Lovely Day Media wrote:
If anything does the trick that we can contol, it'll be greed and/or thirst for power. Beyond our control, it could be almost anything.

As the population charges forward, so does the number homicidal maniacs, many of whom can leverage vast amounts of power over others.

For the purposes of this thread, let's make this guy the poster boy du jour:

salvatori. wrote:
So, I get the fact that SB is closed. But let me get this straight...

The OP can post the question, but I am only allowed to answer if I claim a reason that isn't 'controversial'?

Guess that means I'm not allowed to contribute...
O_o

So long as you aren't trolling and you offer a reasonable rational possibility - your contribution should be ok

KelliOnLineGlamourNude  wrote:
Mankind

Yup.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Hitler - 10 million

I don't know in what way/reference he was 10 million....seems a little low.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:

Yup.

Nice Kevin. I love this.

CNP Photography wrote:
Evolution. After a few million years we'll have evolved into a whole new species.

Let's first try to make it through the next thousand years.

Cherrystone wrote:
I don't know in what way/reference he was 10 million....seems a little low.

What do you think is the correct number? Estimates vary pretty widely. I took a middle number that represented exterminations of innocent civilians rather than casualties of war.

I can't find solid numbers. I've been to Auschwitz, and it's a small compound. I've been to Birkenau, and it was not yet in factory scale service before those guys were defeated. Those are two of the most famous extermination camps.

Does 18 million sound better? That's anther common estimate. I think Stalin and Mao beat him by large margins.

Garry k wrote:
So long as you aren't trolling and you offer a reasonable rational possibility - your contribution should be ok

Well, that wouldn't actually be your decision simply because you started the thread.

God is the only one that has the ability to completely wipe out all life on the planet, and He will do so at the end of time. And opposed to what a lot of Christians say, we don't know when that will be - and nothing we are doing at the present time has the power to enact such a scenario, no matter what the fearmongers say.

And so I don't come off as too preachy, I just watched "This is the End" and laughed my ass off the entire time...

salvatori. wrote:
And so I don't come off as too preachy, I just watched "This is the End" and laughed my ass off the entire time...

I have that movie and yet to watch it. Is it worth the time, and not because you might be a fan of the actors?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

I have that movie and yet to watch it. Is it worth the time, and not because you might be a fan of the actors?

Well, there are far worse ways to spend two hours of your life. It's pretty funny, though a bit self-indulgent (the actors play themselves, instead of characters).

Also, look for MM model Nettie Harris as an extra in the 'Take your panties off' party scene (standing next to Rihanna).

Click Hamilton wrote:

What do you think is the correct number? Estimates vary pretty widely. I took a middle number that represented exterminations of innocent civilians rather than casualties of war.

I can't find solid numbers. I've been to Auschwitz, and it's a small compound. I've been to Birkenau, and it was not yet in factory scale service before those guys were defeated. Those are two of the most famous extermination camps.

Does 18 million sound better? That's anther common estimate. I think Stalin and Mao beat him by large margins.

I dunno.....depends on what someone might wish to include, directs, indirects, etc etc.

Military numbers on both sides? Civilians on both sides? Direct casualties as a result of Shoah?

Yeah....Stalin was certainly no slouch at death.

salvatori. wrote:

God is the only one that has the ability to completely wipe out all life on the planet

You're kidding, right?

I think man jumped on that bandwagon 55+ years ago.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
I'm going with Technology........ We are on the brink of advanced AI. 

This will be our downfall if we don't build our smart machines with human centric safeguards.

My money is on super intelligent computers.  One has already passed the Turing Test.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-first-co … 1587780232

Cherrystone wrote:

You're kidding, right?

I think man jumped on that bandwagon 55+ years ago.

Well, here's the deal. If I try to push my point of view, it will be too controversial for the thread. However, everyone can talk of man, machine, etc., destroying humanity and it's just fine.

My thoughts are these: Humanity certainly has the technical ability to kill en masse, however, I don't think the destruction would get far enough to wipe out the entire species (too many rich people out there - they would stop it right after all us poor folks were gone). Which of course, starts the social stratification all over again, but that's another thread...

And I know nuclear, biological, or another type of war won't discriminate, but, IMHO, there will be a time when the leaders yell 'enough!' and the bombs will stop. The lucky survivors will be in underground bunkers, so humanity will live on in a compromised, bumble-fucked way.

*I understand that my argument can certainly be nit-picked apart, but I'm just trying to make the simple point that I don't think we have the ability to completely destroy ourselves, the same way no one has the ability to completely destroy the planet - just the fragile outer skin, which will regenerate afterwards.

Cherrystone wrote:

I don't know in what way/reference he was 10 million....seems a little low.

Yeah, 14 million people were murdered (approximately) by direct action of Hitler's men under his orders.

Somewhere between 51 and 71 million people were killed in WWII over half of them civilians.

salvatori. wrote:
Why is that, I wonder?

It's the nature of making "controversial" comments. Some can't leave some topics alone ... others can't leave a comment alone if that comment remotely brushes on the topic.

Ultimately, though, does it really matter why anyone disagrees?

ETA: On second thought, this should probably say does it really matter WHEN someone (anyone) disagrees? My fault.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

It's the nature of making "controversial" comments. Some can't leave some topics alone ... others can't leave a comment alone if that comment remotely brushes on the topic.

Ultimately, though, does it really matter why anyone disagrees?

You may have missed my point.

Everyone is giving their opinion as to something that we cannot possibly answer, so most opinions are just read by others, and the person simply goes on to state his or hers opinion.

Why though, if I mention God, does someone feel the need to not only tell what they think, but to let me know that I am 'wrong?' (even though, as we all sit here, no one is either right or wrong in the context of the thread).

On another note, it bothers me when people ask why someone would care that they are disagreed with in a forum. I thought that's what forums were for.

O_o

salvatori. wrote:
Everyone is giving their opinion as to something that we cannot possibly answer, so most opinions are just read by others, and the person simply goes on to state his or hers opinion.

Why though, if I mention God, does someone feel the need to not only tell what they think, but to let me know that I am 'wrong?' (even though, as we all sit here, no one is either right or wrong in the context of the thread).

On another note, it bothers me when people ask why someone would care that they are disagreed with in a forum. I thought that's what forums were for.

O_o

I don't think I missed your point. Some people (not talking about anyone specifically here) get their panties in a bunch when someone mentions anything remotely close to religious. Mention God or anyone/thing else that may or may not exist in a person's opinion and it brings out another side of them.

For instance, there was a thread a while ago (before the Soapbox was closed) where someone said they wanted to start a fashion magazine with "Christian values" (whatever that means). That thread quickly dissolved into a religious argument that finished only when the thread was locked (I don't remember if it was hidden or not).

Since they closed the soapbox forum, these topics aren't allowed on the site anymore. I don't personally think there is/was anything wrong with your comment but it could easily be taken to a soapboxy point that could get some posts hidden and/or the posters brigged. I don't think most want that to happen but some people (again, no one specifically) can't help themselves, it seems.

As for why a person disagrees, I always thought the forums were here to have discussions. It's a given that someone, somewhere along the way is going to disagree on one point or another. Why they disagree is part of the discussion. If they (whoever "they" are) will disagree is a given.  Since I understand this, it doesn't bother me when someone disagrees.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

I don't think I missed your point. Some people (not talking about anyone specifically here) get their panties in a bunch when someone mentions anything remotely close to religious. Mention God or anyone/thing else that may or may not exist in a person's opinion and it brings out another side of them.

For instance, there was a thread a while ago (before the Soapbox was closed) where someone said they wanted to start a fashion magazine with "Christian values" (whatever that means). That thread quickly dissolved into a religious argument that finished only when the thread was locked (I don't remember if it was hidden or not).

Since they closed the soapbox forum, these topics aren't allowed on the site anymore. I don't personally think there is/was anything wrong with your comment but it could easily be taken to a soapboxy point that could get some posts hidden and/or the posters brigged. I don't think most want that to happen but some people (again, no one specifically) can't help themselves, it seems.

As for why a person disagrees, I always thought the forums were here to have discussions. It's a given that someone, somewhere along the way is going to disagree on one point or another. Why they disagree is part of the discussion. If they (whoever "they" are) will disagree is a given.  Since I understand this, it doesn't bother me when someone disagrees.

I understand you.

This was my very first reply in this thread:

"So, I get the fact that SB is closed. But let me get this straight...

The OP can post the question, but I am only allowed to answer if I claim a reason that isn't 'controversial'?

Guess that means I'm not allowed to contribute...
O_o"

Brent's warning early on (about the thread not turning soapboxy) was appropriate, and I didn't take his words personally. But to me, the topic seemed to presume that things like war, zombies, etc., weren't controversial, while the mention of God would be so by default.

I don't see why my posit of a spiritual being ending the world should be considered more or less controversial than humanity blowing itself up.

Simply my opinion.

salvatori. wrote:
Brent's warning early on (about the thread not turning soapboxy) was appropriate, and I didn't take his words personally. But to me, the topic seemed to presume that things like war, zombies, etc., weren't controversial, while the mention of God would be so by default.

I don't see why my posit of a spiritual being ending the world should be considered more or less controversial than humanity blowing itself up.

Simply my opinion.

The only reason I can think of is because there are zealots on both sides of the equation: some believe in a spiritual being and won't accept that someone believes there isn't and vice versa.

War is real no matter what a person believes. The reason for war is subject to a similar but different debate that crosses into other "controversial" topics (like politics). I'm sure that if you ask most, they'll tell you that zombies are made up things from science fiction or horror movies so there isn't much "controversy" with them.

It's just my opinion, but as I've gotten older, I've learned to not question everything in terms of existence. Some things just exist or people do certain things. There is no real rhyme or reason I can see but it's there. This doesn't mean one has to say, do or think the same things I do but it is how I deal with certain things.

DHayes Photography wrote:

My money is on super intelligent computers.  One has already passed the Turing Test.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-first-co … 1587780232

So what it passed the Turing Test it's not self governing or allowed to do what it wants without supervision......

Now if it was a machine totally unleashed, then I'd be a tiny bit worried maybe.

salvatori. wrote:
Everyone is giving their opinion as to something that we cannot possibly answer, so most opinions are just read by others, and the person simply goes on to state his or hers opinion.

Why though, if I mention God, does someone feel the need to not only tell what they think, but to let me know that I am 'wrong?' (even though, as we all sit here, no one is either right or wrong in the context of the thread).

Perhaps because every suggestion/opinion provided here was implicitly disagreed with by everyone who proposed a different answer, and the difference between implicit and explicit can be very small.

One can certainly choose to take offense at their opinion being disagreed with, but it's kind of senseless unless one enjoys causing drama.

Your first on-topic post, in fact, started with saying the only possibility was the one you offered, and that other opinions were "fearmongering". Acting like you're being  victimized because other people's opinions differed from yours seems odd, given that the post with your opinion was the first post in the thread that indicated it was the only right possibility. Additionally, you followed it up with further posts telling others how their opinions were wrong.

salvatori wrote:
Also noticed that everyone's opinions were left that, as their opinions.

See above; they didn't insist theirs was the only possibility. They merely offered their opinion; you chose to explicitly deny any opinion other than yours. One ought not be surprised that people found it irksome; after all, you apparently did.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Perhaps because every suggestion/opinion provided here was implicitly disagreed with by everyone who proposed a different answer, and the difference between implicit and explicit can be very small.

One can certainly choose to take offense at their opinion being disagreed with, but it's kind of senseless unless one enjoys causing drama.

well stated

Garry k wrote:

well stated

+2

Click Hamilton wrote:
Genghis Khan made an impression for what humans can do change the face of humanity.

In addition to the vast numbers of people he exterminated, and thanks to his far-flung travels and his appetite for women, a 2003 study found that as many as 16 million people alive today -- or about 0.5 percent of the global population -- are descendants of Khan.

---

Other major exterminations:

Mao - 70 million
Stalin - 23 million
Hitler - 10 million
Tojo - 5 million

etc

History is rich with tragic examples.

Hey you left off the good old USA.... how dare you leave us out!

Kevin Connery wrote:

Perhaps because every suggestion/opinion provided here was implicitly disagreed with by everyone who proposed a different answer, and the difference between implicit and explicit can be very small.

One can certainly choose to take offense at their opinion being disagreed with, but it's kind of senseless unless one enjoys causing drama.

And yest again, my simply questioning something causes others to claim I am eliciting drama.

Done with all of you.