Support NeoGAF

[lethial]

Members are better than juniors.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Right - new page, new start. Some people STILL don't seem to be getting this.

Simple enough question. What does GAF think is the single most historically significant, blatantly dishonest statement ever made by any human being, ever?

Evlar gets it:

I don't think most of what people are posting even meet the criteria of the OP...
To me that means it has to be, 1) something "historically significant", that is, impacted the course of world events in an obvious way; 2) Blatantly dishonest, meaning the person stating it KNEW it was false; 3) Made by any human being, meaning it would be nice if we had a specific person to attribute the lie to (rather than just, say, "the Romans" or "American history books" or whatever).

So, let's try again.

 

[Opiate]

On point, I'd argue it's likely something health related.

A recent example would be vaccine denial; it is not unreasonable to suggest that Andrew Wakefield is responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide already, and likely will be responsible for thousands more before his name is forgotten and no longer dissimenated.

This is unlikely to be the biggest lie in the world; it is only a recent example. So many lies have come and gone, only to be forgotten, that any real measure is impossible. But I strongly suspect the most terrible hoaxster is one whose lies proved fatal to tens of thousands or even millions of people, and the "easiest" way to accomplish that feat is to lie to people about their health.

Edit: another fantastic example would be the relentless attempt by the tobacco industry to convince people that cigarettes were not harmful, and were in fact healthy; people like Ayn Rand continued for some time to argue that critics of tobacco were communists out to destroy America and free enterprise.

 

[Nuttycam]

"Everything is going to be ok"

 

[meadowrag]

It extends well beyond that. Let's imagine I'm a heroine addict, to use an extreme example.

My children (who do not exist in real life) will almost certainly be neglected. I don't think many would argue that a heroine addict will make an upstanding father. This may not rise to the level of explicit, criminal neglect (e.g. I leave them wallowing in their own filth), but it likely does mean I'm not there when I should be, I do not support them emotionally or financially, and so forth. That is ethically wrong.

I am also likely to be a poor employee, if I have a job at all. My coworkers will have to work harder than they otherwise would if I would just get off my butt and work hard for 8 hours a day. While coworkers will cover some of my shortfall, it's unlikely they'll cover all of it -- that is, even with coworker's backing up my incompetence, the store is still less run than it would be if I were a responsible coworker. As a consequence, customers get less quality of service overall than they would if I were not a heroine addict. Again, this is ethically wrong.

Obviously, as we go further down this chain, the link becomes more tenuous: I do not typically spend much time worrying, for example, that the check out guy at Target is less industrious than he could be. It's not a big deal, but that doesn't mean it's completely and totally irrelevant, either. Have you ever had a particularly helpful, hardworking person help you at a fast food restaraunt? It's refreshing, isn't it?

The point I'm making here is straightforward: you have responsibilities to other people whether you like it or not. You are responsible for your daughters and your sons, and responsible to your bosses and your coworkers. Further, you owe a great debt to the people who came before us; I am currently typing on a computer using Wireless access, talking to people all over the globe on an internet forum, all because of inventions made possible by people who came before me. It seems unfair for them to work so hard, and accomplish so much, just so that I could sit on my butt, enjoy the fruits of their labor, and do nothing for myself.

Individuals are not islands. We owe society far more than most people care to admit, likely because the full weight of our responsibilities can feel almost crushing if we dwell on it.

I'd say none of the above is indicative of responsible drug use. No one would contend the notion that becoming a heroin addict creates victims and puts undue strain on others. But then again no one is indicating "Heroin addicts are upstanding, responsible people" as one of the biggest lies ever told.

I realize I'm focusing more on your example rather than the real substance of your argument, and that is because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the "no one lives in a vacuum therefor drug use creates victims" stance. It's impossible to account for causality in total. And every drug causality that ostensibly DOES create a victim, is the type of drug use that no sane person would exemplify or have to expose as a lie.

 

[Opiate]

Yep, I'm going with Tobacco denial for now, until someone can come up with an even greater material example of a lie affecting the health of millions of people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs

That, right there. Again, I couch this choice in the understanding that many huge lies have been deliberately forgotten through the course of time.

 

[methane47]

insomuch as it gets the name of some people right, sure. But that's like saying my fictional book contains some truth because my main character is named George W. Bush, even though it's about him flying in UFOs and living on the moon.

What about some events in the bible.

Like Jewish slaves escaping from egypt?
or when Babylon destroys Jerusalem and the Temple?
or when Cyrus the Great conquers Babylon?
or when The Romans take over land of Israel?
or ...
or ....

All lies? Besides the Names of the people involved?

Some people LOVE to say Bible is ALL lies when in truth.. as Far as we know it and being widely accepted by many historians and scholars. The Bible has a lot of Historical truths in it.

 

[Opiate]

I'd say none of the above is indicative of responsible drug use. No one would contend the notion that becoming a heroin addict creates victims and puts undue strain on others. But then again no one is indicating "Heroin addicts are upstanding, responsible people" as one of the biggest lies ever told.

I realize I'm focusing more on your example rather than the real substance of your argument, and that is because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the "no one lives in a vacuum therefor drug use creates victims" stance. It's impossible to account for causality in total. And every drug causality that ostensibly DOES create a victim, is the type of drug use that no sane person would exemplify or have to expose as a lie.

I have no interest whatsoever in a discussion of drug legalization, or even in a discussion of the ethics of drug use more generally. I specifically chose an extreme example because my real point was to show how complex and deep a human's responsibilities are, and how a "victimless crime" actually can have many victims.

If you'd like, replace "heroine addict" with "gaming addict," or "person who just sits and watches tv all day, without ever paying attention to his kids. Ever." It's irrelevant to me. Heroine addicts are simply one example of many, and again, drug use itself was simply incidental to my real point.

 

[manueldelalas]

http://i.imgur.com/Phgxn.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but human migration across continents doesn't prove anything. My Grandfather was a sedentary that turned nomad and the got sedentary again because he migrated from a city to another.

In human history we have seen many sedentary and nomad people, but we've never seen a case of nomads turning into sedentaries willingly.

When America was discovered, there were nomads and sedentaries, and most of the nomad population have either been extermined (USA/Canada natives) or forced to turn sedentary, but the transition has not occurred freely. The sedentary population of America have remained sedentary.

 

[meadowrag]

I have no interest whatsoever in a discussion of drug legalization. I specifically chose an extreme example because my real point was to show how complex and deep a human's responsibilities are, and how a "victimless crime" actually can have many victims.

I only meant to point out that it's an irrelevant distinction. In the same way I could go to the supermarket later, on my way encounter a 4 way stop before someone else, and get to go first while the other person has to wait, which could cause a fatal accident when that person gets on the highway that other wise would not have occurred if it weren't for our chance meeting.

There's no telling what our actions may or may not cause in the grand scheme of things precisely because of the complexity that you mention. The term "victimless crime" seems to me to be reserved for situations where "victimless-ness" is immediately apparent.

 

[magicstop]

What about some events in the bible.

Like Jewish slaves escaping from egypt?
or when Babylon destroys Jerusalem and the Temple?
or when Cyrus the Great conquers Babylon?
or when The Romans take over land of Israel?
or ...
or ....

All lies? Besides the Names of the people involved?

Some people LOVE to say Bible is ALL lies when in truth.. as Far as we know it and being widely accepted by many historians and scholars. The Bible has a lot of Historical truths in it.

That's irrelevant when the crux of the bible, i.e. god, jesus, miracles, rising from the dead, story of creation, story of apocalypse, morality based on supernatural beings and events, etc. - is all false, most of it demonstratively so.

Yep, I'm going with Tobacco denial for now, until someone can come up with an even greater material example of a lie affecting the health of millions of people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs

That, right there. Again, I couch this choice in the understanding that many huge lies have been deliberately forgotten through the course of time.

This is a strong contender. I think we've probably had politicians who have killed more people while deliberately lying about agendas, values, etc., but your criteria seems a good one. To determine the value of a lie (on a "bad" scale), using associated deaths seems pretty sound.

 

[Amir0x]

What about some events in the bible.

Like Jewish slaves escaping from egypt?
or when Babylon destroys Jerusalem and the Temple?
or when Cyrus the Great conquers Babylon?
or when The Romans take over land of Israel?
or ...
or ....

All lies? Besides the Names of the people involved?

600,000 Jewish Slaves escaping from Egypt is almost certainly false. There is no evidence for the Biblical Exodus in any way, shape or form. And, in fact, there is plenty of evidence which damns the story.

Most of the rest of stories are similar. Some we have evidence of happening in some form (like the Bablyonian siege on Jerusalem) but the timeline is massively off and the way the Bible says it happened is almost certainly not true. So the point retains its similar refrain: does something have 'truth' for merely saying some event happened, but getting everything about said event wrong?

I guess if you stretch the definition hard enough, then even the Bible has SOME truth on it.

 

[iapetus]

Seriously, can we quit it with the bible stuff? It's clearly not what was intended by the original post, and I don't want religion/anti-religion shitting up yet another thread.

 

[Jarmel]

Seriously, can we quit it with the bible stuff? It's clearly not what was intended by the original post, and I don't want religion/anti-religion shitting up yet another thread.

Faith of all kinds screws up all threads.

 

[magicstop]

I'm sorry, but human migration across continents doesn't prove anything. My Grandfather was a sedentary that turned nomad and the got sedentary again because he migrated from a city to another.

In human history we have seen many sedentary and nomad people, but we've never seen a case of nomads turning into sedentaries willingly.

When America was discovered, there were nomads and sedentaries, and most of the nomad population have either been extermined (USA/Canada natives) or forced to turn sedentary, but the transition has not occurred freely. The sedentary population of America have remained sedentary.

There is so much wrong in this post, from the "facts" you are posting, to the terminology you are using, but I'll put a narrow focus on it and let you know this bolded statement, which seems to be the crux of your argument, is simply wrong.
The large majority of the earth's human population absolutely, voluntarily stopped being nomadic hunter gatherers when they figured agriculture out. From that point on, it was a better utilization of energy to stay in one place and plant foods than it was to travel after constantly moving food sources. Therefore most of the human population did. Look up the agricultural revolution if you need to.
And we aren't talking about modern humans. Nor am I saying every last human population did the same thing.

 

[methane47]

I guess if you stretch the definition hard enough, then even the Bible has SOME truth on it.

Which is completely different than the previous suppositions that the bible has no truth and simply a collection of lies Right?

Be more specific. That's all. You look silly/stubborn/close-minded when you suggest the entirety is false.

That's irrelevant when the crux of the bible, i.e. god, jesus, miracles, rising from the dead, story of creation, story of apocalypse, morality based on supernatural beings and events, etc. - is all false, most of it demonstratively so.

So the things you claim as demonstratively false are all things that are unprovable?

 

[Opiate]

I only meant to point out that it's an irrelevant distinction. In the same way I could go to the supermarket later, on my way encounter a 4 way stop before someone else, and get to go first while the other person has to wait, which could cause a fatal accident when that person gets on the highway that other wise would not have occurred if it weren't for our chance meeting.

It could, yes.

There's no telling what our actions may or may not cause in the grand scheme of things precisely because of the complexity that you mention. The term "victimless crime" seems to me to be reserved for situations where "victimless-ness" is immediately apparent.

No, this is not correct. We can never know with absolute certainty what the effect of our actions will be, but that does not suggest that therefore we can reach no conclusions whatsoever.

For example, there may exist, somewhere in the world, a child who would develop best if we really did just neglect him, and leave him to his own devices, allowing him to wallow in his own filth at a young age. Many great writers have come out of bad households, for example.

However, statistically and empirically, this is not likely to the case. It is far more likely that neglecting a child will cause bad outcomes for that child in later life than good ones. We do not say child neglect is ethically wrong because we know absolutely that the effect of this neglect will be negative; we say it is ethically wrong because it is very likely to be negative.

By contrast, going down the wrong lane in a supermarket isle is not statistically likely to cause negative consequences for another individual. It could, but it is not likely.

Let's use simple math here, just for clarity's sake. Let's say, if I neglect my child, that child has a 60% chance of poor standards of living later in life. Let's say, if I go down isle 4 in the supermarket, there is a .0005% chance that the other guy in the supermarket has a car crash.

It is reasonable to hold me accountable for the former, because a reasonable person should realize that neglecting a child has a strong chance of negatively affecting that child. It is not reasonable to hold me accountable for the latter, because a reasonable person would not conclude that his choices would have negative effects on the other customer.

 

[A.Romero]

Smoking is good for your health...

 

[JGS]

I've been sitting here trying to think of why this is a lie.

I concluded that you either meant that drug use is inherently irresponsible, or that the acquisition of currently illegal drugs leads to creating a situation that victimizes others by empowering drug lords.

Am I close, or is it something else?

Drug use to the point of using it for it's popular recreational purpose (Most are not dealing with cancer side effects or ther legitimate medical reasons) is irresponsible. If the only thing drugs did was harm the individual, then it would still be a lie.

Drugs (And yes, I'm including alcohol abuse) do harm to more than the individual unless they are loners. If drugs costs money, there will always be crime associated with them whether legalized or not. There will always be harmful side effects (physical & mental. I haven't met too many crack babies that adjusted well to their parents being addicts) to them whether legal or not. These effects will usually cause harm to family and/or society at large whether legal or not.

Again, if drug users simply stayed in the house and had no lives outside of drug use (Or online interaction) there would be little issue beyond personal responsibility. However, drug users can be as social as anyone else.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with your right to do it. I really don't care. However, it's a lie to say it's harmless.

 

[manueldelalas]

There is so much wrong in this post, from the "facts" you are posting, to the terminology you are using, but I'll put a narrow focus on it and let you know this bolded statement, which seems to be the crux of your argument, is simply wrong.
The large majority of the earth's human population absolutely, voluntarily stopped being nomadic hunter gatherers when they figured agriculture out. From that point on, it was a better utilization of energy to stay in one place and plant foods than it was to travel after constantly moving food sources. Therefore most of the human population did. Look up the agricultural revolution if you need to.
And we aren't talking about modern humans. Nor am I saying every last human population did the same thing.

I'm sorry for posting known facts.

I mean your whole argument is "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and "you must be wrong because, you know, something something".

You are posting a theory that you think makes sense; but you have been unable to put a single fact here. Do I think sedentarism is better? Hell yes!, but hey! nomads exist in this age; gypsies in Europe are as annoying now as they were 500 or a 1000 years ago, and no, they haven't changed to sedentarism willingly; in many cases they have been forced to do so, because sedentary people grow like a virus over the Earth, and people that think different bothers them, while nomad population stays about the same.

Again, sedentary population grows much faster than nomad population, that is obvious, and certainly explains why sedentary people are much more than nomads.

Nomads have stayed nomads in history, that is known fact.
Sedentaries have stayed sedentary, that is known fact.

Nomads turning into sedentary, now that is unknown, and is just baseless conjecture.

 

[rdrr gnr]

death isn't final.

Brilliant.

 

[Akuun]

"I'm sorry."
Some people really mean it, but sometimes it is such a lie that it is appallingly insulting to even hear it.

 

[WanderingWind]

Nomads turning into sedentary, now that is unknown, and is just baseless conjecture.

The entire Neolithic period proves you factually wrong. As does more recent nomadic expansions like the American expansion into the West, the tribal integration into cities across Africa and gads upon gads of Asian history.

You've clearly got to back up your claims that all of what we know about history and how the world settled due to agricultural discoveries/advantages is wrong. Because just asserting it twice over doesn't work. At all.

One link of millions.
http://history-world.org/neolithic.htm

 

[Dwight Schrute]

God.


lol.

 

[meadowrag]

No, this is not correct. We can never know with absolute certainty what the effect of our actions will be, but that does not suggest that therefore we can reach no conclusions whatsoever.

For example, there may exist, somewhere in the world, a child who would develop best if we really did just neglect him, and leave him to his own devices, allowing him to wallow in his own filth at a young age. Many great writers have come out of bad households, for example.

However, statistically and empirically, this is not likely to the case. It is far more likely that neglecting a child will cause bad outcomes for that child in later life than good ones. We do not say child neglect is ethically wrong because we know absolutely that the effect of this neglect will be negative; we say it is ethically wrong because it is very likely to be negative.

By contrast, going down the wrong lane in a supermarket isle is not statistically likely to cause negative consequences for another individual. It could, but it is not likely.

Let's use simple math here, just for clarity's sake. Let's say, if I neglect my child, that child has a 60% chance of poor standards of living later in life. Let's say, if I go down isle 4 in the supermarket, there is a .0005% chance that the other guy in the supermarket has a car crash.

It is reasonable to hold me accountable for the former, because a reasonable person should realize that neglecting a child has a strong chance of negatively affecting that child. It is not reasonable to hold me accountable for the latter, because a reasonable person would not conclude that his choices would have negative effects on the other customer.

I agree with everyone you wrote, but I never suggested that we can reach no conclusions. I merely stated that a victimless crime is a term for an apparent situation.

From your original post, I was addressing the idea that your .0005% chance supermarket example illustrates.

Drug use to the point of using it for it's popular recreational purpose (Most are not dealing with cancer side effects or ther legitimate medical reasons) is irresponsible. If the only thing drugs did was harm the individual, then it would still be a lie.

Drugs (And yes, I'm including alcohol abuse) do harm to more than the individual unless they are loners. If drugs costs money, there will always be crime associated with them whether legalized or not. There will always be harmful side effects (physical & mental. I haven't met too many crack babies that adjusted well to their parents being addicts) to them whether legal or not. These effects will usually cause harm to family and/or society at large whether legal or not.

Again, if drug users simply stayed in the house and had no lives outside of drug use (Or online interaction) there would be little issue beyond personal responsibility. However, drug users can be as social as anyone else.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with your right to do it. I really don't care. However, it's a lie to say it's harmless.

The idea isn't that it is not harmless, it was that it isn't a victimless crime.

If Bob wants to sit in his dorm and get high with his pals on Saturday night, who is the victim?

You seem to be saying that socially active drug users are the problem. I don't see why social activity necessarily creates victims just because the participant is high or whatnot. It's like saying a guy who is buzzed walking down the street is creating negative effects upon society, simply because he is buzzed and walking down the street.

Sure, drug use affords people more opportunities to act like irresponsible drug users, but that is almost like begging the question isn't it?
The time when victims are created is when drug users act irresponsibly (such as driving while intoxicated), not merely the act of using a drug.

God.


lol.

So, just so we are clear, you are asserting that the concept of God is something that is not only demonstrably false, but also that it is a falsehood that is consciously perpetrated?

 

[Kentpaul]

God.


lol.

So true, People devoting there life to that lie is pretty sad to see.

I do enjoy the Greek mythological story's that have come up from these lies, so its not all sad.

 

[BananaBomb]

I'll go with Octavian's propaganda war against Mark Anthony. Unprecedented type of warfare.

 

[unomas]

"Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

This, it was all bullshit just to invade the country, and how many innocent Iraqi lives have been lost?

 

[Hari Seldon]

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. (and variants)

 

[Mr. B Natural]

I'm sorry but the biggest lies in the world are religious in some way. Nothing else comes close. We're talking billions of people over thousands of years with substantial influence in history and culture and everything, kinda makes pop culture and conspiracy theories seem small fry... because they are.

I understand it's a sensitive subject, but that kinda proves my point.

 

[JGS]

600,000 Jewish Slaves escaping from Egypt is almost certainly false. There is no evidence for the Biblical Exodus in any way, shape or form. And, in fact, there is plenty of evidence which damns the story.

Most of the rest of stories are similar. Some we have evidence of happening in some form (like the Bablyonian siege on Jerusalem) but the timeline is massively off and the way the Bible says it happened is almost certainly not true. So the point retains its similar refrain: does something have 'truth' for merely saying some event happened, but getting everything about said event wrong?

I guess if you stretch the definition hard enough, then even the Bible has SOME truth on it.

no evidence = false? If only that could work for things that you believe.

You mentioned sources. What sources are there that damns the Exodus story, (Barring miracles of course since they are automatically lies)?
Did the Jews just fall from the sky like manna?
Did they leave Canaan and make up the slave story since everyone knows that being slaves for centuries is a mark of pride (I know as a black person that's what I highlight!)?
Are the sources Egyptian in origin? If so, why should they be trusted?
Did slaves not exists until God created them?

 

[manueldelalas]

The entire Neolithic period proves you factually wrong. As does more recent nomadic expansions like the American expansion into the West, the tribal integration into cities across Africa and gads upon gads of Asian history.

You've clearly got to back up your claims that all of what we know about history and how the world settled due to agricultural discoveries/advantages is wrong. Because just asserting it twice over doesn't work. At all.

One link of millions.
http://history-world.org/neolithic.htm

Exactly that's what I'm talking about, the whole article, based in not a single fact, it's beautiful, awesome! Exactly as you said, one link of millions; that's why it is such a big lie; that's the whole point.

Also, hunting doesn't equal nomads, sedentary people hunt animals in this age.

The painting in that article was made by people that lived IN a cave, they were not nomads, they stayed there, they made their lives there, some of that art dates from 40,000 years ago; that proves you that there was sedentary men 40,000 years ago; it's awesome (but "historians" somehow managed to deduct from that paintings that cavemen abused cavewomen).

Why do you think the entire USA and Canadian native population don't exist anymore? Because they were nomads and they didn't want to turn sedentary. You think that the English and French were significantly more brutal than the Spanish and Portuguese, and that's why you can see native americans in other countries but not in those? That's a stupid conjecture.

Or the other stupid conjecture, that native people from the USA were more barbaric or terrible or liked independence more than other natives in the continent. That's is also stupid, and facts show that there were more fierce-some natives in other parts that survived to this day, and that natives from the USA were not particularly fierce at all.

 

[WanderingWind]

Exactly that's what I'm talking about, the whole article, based in not a single fact, it's beautiful, awesome! Exactly as you said, one link of millions; that's why it is such a big lie; that's the whole point.

Also, hunting doesn't equal nomads, sedentary people hunt animals in this age.

The painting in that article was made by people that lived IN a cave, they were not nomads, they stayed there, they made their lives there, some of that art dates from 40,000 years ago; that proves you that there was sedentary men 40,000 years ago; it's awesome (but "historians" somehow managed to deduct from that paintings that cavemen abused cavewomen).

Why do you think the entire USA and Canadian native population don't exist anymore? Because they were nomads and they didn't want to turn sedentary. You think that the English and French were significantly more brutal than the Spanish and Portuguese, and that's why you can see native americans in other countries but not in those? That's a stupid conjecture.

Or the other stupid conjecture, that native people from the USA were more barbaric or terrible or liked independence more than other natives in the continent. That's is also stupid, and facts show that there were more fierce-some natives in other parts that survived to this day, and that natives from the USA were not particularly fierce at all.

Ah. Okay, my mistake for trying to discuss something with somebody who is clearly insane. Carry on.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I'm sorry but the biggest lies in the world are religious in some way. Nothing else comes close. We're talking billions of people over thousands of years with substantial influence in history and culture and everything, kinda makes pop culture and conspiracy theories seem small fry... because they are.

I understand it's a sensitive subject, but that kinda proves my point.

I do not consider religion a lie. Religion is a survival mechanism. We live in 1st world problems-age, not an age where some lord would take all your shit and rape your wife, or some vikings would roll up and kill everyone. Living in those harsh times without science or education the brain needed some type of mental coping mechanism.

 

[Wimps]

The biggest lie in history is the one we don't know about and never will.

You tell em.

OT: That the Jews are responsible for all the shit that happened to Germany prior to WWII.

 

[manueldelalas]

Ah. Okay, my mistake for trying to discuss something with somebody who is clearly insane. Carry on.

When you have no argument, insult! awesome.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

manuel, you've been throwing around a lot of wild theories without any supporting evidence. One might begin to believe that you were arguing in bad faith.

 

[WanderingWind]

When you have no argument, insult! awesome.

And when all you have is conspiracy theories, call every source a lie! Awesome!

 

[manueldelalas]

manuel, you've been throwing around a lot of wild theories without any supporting evidence. One might begin to believe that you were arguing in bad faith.

I've thrown only facts. It's just that people don't like to read.

I never said I disagreed with the nomad to sedentary transformation, I just said that there is not a single shred of evidence, there's only a theory.

As I have pointed, sedentary men have existed for more than 40,000 years, and the only nomad to sedentary transformation we've witnessed (even though we have seen A FUCKING LOT of nomad people in known history) is the jew one.

And speaking of jews, it is very interesting, because even though they changed from nomad to sedentary (like all people, as the theory says), they have been at war or conflict for at least 4,000 years with the native sedentary people. Anyone who thinks this conflict is recent is absolutely mad or completely ignorant.

And when all you have is conspiracy theories, call every source a lie! Awesome!

I didn't call it a lie, I called it baseless conjecture.

 

[Maddness]

"i read the OP"

 

[WanderingWind]

I didn't call it a lie, I called it baseless conjecture.

...

Exactly that's what I'm talking about, the whole article, based in not a single fact, it's beautiful, awesome! Exactly as you said, one link of millions; that's why it is such a big lie; that's the whole point.

Exactly as you said, one link of millions; that's why it is such a big lie; that's the whole point.

that's why it is such a big lie; that's the whole point.

lie

 

[manueldelalas]

...

It's a big lie because it is written as a fact when it is all a theory and pure conjecture; that's the lie, the nomad to sedentary transition is conjecture (and baseless).

I swear one of this days I will learn proper english so I can write the ideas and people understood them...

 

[VeryGooster]

"Everything about 'Lost' is planned out."

 

[Shalashaska161]

"I love you"

 

[manueldelalas]

"Everything about 'Lost' is planned out."

Well, it was!, but you know... money =P

 

[KtSlime]

manueldelalas: It might behoove you to go sign up for an introductory anthropology class at your local community college, cause you seem way off base.

 

[VeryGooster]

Well, it was!, but you know... money =P

I just wanted to get a dig in there.

 

[Ushojax]

Spoiler

only joking

 

[JGS]

The idea isn't that it is not harmless, it was that it isn't a victimless crime.

If Bob wants to sit in his dorm and get high with his pals on Saturday night, who is the victim?

You seem to be saying that socially active drug users are the problem. I don't see why social activity necessarily creates victims just because the participant is high or whatnot. It's like saying a guy who is buzzed walking down the street is creating negative effects upon society, simply because he is buzzed and walking down the street.

Sure, drug use affords people more opportunities to act like irresponsible drug users, but that is almost like begging the question isn't it?
The time when victims are created is when drug users act irresponsibly (such as driving while intoxicated), not merely the act of using a drug.

If the drugs harm more than you, then there are victims. So if you want to seperate them, that's fine. I'll say that drugs are harmful and create victims unless the drug user is a loner, then they're just harmful.

The buzz isn't what's necessarily damaging and I can't figure out how you got that unless you think the only danger drugs present is the buzz. Social interaction and drug use can be anything- crashing while high/drunk, spending the rent to fuel a drug habit, starting a bar fight, creating an atmosphere where drug use is encouraged, or withdrawing from loved ones.

I do disgaree in the thought that drug use does not go hand in hand with being irresponsible. Not having control of your faculties is an irresponsible state of mind. Drugs, legal or not, rarely put you in a state that makes you improved from the experience and the best drugs distort reality. That's great for escape, sucky for those around you that don't or are fooled into thinking that's the better state to be in.

 

[nateeasy]

"i read the OP"

lol