Pages:
Author

Topic: . - page 21. (Read 31265 times)

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
February 22, 2016, 06:39:43 PM
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand...

God has been trying to exterminate all the Atheists for thousands of years... and keeps failing?

Note that if he ever did it's extremely stupid from him.

There is one safe and easy way to destroy all and every atheists in the world:
Just appear to the world ^^

Most atheists are essentially people without any faith. Hence they can't believe a god because without proof or faith... Hard to believe.
Just let the big daddy with his big barb appear to every one at the same time and you'll see it another way!
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
February 22, 2016, 06:35:48 PM
Finally thou hath finally understood(eth).
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 22, 2016, 06:31:22 PM
Ok, I think I'm starting to understand...

God has been trying to exterminate all the Atheists for thousands of years... and keeps failing?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
February 22, 2016, 06:27:42 PM
So:
a) He destroyed them
b) He destroyed them numerous times
c) they are still there

He revealed Himself to these people that: a, b, c.

Totally makes sense.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Gloire à la Victoire !
February 22, 2016, 04:22:49 PM


God isn't invisible. He reveal himself to the meritous men. If you follow a decent life, without sins, you'll accept to the Heaven you'll see Him.

So we should all be invisible but to decent humans?

What did you try to mean ? I am sorry, but after tried more and more, I'm unable to understand what it does mean Undecided...

He meant that if humans are like God then we're all invisible to humans not living good and decent lifes, just as how God is ^^

Oh okay Cheesy ! No, I'm sure that God also revealed himself to the sinners that he destroyed numerous times but who are unfortunatly still there.
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 22, 2016, 04:19:48 PM


God isn't invisible. He reveal himself to the meritous men. If you follow a decent life, without sins, you'll accept to the Heaven you'll see Him.

So we should all be invisible but to decent humans?

What did you try to mean ? I am sorry, but after tried more and more, I'm unable to understand what it does mean Undecided...

He meant that if humans are like God then we're all invisible to humans not living good and decent lifes, just as how God is ^^
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Gloire à la Victoire !
February 22, 2016, 04:18:55 PM


God isn't invisible. He reveal himself to the meritous men. If you follow a decent life, without sins, you'll accept to the Heaven you'll see Him.

So we should all be invisible but to decent humans?

What did you try to mean ? I am sorry, but after tried more and more, I'm unable to understand what it does mean Undecided...
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
February 22, 2016, 04:15:33 PM


God isn't invisible. He reveal himself to the meritous men. If you follow a decent life, without sins, you'll accept to the Heaven you'll see Him.

So we should all be invisible but to decent humans?
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Gloire à la Victoire !
February 22, 2016, 04:08:04 PM


God isn't invisible. He reveal himself to the meritous men. If you follow a decent life, without sins, you'll accept to the Heaven you'll see Him.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
February 22, 2016, 03:34:18 PM
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Gloire à la Victoire !
February 22, 2016, 03:11:34 PM
well the thing is that is true.

i gave examples of tree cutting machines that could replace 20 wood choppers and a trained female or even teenage could probaly use it. (the let me google it for you link)
and the next example is automation in the car industry.

but i also never said the process is finished, because it is obviously not - but we already see where the path is going.
We can today do stuff that needed hundred thousands of people before with just some hundred or thousand people; 3-4 orders of magnitude difference to just some hundred years ago.


Yeah of course but your example is the exception not the general way things are.

If you want to build a house, you'll need strong men to do it, there aren't any machine to replace them Wink

i agree here for sure. to build a house you need a lot of physical strength and stamina!

But we already have prefab houses that works like LEGO (the stuff that kids really like to build with) and that helps to save the needed strength and stamina by a lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefabricated_home

Lol!
Yeah but your LEGO house will never stay in place for 500 years like a good old stone house ^^

Moreover I find it truly cheap and disgraceful  Tongue

But point taken, it's possible ^^

That's part of the Progressists way of life : everything is renewable ! Things, women, houses, cars, mobile phones...
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 22, 2016, 03:07:55 PM
well the thing is that is true.

i gave examples of tree cutting machines that could replace 20 wood choppers and a trained female or even teenage could probaly use it. (the let me google it for you link)
and the next example is automation in the car industry.

but i also never said the process is finished, because it is obviously not - but we already see where the path is going.
We can today do stuff that needed hundred thousands of people before with just some hundred or thousand people; 3-4 orders of magnitude difference to just some hundred years ago.


Yeah of course but your example is the exception not the general way things are.

If you want to build a house, you'll need strong men to do it, there aren't any machine to replace them Wink

i agree here for sure. to build a house you need a lot of physical strength and stamina!

But we already have prefab houses that works like LEGO (the stuff that kids really like to build with) and that helps to save the needed strength and stamina by a lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefabricated_home

Lol!
Yeah but your LEGO house will never stay in place for 500 years like a good old stone house ^^

Moreover I find it truly cheap and disgraceful  Tongue

But point taken, it's possible ^^
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
February 22, 2016, 03:04:39 PM
well the thing is that is true.

i gave examples of tree cutting machines that could replace 20 wood choppers and a trained female or even teenage could probaly use it. (the let me google it for you link)
and the next example is automation in the car industry.

but i also never said the process is finished, because it is obviously not - but we already see where the path is going.
We can today do stuff that needed hundred thousands of people before with just some hundred or thousand people; 3-4 orders of magnitude difference to just some hundred years ago.


Yeah of course but your example is the exception not the general way things are.

If you want to build a house, you'll need strong men to do it, there aren't any machine to replace them Wink

i agree here for sure. to build a house you need a lot of physical strength and stamina!

But we already have prefab houses that works like LEGO (the stuff that kids really like to build with) and that helps to save the needed strength and stamina by a lot!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefabricated_home
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 22, 2016, 02:59:27 PM
well the thing is that is true.

i gave examples of tree cutting machines that could replace 20 wood choppers and a trained female or even teenage could probaly use it. (the let me google it for you link)
and the next example is automation in the car industry.

but i also never said the process is finished, because it is obviously not - but we already see where the path is going.
We can today do stuff that needed hundred thousands of people before with just some hundred or thousand people; 3-4 orders of magnitude difference to just some hundred years ago.


Yeah of course but your example is the exception not the general way things are.

If you want to build a house, you'll need strong men to do it, there aren't any machine to replace them Wink
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
February 22, 2016, 02:57:46 PM
well the thing is that is true. (technology is bridging the differences in power/endurance etc)

i gave examples of tree cutting machines that could replace 20 wood choppers and a trained female or even a teenager could probaly use it. (the "let me google it for you" link)
and the next example is automation in the car industry.

but i also never said the process is finished, because it is obviously not. There you are of course right - but we already see where the path is going.
We can today do stuff that needed hundred thousands of people before with just some hundred or thousand people; several orders of magnitude difference to just some hundred years ago.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Gloire à la Victoire !
February 22, 2016, 02:56:57 PM
I don't really understand the debate.

Women and men are different and are made to do different things.
It doesn't mean men things have to be more important than women things. It's not because it's different than one is more important.
And it's of course only reliable from a statistical point of view. Because whatever the number of machine, men are more reliable to harvest trees than women.

Doesn't mean no woman can do it, but simply that on average it'll be mostly men.
End of the debate, why going further?

Yeah mate, you're right. I don't want a faggot that take care of the babies at the kindergarden and a bodybuilded women with a cigar in the mouth to deliver me my wood.

For criptix : no, I only remembered about the exoskelletons and the bilogical engineering. When you put something between (), this mean that it can be deleted from the sentance without compromising the comprehension. Basically this mean that it has no importance.

And what about the price of these nice little machines ? Because I'm sure they're by far too expensive to be available to everyone.

For Moloch : we'll never see that, or only on the poors. Be sure that most of the poeple will also go against it. Wealthy people don't need intelligence implants.

Your "()" excuse is one of the worst excuse i ever heard.
You even replied with a wood harvesting example so please dont bullshit me.

The machines cost less then the people it can replace - ever heard about the word "Automation"? Look at the car industry.
Or shall i google it for you again?

I'm pretty sure that you will never see such technologies. Roll Eyes

Wealthy and intelligent people will inevitably go for it or rather are already highly researching and investing in it. (re: neurobiology and neuroimplants, Brain project)

If you look my previous post(s), I am using the tree harvesting as an exemple since the beggining. I took that because I know it and because my 72 years old grand-father do it to pass time.

Also, about your following posts about the gay breeding, if we ever reach that point, we'll leave the human condition behind us. Is that what you want ?
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 22, 2016, 02:44:30 PM
I don't really understand the debate.

Women and men are different and are made to do different things.
It doesn't mean men things have to be more important than women things. It's not because it's different than one is more important.
And it's of course only reliable from a statistical point of view. Because whatever the number of machine, men are more reliable to harvest trees than women.

Doesn't mean no woman can do it, but simply that on average it'll be mostly men.
End of the debate, why going further?

There is not only inter difference in genders there is also intra difference.
No men is biological equal to another. That is obvious and not the question.

What i am talking about is that technology is bridging this gap and the only thing important will be/is intelligence.

If you dont understand it i cant help much.
 

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Of course there are intra differences but that's why I talked only of STATISTICAL realities. It's a general point of view but there will be women cutting trees and men taking care of kindergardens.

You think technology will bridge the gap completely? Well maybe. But to be honnest I don't think so. There are some things that will never changes. Women will still bear the babies, men will still be the ones fighting. That represents millions of years of evolution, it will be hard to erase it.

And even, should we erase it? Gender differences allows a higher genetic differences, nor sure we should tend to destroy those differences.

But again it's all statistical. It doesn't mean it's not possible, just that any job kid related will still be dominated by women and that any job strength related will be dominated by men.

And is it a bad thing?

I dont understand why we are going into the area of good and bad^^"

It doesnt matter for me who does what job or has a statistical prevalence of doing something.

For me it is about hard biological facts like you need high physical strength to do certain work like i.e. building houses or chopping trees.
But that doesnt hold anymore because we have technology.
Today a kid could be able to destroy a whole country with the right technology.
(I hope you understand where i want to go.)

Technology will also be able to give a homosexual pair a kid through genetic manipulations of stem cells. (stem research is incredible in size)


If we want to go a bit more philosophical:

The nature made men who he is. But now with technology men is changing nature itself.

Well you seemed to engage yourself in the moral aspect of the debate, my bad if it wasn't the case Wink

Then let's be clear: you're wrong.
You might be true one day (though I doubt it will be before thousands of years) but clearly you're not today.
Building a house, cutting trees, loading crates... Those are jobs that still require a very high amount of strength and endurance!

That's the most important point, even if lots of jobs require less strength, they still do for the most of them. And the jobs that no longer require a high amount of strength require lots of endurance, and men have more endurance Smiley

But yeah technology is bridging the gap as you say. Maybe one day no job will require either strength nor endurance.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
February 22, 2016, 02:39:48 PM
I don't really understand the debate.

Women and men are different and are made to do different things.
It doesn't mean men things have to be more important than women things. It's not because it's different than one is more important.
And it's of course only reliable from a statistical point of view. Because whatever the number of machine, men are more reliable to harvest trees than women.

Doesn't mean no woman can do it, but simply that on average it'll be mostly men.
End of the debate, why going further?

There is not only inter difference in genders there is also intra difference.
No men is biological equal to another. That is obvious and not the question.

What i am talking about is that technology is bridging this gap and the only thing important will be/is intelligence.

If you dont understand it i cant help much.
 

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Of course there are intra differences but that's why I talked only of STATISTICAL realities. It's a general point of view but there will be women cutting trees and men taking care of kindergardens.

You think technology will bridge the gap completely? Well maybe. But to be honnest I don't think so. There are some things that will never changes. Women will still bear the babies, men will still be the ones fighting. That represents millions of years of evolution, it will be hard to erase it.

And even, should we erase it? Gender differences allows a higher genetic differences, nor sure we should tend to destroy those differences.

But again it's all statistical. It doesn't mean it's not possible, just that any job kid related will still be dominated by women and that any job strength related will be dominated by men.

And is it a bad thing?

I dont understand why we are going into the area of good and bad^^"

It doesnt matter for me who does what job or has a statistical prevalence of doing something.

For me it is about hard biological facts like you need high physical strength to do certain work like i.e. building houses or chopping trees.
But that doesnt hold true anymore because we have technology.
Today a kid could be able to destroy a whole country with the right technology.
Technology will also be able to give a homosexual pair a kid through genetic manipulations of stem cells. (stem research is incredible in size)
(I hope you understand where i want to go.)

If we want to go a bit more philosophical:

The nature made men who he is. But men by creating technology is able to change nature itself now.

/edit

rewriting my bad engrish
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
February 22, 2016, 02:31:11 PM
I don't really understand the debate.

Women and men are different and are made to do different things.
It doesn't mean men things have to be more important than women things. It's not because it's different than one is more important.
And it's of course only reliable from a statistical point of view. Because whatever the number of machine, men are more reliable to harvest trees than women.

Doesn't mean no woman can do it, but simply that on average it'll be mostly men.
End of the debate, why going further?

There is not only inter difference in genders there is also intra difference.
No men is biological equal to another. That is obvious and not the question.

What i am talking about is that technology is bridging this gap and the only thing important will be/is intelligence.

If you dont understand it i cant help much.
 

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Of course there are intra differences but that's why I talked only of STATISTICAL realities. It's a general point of view but there will be women cutting trees and men taking care of kindergardens.

You think technology will bridge the gap completely? Well maybe. But to be honnest I don't think so. There are some things that will never changes. Women will still bear the babies, men will still be the ones fighting. That represents millions of years of evolution, it will be hard to erase it.

And even, should we erase it? Gender differences allows a higher genetic differences, nor sure we should tend to destroy those differences.

But again it's all statistical. It doesn't mean it's not possible, just that any job kid related will still be dominated by women and that any job strength related will be dominated by men.

And is it a bad thing?
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
February 22, 2016, 02:28:27 PM
Your "()" excuse is one of the worst excuse i ever heard.
You even replied with a wood harvesting example so please dont bullshit me.

The machines cost less then the people it can replace - ever heard about the word "Automation"? Look at the car industry.
Or shall i google it for you again?

I'm pretty sure that you will never see such technologies  Roll Eyes

I've spent time working in a $billion manufacturing plant that uses these robots...

You know what they have a lot of?  Engineers and Maintenance people...

Those robots are shit... they break down on a daily basis and need regular maintenance


They replaced their cheap unskilled labor, with robots + skilled labor

So you tell me that "Automation" cost more money or is less efficient then working men?
(especially in the example i gave the car industry?)

/edit

You did an edit while i replied:

So you agree that automation is efficient and replaces cost effective men power?
Because that is what i state.
Pages:
Jump to: