Should civilization be destroyed?

[Hydesland]

Will you, like a poster below you now demand some sort of certification that I truly am a member of the "civilization believers?" Is there a membership card?

Obviously if you start asking bizarre questions like that, it raises concerns. Anyway, there are a high amount anarcho-communists (like yourself) that become anarcho-primitivisms, justifying further concern. Put it this way, if someone asked:

Did the holocaust happen?

Well? Did it? What's so compelling about the holocaust anyway? Imagine how much more peaceful the world be if nobody believed it. Nearly all the problems that arise from the Israeli state wouldn't have happened if they didn't have the excuse of the holocaust to justify the existence of an Israeli state.

If you could have stopped people from reporting about a holocaust, would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre holocaust belief state?


Would you honestly expect there to be no suspicion regarding whether this person was a holocaust denier? Would you seriously be surprised when people react negatively to it? Would you accuse defenders of the historicity of the holocaust as being religious for questioning the motives of the OP?

[Carcharhinidae primari]

i'm confused

Is okay is merely getting my claim in so that when the authorities lock up all NSers in a seclusion camp to protect the rest of society if there is a bacon ration included in the food allocation I can now legitimately eat your share. You can have any avocado pears from my ration as I really do not like them.

Don't worry if any of the above made sense to you the madness is infectious.

seclusion camps... does that mean we get nationstates LAN?

[Natapoc]

Without civilization, what's to stop a homeless person from breaking into our houses at night and just, like, eating us? Just putting us in a pot and just... just going to town? Just cooking us up and eating us?

Do you wanna wake up in a Hobo's belly?

What makes you think I'm not a homeless person who is really looking forward to a good human meat meal?

[Natvia]

What makes you think I'm not a homeless person who is really looking forward to a good human meat meal?

I hadn't discounted the possibility. That's why I've got about five dollars of spare change handy. To bribe you with.

[Poorisolation]

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

But eating bacon will kill you anyway

Nah pigs are lazy they do not do revenge, hey generally they only consider brunching on humans if they have been lying still for a while.

[Natapoc]

Will you, like a poster below you now demand some sort of certification that I truly am a member of the "civilization believers?" Is there a membership card?

Obviously if you start asking bizarre questions like that, it raises concerns. Anyway, there are a high amount anarcho-communists (like yourself) that become anarcho-primitivisms, justifying further concern. Put it this way, if someone asked:

Did the holocaust happen?

Well? Did it? What's so compelling about the holocaust anyway? Imagine how much more peaceful the world be if nobody believed it. Nearly all the problems that arise from the Israeli state wouldn't have happened if they didn't have the excuse of the holocaust to justify the existence of an Israeli state.

If you could have stopped people from reporting about a holocaust, would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre holocaust belief state?


Would you honestly expect there to be no suspicion regarding whether this person was a holocaust denier? Would you seriously be surprised when people react negatively to it? Would you accuse defenders of the historicity of the holocaust as being religious for questioning the motives of the OP?

Your statement about the holocaust is demonstratively false. My statement about civilization (and life) is demonstratively true.

[Natapoc]

What makes you think I'm not a homeless person who is really looking forward to a good human meat meal?

I hadn't discounted the possibility. That's why I've got about five dollars of spare change handy. To bribe you with.

$5.50, not a cent less!

[Dumb Ideologies]

But eating bacon will kill you anyway

Yes, cardiac arrest: Retributive justice of swine.

And then humans develop technology to transplant pig hearts into humans, both reducing slaughter wastage, negating the pigs' gains and restoring the natural order of things.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

What makes you think I'm not a homeless person who is really looking forward to a good human meat meal?

I hadn't discounted the possibility. That's why I've got about five dollars of spare change handy. To bribe you with.

i just have an assortment of diving knives, 3 daggers and a sword handy for such an ocasion, which then provides you with a much-needed midnight snack.

[Hydesland]

Your statement about the holocaust is demonstratively false. My statement about civilization (and life) is demonstratively true.

It doesn't matter, presumably there are some demonstrably true problems that occurred as a result of feuds between holocaust believers and deniers.

[Natvia]

$5.50, not a cent less!

Just take the money! Take the money and go!

[Poorisolation]

Obviously if you start asking bizarre questions like that, it raises concerns. Anyway, there are a high amount anarcho-communists (like yourself) that become anarcho-primitivisms, justifying further concern. Put it this way, if someone asked:

Did the holocaust happen?

Well? Did it? What's so compelling about the holocaust anyway? Imagine how much more peaceful the world be if nobody believed it. Nearly all the problems that arise from the Israeli state wouldn't have happened if they didn't have the excuse of the holocaust to justify the existence of an Israeli state.

If you could have stopped people from reporting about a holocaust, would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre holocaust belief state?


Would you honestly expect there to be no suspicion regarding whether this person was a holocaust denier? Would you seriously be surprised when people react negatively to it? Would you accuse defenders of the historicity of the holocaust as being religious for questioning the motives of the OP?

Your statement about the holocaust is demonstratively false. My statement about civilization (and life) is demonstratively true.

Would you care to provide a more robust support for the inherent veracity of your claims?

[Natapoc]

Your statement about the holocaust is demonstratively false. My statement about civilization (and life) is demonstratively true.

It doesn't matter, presumably there are some demonstrably true problems that occurred as a result of feuds between holocaust believers and deniers.

My statement works because it can be shown that most of the problems many people are concerned about are because of civilization and because of life.

It is easy to prove by taking a random sample of topics on NSG, or the news, for example and showing that few if any of these problems would exist without civilization

Your statement is likewise easy to disprove by the same method. It's also a totally different category.

In your case we dispute the accuracy of a historical event. In my case we question the benefits of a current structure within society.

[Natvia]

Look look look.

Here's a way to prove that civilization is good.

Half of the word "civilization" is "civil." And everyone likes to be civil.

The other half is "ization." Which sounds like something Snoop Dogg would say. "Schnizzle my izzley dizzle ization." Something like that.

Everyone likes Snoop Dogg.

So if everyone likes Snoop Dogg, and everyone likes being civil, surely a combination of the two would prove successful?

I rest my case. Frankly, I can't see anyone discounting it.

[Natapoc]

Your statement about the holocaust is demonstratively false. My statement about civilization (and life) is demonstratively true.

It doesn't matter, presumably there are some demonstrably true problems that occurred as a result of feuds between holocaust believers and deniers.

In this case you would need to alter a very important part of the statment in my OP:

"Nearly all the problems that people are so worried about (often to the point of killing each other) these days are the direct result of civilization. "

Would need to be adjusted to:

some problems that people are so worried about (often to the point of killing each other) these days are the direct result of civilization.

then replaced with

some problems that people are so worried about (often to the point of killing each other) these days are the direct result of belief in the holocaust.

In this case your statement would be true but it requires fundamental changes to the initial argument and is thus not suitable for this type of argument.

[Ifreann]

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

Civilization allows you to plug into a bacon simulator and keep experiencing the continual deliciousness without having to resort to lifetime limiting self-cannibalism.

I'm so aroused right now.

---

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

But eating bacon will kill you anyway

Not if alcohol gets me first.

[Hydesland]

My statement works because it can be shown that most of the problems many people are concerned about are because of civilization and because of life.

Your statement is misleading, it's utterly useless unless you contrast it to the problems of having no civilisation. It suggests bias by using that in isolation as an attempt to gain support for the notion of abolishing civilisation. But your OP was loaded, you can't claim it to be impartial. An impartial question would be "what are the benefits, and drawbacks, of civilisation?", not "should civilisation be abolished?", in the same way an impartial question is "how confident can we be in the accuracy of historical literature on the holocaust?", not "should we marginalise all historians that claim the holocaust to be real?".

[Poorisolation]

It doesn't matter, presumably there are some demonstrably true problems that occurred as a result of feuds between holocaust believers and deniers.

My statement works because it can be shown that most of the problems many people are concerned about are because of civilization and because of life.

It is easy to prove by taking a random sample of topics on NSG, or the news, for example and showing that few if any of these problems would exist without civilization

Your statement is likewise easy to disprove by the same method. It's also a totally different category.

In your case we dispute the accuracy of a historical event. In my case we question the benefits of a current structure within society.

Not really no. The holocaust denial scenario is such an insidious question because people pushing that agenda could actually find statistics "proving" that more people would be alive in the middle east or would not have been murdered accidentally by mossad due to being mistaken for Nazis or terrorists. A counter argument would hamstrung by the inability to count the dead who have not died among the Jewish global population or among genocides that were halted or curtailed by the "never again" philosophy that arose from the Holocaust.

In the case of life it is try that it would generally be seen as an irreverent question if only because existence is so obviously superior to non-existence because you then get to moan about existing.

However you claim that civilisation is the root cause of the problems we experience without demonstrating either by use of statistical evidence or reasoned philosophical contention that those problems would be absent without civilisation. Nor do you anywhere in this thread rebut claims that the problems that would exist without civilisation would not in fact be worse.

[Natapoc]

Your statement about the holocaust is demonstratively false. My statement about civilization (and life) is demonstratively true.

Would you care to provide a more robust support for the inherent veracity of your claims?

How robust? I won't write a thesis on the matter here unless you pay me as a professional writer.

However I will provide support for the only claim I made in my OP:

"Nearly all the problems that people are so worried about (often to the point of killing each other) these days are the direct result of civilization. "

Take a look at the worries expressed on NSG and in the media:

Wikileaks would not exist without civilization.
Taxes would not exist without civilization.
War would not exist without civilization.
Iran would not exist without civilization.
Universal Healthcare would not exist without civilization
Insurance would not exist without civilization.
Debt would not exist without civilization.
North Korea would not exist without civilization.
Republicans would not exist without civilization.
Democrats would not exist without civilization.
Libetarians would not exist without civilization.
Computer hackers would not exist without civilization
Stock market crashes would not exist without civilization.

And so on.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

i'm confused

Is okay is merely getting my claim in so that when the authorities lock up all NSers in a seclusion camp to protect the rest of society if there is a bacon ration included in the food allocation I can now legitimately eat your share. You can have any avocado pears from my ration as I really do not like them.

Don't worry if any of the above made sense to you the madness is infectious.

okay so if i've got this right i'm saving my bacon for you in exchange for avocados?

i like avocados, i remember i made a nice sauce with them and fried salmon fillet. mmm salmon.

[Natvia]

I can see my point is irrefutable.

Good show old chaps. Good show.

[Natapoc]

Nor do you anywhere in this thread rebut claims that the problems that would exist without civilisation would not in fact be worse.

Why would I need to claim something I don't believe? Also I did state some of the problems civilization is causing. See my post on the environmental damages.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

I can see my point is irrefutable.

Good show old chaps. Good show.

i don't exactly like snoop dog.
rawr!
*destroys civilization*

[Geniasis]

I'm going to ask again, what are the pros of abolishing civilization?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Look look look.

Here's a way to prove that civilization is good.

Half of the word "civilization" is "civil." And everyone likes to be civil.

The other half is "ization." Which sounds like something Snoop Dogg would say. "Schnizzle my izzley dizzle ization." Something like that.

Everyone likes Snoop Dogg.

So if everyone likes Snoop Dogg, and everyone likes being civil, surely a combination of the two would prove successful?

I rest my case. Frankly, I can't see anyone discounting it.

okay but what happens when snoop dogg dies who takes over after him? there'd be a power struggle. chaos i tells ya.