Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Quest for Immortality

Pem
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Pem
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 10:08:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )

Wow, that is quite a statement. You seem to really have issue with people who are more clever than you. Seriously though, the selection process is more likely to be in favor of those CEO's and Politicians you worship. Money talks.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:44:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 10:08:10 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )

Wow, that is quite a statement. You seem to really have issue with people who are more clever than you. Seriously though, the selection process is more likely to be in favor of those CEO's and Politicians you worship. Money talks.

Clever? Is that supposed to mean smarter? I wouldn't classify them as smarter.

How do you know I worship anyone? You made that too personal. And you are wrong in making that assumption.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:41:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 10:08:10 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )

Wow, that is quite a statement. You seem to really have issue with people who are more clever than you. Seriously though, the selection process is more likely to be in favor of those CEO's and Politicians you worship. Money talks.

Way to turn a semi-serious discusion into a personal attack session, Pem.

Immortality? Why would anyone want to live forever at the expense of never having kids? That's just not human; even if we did find a way to live indefinitely, I think that would be a deal breaker for just about everyone. Now, I can see a super-rich few becoming immortal, should the technology ever arrive; I can also see them becoming Earth's de facto monarchs.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Pem
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:45:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:44:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 10:08:10 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )

Wow, that is quite a statement. You seem to really have issue with people who are more clever than you. Seriously though, the selection process is more likely to be in favor of those CEO's and Politicians you worship. Money talks.

Clever? Is that supposed to mean smarter? I wouldn't classify them as smarter.

How do you know I worship anyone? You made that too personal. And you are wrong in making that assumption.

You are right and I apologize for my statement, I make no excuse for what I said.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 7:51:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 7:45:31 AM, Pem wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:44:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 10:08:10 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )

Wow, that is quite a statement. You seem to really have issue with people who are more clever than you. Seriously though, the selection process is more likely to be in favor of those CEO's and Politicians you worship. Money talks.

Clever? Is that supposed to mean smarter? I wouldn't classify them as smarter.

How do you know I worship anyone? You made that too personal. And you are wrong in making that assumption.

You are right and I apologize for my statement, I make no excuse for what I said.

Cool. No biggie. I also apologize if I have offended you in anyway. I can be a bit polarizing but I try not to focus it on a member here, most of the time.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:35:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 7:41:08 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/27/2010 10:08:10 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:43:04 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:14:04 PM, Pem wrote:
The problem that lies with immortality is two-fold.

The cost of keeping people alive forever is most likely beyond what the average person can afford. Even that aside, a population that doesn't die yet reproduces is going to create enormous issues.

The cost would probably only be afforded to a few thus enabling a form a eugenics. Plus, people like to have sex. A consequence of that is children. Let's assume everyone opts to be sterilized, problem solved. New problem, a new virus evolves which easily kills a people who stopped evolving.

Immortality seems like a great thing for the individual, but for the species as a whole, not as much.

I know. The intellectually blessed people could just kill off the dumb ignorant people. Or maybe farm out there cells and organs for scientific research to battle the viruses. I'm sure science could find some way to massacre millions to save the enlightened ones. )

Wow, that is quite a statement. You seem to really have issue with people who are more clever than you. Seriously though, the selection process is more likely to be in favor of those CEO's and Politicians you worship. Money talks.

Way to turn a semi-serious discusion into a personal attack session, Pem.

Immortality? Why would anyone want to live forever at the expense of never having kids? That's just not human; even if we did find a way to live indefinitely, I think that would be a deal breaker for just about everyone. Now, I can see a super-rich few becoming immortal, should the technology ever arrive; I can also see them becoming Earth's de facto monarchs.

lol. its "not human" to not want kids?

....are you from the early 1900s?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:37:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Assuming we eventually get the technology to be able to replace any and every body part, we run into the question, if we replace our brains, are we still the same person? I suppose that we may be able to (in the future) transfer memories and personalities into the new brain before transplanting, but than we get to the dangerous concern with unethically altering people's memories and personalities. I mean, if your memories and personality is altered, would you ever really know that you were altered? It goes into a whole slippery slope.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:59:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 9:35:43 PM, belle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 7:41:08 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
Immortality? Why would anyone want to live forever at the expense of never having kids? That's just not human; even if we did find a way to live indefinitely, I think that would be a deal breaker for just about everyone. Now, I can see a super-rich few becoming immortal, should the technology ever arrive; I can also see them becoming Earth's de facto monarchs.

lol. its "not human" to not want kids?

....are you from the early 1900s?

I said if the cost of immortality was not having kids, most people would pick kids over immortality.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 8:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its only useful if man goes into space and fights sh!t loads of wars.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:53:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm glad you used the word plausible instead of possible. I think it's actually plausible too, but not without consequinces. And I don't mean the over romanticized bullcrap of twilight...

I mean... the only way to feesibly be immortal would be to have such rabid cell regeneration, that you just don't age. You don't have time to breakdown on a celluar level. What this will mean is you will have a very high metabolic rate, and need to eat ALOT or you'll more likely starve to death. So you've offically become a vampire who's tied to the hip of McDonalds...

As well, the rapid increase in new cells would also have to forgo on your brain or that would detiriorate. Whilest you would always have the absorbent, highly adaptable mind of a child... you'd have to be relearning things everyday. Forgetting names, faces, and even basic motor functions as your cells regenerate over the old memories. Either that, or you must live with the fact eventually your brain will turn into dust, and not before it takes you five minutes of "loading time" to remember where you put your keys, because you got all these other useless memories in your way.

So technologically speaking, you, the super ego, can never be immortal. Just regenerating a massive cluster of cells in no sortof immortality, and for that matter, you can just make babies and push out your dna code onto some other poor sap and hope they inherit some of the qualities you like in yourself. Reproduction IS nature's immortality, hoping to pass on positive genes and traits. But our egos are a finite thing. Unless you believe in life after death or something. I suppose you could "redownload" your memories, feelings upon those memories, etc. But with a new brain, new brain chemistry and level of hormones, comes an entirely different outlook on the same events.

No point in being immortal if you're going to be a completely different person. Though you're a different person everyday anyway I suppose. But the difference between being Jim Profit, Jim Profit 2.0, and "Lola" is alot more massive.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 12:08:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is said that we may be the first generation to live forever. Just think about it. You may, under prior circumstances, live up to 70 or so more years. But then imagine the technology we will have within the next 70 years; so much that it would extend our lives another few decades. Then imagine the technology we will have at that time, it will be extended even further, then further, then further. The technology constantly getting better.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 1:29:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 12:08:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It is said that we may be the first generation to live forever. Just think about it. You may, under prior circumstances, live up to 70 or so more years. But then imagine the technology we will have within the next 70 years; so much that it would extend our lives another few decades. Then imagine the technology we will have at that time, it will be extended even further, then further, then further. The technology constantly getting better.
I believe that we will actually live shorter in the future. We do not know for sure what the side effects of the supposed good technology will bring, so we only have hypotheses for immortality, and currently, there is null evidence to confirm the hypothesis.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 1:36:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not sure why people seek immortality. I do not seek or wish for immortality, however, I do wish for a longer life.

Instead of life lasting 70 years, how about 200 years? It seems that life moves too fast at the current life expectancy rate. If 200 years were the average, you could live in your 20s for thirty years. (The twenties are the best years of life).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 7:29:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 1:38:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:36:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
(The twenties are the best years of life).
I would say that it is very subjective.

My goodness, some of you are so depressing.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 7:32:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 7:29:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:38:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:36:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
(The twenties are the best years of life).
I would say that it is very subjective.

My goodness, some of you are so depressing.
Would you mind explicating?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 7:39:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 7:32:36 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/13/2010 7:29:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:38:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:36:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
(The twenties are the best years of life).
I would say that it is very subjective.

My goodness, some of you are so depressing.
Would you mind explicating?

Of course.

I remember another conversation I had with you in which you basically made it seem as though you have no idea what real fun is like. Sure, you enjoy everyday activities like playing sports with your friends or going to church, but you've never experienced the real fruits of reality. Or, you reject them, or something.

So, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that you claim that Geo's concept of your 20's is subjective. Really, there's nothing subjective about it. You have no responsibility, though the full capacity to earn while fully mentally and physically developed, having lots of extra time, and all with a very horny opposite sex (or same sex, if that's your jazz). It really doesn't get much better than that for the rest of your life. The only people who could possibly consider that subjective are those who have no fun whatsoever.

Which is very sad.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 7:47:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 7:39:29 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/13/2010 7:32:36 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/13/2010 7:29:17 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:38:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:36:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
(The twenties are the best years of life).
I would say that it is very subjective.

My goodness, some of you are so depressing.
Would you mind explicating?

Of course.

I remember another conversation I had with you in which you basically made it seem as though you have no idea what real fun is like. Sure, you enjoy everyday activities like playing sports with your friends or going to church, but you've never experienced the real fruits of reality. Or, you reject them, or something.
What are you talking about?

So, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that you claim that Geo's concept of your 20's is subjective. Really, there's nothing subjective about it. You have no responsibility, though the full capacity to earn while fully mentally and physically developed, having lots of extra time, and all with a very horny opposite sex (or same sex, if that's your jazz). It really doesn't get much better than that for the rest of your life. The only people who could possibly consider that subjective are those who have no fun whatsoever.
You have no credibility (nor has anyone else) to tell me that the 20's are the best years in life - objectively speaking. For some people they might be the hardest. Your personal experience means nothing to me. You neither know what will happen or not happen to me or anyone else in our 20's. You neither understand all cultures nor all preferences of "fun," so I could not care less about your view of the best age period in life. Some people enjoy the 60+ years because they are retired and can have fun and relax for maybe 20 years more.

Which is very sad.
No more blether please, thank you.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 7:51:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 7:47:53 AM, Mirza wrote:
What are you talking about?

Ohhhh, wait, that wasn't you.

BWAHAHAHAHA--it was another member of the site, my mistake.

Hehe

You have no credibility (nor has anyone else) to tell me that the 20's are the best years in life - objectively speaking. For some people they might be the hardest. Your personal experience means nothing to me. You neither know what will happen or not happen to me or anyone else in our 20's. You neither understand all cultures nor all preferences of "fun," so I could not care less about your view of the best age period in life. Some people enjoy the 60+ years because they are retired and can have fun and relax for maybe 20 years more.

Sigh. Let's be real. Your 20's are farrrrr better than your 60's, and generally speaking, if your 20's suck, then the rest of your life will inevitably suck harder. I really see no argument that disproves anything that I said.

No more blether please, thank you.

Blather. Sheesh.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 8:03:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 7:51:23 AM, Ren wrote:
Sigh. Let's be real. Your 20's are farrrrr better than your 60's, and generally speaking, if your 20's suck, then the rest of your life will inevitably suck harder. I really see no argument that disproves anything that I said.
Because there is no "disproof." The point is that it is subjective. There is no objective argument for the best age period in your life. People might hate the 20's because they rather want to live lives where they do not have to worry about looks, going to parties, etc. That is their view. Your view is different. I personally do not care about age periods, as long as I am happy and can reach my goals with patience. I am a person who enjoys having fun, while at the same time I do not go to parties, nor do I fornicate or something in that manner. Whether your disagree or not means nothing to me, nor will it change my personal preferences.

Blather. Sheesh.
Blether - nonsensical speech.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 8:15:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 8:03:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/13/2010 7:51:23 AM, Ren wrote:
Sigh. Let's be real. Your 20's are farrrrr better than your 60's, and generally speaking, if your 20's suck, then the rest of your life will inevitably suck harder. I really see no argument that disproves anything that I said.
Because there is no "disproof."

Disprove is a verb, not a noun.

The point is that it is subjective. There is no objective argument for the best age period in your life. People might hate the 20's because they rather want to live lives where they do not have to worry about looks, going to parties, etc. That is their view. Your view is different. I personally do not care about age periods, as long as I am happy and can reach my goals with patience. I am a person who enjoys having fun, while at the same time I do not go to parties, nor do I fornicate or something in that manner. Whether your disagree or not means nothing to me, nor will it change my personal preferences.

Yeah, I figured that you shared the same perspectives although that conversation wasn't with you.

I'll give it to you one more time.

This is all generally speaking. This isn't regarding special circumstances. In your twenties, you are the most developed while remaining the most able-bodied. You have the most resilience, the largest disparity between responsibility and earning power, and the most capacity to avoid responsibility altogether (by avoiding children, for example). But, even with children, it's easier to deal with them when you're 20 than when you're 40.

Blather. Sheesh.
Blether - nonsensical speech.

Dude, the word is blather.

I really hope you're not taking any of this personally. But, if you're not enjoying the hell out of your twenties, you're squandering it.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 8:25:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 8:15:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Because there is no "disproof."

Disprove is a verb, not a noun.
Tell me what that has got to do with what I said. Your utter horrible nonsense to prove your words right. "Disprove is a verb, not a noun." If you think that disproof is a verb, then challenge me to a debate on that instead of wasting my time here.

Yeah, I figured that you shared the same perspectives although that conversation wasn't with you.
You do not know about my perspective on this.

I'll give it to you one more time.
Thank God for that. The nonsense you write here is too time wasting.

This is all generally speaking. This isn't regarding special circumstances. In your twenties, you are the most developed while remaining the most able-bodied. You have the most resilience, the largest disparity between responsibility and earning power, and the most capacity to avoid responsibility altogether (by avoiding children, for example). But, even with children, it's easier to deal with them when you're 20 than when you're 40.
It is regarding circumstances. We have numerous cultures in the world, and each of them require different things from people. In many nations, 20's are the years where you study in the university, and many people find that to be frustrating. As for children, how do you know that it is easier for you to deal with them when you are 20 instead of 40? Many people find it easier when they are older than 20 because they have an eduction, career, and they have things settled in life. They also have more patience to deal with children. Those who are young and live Western lives, they want to party, fornicate, etc., and are you trying to tell me that it is easier to deal with children by living with that lifestyle? What a shame.

Dude, the word is blather.
Please look it up and stop the arrogance, than you.

I really hope you're not taking any of this personally. But, if you're not enjoying the hell out of your twenties, you're squandering it.
It is sad, yes. People should enjoy any periods in life. My point is that it is subjective about which period in life is best. You think that the U.S. culture applies to the entire world. This is nonsense. It is rubbish and stupid.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 8:34:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 8:25:55 AM, Mirza wrote:
Tell me what that has got to do with what I said. Your utter horrible nonsense to prove your words right. "Disprove is a verb, not a noun." If you think that disproof is a verb, then challenge me to a debate on that instead of wasting my time here.

You used it as a noun and I pointed that out. Relax.

You do not know about my perspective on this.

You made it pretty clear in your post before this one.

Thank God for that. The nonsense you write here is too time wasting.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you don't want to talk to me, don't talk to me, guy.

It is regarding circumstances. We have numerous cultures in the world, and each of them require different things from people. In many nations, 20's are the years where you study in the university, and many people find that to be frustrating. As for children, how do you know that it is easier for you to deal with them when you are 20 instead of 40? Many people find it easier when they are older than 20 because they have an eduction, career, and they have things settled in life. They also have more patience to deal with children. Those who are young and live Western lives, they want to party, fornicate, etc., and are you trying to tell me that it is easier to deal with children by living with that lifestyle? What a shame.

Dude, the word is blather.
Please look it up and stop the arrogance, than you.

I really hope you're not taking any of this personally. But, if you're not enjoying the hell out of your twenties, you're squandering it.
It is sad, yes. People should enjoy any periods in life. My point is that it is subjective about which period in life is best. You think that the U.S. culture applies to the entire world. This is nonsense. It is rubbish and stupid.

This is an American website comprised mostly of Americans on which you must speak American English to be understood. I was only speaking in context.

You must chill.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 8:38:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 8:34:21 AM, Ren wrote:
You used it as a noun and I pointed that out.
What are you talking about? Disproof is a noun. What is a the nonsense about "disprove is a verb"? I do not care, and I know that. But do you know that those are two variations?

Relax.
I am relaxed.

You made it pretty clear in your post before this one.
No, it is not my perspective. I do not know how the 20's are personally. But I know that not all people agree that they are the best years.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you don't want to talk to me, don't talk to me, guy.
No, you do not have to waste my time. I am not letting you have the last word using arrogant methods.

This is an American website comprised mostly of Americans on which you must speak American English to be understood. I was only speaking in context.
Which is why you deny that is is subjective?

You must chill.
I am, thank you. But if you are telling me that "some people are so depressing" then maybe you should collect yourself. It is so arrogant.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2010 8:41:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/13/2010 8:38:04 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/13/2010 8:34:21 AM, Ren wrote:
You used it as a noun and I pointed that out.
What are you talking about? Disproof is a noun. What is a the nonsense about "disprove is a verb"? I do not care, and I know that. But do you know that those are two variations?

Huh. Sure didn't. I had no idea that disproof was a noun. Ha!

Relax.
I am relaxed.

Naw, you're quite emotional.

You made it pretty clear in your post before this one.
No, it is not my perspective. I do not know how the 20's are personally. But I know that not all people agree that they are the best years.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you don't want to talk to me, don't talk to me, guy.
No, you do not have to waste my time. I am not letting you have the last word using arrogant methods.

This is an American website comprised mostly of Americans on which you must speak American English to be understood. I was only speaking in context.
Which is why you deny that is is subjective?

You must chill.
I am, thank you. But if you are telling me that "some people are so depressing" then maybe you should collect yourself. It is so arrogant.

I'm not being arrogant, silly. It is depressing when people don't enjoy themselves. Particularly in their twenties, when it's much easier than any other time in your life.

And, don't forget. It was you who attempted to be pedantic by splitting hairs in response to Geo's remark. ;)