Saudi Arabia is a special place. What's even more delicious is concurrent actions like KAICIID which highlight what a mob of sly fucks the Saudis really are. 

Why Saudi oil money is being used to finance Wahhabi-influenced islamic centres globally almost without any constraint is beyond me. 

When you see the way these bloody bastards run their country, it's obvious the way in which their minds work. 

Mr Bush definitely attacked the wrong country after 9-11. 

Hopefully we can put that to rights soon. 

Wow, you are a sarcastic dick. The man asked a real question. Lots of shit is "online somewhere".  I happen to be extremely well versed in the subject of the 2008 collapse and have had many discussions on it both here, on other forums and IRL. The claim that it is somehow a result of human predatory manner is one I've heard before, but it is not a popular view and certainly not the prevailing one, nor obvious. It can be argued, but I've a hunch that you aren't half as capable of providing an interesting an explanation as others I've discussed it with.

In what way was Digital not humane? Vastet is a little dismissive and snide sometimes, he has been the same way towards me in a few discussions, but when you throw a valid argument at him he always addresses it and his responses are usually good counterpoints and add a lot to the discussion. You have failed to address his points as well. I wasn't even talking to you, I was responding to one of Vastet's points that I believed was incorrect and actually taking your side. You butted in with complete unsupported bullshit and have failed to address any specifics of my points. You only speak in broad generalizations that can't be supported.

For example, my last post to you was over nothing more than your claim that lions and chickens have the "same" social structure. You have shown nothing to support that despite hundreds of studies being available on a social structures of both animals. You haven't even bothered to respond. I could point you towards journal articles detailing the social structures of the creatures which are obviously very different, but I don't have enough respect for you to go through that much effort. Mostly, because I don't think you have enough respect to actually take in the information. I don't respect willful ignorance and I believe that is exactly what you are. You think you have figured out the world with your smurfs, and any new information you are provided with will either be forced into what you believe, or completely ignored. 

Good thing none of us claim to represent atheism then. Who is the fourth? Dana? How can you not love Dana? She has given you far more respect than anyone on this site, certainly more than you have earned. She is a loving person like that who sees the best in everyone. It is a quality I admire and one you should be appreciative of since everyone else on here has pretty much written you off as a complete nutjob. 

You're a liar. You've been proved wrong. And YOU are the one failing to provide evidence. ANY evidence for ANY of the dozen or so equally ridiculous assertions you've made.

he still retains my proper respect for his person and input, whether he be right or wrong. I will still regard him from a "human" outlook as all others of you here. I forward no ill intent toward anyone and merely post what our studies found and leave it to the other to decide what it is or isn't. I didn't say he was right on everything--no one is. But he nor anyone else requies being ill treated or called names.

What you all have exibited here is exactly what is wrong with your society, and once again you showed me correct, disrespect and negative attidudes toward others, and some of you are saying I'm wrong. What I post needs no resaerch to find out--it is evidenat all arouind you. Llifes experiences are enough to know what I am conveying. Evolution gave all both ways to be, and what we're recommending is--try the other, that also is all around you. Become "one" of them not both. That's what we're attempting to have understood.  

WARNING!
The opinions expressed by Old Seer in this topic have no logical foundation, and are not supported by facts or evidence. For entertainment purposes only.
WARNING!

I repsectfully request you prove there is no such thing (personage) of humane or inhumane. Now--if your contemporaies find you wrong I will expect them to rip and tera into you as you all do Brian. Prove you assertion.

I disrespectfully demand you prove there is 'such thing (personage) of humane or inhumane' before I will allow you to make any further request of me. Put up or quit spouting lies.

an order of dominantation. All societies (except the Old Seers) have this social order. This not rare, it's the main way oresent societies function. The dominant pig will push others out of the way to get to the trouph. All the other pigs well know which are the sucessful dominaters and move out of their presence. The same with the cows. and other types--this is ongoing everyday, not just once in a while. There isn't an ongoing continuious fight because all in the heard have experienced which is the dominate one and the lessor dominate ones. Farmers are very experienced with this phenomenon. IE. A sow is lett into the farrowing bard to have her piglets. 2 months later she is let back out--but ,is confined to a small pen outside the farroeing barn for here protection. She forgot whoall the other pigs are and who's dominant, and they forgot who she is and the dominats will attack and very likely kill her. The other pigs try to harm her and try to get at her through the fence. Over time they get to know each other she can be let out with the herd.  This is also why there is --"the Bull pen", because after a certain age and weight the bull becomes a threat to the entire herd and has to be seperated. Cows also try to dominate the bull, and that's fine until the bull gets to big for the cows to handle. Knowing this from boyhood and being that there are two hog farmers from Iowa in our group confirm this also. All farmers from boyhood know this very well. This also why cows are polled (horns removed)(show herds aren't) Just playing around can be injurious. Experience-----In the spirng the winter calves are let out into the calf pasture seperate from the cows becasue the cows don't know them after they've been weaned and on milk replacer. Being that they can be seen by the other cows they get use to each other--and suprisingly--the mothers don't know their own calves. Experience----In the fall the calves have become hefers and are let into the main herd. But--guess who rules----the hefers----with HORNS.Weapons make the difference. The twice as big once dominat cow doesn't stand a chance. Once the hefers get big enouph the continutiy of the heard is broken up as all the hefers get into dominantion fights, and--if you can guess it---off come the horns. And--the once dominant cow takes back her position. 

The society you are in is no different---you exist within a dominant structural order of things. That's why you have the "1%"--they are the most dominant predators, in this case--financial predators.

No sarcasim on my part. I am not attacking or condeming. We don't do that in our society. I am informing of certain conclusions we've made from expeience and long study. If we're not right for some then we're not, that's OK with us. You're equating me with "the dominant" socierty, we don't belong to it anymore so we don't do the same. What we want is for others to look into these things for themselves. And, we came across these finding inadvertantly--we we/re looking for them--we encountered them. So, we're attempting to inform others. And for these findings we've re-created our own society without the problems of present societies. 

A point of reasoning- consider the conditions of societies in the world presently. The conditions are the consequences, wouldn't that be correct. Whatn is causing these particular consequences.

"You're equating me with "the dominant" socierty, we don't belong to it anymore so we don't do the same. What we want is for others to look into these things for themselves."

Yes you do belong to it. The fact that you can't recognise your own characteristics is telling.

This is not the behavior that has been observed in auto-sort, large pen hog houses, where they have all the pigs running around free within the same barn instead of in seperate pens. It is common that new pigs are introduced while older ones are still around, they don't kill each other. They don't even attack each other. It has been discovered. (surprise, surprise) that when you contain animals they become more aggressive. This is even true with chickens- while they still maintain a very strict pecking order in the wild, they tend to be far less aggressive. The pecking order isn't determined by the biggest chicken, it has been discovered that the pecking order is passed down maternally- so the #1 chicken could actually be the physically weakest. Your rationalization completely fails, I suggest you do some research on the subject if you are seriously interested (I don't believe you are so I'm not going to waste my time pulling the appropriate links like I normally would, I have more important things to do)

Um, no. The reason bulls are separated from cows isn't because they get too big or too old. They are separated only during the mating season because when cows are in heat, bulls want to fuck, and generally, ranchers want to control which bulls mate with which cows and during that period bulls will have a tendency to fight if you have more than one in the same pasture. The rest of the year, most bulls get along with the cows and other bulls just fine. 

Among cows, (left to their own devices) the social structure has been found to be matriarchal, with the top class of cows (the ones who get preferential places to eat, sleep etc) passing their status mother to daughter. The calves that become friends with the royal calf tend to move up in social status. (Males generally head off and make their own friendships creating a bachelor herd, and like all good male friends of any species start fighting as soon as a hot girl comes by that they both want). 

I'm not going to bother with the rest, your anecdotal observations are over 100 years out of date with modern farming techniques and our scientific observations of animal behaviors. Even ignoring the fact that farming methods have a huge effect on behaviors and that the social behavior of farmed animals often bears little resemblence to wild or feral animals, you are simplistic and flat out wrong. 

Lady Godiva eat your heart out -- 

  IMAGE  THEME  RELATED . . .

     > http://tinypic.com/m/ic1lr5/3

    Bleeker  has a book I cannot access, with an ecstatic account of a personal epiphany  of the goddess Hathor,  in the wilds of the delta .. in which a Egyptian cowherd, tending his herd in the marsh, sees the  goddess Hathor  in the form of a naked woman,  though not quite human, and runs for his life  (smirk)

I can't speak as to what every farmer in your region did, I don't even know what region you are from. I can speak to bulls being in with cows not being an issue in the way you described. 

Sometimes, sometimes not. I've seen farms that use both caged and open floored methods. There are advantages and disadvantages to each but those are economic issues and have nothing to do with chicken social structure. 

Yay with more pointless anecdotes. Modern farming practices are pushing towards open barn methods where pigs are not seperated in any way except for when they reach the desired market weight. Violence among the pigs when such methods are used are substantially lower than old pen style farming methods that sought to keep them seperated. Are you suggesting that breeding is the only reason?

Nice to know your ignorance extends to buffalo too. Among many species of buffalo, the strongest and most energetic males tend to also be low in the social structure. They follow behind the herd. Age appears to be the dominant factor in social position, not strength. This shows its benefits when the herd is attacked because the predators usually come from the rear where the strongest of the buffalo are able to defend the weak, young, old and sick. You would never see such behavior in say, a flock of chickens. 

Nice theory, until you read your attempt to link which goes against everything you have said. It sounds to me like the people you know were not competent farmers. When significant aggression is occurring so drastically that death is resulting, you are putting way too much stress on the animals. 

Yes, animals are more aggressive when stressed. Introducing new animals into a society (the new kid in school) is going to result in tensions. 

Wait a minute, it can be reduced? How is that possible? It certainly isn't if your linear alpha-omega social structure is the only social structure that exists. The violence is absolutely necessary in such a structure until the new members know exactly where they are and physical strength is the determinant... So using your alpha-omega model, if you put in a big bad ass hog, it will always become number 1. 

Yes, that is what I have been saying. At the very least, all large animals have demonstrable psychologies. They develop bonds (which we might call friendship) have loyalty to family, and will often defer leadership to animals that clearly are not physically dominant. None of that would be expected to be seen in a strict alpha-omega social system where social structure is solely decided upon physical dominance. Furthermore, we know that different species exhibit different preferences for leadership. There might be many similarities we can draw, but animal social structures are complex and variable. Among some animals, the social structure is rigid in that once in a social place, the animal can't move up the hierarchy. This is exhibited most obviously in bees where they have actual physical changes which prevent them from performing any other job. But also very much among chickens, which explains why introducing new chickens is more challenging. Pigs tend to be far more gregarious, much like dogs, in that they form bonds with unrelated pigs and for no apparent logical reason other than happenstance. Which pig is dominant is fairly fluid and the apparent dominance between two particular pigs could switch several times. 

Cows, along with most herd animals, tend to have strong familial loyalties and will remain loyal with "friends" they grazed with as calves- indeed it is precisely that type of behavior that causes the herding phenomena that you don't see in many species. Deer have an interesting social structure in that they tend to be in small groups- usually familial among females and fawns, while bachelor groups of young bucks that apparently meet through happenstance. Yet in cold areas in the winter they tend to herd up in groups of up to a couple hundred and during that period have a semi-herd like social structure. In warmer areas, the same species, that behavior doesn't happen. Then older deer, both male and female, tend to prefer to not socialize at all. They go their own completely separate direction and have a social structure more similar to what we see in most cat species. 

So in summation, my only points were that not all animals share the same social structures- sometimes even within the same species. And most don't follow the strict alpha-omega social structure based on physical domination that you described. Indeed, it has been found that wolves, the animal whose behavior the idea of the alpha-omega social structure was theorized to explain, do not follow such a social structure. The structure is only observed in wolves that are captured and forced to socialize with unknown wolves. Dr. L. David Mech is the guy who literally wrote the book on alpha-omega social structure among wolves. He has since edited his original book and has publicly appologized for being wrong (that is what scientists do when they find new evidence that doesn't fit their original theories, I know theists struggle with that)

http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf

We don't know we have any mental differences of significance. We've gone as far as we have because of a evolutionary benefit that allowed us to communicate with unprecedented efficiency, which then allowed us to teach each other new things. It all came from education, facilitated by communication. Without that, we'd still be chasing herds of animals and picking berries like other mammals similar to us. Higher thoughts are a myth propagated by idiots who think humans are not animals. There is no evidence to support the suggestion we are more intelligent than everything else on the planet. The basis of our understanding is communication capabilities, not brain power.

Humans are animals, period.

I can think of to measure our intelligence level compared to a Chimp would be to give one of our kind and a Chimp an IQ test to make a comparision. It would seem that our intellectual abilities have to be astronomical in comparance if our kind can engage in the complexities of building a skyscraper and compare how long it would take the Chimp to learn, draftsmanship, engineering, mathematics, reading etc. I don't think the Chimp would make it to kindergarten. There would have to be a comparison of level and ability. But now---wouldn't all you mentioned above be what you're saying makes the difference, so there is a difference of some kind. Intelligence is neither human or animal, it's neutral and can be use to figure out anything that can be figured out. Thinking in itself isn't either human or animal either. If thinking were human then chimps would be human as they do have an abilty to think. If it's degree of thinking that's makes one human ---at what level does thinking become human.If one can intelligently make war or peace then intellect has to be neutral.

If as you say --humans are animals then what use is there for the term human. It's not needed according to your aceptance of what is human. If you are a human animal and a pig is an animal being mentally as yourself then a pig also has to be a human animal. If human animal is to hold water then there has to be a difference between you and the pig and your saying in essence--there's no difference. What is the difference from you then as compared to a pig. If you are a human and a pig is animal how does human animal change you to be different then the pig. If there's no difference the term human applies to nothing and is meaningless. What does human animal mean compared to animal. ? If human does applies to something that something has has to be added to animal--what is it. ?? 

I never know what the fuck you are talking about and after watching the video and reading the Star Trek bit I'd say I'm even more confused at what you do on these boards

Which is impossible because a chimp doesn't understand English.

Astronomical my ass. It took man almost 200,000 years to accomplish those things. If you took a completely uneducated human, who'd never even been taught a language, I guarantee the chimp would be just as successful as the human in building a skyscraper, aeroplane, or computer. You have absolutely no comprehension of just how impossible it would be for our civilisation to exist without the ability to communicate complex information reliably.

There are two primary purposes behind the term 'human'. The first is the arrogant assumption, exceptionally common until recently, that we are somehow better than everything else. Usually this is rooted in religious belief coupled with simple ignorance.

The second is the scientific label for our species. Humans, or more precisely homo sapeins, is the name of our genus and species. Much like dogs are of the genus canidae. This description does not suggest that we aren't animals, quite the contrary: they enforce that we ARE animals. Canidae and homo are both genera of the class: mammal, which is of the phylum: chordata, in the kingdom: animalia, or ANIMAL. Long after animals existed, dogs and humans had a common ancestor. We must be animals. Every bit of biological science ever known confirms it beyond argument.

Humans are animals, period.

still don't have the language skills we have. And it's very likely it'll take another 200,000 or never. How did you get an idea that a chimp can build a skyscraper. Why don't they at least build themselves a doghouse instead of staying out in the rain. Respectfully people--get real. Chimps didn't build what material objects we have today. It takes a better intelectual ability then a Chimp.

OK lets get this on record so there'll be no doubt.

Vastet---you are sure a Chimp today can build a skyscraper--yes---no

Beachbum, do you a gree with Vastet that a chimp can build a skyscraper--yes ----no.

Beyondsaving, samo-------------------------------------------------------------------  yes-----no.

Anyone else,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes-----no.

OK--Man up and lets see.

Chimps may evolve someday to be able to build a skyscraper. But that's not the question. This is "today", so my input is not void. I'm not going to hold you to make a direct answer because I don't care to get into verbal shootouts and try to put others on the hook. As I understand things, if a young chimp were to enter kindergarten today it would die of old age before it could even set a cornerstone, maybe not, but a corner stone is about as far as it'll get. I presented my information on subject of societal domination and it's causes on society. Good enough for me. If one doesn't agree I'm not going to holler stupid or jackass. We present this info for the study of others and it's up to them to accept or not.

    The dialog and quote actually ties into the whole call for a  revolution, starting with the individual first  (read the entire page) . . .

 Re:: Just another manic Sunday, wish it were Monday
 

  DigitalBeachBum  . .

   Yeah   about that  . . 

  Uproarious laughter or not.  They say if you have to explain a joke, you've failed . .  I definitely DO NOT need to either explain the joke  nor  provide  the following quote in this case :

 Clue-In  Quote  from OldSeer 

build a skyscraper--you said they could. When do you suppose the vocal tweeking will take place. Their going to need more then complex wordings. The body will do, but the mental ability is short. When do you suppose that will change. Physically they would be better at building skyscrapers, in my opinion.

I,m assuming that it would take more then one chimp to build a skyscraper. How many chimps collectively can reason out how to build a skyscraper. I don't think termites build skyscrapers. Proportionatly to their size perhaps but not proportianatly to the size of a chimp. You haven't specified any criteria as to what constitutes a skyscraper.  As to whose intelligent here plus or minus I'll leave for others to decide.

I have a friend who has an extremely dry sense of humor. When he was in high school he often lost people who weren't in our circle of gamers. Now that he has moved away, gotten married and had kids, he uses emails to keep in touch. When he sends emails with jokes we are now the ones scratching our heads.  I have learned that familarity to an individual and being in the same room can often help with this type of humor.

I seriously never get any of your posts. Never. Your posts are always akward to me. Your formatting of a post is "whackadoodle". You have large font, small font, pictures which are off the screen and you seem to be one with a dry sense of humor.

Maybe it is my dyslexia, ADD and my picture thinking mind which is the problem.

PS - If you post stuff and I'm lost I get to say something. I'm seriously trying to figure stuff out and asking me to stay in the dark isn't fair.

I see you're detecting a problem, So have I, but can't put an ID on it. He's taking me as I'm attacking him which isn't the case. I'm trying to re-enforce or claify an item but I think he's taking me the wrong way. There's even something in his last post that is confusing to me. I'll go back in the postings and see if I can find what happened. You may very well be correct. It could be a result of not understanding a post. I have been trying to figure out why he's upset. Thank you for your help. 

This is where we do agree. The god idea has to go.