refined then people were 200 years ago.
Another example would be how currently Europeans feel how they are more civilized then they were 200 years ago. 200 years ago, Europeans also felt they were more civilized then they were around the year 1200 for example. And in the year 1200, Europeans also felt they were faaaar more civilized then the Muslims (even when they were not). People generally dont measure the amount of being civilized upward, only downwards. We dont say that we are less civilized then we will be in say 200 years from now, we only say that we are more civilized then we used to be.
Your turn.
Recapping once again:
Your definition of civility is foolish
Civilized society does exist
Celebrating the death of another human being is barbaric (think back to the roman gladiator fights)
The americans in that video were not acting in a manner befitting those living in a civilized society
Until you can prove me wrong on any of these you do not have an argument.[/QUOTE]
Definition of civilized found in a dictionary
[quote name='random online dictionary']1. Having a highly developed society and culture.2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.[/QUOTE]
Number 1 and 2 are broad enough to include both our definitions, number 3 refers to table manners.
[quote name='Merriam Webster'] : characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint [/QUOTE]
Not even a mention of being highly educated unless you want to put it under refinement. Restraint? Well that can include my definition again as well. A selfless person would be highly restrained when it comes to pursuing and achieving his or her personal desires.
So, there is proof that my definition is far from foolish, as it can easily be included in the definition of civilized. Furthermore, note that it nowhere says how much of these things must be achieved in order to call yourself civilized. Civilized only makes sense when you put it in a broad context, when you are capable of defining yourself compared to others. So, someone who graduated from Harvard will obviously feel he is more civilized then a guy who dropped out of highschool and works at the McDonalds. However, that same guy at the McDonalds will also feel he is more civilized then the poor sod that works in some sweatshop under terrible conditions. That person will again feel himself more civilized then the homeless bum sleeping on the streets. And the homeless bum will feel himself to be more civilized because hes not a monkey or because he feels hes still more refined then people were 200 years ago.
Another example would be how currently Europeans feel how they are more civilized then they were 200 years ago. 200 years ago, Europeans also felt they were more civilized then they were around the year 1200 for example. And in the year 1200, Europeans also felt they were faaaar more civilized then the Muslims (even when they were not). People generally dont measure the amount of being civilized upward, only downwards. We dont say that we are less civilized then we will be in say 200 years from now, we only say that we are more civilized then we used to be.
Your turn.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']Definition of civilized found in a dictionary
Number 1 and 2 are broad enough to include both our definitions, number 3 refers to table manners.
[/QUOTE]
Really? That's your big move? To say that my definition is wrong because it doesn't fit all definitions found in some random dictionary? Well let me show you something. I did a quick dictionary search for empire. The results are below.
So you mean to say that if we were having a discussion of empires, we must include all of these definitions even if some of them are irrelevant in the context of the discussion? That is ridiculous.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Not even a mention of being highly educated unless you want to put it under refinement. Restraint? Well that can include my definition again as well. A selfless person would be highly restrained when it comes to pursuing and achieving his or her personal desires.
So, there is proof that my definition is far from foolish, as it can easily be included in the definition of civilized.
[/QUOTE]
False. Your definition of civilized is still foolish normally, and even if you compare it to this dictionary definition, it doesn't hold water. Do note that there is nothing said about being absolutely selfless. You're grasping at straws. Again.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Furthermore, note that it nowhere says how much of these things must be achieved in order to call yourself civilized.
[/QUOTE]
So?
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Civilized only makes sense when you put it in a broad context, when you are capable of defining yourself compared to others.
[/QUOTE]
False. Again. You never learn do you?
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
So, someone who graduated from Harvard will obviously feel he is more civilized then a guy who dropped out of highschool and works at the McDonalds. However, that same guy at the McDonalds will also feel he is more civilized then the poor sod that works in some sweatshop under terrible conditions. That person will again feel himself more civilized then the homeless bum sleeping on the streets. And the homeless bum will feel himself to be more civilized because hes not a monkey or because he feels hes still more refined then people were 200 years ago.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, and you have no evidence for any of this.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Another example would be how currently Europeans feel how they are more civilized then they were 200 years ago. 200 years ago, Europeans also felt they were more civilized then they were around the year 1200 for example. And in the year 1200, Europeans also felt they were faaaar more civilized then the Muslims (even when they were not).
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, and you have no evidence for any of this.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
People generally dont measure the amount of being civilized upward, only downwards. We dont say that we are less civilized then we will be in say 200 years from now, we only say that we are more civilized then we used to be.
[/QUOTE]
No evidence for this either. Purely speculation.
But alas, this is pointless. Clearly you aren't mature enough to admit when you are wrong, so this discussion is meaningless.
Number 1 and 2 are broad enough to include both our definitions, number 3 refers to table manners.
[/QUOTE]
Really? That's your big move? To say that my definition is wrong because it doesn't fit all definitions found in some random dictionary? Well let me show you something. I did a quick dictionary search for empire. The results are below.
So you mean to say that if we were having a discussion of empires, we must include all of these definitions even if some of them are irrelevant in the context of the discussion? That is ridiculous.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Not even a mention of being highly educated unless you want to put it under refinement. Restraint? Well that can include my definition again as well. A selfless person would be highly restrained when it comes to pursuing and achieving his or her personal desires.
So, there is proof that my definition is far from foolish, as it can easily be included in the definition of civilized.
[/QUOTE]
False. Your definition of civilized is still foolish normally, and even if you compare it to this dictionary definition, it doesn't hold water. Do note that there is nothing said about being absolutely selfless. You're grasping at straws. Again.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Furthermore, note that it nowhere says how much of these things must be achieved in order to call yourself civilized.
[/QUOTE]
So?
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Civilized only makes sense when you put it in a broad context, when you are capable of defining yourself compared to others.
[/QUOTE]
False. Again. You never learn do you?
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
So, someone who graduated from Harvard will obviously feel he is more civilized then a guy who dropped out of highschool and works at the McDonalds. However, that same guy at the McDonalds will also feel he is more civilized then the poor sod that works in some sweatshop under terrible conditions. That person will again feel himself more civilized then the homeless bum sleeping on the streets. And the homeless bum will feel himself to be more civilized because hes not a monkey or because he feels hes still more refined then people were 200 years ago.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, and you have no evidence for any of this.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
Another example would be how currently Europeans feel how they are more civilized then they were 200 years ago. 200 years ago, Europeans also felt they were more civilized then they were around the year 1200 for example. And in the year 1200, Europeans also felt they were faaaar more civilized then the Muslims (even when they were not).
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, and you have no evidence for any of this.
[quote name=''[lexus'];82041']
People generally dont measure the amount of being civilized upward, only downwards. We dont say that we are less civilized then we will be in say 200 years from now, we only say that we are more civilized then we used to be.
[/QUOTE]
No evidence for this either. Purely speculation.
But alas, this is pointless. Clearly you aren't mature enough to admit when you are wrong, so this discussion is meaningless.
[quote name='noex1337']Really? That's your big move? To say that my definition is wrong because it doesn't fit all definitions found in some random dictionary? Well let me show you something. I did a quick dictionary search for empire. The results are below.
So you mean to say that if we were having a discussion of empires, we must include all of these definitions even if some of them are irrelevant in the context of the discussion? That is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea how you came to that idea. I never said such a thing.
I didnt say your definition is wrong, I said that the dictionary definition is so broad it can includes all kinds of things, including your personal definition as well as mine.
Ok, provide me with some proof. You just say false, your definition is foolish. Show me proof from were we can conclude that my definition is foolish and yours is absolute.
Proof please
I just did a small field test with some friends and other people I know. Ive asked them whether they think of themselves as less civilized compared to someone from a top university. They all said no. There, evidence.
Get a history book. And if not Muslims, then the Spanish against the Aztecs. In fact, any colonial power with regards to its colony.
Well, you regard yourself as civilized, while you are a barbarian in the eyes of any post singularity human. So, if you would actually compare yourself with the future ideal of civilized, you wouldnt find yourself civilized. Yet you do, because you do not compare yourself with what is to come, but with the past.
And the people that know me, would know im perfectly capable of admiting that Im wrong, after they have sufficiently showed me that Im wrong. You only say that Im false without explaining why Im false or showing me any proof that says Im false. So yeah, not gonna admit that Im wrong just because someone only says Im wrong.
So you mean to say that if we were having a discussion of empires, we must include all of these definitions even if some of them are irrelevant in the context of the discussion? That is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea how you came to that idea. I never said such a thing.
I didnt say your definition is wrong, I said that the dictionary definition is so broad it can includes all kinds of things, including your personal definition as well as mine.
Ok, provide me with some proof. You just say false, your definition is foolish. Show me proof from were we can conclude that my definition is foolish and yours is absolute.
Proof please
I just did a small field test with some friends and other people I know. Ive asked them whether they think of themselves as less civilized compared to someone from a top university. They all said no. There, evidence.
Get a history book. And if not Muslims, then the Spanish against the Aztecs. In fact, any colonial power with regards to its colony.
Well, you regard yourself as civilized, while you are a barbarian in the eyes of any post singularity human. So, if you would actually compare yourself with the future ideal of civilized, you wouldnt find yourself civilized. Yet you do, because you do not compare yourself with what is to come, but with the past.
And the people that know me, would know im perfectly capable of admiting that Im wrong, after they have sufficiently showed me that Im wrong. You only say that Im false without explaining why Im false or showing me any proof that says Im false. So yeah, not gonna admit that Im wrong just because someone only says Im wrong.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']I have no idea how you came to that idea. I never said such a thing.
I didnt say your definition is wrong, I said that the dictionary definition is so broad it can includes all kinds of things, including your personal definition as well as mine.
[/QUOTE]
Once again, I saw nothing in that definition that says anything about absolute selflessness.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
Ok, provide me with some proof. You just say false, your definition is foolish. Show me proof from were we can conclude that my definition is foolish and yours is absolute.
Proof please
[/QUOTE]
Now doesn't that sound familiar. And proof is that your definition doesn't even fall within the dictionary definition.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
I just did a small field test with some friends and other people I know. Ive asked them whether they think of themselves as less civilized compared to someone from a top university. They all said no. There, evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Because the claim that you did some random test somewhere is valid evidence. I assumed you were smarter than that.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
Get a history book. And if not Muslims, then the Spanish against the Aztecs. In fact, any colonial power with regards to its colony.
[/QUOTE]
Once again, you have no proof.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
Well, you regard yourself as civilized, while you are a barbarian in the eyes of any post singularity human. So, if you would actually compare yourself with the future ideal of civilized, you wouldnt find yourself civilized. Yet you do, because you do not compare yourself with what is to come, but with the past.
[/QUOTE]
Still no evidence.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
And the people that know me, would know im perfectly capable of admiting that Im wrong, after they have sufficiently showed me that Im wrong. You only say that Im false without explaining why Im false or showing me any proof that says Im false. So yeah, not gonna admit that Im wrong just because someone only says Im wrong.[/QUOTE]
You know what they say, the proof is in the pudding.
I didnt say your definition is wrong, I said that the dictionary definition is so broad it can includes all kinds of things, including your personal definition as well as mine.
[/QUOTE]
Once again, I saw nothing in that definition that says anything about absolute selflessness.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
Ok, provide me with some proof. You just say false, your definition is foolish. Show me proof from were we can conclude that my definition is foolish and yours is absolute.
Proof please
[/QUOTE]
Now doesn't that sound familiar. And proof is that your definition doesn't even fall within the dictionary definition.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
I just did a small field test with some friends and other people I know. Ive asked them whether they think of themselves as less civilized compared to someone from a top university. They all said no. There, evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Because the claim that you did some random test somewhere is valid evidence. I assumed you were smarter than that.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
Get a history book. And if not Muslims, then the Spanish against the Aztecs. In fact, any colonial power with regards to its colony.
[/QUOTE]
Once again, you have no proof.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
Well, you regard yourself as civilized, while you are a barbarian in the eyes of any post singularity human. So, if you would actually compare yourself with the future ideal of civilized, you wouldnt find yourself civilized. Yet you do, because you do not compare yourself with what is to come, but with the past.
[/QUOTE]
Still no evidence.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']
And the people that know me, would know im perfectly capable of admiting that Im wrong, after they have sufficiently showed me that Im wrong. You only say that Im false without explaining why Im false or showing me any proof that says Im false. So yeah, not gonna admit that Im wrong just because someone only says Im wrong.[/QUOTE]
You know what they say, the proof is in the pudding.
[quote name=''[lexus'];83286']I just did a small field test with some friends and other people I know. Ive asked them whether they think of themselves as less civilized compared to someone from a top university. They all said no. There, evidence.[/QUOTE]
That's the most outstanding evidence I've read from you so far. I mean, all my scholarship fails in comparison to your evidence.
That's the most outstanding evidence I've read from you so far. I mean, all my scholarship fails in comparison to your evidence.
[quote name='noex1337']Once again, I saw nothing in that definition that says anything about absolute selflessness.[/QUOTE]
Didnt look at the Merriam Webster dictionary now did you? Restraint. Selflessness is restraint.
It actually did.
Youre foolish for expecting scientific evidence when this has nothing to do with science.
But if it makes you feel any better, look at this bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
Though not directly related to the concept of civilization, it shows that humans have a tendency to think that they are better then average. Its not unlikely that this would also affect their idea of how civilized they actually are, no matter the definition.
Oh, so youre saying that the Spanish treated the Aztecs as equals or even superior. Yeah, that explains why they consequently went on to exterminate them all.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']That's the most outstanding evidence I've read from you so far. I mean, all my scholarship fails in comparison to your evidence.[/QUOTE]
Do you really expect scientific evidence in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with science? How is anyone supposed to bring in such evidence when it falls within no field of science and thus has never produced any research?
Didnt look at the Merriam Webster dictionary now did you? Restraint. Selflessness is restraint.
It actually did.
Youre foolish for expecting scientific evidence when this has nothing to do with science.
But if it makes you feel any better, look at this bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
Though not directly related to the concept of civilization, it shows that humans have a tendency to think that they are better then average. Its not unlikely that this would also affect their idea of how civilized they actually are, no matter the definition.
Oh, so youre saying that the Spanish treated the Aztecs as equals or even superior. Yeah, that explains why they consequently went on to exterminate them all.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']That's the most outstanding evidence I've read from you so far. I mean, all my scholarship fails in comparison to your evidence.[/QUOTE]
Do you really expect scientific evidence in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with science? How is anyone supposed to bring in such evidence when it falls within no field of science and thus has never produced any research?