Dubstepforum.com

Genevieve wrote:

parson wrote:a clever cancer is still cancer. no other species on earth is cancer. every other species is a vital organ.

Seeing as 'species' (which is an entirely human construct) have been going extinct all the time, that's impossible.

You've been repeating that argument for a year now, still with no observable justification for that claim.

and i'm certain you are dense.

Genevieve wrote:
Nah, parson truly believes that panspermia is something that contradicts evolution.

you're a fucking idiot. panspermia is a theory of evolution that expands on darwin's notions, which turns out are only part of the way there.

the concept of "survival of the fittest" is philosophically the most damaging aspect of darwinian thought because it makes people think there is a contest for survival. there is not a contest for survival. there is a contest for benefitting the whole. the more beneficial organs that suit the entire organism best (the planet) are the ones that survive. evolution is about the entire organism's evolution. looking at the evolution of humans as separate from the whole is why you're so confused.

dbl

parson wrote:

Genevieve wrote:
Nah, parson truly believes that panspermia is something that contradicts evolution.

you're a fucking idiot. panspermia is a theory of evolution that expands on darwin's notions, which turns out are only part of the way there.

the concept of "survival of the fittest" is philosophically the most damaging aspect of darwinian thought because it makes people think there is a contest for survival. there is not a contest for survival. there is a contest for benefitting the whole. the more beneficial organs that suit the entire organism best (the planet) are the ones that survive. evolution is about the entire organism's evolution. looking at the evolution of humans as separate from the whole is why you're so confused.

So if the Earth is an organism, do you assume that all the other planets are? What about the larger Moons which act like planets (have atmospheres, water etc)? What proof (other than anecdotal) can you present of our planet's sentience?

Is Mercury deeply unhappy with its state of affairs?

Will I be insulted for trying to have a calm conversation again?

the moon is part of the earth. the earth is part of the solar system (the solar system is an organism). the other planets don't seem to be presently living, but our present understanding of their function is limited to say the least.

Genevieve wrote:Anyway, I still await a proper explanation on why a lifeless planet Earth is inherently bad.

Because Borgore would be dead. >:'|

i would like a proper explanation of why a lifeless genevieve would be inherently bad.

Everything in nature is beautiful and it is no less beautiful because it is understood. However, the unenlightened man will assign arbitrary values to all things in order to protect and justify his own position. His morals are based on things he wishes were true or which someone else wishes were true. His philosophy pays no attention to relative facts or realities and yet in his life he must deal with them. He is consequently involved in a constant round of pretenses and evasions.
Jack Parsons

parson wrote:i would like a proper explanation of why a lifeless genevieve would be inherently bad.

...because he is a very good friend of mine and I would cry and cry and cry. :'|

SEriously, though. He taught me how to use Renoise, and got me to try making 2step in the first place. Svpreme Fiend wouldn't exist would Genevieve.

parson wrote:

Genevieve wrote:
Nah, parson truly believes that panspermia is something that contradicts evolution.

you're a fucking idiot. panspermia is a theory of evolution that expands on darwin's notions, which turns out are only part of the way there.

Panspermia is a theory within bio-chemistry, not biology and it doesn't expand on Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. You're perpetuating a very dangerous and common misconception about evolution. Panspermia is a theory that states that the chemical compounds that could, under the right conditions, form organic matter, are present in the universe and can travel from one place to another through, for example, commets or asteroids.

The theory of evolution does not set out to answer how life started (which panspermia does), but how it sustains itself with time by, you know, evolving. In the neo-Darwinian approach this means through natural and sexual selection and isolation and so forth bla bla bla.

Panspermia has to do with the actual emergence of life and is related with the bio-chemical concept of abiogenesis.

parson wrote:the concept of "survival of the fittest" is philosophically the most damaging aspect of darwinian thought because it makes people think there is a contest for survival. there is not a contest for survival. there is a contest for benefitting the whole. the more beneficial organs that suit the entire organism best (the planet) are the ones that survive. evolution is about the entire organism's evolution. looking at the evolution of humans as separate from the whole is why you're so confused.

No I am not confused, I am stating that you're reasoning is circular and with no observable or testable evidence supporting your claims. I'm also commenting on your poor knowledge of the theory of evolution. For example, no modern scientist believes in 'survival of the fittest' in the literal sense. It's actually 'survival of the one that is somehow slightly more adapted to their environment and gets to breed the most' and the Earth is not a living thing. It was without complex ecosystems for most of its existence. It's a rock with a molten core where large rock plates float on top of, surrounded by magnetic energy that is created by the molten core and various gasses that are created by living things and are held in place by gravity. Furthermore, science isn't based on which philosophical implications we do or don't like, since that is all purely subjective and can be molded to fit any ideology with the right logical reasoning, but by occurences and processes we can test or observe.

Now please, be a good sport and answer the question: why is a dead planet inherently bad?

christ you're a dimwit.

EXACTLY like neocons in the 90s saying there's no proof that mankind is killing the planet

now you're trying to say killing the planet isn't bad

you've also got zero comprehension of how panspermia and evolution really work. yes you can restate facts you've learned. no you do not comprehend the big picture AT ALL.

parson wrote: now you're trying to say killing the planet isn't bad

That's not really what he's saying at all. Dominant species have come and go on this planet since time immemorial. It's retarded to think we'll be able to or SHOULD be able to dodge the bullet foreva.

i recommend spending some time watching BBC's Planet Earth series.

pay attention to the interconnectedness. meditate on how retarded you are.

feral witchchild wrote:

parson wrote: now you're trying to say killing the planet isn't bad

That's not really what he's saying at all. Dominant species have come and go on this planet since time immemorial. It's retarded to think we'll be able to or SHOULD be able to dodge the bullet foreva.

there's a much bigger picture being missed here.

didn't read the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating anything

Aren't we natural? Haven't we constructed the whole 'manmade' idea?? Our brains, our greed, our mess, it's all natural. Animals are lazy and greedy too. That's life! Stop hating on humans, we are HYPER-AWESOME LORDS OF REALITY

Seriously, how can you hate on your own species and think that everything else in the universe is some pure concept that we turned up and trashed?

we are a CONTAMINANT from some place else. this planet ain't home.

parson wrote:i recommend spending some time watching BBC's Planet Earth series.

pay attention to the interconnectedness. meditate on how retarded you are.

I recommend spending some time watching my penis.

Pay attention to the relative largeness of it compared to yours. Meditate on how sad you are that your penis will never achieve such dinosaurian proportions!

parson wrote:i recommend spending some time watching BBC's Planet Earth series.

pay attention to the interconnectedness. meditate on how retarded you are.

I recommend spending some time watching my penis.

Pay attention to the relative largeness of it compared to yours. Meditate on how sad you are that your penis will never achieve such dinosaurian proportions!

Edit: oops, double post. But that's ok, the sheer awesomeness of that post warrents double posting.

sounds like you've got a large penis indeed!

i got bored with comparing myself to others long ago though. pretty satisfied with what i've got.