Do you needlessly chop living trees in your pseudo-survival play?

Status
Not open for further replies.
baldtaco-II said:
There's nothing wrong with a vandal scarring the ground so he can have a picnic is there. Of course not, why should there be? What's wrong with logging the tropical rainforests? They might well be the lungs of the planet with a rich biodiversity, but hey, get with the plot people. Stuff goes extinct, always has, and a few million years from now nobody will care.

The way some of you go on makes me wonder if you think oil tankers running aground and spilling their guts into the ocean is a really bad thing. What's the matter with you, do you really think we'll run out of oceans? Strewth, even if we nuke an entire continent and turn all the things there horrendously radioactive shit'll grown back eventually.

With time as my cudgel I can defeat any argument you've got. Really, I'm not a idiot and I can prove it, you just need to be vary very patient.
Click to expand...

The way you go on, I wonder what you eat.
"Hear the cry of the carrot! They have a consciousness!"

If I make a shelter, it equals nuking a continent...no exaggerations there. Nope, none whatsoever.
 
I suppose posting this now is as good of a time as any.

[video=youtube;tFUDEmMjC-c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC-c[/video]
 
run-forest-run_o_898229.jpg
 
stabman said:
The way you go on, I wonder what you eat.
"Hear the cry of the carrot! They have a consciousness!"

If I make a shelter, it equals nuking a continent...no exaggerations there. Nope, none whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I see it went a bit over your head. Fair enough, as far as parody goes it wasn't as obvious as it might have been.

It was not an attack on making shelters. Neither was it an attack on coppicing wood for bodgers to make stuff. It wasn't an attack on thatchers either for that matter.

What it was was an attack on a distinct line of argument that hinges on a single aspect “time”. Take for example this thing here:

”You will not have a permanent impact...the human conception of permanency is flawed. We are here for such short periods of time that we lack perspective; more than 90% of all life has been destroyed at once before...yet it all bounced back given time”

One would have to be wilfully myopic or a bit soft in the head to see that all hangs on “time” as the concept that apparently makes it ok. I simply applied that same principle to other things to show that in itself that is insufficient to stand up to scrutiny. If you can now see the parody inherent in what I wrote you really are forced to accept the reasoning that evoked my response was a crock of codswallop. If mine goes it takes the other with it. There's no way out of that.

Hope that clears it up for you.
 
baldtaco-II said:
I see it went a bit over your head. Fair enough, as far as parody goes it wasn't as obvious as it might have been.

It was not an attack on making shelters. Neither was it an attack on coppicing wood for bodgers to make stuff. It wasn't an attack on thatchers either for that matter.

What it was was an attack on a distinct line of argument that hinges on a single aspect “time”. Take for example this thing here:

”You will not have a permanent impact...the human conception of permanency is flawed. We are here for such short periods of time that we lack perspective; more than 90% of all life has been destroyed at once before...yet it all bounced back given time”

One would have to be wilfully myopic or a bit soft in the head to see that all hangs on “time” as the concept that apparently makes it ok. I simply applied that same principle to other things to show that in itself that is insufficient to stand up to scrutiny. If you can now see the parody inherent in what I wrote you really are forced to accept the reasoning that evoked my response was a crock of codswallop. If mine goes it takes the other with it. There's no way out of that.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Click to expand...

It was clear enough.
I just don't really think it was a great point.
I think the extremely long term perspective that you consider to lack merit is inherently more valid.
We as humans give ourselves far more importance than the facts of the universe support.

Existence is inherently meaningless and devoid of purpose...except for knives, naturally.

You are free to think me soft in the head (or whatever insults you may wish to substitute in the privacy of your own home), but I am quite sanguine about it all.
Especially as you are inherently meaningless in a nearly infinite universe as well. :)
 
powwwww
stabman said:
I think it's obvious now that no justification exists for the person who started this thread.
If you practice skills it's "pseudo-survival play", and you're not allowed to compare your activities to anyone else's.

It is a preaching rant thread rather than an honest request for discussion.
Click to expand...
 
stabman said:
It was clear enough.
I just don't really think it was a great point.
I think the extremely long term perspective that you consider to lack merit is inherently more valid.
We as humans give ourselves far more importance than the facts of the universe support.

Existence is inherently meaningless and devoid of purpose...except for knives, naturally.

You are free to think me soft in the head (or whatever insults you may wish to substitute in the privacy of your own home), but I am quite sanguine about it all.
Especially as you are inherently meaningless in a nearly infinite universe as well. :)
Click to expand...

That wasn't an insult aimed specifically at you. It was a general point that if one could not understand the reasoning either a] you don't have the ability to be able to, or b] you just plain don't want to see it [almost certainly because of an agenda you [whoever you may be] have. I struggled to find a [c].

But you are quite right in that the universe is meaningless, and you are only as important as you think you are. But we digress...
 
baldtaco-II said:
But you are quite right in that the universe is meaningless, and you are only as important as you think you are. But we digress...
Click to expand...

Given this then, trees are also only as important as you think they are. ;)

Or perhaps I'm only as important as trees think I am...philosophy of existence is weird.
 
Do whatever your conscience and uncommon sense dictates. My own ethical dilemma and or dichotomy of resource use became non issues for me, once I realised that the forest is also full of useful dead wood. Will I still use live trees ?, yes, but in a more responsible manner than in my past. I have no issue with using a tree for its bounty. But that resource exploitation is balanced with my desire for responsible use these days. Check this vid out at 4:20. Even this northern Indian screwed up until he clued in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K5Fn1UM5YM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top