> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Lastly, there has never been a world democracy governing all of humanity.  Therefore, because democracy has never really functioned to serve the best interests of humanity, I don't think we can say that civilization has ever really served the best interests of humanity.

Wait a second.  Two things:

1: Isn't each nation a subset of humanity?  First, a thought experiment: Suppose that the United States was being offered by extraterrestrials to be given technology to wipe away all disease, pollution, hunger, and allow travel and colonization of the planets and other solar systems.  However, in exchange, the US would allow said aliens to abduct all non-US citizens, to be used either for enslavement, food, execution, etc., by the aliens.

Long term, the decision would allow humanity (meaning the human species) to overcome its greatest extinction threats.  However, it sacrifices a good amount of the human population in the process.

2: Assuming you're right, doesn't your last argument only mean that civilization hasn't had a chance to prove itself yet?  No, there has not been a global democracy yet.  However, globalization is increasingly integrating the world, both economically and politically.  By your last argument, doesn't it mean that if we give civilization time to develop and globalize, its odds of serving humanity will thus increase?

> Little Paul wrote:

> I am the man!

See, I was thinking of saying that the moment I saw this thread... but I decided instead to sit it out and see who would say that.  I was betting it would be Chris...

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> @ Zarf

"empirical examples" are expected, Zarf.  Now, you're accusing me of not using empirical examples and, therefore, not debating properly.  Yawn.  Why do you always do that? 

What I said, Zarf, , I am not expecting any particular empirical examples.  That is not to say I am not expecting any examples at all.  Of course I am, just not any PARTICULAR example supporting one side of the issue or the other. You simply misinterpreted what I meant.

Look, avo made an argument that any action which benefits humanity would always help civilization.  I presented an example to counter that, and said that when considering whether this was even an issue, you were probably considering examples SUCH AS what I stated, in which the gains to civilization (in this case, constant flow of goods and services across borders) conflicts with desires of humanity (to not be globally susceptible to deadly diseases).

Never in my posts did I say that you were ONLY looking for examples such as this.  My only point was that the consideration of this question was probably brought on by examples, such as what I cited, in which civilization required a direction which runs contrary to human interests.  Stop reading into what I say.  X(

Gimme that 20 seconds back!  X(

Multiple problems with this line of reasoning:

1: Empirical evidence is very difficult to obtain.  Within natural sciences, answers tend to come much easier than in social sciences due to the ability to generate experiments.  If I want to test some hypothesis in laws of natural science, I can generally establish an experiment, using a controlled environment, to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  When I can't generate that experiment, there is room for doubt.

Now look at the social sciences.  Is it really physically possible to create a true experiment, where you can compare a control society to another society, with both being entirely the same with the exception of the one testable condition?  As of now, we have no capability to create most example societies for examination (with the exception of very small communities).  As such, we have to rely on outside historical examples for whatever statistical data we use to back up our claims.

However, all individuals are tainted experiments.  We have huge amounts of historical influences.  There's so many outside influences upon any one society.  All these little influences upon societies, then, become variables that taint the experiment.

2: Your theory scenario assumes that individuals are given as much time as is necessary in order to conduct their debate.  That rarely, if ever, occurs.

3: There is a level of irrationality in humanity: that of argument preference.  At a young age, we're susceptible to accept ideas and believe them more than competing ideas.  That creates a stumbling block against the creation of that end point in discussion.

This is only a small portion of the problem.  Secondary sources, evidence gathering, and other problems create barriers against achieving that final debate outcome.

I'll get to this after the Stone Age debate with Flint is over.  Don't want to give him ideas.

Assume you're correct in your interpretation.  Where, ideally, would I have intended you be sent?

Edit: I probably should just cut to the chase and say this now.  You're just playing a semantic game.  By your interpretation, sending you to hell sends you to heaven.  However, functionally, you would be subject to all the tortures we normally associate with "hell," even though you're being in "heaven."  There's no "gotcha" argument here.

Normally, this would be on the top of our "talk about this shit" list.

But you're competing with the World Cup.  Actresses come and go, but this is the freaking WORLD CUP, an event so epic it can only enter this plane of existence when heralded by the sound of a thousand vuvuzelas!

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> sounds like you need Robert Byrd Memorial Assurance Plus spam insurance!

No!  I'm utterly immune to random spam!  I have a sixth sense that allows me to preemptively identify spammers and ignore their comments before even re-aww, shit!

Shortly following that statement, Satan introduced a mass transportation network in order to allow Spiritual's soul to be shipped among all the various circles of hell, rather than being left in just a single circle. 

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Where did it say it was limited to those with medical insurance?  Anybody can have life-saving surgery in America, we just bill them for it too.  That was a serious misstatement our of policy.

You can have life-saving surgery, but you get billed for it.  If there's no possible way a person can afford that bill, then they can't take up the cost, and thus can't be diagnosed in the first place, and subsequently receive the care.  Although the statistic is interesting, it leaves out those who are deterred from stepping into the hospital in the first place.