Oct 31, 2017

If it wasn't dangerous, had at least a million people and access to the internet yeah.

I'd be pretty nervous going into space tho, I already have anxiety when I get on a plane I can't imagine being on a rocket.

 

Oct 31, 2017

What? My initial argument was what you responded to. The reasoning to support it is that we've continued down the same part for our entire existence. Every plague of the past continues to effect life as we know it.

You're argument that we've mitigated the number of ppl being killed is not a sufficient counter argument seeing that I never made a claim that the number of people being killed is the same or worst than that of the past. You continue to support my argument by not refuting that we continue to commit the evil acts of our ancestors.

No end in sight refers to the fact that there seems there will never come a time where there isn't war, poverty, greed, etc. A prediction you are not outright disagreeing with.

"if you can't see a single genocide from 50 years ago totaling in the millions"

50 years ago was 1967. Since 1987 these are the genocides that have been officially recognized:
Cambodian
Rwhana
Bosnia
Darfur

The Cambodia genocide alone was estimated to have resulted in the death of ~ 2 million people. This does not include deaths resulting from ethnic cleansing or other mass murders.

Stop comparing world wars to wars fought between countries or wars perpetrated against countries not stable enough or armed enough to defend itself. The World Wars are called world wars because it was fought between a host of different countries. WW1 was 30+ I believe and WW2 was probably of similar numbers. The more participants in a war the more casualties. So the Iraqi-American war or the Palestine-Israel conflict aren't going to accumulate those numbers because there aren't as many participants in the war. Is a fallacious stance you're taking.

 

Oct 31, 2017

That's the only reason why I might decline an invitation to space.

 

Oct 31, 2017

wtf are you saying?
what are all these unimportant points and semantics?


nvm, f--- off and go sit in your corner crying the world is miserably s--- you f-- idc

 

Oct 31, 2017

A semantic argument refers to an argument over the meaning of words. That's not what I was arguing. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and are now engaging in ad hominem attacks.

 

Oct 31, 2017

"aw bur bur don't compare world wars to wars because world wars are multiple nations and wars are just in 1 country bur burr"

 

Oct 31, 2017

btw cambodia genoicde was like 30, 40 ish years ago? d--- thanks for proving my point humanity is improving

 

Oct 31, 2017

That's a misrepresentation of statistics. If 30 nations fought in a war then it's going to result in a higher body count than a conflict that involves 3-4. More soldiers fighting the war = more casualties. And that's before you add other factors such as the weaponry used and the advancement in emergency medical treatments. Now if you used the a stat like how deadly a war is based on the number of participants and the number of deaths you're counter argument might hold more weight. But seeing that your argument does not counter mines it would still be a facile attempt.

"if you can't see a single genocide from 50 years ago totaling in the millions,
then a handful of genocides in the past 10 years totaling in the tens of thousands, as an improvement i dunno what to tell you man."

You can't change the parameters of your argument once you've been presented evidence that you are wrong. And the other genocides on the list have not resulted in 10's of thousands of deaths, it's more like hundreds of thousands.

 

Oct 31, 2017

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
this isn't an argument wtf are you on?
more soldiers fighting the war = more casualties = exactly???????
we have less soldiers fighting in wars today, then what we did in the past. therefore it is a good point to use in proving humanity is much more peaceful than what it once was.

it's not an argument, it's an example. as in "hey man if you can't see this example from an example time period then i don't know what to tell you" further along, you mentioned the cambodian genocide. So you have shown you can see there are tremendous tragedies or whatever you want to call it in the past, but still hold your stance. i dunno what to tell you, lol.

"argument" lol. go google it you miserable f---, plenty of academic studies, historian accounts, statistical research that says humanity is far better today than what it once was. I used one point, (war) and you devolved it to this bs with your pseudo-argumentative skills.

What about millions that died daily because 21st century medicine didn't exist?
ridiculous diseases that don't exist because of modern medicine?

lmfao you keep arguing the world sucks kid, it's f---ing great though you loser.

 

Oct 31, 2017

The misrepresentation of statistics refers to comparing the amount of people died in a world war to that fought between a few countries. You can use casualty rate but the use of raw death totals misrepresent the size of WW2 vs a war like the Iraqi-American War.

But again you are arguing because there are less people dying of war (which is only one evil that has been constant throughout human history) that the world is now "great". But the simple fact that war continues to exist in modern society shows we are continuing to live out the mistakes of our past. War being acceptable creates the potential for another world war. The 20th century surpassed the 19th century in deaths from wars and genocide. I'm sure there are trends that show a decrease in deaths from those events from century to century. But still, war being acceptable and prevalent in our society made the 20th century one of the bloodiest eras in recent human history.

That's the root of my argument. Until we rid ourselves of war, famine, genocide, murder, and greed we are not seeing any real improvement. We may see fluctuation in the deaths from evils such as war and man made famine but by allowing these things to exist we create an environment for events like WW2 to occur again.

Based on human history, I don't think we can ever rid the world of these things; seeing that there has never been a time where we weren't killing each other or causing harm to one another.

 

Oct 31, 2017

like i said before man idc, i'm not arguing, i know this. you can think the world's miserable and s--- while crying yourself to sleep all you want i don't care anymore

 

Oct 31, 2017

Plenty of people itt already do that though

 

Oct 31, 2017

You quoted me a------ not the other way around. You can think the world's great because you are not being impacted by famine, war, or ethnic cleansing.

But to those that are I say this. I mean hey, yeah you're being killed because the world doesn't care about you or because you are poor but on the bright side WW2 killed 50 million+ people and only millions have been killed in the 1st 17 years of the 21st century. Yeah we still fight wars for resources, k--- innocent people to get a few, and deny people healthcare because they don't have any money but it's not as bad as one of the bloodiest eras in human history so there's that. The world is great now.

 

Oct 31, 2017

they can't read this cause famine war and ethnic cleansing is going on to them lol idiot

 

Oct 31, 2017

I'm not reading all your stupid bs but a thousand years ago you and everyone you know could get r---d and murdered over night from out of towners, if you want to bring up medicine and how it changed the world we could talk about that too, I'm not saying we're 100 percent okay but if you lived in a little village a couple thousand years ago or f--- even a couple hundred you would be a lot worse off

 

Oct 31, 2017

It's an outrageous post to show the absurdity of your position.

 

Oct 31, 2017

Also the Mongol conquests ended up killing what like 40 million people when there were only 300 million people on the earth so yeah you're argument r-----ed af

 

Oct 31, 2017

This happens today. Villages being wiped out. Innocent families being killed. This isn't a tool that's been removed from the tool belt of those hellbent on committing evil acts. The only difference is we're suppose to be a more civilized society and we have the resources to stop these things from happening. But we don't.

In terms of medicine that point was made when comparing wars of the past to wars in modern times. Modern medicine has reduced the potential death tolls from conflict. That's why comparing wars from different eras based solely on death tolls without taking into account other factors is flawed.

 

Oct 31, 2017

you assumed and interpreted that was my position you fucken spastic. let me explain;

and i'll use simple words this time, maybe youll understand.

now = 10x more people
-some bad things happen in some parts of world

30+ years ago = 10x less people
-lots of bad things happening all over the world

does it make sense to you yet?

or you gonna try to keep equating me saying wars being larger in the past = me saying anyone suffering today deserves it or whatever spastic s--- you're on about now?
I used WW2's casualties as an example you f---ing dumb c----. like 50-80 million from one global event. Wow a tragedy that large hasn't happened in... wow, f--- me, nearly a century! holy s--- we deff didn't learn from that and have repeated the same mistake since then!

i'll simplify it again you idiot

tragedies today
-sometimes and in remote parts of world

tragedies in the past
-often and everywhere

 

Oct 31, 2017

"Stay Woke" fucken you wake up you miserable c----. go smell the fresh air, go for a jog and get a runners high. jesus christ "wah i live in a first world and some c---- is experiencing famine right now wah" f---ing over privileged c----.