Have you started to worry about your parents?

I'm starting to notice that I need to take care of my parents. I live near my parents so I continue to know their personal lives. My mom has been forgetful ever since I was a teenager, but now it's my dad too. And he has been making bad decisions lately. We realized that he was had by another con man for the second time. What's scary is that now they don't seem to care much. I tried to talk to my mother about my dad, but she just said that it was a pity and just moved on. The first time that my dad experienced a con man, he stayed on bed for the whole day and didn't work. Now he just pretends that the recent incident never happened. Another change that I noticed about them is that they've become very argumentive. Now they're at a point in which they don't talk to each other much. It's scary to watch them change this way.

Well now I am.

parents, cant live with them, wouldnt be living without them...

There comes a point when we get older that we have to stop letting our parents control our lives. We need to start trusting our own judgement for us and our parents. It sounds harsh, but kids and teenagers will understand when they get older.

You should be more respectful of wisdom and experience that one can only acquire with age.

Also having so many con men around you is a bad idea, or is that an American thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You should be more respectful of wisdom and experience that one can only acquire with age.

Also having so many con men around you is a bad idea, or is that an American thing?

---

Certainly, they could have acquired wisdom and experience. However, aging processes do take their toll on the mind.

I don't believe I've come across a con in person but there was one time when I was desperate and fell for one over the phone and gave away some bank information. Fortunately, I thought it about a little more afterwards and looked it up. Then I closed the bank account so fortunately, they didn't get any money out of me.

The closest I got to one was when I was on youtube and I got a message about winning an Ipad due to some random draw. I thought I could trust it, since you know, Youtube is owned by google and such. I went through a couple of questions rating the Youtube experience and confirmed some details, then suddenly they started asking if I wanted to subscribe to tons of junkmail, then I realised, I was being tricked and back out of it.

I am always worried about my mother. She is rich and alone. The house is basicly a fortress and art is hard to trade, but idiots will try anyway.

The only positive thing about being older is that you'll eventually die out and give way for younger and smarter generations.

I've been conned by a job ad once, nearly happened another couple of times but I had learned my lessons and looked the companies up online first. It's sad how they are taking advantage of vulnerable people needing work.

What did they get out of you? Money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I've been conned by a job ad once, nearly happened another couple of times but I had learned my lessons and looked the companies up online first. It's sad how they are taking advantage of vulnerable people needing work.

---

i got conned in china because of my friends once :P they were supposedly a shanghai tea festival, i already thought it was awkward but my friends wanted to go there and so i went with them since ur all in it together :P we had to pay alot for basically six small cups of tea which together wouldnt have filled 1 big one. when we went back to the hostel we read a paper on the sign board that said: DONT FALL FOR THE SHANGHAI TEA FESTIVAL CON!!!

god we felt so stupid hehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiDamascus

What did they get out of you? Money?

---

I had a friend who was conned out of working for free. They were looking for work and ended up on a work-scheme where you work for some one for your benefit for a while for experience. At the end of it, they attempted to convince them to stay on, promising lucrative job prospects of around £21,000 pa, which is rather good, isn't it? Anyway, some of the permanent staff went off on sick/pregnancy so they were running this persons business. They kept promising once they got contact a or b, they will end up getting paid, it kept getting pushed back and back.. the owner of the company was milking their own company out of money taking up anything which could be used as wages. It was like over half a year later when these permanent staff returned, they ended up completely sidelined from basically running this company to returning to the lowest of the low, working over 40 hours a week in that time.

Luckily they ended up finding a real job elsewhere, but yes.

Quote:

---

The only positive thing about being older is that you'll eventually die out and give way for younger and smarter generations.

---

Two things, dude...

1. How old are you?
2. "...younger and smarter" is debatable. Most young people I see these days don't know jack about the world around them because they are too busy mashing buttons on their smart phone:stare:

....and my days of worrying about my parents are over. Both have passed on. But I will say this...on the day my father died, he drove himself to church in the morning, went to the gym to work out in the afternoon, and cooked himself dinner in the evening before settling down to read a book. He died in his room getting ready for bed. He was 94 yrs. old......

I noticed that old people are vulnerable to con men, especially on the internet. My dad is looking for easy money after retirement. I'm really concerned. I want to help out my parents and living near them puts me in that position. Unfortunately, my dad is still a dominating figure. He won't follow my advice. And I don't have a long working career yet so I haven't earned enough money to support him. Gone is the sense of security on having a dad who was able to make the right decisions and support his whole family. I don't even have kids of my own nor am I married. My dad had 16 years of marriage and raising us before he started to support my grandparents. I just hope that my dad doesn't make further terrible decisions that I wouldn't be able to fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Two things, dude...

1. How old are you?
2. "...younger and smarter" is debatable. Most young people I see these days don't know jack about the world around them because they are too busy mashing buttons on their smart phone:stare:

---

1. 27
2. That's because you're too old to realize their new form of expression, and base your judgement on whether or not they act like you do. Every generation snce the beginning of time has been smarter than the last.

I've been worrying about my mother for years now. For a long time, she has made irrational and poor decisions, and her personality being the way it is things haven't gotten better. After my father died she took comfort in spirituality, and afterlife, etc. I think she is afraid of a lot of things. Sometimes I wish she was easier to talk to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The only positive thing about being older is that you'll eventually die out and give way for younger and smarter generations.

---

One of the positive things about being older is that you don't care at all about what young 'think-they-know-it-alls' think about you...

You look forward to annoy a few more of those smartphonists in the shop next Saturday afternoon by counting coins one by one while the line behind you is growing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

2. That's because you're too old to realize their new form of expression, and base your judgement on whether or not they act like you do. Every generation snce the beginning of time has been smarter than the last.

---

Do you have a good source to support such a ridiculous claim? How do you even measure smart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius Scholarius

Do you have a good source to support such a ridiculous claim? How do you even measure smart?

---

The commie is right, the Flynn-effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius Scholarius

Do you have a good source to support such a ridiculous claim? How do you even measure smart?

---

A few generations ago, we thought it was a splendid idea to gas millions of jews.

Now we don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A few generations ago, we thought it was a splendid idea to gas millions of jews.

Now we don't.

---

Rwandese genocide, anyone?

And it isn't like the majority of people worldwide supported the gassing of millions of Jews back in the 1940's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A few generations ago, we thought it was a splendid idea to gas millions of jews.

Now we don't.

---

No, now we import people who would gladly do it again

Horetore understands that we are the ladder that is to be kicked away. :yes:

Quote:

---

Do you have a good source to support such a ridiculous claim?

---

He doesn't. He equates aging with increasing uselessness and therefore he's just afraid of growing old.

Quote:

---

That's because you're too old to realize their new form of expression

---

I, at least, still retain communication skills even without my phone, or any other electronic device. My sister, who was a librarian at a major US university, used to conduct weekend seminars for students where they were sequestered for 3 days....without their cell phones. She was absolutely astounded at how helpless these "younger and smarter" kids were when faced with having to actually carry on conversations with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius Scholarius

Rwandese genocide, anyone?

And it isn't like the majority of people worldwide supported the gassing of millions of Jews back in the 1940's.

---

Yup, and now the new generation of Rwandans don't think that's a good idea any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

He doesn't. He equates aging with increasing uselessness and therefore he's just afraid of growing old.



I, at least, still retain communication skills even without my phone, or any other electronic device. My sister, who was a librarian at a major US university, used to conduct weekend seminars for students where they were sequestered for 3 days....without their cell phones. She was absolutely astounded at how helpless these "younger and smarter" kids were when faced with having to actually carry on conversations with each other.

---

Spending ten minutes in any classroom the class after lunch is more than enough proof that kids these days know how to communicate in person ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yup, and now the new generation of Rwandans don't think that's a good idea any more.

---

Couldn't they have learnt from other genocides?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius Scholarius

Couldn't they have learnt from other genocides?

---

Ha not at all it's just a matter of time before the tall trees get cut again, or the other way around. If I didn't like him I would shout at him.

HoreTore is just parroting a well-known capitalist and he managed to express the sentiment in such a way that it actually sounds offensive.
The other guy said it much better IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5aY6rMbOBo

Quote:

---

Every generation snce the beginning of time has been smarter than the last.

---

Next you'll be quoting the Gospel of John, right?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:G..._human_history

Hmmm. Some notables on that list that should have just done away with themselves to make room for the "younger and smarter":rolleyes:

da Vinci--Goethe--Dostoyevsky--Euler--Thomas Bay--Haydn..........all of whom did their best work after the age of 50:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

all of whom did their best work after the age of 50:inquisitive:

---

I suggest you reread my posts, as this has very little to do with generational progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Next you'll be quoting the Gospel of John, right?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:G..._human_history

Hmmm. Some notables on that list that should have just done away with themselves to make room for the "younger and smarter":rolleyes:

da Vinci--Goethe--Dostoyevsky--Euler--Thomas Bay--Haydn..........all of whom did their best work after the age of 50:inquisitive:

---

The commie is right, simple as that. Wiki-link, but not that bad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The commie is right, simple as that. Wiki-link, but not that bad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

---

Don't you think this has more to do with an increase of prosperity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius Scholarius

Don't you think this has more to do with an increase of prosperity?

---

Sure. But that doesn't mean our house-commie is wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demetrius Scholarius

Don't you think this has more to do with an increase of prosperity?

---

"on the shoulders of giants", and all that.

Each successive generation fixes the mistakes made by the previous generation. Proof? Human history shows that we have continually moved towards a more peaceful and just world. We replaced slavery with feudalism, feudalism with limited democracy, limited democracy by universal suffrage, etc.

As such, the most positive side of growing old is the knowledge that you'll soon get out of the way of the younger, smarter generation which will be free to fix the mistakes you made.

A few numbers on the IQ scale don't prove that our generation is all that smarter. Clearly intelligence does increase, but for a substantial increase, one that is noticable in more forms than just numbers you'll probably need to jump back a few generations.
The reason the previous generation is at a disadvantage, specially when talking about Internet conmen is simply because they grew up with different technology and they find it hard to grasp how to judge right or wrong when using a medium they aren't familiar with. For people of our generation who grew up in the 90s it is easier.
@Shaka_Khan
I can empathize with you. I remember my parents grew argumentative and irritable. I think that's something that happens to everyone around 55 or 60. And as far as not caring about being conned is concerned, at times it is simply better to accept a mishap that cannot be undone, rather than fret about it.

Quote:

---

I suggest you reread my posts, as this has very little to do with generational progress.

---

I did.

Quote:

---

Every generation snce the beginning of time has been smarter than the last.

---

Quote:

---

As such, the most positive side of growing old is the knowledge that you'll soon get out of the way of the younger, smarter generation which will be free to fix the mistakes you made.

---

So at what age do you step aside for the "younger, smarter" generation? 40? 50? 60?

Quote:

---

Each successive generation fixes the mistakes made by the previous generation. Proof? Human history shows that we have continually moved towards a more peaceful and just world.

---

Absolute horse-hockey. We are slowly killing ourselves and our planet with overpopulation, over-use of natural resources, and pollution, precisely because modern society is so disconnected from its nurturing planet, and with each other. I dare say that we'll be hitting the Matrix sometime in the next 4 or 5 generations.....

Quote:

---

The commie is right, simple as that. Wiki-link, but not that bad

---

Oh Puuleeeese:rolleyes: Repeat something often enough and hope that it's true?:rtwno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I did.

So at what age do you step aside for the "younger, smarter" generation? 40? 50? 60?

---

Death. Quite obvious, since we're talking about a generational change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Absolute horse-hockey. We are slowly killing ourselves and our planet with overpopulation, over-use of natural resources, and pollution.

---

The end of humanity has been announced countless times. Still, we've lived on. They're wrong this time as well.

Why? Because the new generation has been able to solve the problems the previous generation couldn't fix. They'll fix our current batch of problems too, we just need to die first.

My parents? Not yet, so far. But fairly recently (a year ago, I think) it first hit me that:

A) my parents won't be around forever
B) anywhere between now and death they (and by extension, me) will have to deal with all sorts of age-related problems

Of course this is something that I've "known" forever in the sense that I know it happens to everyone eventually. I'm not sure what triggered my epiphany (an extremely unsettling feeling); it might have been a medical procedure that my father had to undergo - even though it was a fairly mundane one and went well. My parents are in their early sixties, so hopefully it will be many years before significant problems happen.

Quote:

---

Because the new generation has been able to solve the problems the previous generation couldn't fix. They'll fix our current batch of problems too, we just need to die first.

---

Thanks, but no thanks. I have absolutely no faith that the current generation will be able to solve its lack of connectivity with its surroundings and with each other to be able to fix much of anything. Just hope that a real-life NEO comes along to bail our sorry asses out....

When it's my time to die, then it's my time. But I will live each and every moment, as well as I can, with as much enthusiasm, curiosity, passion, and intelligence at 60--70--80--(or for however long I get) as I did when I was 15, 20, or 25.

....and I have my own father as an example, to thank....which leads me to suspect you've had no such example from your own parents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Thanks, but no thanks. I have absolutely no faith that the current generation will be able to solve its lack of connectivity with its surroundings and with each other to be able to fix much of anything. Just hope that a real-life NEO comes along to bail our sorry asses out...

---

Feel free to join Socrates, but humanity will continue, as it always has. The problem is simply that we are unable to see the solutions. Fortunately, the next generations will. As they always have.

Your distrust in the youngsters is due to a simple inability on your part to understand how they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

When it's my time to die, then it's my time. But I will live each and every moment, as well as I can, with as much enthusiasm, curiosity, passion, and intelligence at 60--70--80--(or for however long I get) as I did when I was 15, 20, or 25.

....and I have my own father as an example, to thank....which leads me to suspect you've had no such example from your own parents...

---

This has very little(meaning "none at all") to do with anything I've said. A generational change means that the next generations 60-year olds will be smarter than the current 60-year olds, not that the 40-year olds today are smarter than the 60-year olds today.

Quote:

---

Your distrust in the youngsters is due to a simple inability on your part to understand how they work.

---

A touch arrogant for you to presume what I am able to perceive and what I am not? I have spent many, many hours working with "youngsters" in my line of work, and have been responsible for overseeing their work progress in all various projects I have been involved with. My perceptions are based on my own personal observations. And those perceptions are mixed, but in no way lead me to blindly believe that "progress" by succeeding generations is humanity's saving grace...

....and canned rhetoric on your part, doesn't make me feel any better about humankind's survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

A touch arrogant for you to presume what I am able to perceive and what I am not? I have spent many, many hours working with "youngsters" in my line of work, and have been responsible for overseeing their work progress in all various projects I have been involved with. My perceptions are based on my own personal observations. And those perceptions are mixed, but in no way lead me to blindly believe that "progress" by succeeding generations is humanity's saving grace...

....and canned rhetoric on your part, doesn't make me feel any better about humankind's survival.

---

Anecdotal, eh? The stats show clearly that the kids today booze less, do less crime, study harder, etc etc.

We'll meet up in the afterlife and see if humanity ended with us or not. I'll buy you a beer if the earth imploded a century or so after our deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"on the shoulders of giants", and all that.

Each successive generation fixes the mistakes made by the previous generation. Proof? Human history shows that we have continually moved towards a more peaceful and just world. We replaced slavery with feudalism, feudalism with limited democracy, limited democracy by universal suffrage, etc.

As such, the most positive side of growing old is the knowledge that you'll soon get out of the way of the younger, smarter generation which will be free to fix the mistakes you made.

---

Ffs Horetore you just made the whole world more stupid just by yourself. Slavery is WAY after the feudal perioid you are confused with fiefdom. And there is absolutily nothing that even remotily resembles democracy after the feudal period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ffs Horetore you just made the whole world more stupid just by yourself. Slavery is WAY after the feudal perioid you are confused with fiefdom. And there is absolutily nothing that even remotily resembles democracy after the feudal period.

---

Uhm, what?

Roman Empire - slavery
Medieval Europe - feudalism
Industrial Europe - limited democracy
Modern Europe - democracy

I fail to see where I got things wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, what?

Roman Empire - slavery
Medieval Europe - feudalism
Industrial Europe - limited democracy
Modern Europe - democracy

I fail to see where I got things wrong?

---

How about missing at least half a millenium of history. That's what you got wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How about missing at least half a millenium of history. That's what you got wrong.

---

How, where, when?

Are you suggesting that feudalism existed prior to the Romans, or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How, where, when?

Are you suggesting that feudalism existed prior to the Romans, or what?

---

I am suggesting that you should take some history lessons as your knowledge is kinda lacking, read up, then I'll oblige.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am suggesting that you should take some history lessons as your knowledge is kinda lacking, read up, then I'll oblige.

---

Well, I guess I have earned that reply from you.... ~;)

First of all, my summary was:

1. Brief(since I can't be arsed to do more)
2. Eurocentric(because nobody cares about blacks or asians, and in fact I disregarded large parts of europe as well)

I started with slavery, which we found in the cultures around the med in the classical period, ie. Romans, Greeks(semi, I know), and so on. Then I skipped through the dark ages, because I'm afraid of the dark, to medieval Europe with feudalism. Here different parts of Europe went different ways, with serfdom remaining in Russia to the 19th century, but I skipped the absolute monarchies of the Rennessaince anyway. Then I went into the Industrial age, with the french and yank revolutions giving us a limited form of democracy(disregarding the brits, who desperately try to convince everyone they're aliens), before ending up with the universal suffrage of the 20th century.

And a question for you, frags: If you add a "primitive/natural stage" to the start of my list, and replace "modern europe and democracy" with "future", whose historical analysis would that be? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And a question for you, frags: If you add a "primitive/natural stage" to the start of my list, and replace "modern europe and democracy" with "future", whose historical analysis would that be? ~;)

---

Adam Smith's. I'm serious, look up 'stadial theory'. The Marxist narrative really just an extension of a historiographic trend going back to the Scottish School and even the likes of Grotius and Pufendorf.

HoreTore's position is unverifiable. If the Greatest Generation/Baby Boomers had let the world die during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would not be here. His argument depends on the luck of having successive generations merely keep the bare minimum of staying alive for another generation to be born. But that says nothing about whether we are smarter than them, because anyone can throw generalizations of arbitrary generational lines.

Of course, as a good socialist Horetore also knows deep down that people are only suited for their particular historical context. A very great majority of us would utterly fail if obliged to deal with the peculiar problems of ages past - and it is precisely because those problems were solved that we can no longer deal with them. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

The true realization of Horetore's dream lies not in any notion of "generation progress"; it would be for us humans to design and tutor a whole new race of sentient Non-Men, and subsequently allow ourselves to be "phased out" as obsolete material, so that the Non-Men might raise their glorious new race and civilization upon the dust of our bones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Adam Smith's. I'm serious, look up 'stadial theory'. The Marxist narrative really just an extension of a historiographic trend going back to the Scottish School and even the likes of Grotius and Pufendorf.

---

'ol Smithy had hunter/gatherer->pastoralism->agriculture->commerce, didn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Each successive generation fixes the mistakes made by the previous generation. Proof? Human history shows that we have continually moved towards a more peaceful and just world. We replaced slavery with feudalism, feudalism with limited democracy, limited democracy by universal suffrage, etc.

---

So, the organised massacres that took place in the 20th century were an improvement over previous centuries? Why exactly? Because they were better organised and we never managed to kill as many people in such a short time before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Of course, as a good socialist Horetore also knows deep down that people are only suited for their particular historical context. A very great majority of us would utterly fail if obliged to deal with the peculiar problems of ages past - and it is precisely because those problems were solved that we can no longer deal with them. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

The true realization of Horetore's dream lies not in any notion of "generation progress"; it would be for us humans to design and tutor a whole new race of sentient Non-Men, and subsequently allow ourselves to be "phased out" as obsolete material, so that the Non-Men might raise their glorious new race and civilization upon the dust of our bones...

---

You and your worldview again... :inquisitive:
Why do you hate humanity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Inevitable as time travel in a Terminator movie though. :shrug:

---

Don't agree with the Monterminator!
Rather go buy a powerful gun and hope he isn't made of self-repairing liquid with a nuclear generator...somewhere... :robot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

So, the organised massacres that took place in the 20th century were an improvement over previous centuries? Why exactly? Because they were better organised and we never managed to kill as many people in such a short time before?

---

Progress is progress. :hide:
If you people do not agree with HoreTore's point that old people getting replaced by new people is a good thing, would you prefer:
a. Just one eternal generation of humans with no reproduction
b. Babies! But old people don't die

and why do you think these options would be preferable over death and replacement and what would be the implications?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, I guess I have earned that reply from you.... ~;)

First of all, my summary was:

1. Brief(since I can't be arsed to do more)
2. Eurocentric(because nobody cares about blacks or asians, and in fact I disregarded large parts of europe as well)

I started with slavery, which we found in the cultures around the med in the classical period, ie. Romans, Greeks(semi, I know), and so on. Then I skipped through the dark ages, because I'm afraid of the dark, to medieval Europe with feudalism. Here different parts of Europe went different ways, with serfdom remaining in Russia to the 19th century, but I skipped the absolute monarchies of the Rennessaince anyway. Then I went into the Industrial age, with the french and yank revolutions giving us a limited form of democracy(disregarding the brits, who desperately try to convince everyone they're aliens), before ending up with the universal suffrage of the 20th century.

And a question for you, frags: If you add a "primitive/natural stage" to the start of my list, and replace "modern europe and democracy" with "future", whose historical analysis would that be? ~;)

---

Ffs Horetore the age of colonism was WAY after the Feudal period. It's true that serfdom was still in Russia in the 19th century but it doesn't apply to Europe the Feudal period ended century's before that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ffs Horetore the age of colonism was WAY after the Feudal period. It's true that serfdom was still in Russia in the 19th century but it doesn't apply to Europe the Feudal period ended century's before that

---

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

---

Uhm, no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

---

A quick Google search about 'slavery historical' gives a result where 8 out of 11 links lead to pages about transatlantic slavery. You need to reassess that historical sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why do you hate humanity?

---

No, I do love it - but I must destroy that which I love. :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Progress is progress. :hide:
If you people do not agree with HoreTore's point that old people getting replaced by new people is a good thing, would you prefer:
a. Just one eternal generation of humans with no reproduction
b. Babies! But old people don't die

and why do you think these options would be preferable over death and replacement and what would be the implications?

---

But, that is not HoreTore's point. HT's point is that humanity constantly improves itself and that the new generation always does better than the previous one(s). Which isn't true. It goes with ups and downs which implies that sometimes, the new generation doesn't do better.

It also depends on the criteria you use. What is "better" for one person, isn't necessarily an improvement for another person. And no matter which criteria you use, it will always be arbitrary and subjective.

Which makes such statements without value whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

But, that is not HoreTore's point. HT's point is that humanity constantly improves itself and that the new generation always does better than the previous one(s). Which isn't true. It goes with ups and downs which implies that sometimes, the new generation doesn't do better.

It also depends on the criteria you use. What is "better" for one person, isn't necessarily an improvement for another person. And no matter which criteria you use, it will always be arbitrary and subjective.

Which makes such statements without value whatsoever.

---

Yes, it is his opinion, why are you so intolerant of other peoples' opinions?
It makes no sense to discuss it in an attempt to prove him wrong.
Accept his opinion and embrace the difference and variety.
Multiopinionism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

'ol Smithy had hunter/gatherer->pastoralism->agriculture->commerce, didn't he?

---

Yes, it's pretty similar isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, it is his opinion, why are you so intolerant of other peoples' opinions?
It makes no sense to discuss it in an attempt to prove him wrong.
Accept his opinion and embrace the difference and variety.
Multiopinionism.

---

Pure laziness of course.

Now that I have proven that his statement is worthless, I no longer have to type posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Pure laziness of course.

Now that I have proven that his statement is worthless, I no longer have to type posts.

---

His knowledge of historical terms is kinda lacking, but Horrie's statement isn't wrong, I know The Bell Curve is controversial but their research does support his claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

A quick Google search about 'slavery historical' gives a result where 8 out of 11 links lead to pages about transatlantic slavery. You need to reassess that historical sense.

---

I suggest you read some scientific works instead of relying on google searches.

You could start with the Communist Manifesto, the book I took the slavery/feudal/limited democracy/democracy-order from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I suggest you read some scientific works instead of relying on google searches.

You could start with the Communist Manifesto, the book I took the slavery/feudal/limited democracy/democracy-order from.

---

No surprise there, let me make it easier for you, citizenship, feudal, no democracy at all, nationalism, democracy. But now the EU I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No surprise there, let me make it easier for you, citizenship, feudal, no democracy at all, nationalism, democracy. But now the EU I guess.

---

That would be an alternative view, just as debatable as the one I(well, Marx did) proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That would be an alternative view, just as debatable as the one I(well, Marx did) proposed.

---

Marxism is inevitably of events, certainly not an alternative view. You would do better reading 'the road to Serfdom' by Hayek he does it much better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Marxism is inevitably of events, certainly not an alternative view. You would do better reading 'the road to Serfdom' by Hayek he does it much better

---

Yeah.... Let's not pretend Hayek is a less extreme view than Marx, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yeah.... Let's not pretend Hayek is a less extreme view than Marx, eh?

---

He is a Marxist historian really, he assumes the momentum of history. It's worth reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I suggest you read some scientific works instead of relying on google searches.

You could start with the Communist Manifesto, the book I took the slavery/feudal/limited democracy/democracy-order from.

---

A term as vague as historical sense does not merit deeper research. The Google search is proof enough that for the general populace slavery in historical sense refers to African slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, what?

Roman Empire - slavery
Medieval Europe - feudalism
Industrial Europe - limited democracy
Modern Europe - democracy

I fail to see where I got things wrong?

---

Here's where you got things wrong:

Serdom is for practical purposes a form of slavery. The word is derived from servii, a word which (if I recall correctly) the Romans used for both slaves (property) and actual serfs (men who were supposedly free, but tied to their "employer" by various legal barriers). Even they knew that in practice the two didn't differ much in practice.

Besides, even though the middle ages was not quite as bad as is sometimes thought, it certainly was a step down from the Roman empire during its golden age. To be fair; it could be argued that Europe was already slipping into the dark ages when the western Roman empire still existed in name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Serdom is for practical purposes a form of slavery. The word is derived from servii, a word which (if I recall correctly) the Romans used for both slaves (property) and actual serfs (men who were supposedly free, but tied to their "employer" by various legal barriers). Even they knew that in practice the two didn't differ much in practice.

---

I have few problems with equaling serfdom and slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I have few problems with equaling serfdom and slavery.

---

How about to them being different things in different periods, periods overlapse of course as Krazilec correctly points out.

Serfdom is not slavery, it's a different way of looking at classes, serfdom means that you are a free man, but in principle (and practice) still bound to a lord. It's a grey line between slavery (being a possesion) and being exploited in practice of course; the reality would probably be the same.

Yes, the world only gets better.

Exhibit A: The Arab world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I didn't touch on colonialism at all, because the world outside Europe doesn't matter.

"Slavery" in a historical sense refers to the time when the European states included a slave class, ie. the Romans, not the later african slave trade.

---

Your arguments are worse than Total Realism's.

You are attributing progress to individual rather than the collective effort of societies, which disseminate beliefs and ideas. Your impression that Europe is incapable of sliding into another Dark Age is naive. Things tend to go in cycles and fundamental characteristics of human societies tend not to change. You would probably know this first hand if you were older than 27.

I agree with the suggestion that you may be afraid of aging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Yes, the world only gets better.

Exhibit A: The Arab world.

---

Arab world should just not be a part of the eqation, it is what it is, a savage place with savage people. It's true for all europea nations though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

You are attributing progress to individual rather than the collective effort of societies

---

Uhm, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, what?

---

That's what I said when I read your posts.