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.
Topic: Crazy shit Bible says, crazy shit Christians say - page 24. (Read 31191 times)
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.
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.
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
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
But point taken, it's possible ^^
That's part of the Progressists way of life : everything is renewable ! Things, women, houses, cars, mobile phones...
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.
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
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
But point taken, it's possible ^^
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ?
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?
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
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
But yeah technology is bridging the gap as you say. Maybe one day no job will require either strength nor endurance.
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?
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
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?
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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)
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?
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.
Not all women are as weak as you want them to be.
Not all women... but, where do you draw the line?
My Sr. Drill Instructor in Boot Camp would regale us with stories about working as an aircraft mechanic...
Part of the job entailed hauling around a 70-lb workbench to fix the planes... (you can probably see where this is going already)
There was only one woman in his unit... she was great at fixing planes, but could not move the workbench herself... all the men could carry it solo, but she always required help from a man... just to do her job... that all the men could do without help...
Being the military, she got paid the same as the men, regardless of the work she could perform...
In the real world, I feel a woman should get paid the same as a man, only if she can do the same quality and quantity of work that a man does... the real world only cares about results
If the requirement for the job was to carry 70lb workbench and she could not do it by herself, she should never have passed the basic training. If the physical fitness test did not include testing this, well that is the problem with testing and recruitment.
You know how they score physical fitness test based on sex and age, well that is just wrong. There should be one scale for everybody. Regardless of age or sex. For example: to get a full score, you do 60 push ups regardless of age, male or female.
She should have been discharged. She could not do her job. I'm sure they could find many other women who can carry 100lb on their backs, back and forth all day long.
The requirements are different for men and women in the military... just proving the point...
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitness-requirements/usmc-physical-fitness-test
When I was there, men had to run 3-miles in a maximum of 27 minutes... women only ran a 2-mile course and had 20(?) minutes
Men did chin-ups, while women did flexed arm hang...
I think criptix is talking about the future, after everyone has a robotic exoskeleton, and genetically engineered to be equally fast and strong... but we'll probably have genetic engineering making intelligence equal too... and implants for memory, and faster processing speed and enhanced senses... we'll be cyborgs at that point...
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?
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.
The bible always says something that's sugarcoated but in reality, the things written there are pretty much scary and some how brutal killings happen.
Especially the parts about the Leveticus, written by the priests.
Ah yeah. they were instructed by Moses to kill a whole clan including children and women. some of his men disobeyed him but he insisted to go back and kill them all.
its no wonder Moses never set foot to the promise land.
so what ? thats why all the religions are not a creation of so called holly god.. it is a creation of an evil person mind..
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?
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?
^
i've seen all of that
oh and btw. the only capacity that isgonna be important is intelligence, body strength will be a thing of the past when we have working exo skellets or biological engineering. (to be honest it is already for a great part a thing of the past, just look at the machines we use today)
i've seen all of that
oh and btw. the only capacity that is
Your little inventions are not for now, so why changing the present about a future event which is currently a pure speculation ? Yeah, now we use chainsaw instead of handsaw, but this still need a lot of strenght to accomplish a tree harvesting job.
Let me google this for you
You talked me about exoskeletons or biological engineering, that's just a machine, that surely cost a lot of money, so as soon as it will cost no more than 10 000€, my statement is still good.
ok i bolded and made it pt25.
You and me weren't just talking about exoskelletons and bioengineering.
It seems you are not smart enough to understand that this machine used by a female could probaly replace 20+ Arnold Schwarzenneggers (at his peak of course)?
Jump to: