Are Humans Monsters?

[Fyxe]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=darkblue]I wouldn't say we are monsters, but yes there are some horrible people out there... but even they don't amount up to be called a monster. We have been slowly destroying the Earth with polution, but now people are taking notice to prevent it. We have done great things and bad things, but who can blame us for our mistakes.... all that counts now is that we are trying to fix those mistakes and now we know to avoid them. I don't think anyone or anything can live up to the name of a monster.
Sure we have wiped out some population at the time with wars, but we are rebuilding.
So I really don't think it is fair to call us monsters. The only time I become a monster is when I'm mad, lol. Anyway, I really don't think we deserve to be called monsters. People do good and bad, they make mistakes. Normally we can mend those mistakes and go on.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SSJ5 Vegeta]

I don't think humans are monsters.... Just very ignorant to the rest of the universe that we don't know about... And another thing that just popped into my head. In einsteins theory flying backward through space was like going back in time. To get all the way out past pluto would take fifty years, so think about if on the other side of our sun farther than any of our telescopes can see is a planet that is a thousand, or million years ahead of us in evolution... And they're probably sitting there drinking highly advanced alcoholic beverages and laughing at us like they're watching a standup comedy show...

[Inuyasha Fandom]

yes. It is that simple. I know this from expeirence, as well as the fact I am one. I've put people in comas.......... and that's all i'm saying on my past. But yes, people are monsters. look at what we do to one another.

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

no if you compare us to animals we act very similar,if we are monsters then everyone and everything alive is therefore there would not be a monster cause everyone is one

[Bio]

[font=arial]Humans are not monsters, no. "Monster," however is a generalization. Moster describes appearance and/or personality, and is in fact, usually something that looks groutesque to [b]humans[/b]. So, I simply do not believe monster is the correct term. I think the correct phrase is a sentence: [i]The race that struggles against itself.[/i] For example, look at how different PoisonTounge and DeathBug's beliefs are. You can probably put that to a larger, more extreme scale, and figure out my label yourself.

I also admit humans cannot control certain instincts. for instance, need of ownership. A human feels good when it owns something. This is merely an evolutionary procaution, and ensures safety. The same is with terror at the sight of a "monster," or something that looks grotesque to humans. It is the very reason we fear things like spiders, and not kittens. Kittens are the same classification as we are, so we do not fear them. However, things like spiders are very different from us. More than four limbs, more than two eyed, very different body structure, and their webs. Our insincts, for our safety, tell us to fear them. So, we go to war with people who threaten us, we destroy rainforests to help our economy, and we crush beetles under our foot, because we instinctively fear them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Humans will end themselves. I'm not talking about a bunch of suicidal world leaders pushing a big red button, I'm talking about a war that gets out of hand. Another world war perhaps, except that resorts nuclear weapons. Humans will bomb the crap out of each other, and the remaining humans will not live long, because of the radioactive waste. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm stating my beliefs. My beliefs may seem that way, but it is the way I see it.
So am I a doomsayer? Maybe, but I still think that the human race has hope to pull their act together.[/font]

[Baron Samedi]

Hey, just to stick my two bob worth of opinion in here...

We are not monsters. [i]Everyone[/i] knows that monsters are green and have three eyes and numerous tentacles. Duh.

The majority of people are actually reasonably good, but nobody gets noticed (repeatedly) on the news for being good. Well, people do get recognition for being good, but because of a minority who are bad/whatever you like to use to describe them, it seems that we are all bad.

We are not evil, nor are we monsters.

What we are (be warned; this is a blanket statement) is greedy, egotistical, self-serving, gluttonous creatures. In regards to our use of materials, and our disregard for the environment. But that is merely a blanket statement. there are some good people out there, but most of us are lazy, not evil monsters.

In short: The good people are outshadowed by the bad minority, and : we are not evil, merely lazywith a few other personality flaws. But we are starting to try now.

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

Arch you have a good point but humans always find a way to survive,so they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the majority,by the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space colony,cause no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one country,and america prolly wont let many countries have nuclear power...Simply put i doubt it would go down like that but you were right on most of your post.

[Bio]

[font=arial]Humans always find a way to survive. Yes, that is partly true. Another instinct. The extremely potent will to live. Although that won't save us from toxins, it possibly could save us from my whole war scenario. Through the fact that what I said could happen, we may decide that it is in our best interest to hold back.

However, saying humans always find a way to survive is, in my opinion, flawed. Humans always [b]try[/b] to survive is what I think makes more sense.[/font]

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

If humans only tried then we wouldve been dead long ago...i doubt the worlds gonna end before the 30th century though and by the 30th century we wouldve had someway to fix nuclear poisoning or have had something that does kill life but doesnt keep it from growing for 10 thousand years.

[Justin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B]

As I've so often said, humans aren't basically evil; they're basically stupid. [/B][/QUOTE]

My point, exactly, DeathBug. ;-)

-Justin

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i]
[B]Arch you have a good point but humans always find a way to survive,so they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the majority,by the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space colony,cause no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one country,and america prolly wont let many countries have nuclear power...Simply put i doubt it would go down like that but you were right on most of your post. [/B][/QUOTE]

Just one thing. As much as we like to think it, America is not the only controlling factor in the world. That mindset is most likely due to our Americanized culture, the idea that we're the best and strongest and so forth. As much as we like the idea of ourselves as the "world police," we're not. We're viewed by many other nations to be sticking our noses into other countries' business.

It's unintelligent to think that one nation will control everything. Look at the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Nazi Party. Those global powers tried to rule everything, tried to control everything and their "world police" status didn't last too long.

About space stations and such, I'm not too abreast of what the current space technology situation is, but I'm pretty sure NASA isn't doing too well (especially after a few recent mishaps), and I think other nations' space programs have taken major hits, too.

Also, during the Cold War, the space station idea was...more or less in a design phase. During the Cold War, the Soviets and we both had the technology to hit each other in the right places (without space stations), but the primary reason that the Cold War didn't escalate to conflict was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Neither nation wanted a war in which everyone would die. That's not the case today. MAD is a relic of sorts.

Plus, in a nuclear war, we wouldn't need to hit every country from one country. That's the dark beauty of nuclear weapons; hitting one country will devastate those around it, whether it be shock waves, radiation, whatever. Not to mention the ensuing nuclear winter that will decimate pretty much everything around the blast area.

Considering just how fragile humans are, I seriously doubt we'd last longer than 50 years after a nuclear war. Granted, there were survivors in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and were able to re-build and begin anew, but that was in essence, an isolated incident. If global thermonuclear war were to occur, survival would be very slim.

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]Just one thing. As much as we like to think it, America is not the only controlling factor in the world. That mindset is most likely due to our Americanized culture, the idea that we're the best and strongest and so forth. As much as we like the idea of ourselves as the "world police," we're not. We're viewed by many other nations to be sticking our noses into other countries' business.

It's unintelligent to think that one nation will control everything. Look at the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Nazi Party. Those global powers tried to rule everything, tried to control everything and their "world police" status didn't last too long.

About space stations and such, I'm not too abreast of what the current space technology situation is, but I'm pretty sure NASA isn't doing too well (especially after a few recent mishaps), and I think other nations' space programs have taken major hits, too.

Also, during the Cold War, the space station idea was...more or less in a design phase. During the Cold War, the Soviets and we both had the technology to hit each other in the right places (without space stations), but the primary reason that the Cold War didn't escalate to conflict was MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Neither nation wanted a war in which everyone would die. That's not the case today. MAD is a relic of sorts.

Plus, in a nuclear war, we wouldn't need to hit every country from one country. That's the dark beauty of nuclear weapons; hitting one country will devastate those around it, whether it be shock waves, radiation, whatever. Not to mention the ensuing nuclear winter that will decimate pretty much everything around the blast area.

Considering just how fragile humans are, I seriously doubt we'd last longer than 50 years after a nuclear war. Granted, there were survivors in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and were able to re-build and begin anew, but that was in essence, an isolated incident. If global thermonuclear war were to occur, survival would be very slim. [/B][/QUOTE]
I didnt say america would last forever and they jumped on korea for secretly developing nuclear weapons,im saying that they chances are theyre gonna be very careful about their enemies having nukes until something else comes along more powerful but less permanent.America is currently the strongest,i didnt say it would be forever,but look at past cultures the later on they happened the longer they lasted.

[Baron Samedi]

PhoenixFlames. So far, many of your opinions seem to be unthought out and not very worthwhile.

[quote][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame[/i]
or have had something that does kill life but doesnt keep it from growing for 10 thousand years
[/quote]

we have something like that. I believe it is called a neuron bomb, that sends out neurons upon explosion, killing only organic things. The fireball is small, but the neuron wave is large.

[quote]Arch you have a good point but humans always find a way to survive,so they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the majority,by the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space colony,cause no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one country,and america prolly wont let many countries have nuclear power...Simply put i doubt it would go down like that but you were right on most of your post.

[/quote]

What? Grammar is a very nice person. And how do you know what you say is fact? Sounds like [strike]rubbish[/strike]... un-proven fiction to me.

[quote]If humans only tried then we wouldve been dead long ago...i doubt the worlds gonna end before the 30th century though and by the 30th century we wouldve had someway to fix nuclear poisoning [/quote]

Eh? Any evidence, or did you make this idea up. Why? Nucelar radiation attacks the cells themselves, mutating them. Not fun. How you going to revert them?


[quote][i]Originally posted by Arch[/i]
However, saying humans always find a way to survive is, in my opinion, flawed. Humans always try to survive is what I think makes more sense.
[/quote]

Of course we try to survive ~_^ It is instinctive, we generally don't want to just die. But I agree with you. Humans won't always survive. We have just been lucky so far.

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

Dude all the crap that was unproven fiction several hundred years ago is every day convenience now such as steam power,gasoline,travelling 300 miles in less than three days(airlines),flying,and communications across a country in seconds!Also its possible to do most of those things through some complex process,so how in the heck do you expect me to explain it?I know theres a way to reverse radioactive poisoning theres got to be,nothing manmade is permanent hence why nuclear poisoning wears off every several thousand years(dont think im talking about pollution i mean nuclear poisoning).And if you dont know what hence means(anyone who reads this post) it means therefore.

[The Original]

Humans are not monsters. Humans are not good. Humans are [b]human[/b]. To say the core of humanity is wrong is just silly. It boils down to the individual. Hitler, Bin Laden, and other "monsters" chose to be that way. Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and others like them chose to be compassionate and good. Each being is responsible for his or her own actions. In the past we blatantly killed off animal species and polluted the ecosystem. Granted, that still goes on today to an extent, but now some are protesting against it. Thanks to certain humane groups, the American Bison, Peregrine Falcon, and other animals that were once on the verge of extinction are now making comebacks. Deforestation is being halted. Not to a standstill by any means, but it is still being slowed down. If we were "monsters", we would not have taken action against our mistakes of the past. As I said before, it boils down to the individual. We are responsible for our own actions, whether it be good or bad. The core of humanity is not good or evil, but choice. We're only human...


*P.S. PhoenixFlame* Loosen up buddy. Remember that talk we had about grammar?:D

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

What part of my grammar am i screwing up on?

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i]
[B]I didnt say america would last forever and they jumped on korea for secretly developing nuclear weapons,im saying that they chances are theyre gonna be very careful about their enemies having nukes until something else comes along more powerful but less permanent.America is currently the strongest,i didnt say it would be forever,but look at past cultures the later on they happened the longer they lasted. [/B][/QUOTE]

As Baron said, grammar is your friend. Things such as apostrophes help immensely, as does proper spacing after comma usage.

I think your main point here was ?the later cultures happen, the longer they last.?

If this point is true, then what about colonialism? Do you mean to tell me that Spain, Britain, and to a lesser extent, France, all still have that massive colonial culture? Am I missing colonies and outposts stationed throughout the Americas? Are there conquistadores still traveling through the Everglades of Florida?

The Native American culture started far before Columbus? first voyage, and native cultures of the East Indies had been established long before ?white man? set foot there.

Am I missing something here? Do we still have explorers charting out territories, claiming rivers as their own? Do we still have adventurers from afar coming and taking control of our country?

I think not. That is an example of an older cultural ideal that has survived longer than a more current cultural ideal.

Let?s compare Nazism to the Roman Empire. Both were definite cultures, correct?

[url]http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=culture[/url]

Definitions 4 and 5 pertain to social constructs and beliefs, and most certainly the Roman Empire and Nazism fall under these definitions.

Yet, there is something wrong with your point. By your logic, Nazism should have lasted far longer than the Roman Empire did, simply because Nazism came later. But that?s not the case at all. The Roman Empire had a run of at least 500 years before a major division, but then those divided sides even lasted for a lot longer. Nazism lasted for oh, about 25 years. Longer if you count Neo-Nazis, but that just lengthens it by 50 years, amounting to only a fraction of the time of the Roman Empire.

?,im saying that they chances are theyre gonna be very careful about their enemies having nukes until something else comes along more powerful but less permanent.?

Allow me to clarify your point here. You?re saying that we?re worried about nuclear weapons now and worried about our enemies developing nuclear weapons. That?s fine. But we?ll stop worrying about our enemies having nuclear weapons when there are more powerful weapons developed? Are you saying that bigger means better? Should we view ourselves as the kid with a shotgun while everyone else only has a handgun? Just because we have a cannon doesn?t mean a grenade isn?t deadly. Just because we have a sword doesn?t mean we shouldn?t worry about other people having daggers.

If anything, more dangerous weapons mean a greater danger for us. Look at the Cold War and Space Race. Those are the definitive military races of the 20th century. Why would we have worked so hard with our space program if the Soviets hadn?t announced Sputnik? Many speculate that we wouldn?t have had nuclear weapons when we did had the Germans not started developing theirs.

Do you get it? Having a bigger weapon doesn?t make you invincible or powerful. If anything, it makes you a bigger target.

(Off-topic reference to Super Smash Bros. Melee: I was fighting as Samus against a few of my friends, Scott included. He plays as Jigglypuff. I had just picked up a Super Mushroom and said, ?HAHAHHA! BIG MUSHROOM MEANS BIG SAMUS!!!? as I proceeded to jump at Jigglypuff. A second later, I hear a whistle, I?m flying off into oblivion. You know what happened? Rest attack. You know what Scott did? He turned to me and said, ?And makes a bigger target.?)

EDIT: You had asked what?s wrong with your grammar. Here it is.

[quote] humans currently arent intelligent enough to be monsters nor people of peace who can be peaceful all the time and get out of every situation....simply put were neither monsters nor superior...but one day animals could evolve to match our current intelligence in several billion years[/quote]

[color=red]Humans[/color] currently [color=red]aren?t[/color] intelligent enough to be monsters nor people of peace who can be peaceful all the time and get out of every situation....simply put [color=red]we?re[/color] neither monsters nor superior...but one day animals could evolve to match our current intelligence in several billion years[color=red]. [/color]

[quote]no if you compare us to animals we act very similar,if we are monsters then everyone and everything alive is therefore there would not be a monster cause everyone is one[/quote]

[color=red]No,[/color] if you compare us to animals[color=red], [/color] we act very [color=red]similar, if[/color] we are monsters then everyone and everything alive therefore would not be a monster [color=red]because[/color] everyone is one[color=red].[/color]

[quote]Arch you have a good point but humans always find a way to survive,so they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the majority,by the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space colony,cause no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one country,and america prolly wont let many countries have nuclear power...Simply put i doubt it would go down like that but you were right on most of your post.[/quote]

Arch[color=red], [/color] you have a good point but humans always find a way to [color=red]survive, so[/color] they would last longer than like 100 years after nuclear waste destroys the [color=red]majority, by[/color] the time that we would actually launch nukes to every part of the world we would have already had a space [color=red]colony, cause[/color] no nuke currently can be launched to every country from one [color=red]country, and[/color] [color=red]America[/color] [color=red]probably[/color] [color=red]won?t[/color] let many countries have nuclear [color=red]power...simply put, I[/color] doubt it would go down like that [color=red],[/color] but you were right on most of your post.

Those are the glaring things. Some other errors involve syntax that I just don?t feel like delving into.

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

well no not about the kid with the shotgun i didnt say it would make nukes harmless,by then they arent gonna wanna use nukes theyre gonna wanna get the crap that the enemy has,hence why some other countries are trying to get into space(as in they wanna get what their enemies have)and as for the off topic reference to smash bros melee,if you got kicked in the butt by jiggly puff.....after i got some practice with link on the old smb..after i got link and started using him i beat the crap out of level 16 monsters in multiplayer mode....I went around asking a few people who they were good with and when i told them i was good with link they started laughing their asses off they said that link sucked no matter who used him he was only good when used by the computer.The point of that is that the characters in smb are not really all that much more powerful than each other,so i dont understand what the point of your off topic saying of the smbm thing

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlame [/i]
[B]well no not about the kid with the shotgun i didnt say it would make nukes harmless,by then they arent gonna wanna use nukes theyre gonna wanna get the crap that the enemy has,hence why some other countries are trying to get into space(as in they wanna get what their enemies have)and as for the off topic reference to smash bros melee,if you got kicked in the butt by jiggly puff.....after i got some practice with link on the old smb..after i got link and started using him i beat the crap out of level 16 monsters in multiplayer mode....I went around asking a few people who they were good with and when i told them i was good with link they started laughing their asses off they said that link sucked no matter who used him he was only good when used by the computer.The point of that is that the characters in smb are not really all that much more powerful than each other,so i dont understand what the point of your off topic saying of the smbm thing [/B][/QUOTE]

Grammar. Grammar. Grammar.

OK, I?m going to TRY to decipher this.

I?m guessing you didn?t pay attention to my last few sentences of my post.

[quote] Do you get it? Having a bigger weapon doesn?t make you invincible or powerful. If anything, it makes you a bigger target.

(Off-topic reference to Super Smash Bros. Melee: I was fighting as Samus against a few of my friends, Scott included. He plays as Jigglypuff. I had just picked up a Super Mushroom and said, ?HAHAHHA! BIG MUSHROOM MEANS BIG SAMUS!!!? as I proceeded to jump at Jigglypuff. A second later, I hear a whistle, I?m flying off into oblivion. You know what happened? Rest attack. You know what Scott did? He turned to me and said, ?And makes a bigger target.?)[/quote]

Pretty clear enough, I think. Even those who I?ve angered on this thread and who would rather hurt me, would follow what I said.

Now, regarding Smash Bros, a game on which I am very well trained, and have fought against very excellent players, RPCrazy included.

The computer level goes up to 9.

The characters are not called ?monsters,? they?re called Nintendo Mascots.

And frankly, if you don?t realize that Jigglypuff is a deadly character, and if you don?t realize just what Rest Attack is, then you should not open your mouth to criticize my Super Smash Bros. Melee reference. Rest Attack, as EXPERIENCED players know, is the ultimate defensive maneuver. It takes very astute timing and skill to pull off against normal-sized players, but a GIANT SAMUS is very vulnerable to such an attack. Any character using a Super Mushroom is easy to kill with Rest Attack.

Normally, I could avoid Jigglypuff?s Rest Attack, but since I was giant (read, bigger than the rest), I was easier to kill.

Do you get it? The bigger they are, the harder they fall? Shall I come out and say it?

Being bigger and/or stronger does not mean you have an advantage. There. Is that better?

By the way, I could school you in SSB or Melee any day of the week. I dare you to go up against my Sheik or Mario, or Samus.

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

....dude this is refering to one being thats gigantic weapons that have power are not always huge...

[Baron Samedi]

[quote][i]Originally posted by PhoenixFlames[/i]
I didnt say america would last forever and they jumped on korea for secretly developing nuclear weapons,im saying that they chances are theyre gonna be very careful about their enemies having nukes until something else comes along more powerful but less permanent.America is currently the strongest,i didnt say it would be forever,but look at past cultures the later on they happened the longer they lasted.[/quote]

What I believe you were saying here was that nuclear weapons were only dangerous until something else more powerful came along. Yes? Thats what you were saying around the bad grammar/spelling/syntax?

Well, PoisonTongues SBM point was relevant, because he was saying that, despite how big and powerful you may be, you can still be taken out by something smaller and less powerful.

Am I getting through to you?

It was a metaphor- The "Samus" is big and strong, but can be taken out by a well timed, weaker attack.

The real life application is: The Country with the Superweapon, can be taken out be a well timed/placed nuke/other attack.

The whole point of this is that nuclear weapons won't become defunct just because we find something bigger and better.

[i]Am[/i] I getting through at all?

[Guest PhoenixFlame]

Have you seen how big America, Canada and the western region of countries in the world are? It'd take more than 5 nukes to take out America and I doubt all five of them would hit them before Canada or America organized a defence or counter strike.

Edit: Satisfied now all you gramur freaks? :) lol

[Mitch]

[size=1] I hope this thread is closed. What the hell do nukes have to do with Overpopulation? Next to nothing other than how they have the potentality to kill masses of people.

How you could mishear Drix I do not know. All I can say is it's all in good. Sarcasm really is a genius thing..

Edit: Hah. Irony.

I refuse to fix irony.

But yes...

I think this thread and the one of overpopulation have gone certainly off topic lol. So I'll just say this is also addressing that other thread since I refuse to fix irony since it is so beautiful.[/size]

[Bio]

[font=arial]Yes, like Mitch and Baron Samedi said, simply put, "Let's get back to the topic of this thread, shall we?"

I also agree with Mitch. Overpopulation has [b]nothing[/b] to do with it. China is(correct me if I'm wrong) the most populated country on earth, and to my knowledge, they have not even begun to experiment with nuclear devices, for either weapons or for energy.

Another thing: This human extinction thing is getting out of hand. I meant for it to be one little example. Human extinction, if I am correct, is not the topic of this thread. I'd rather talk about relevant things, like what humans have done or not done to deserve such a title as "monster."

If you, like me, want to make this relevant, then lets talk about how the wars explain or don't explain why humans as a group, are "monsters."

Like I said, a monster, by definition and inference, is something that looks or acts in a way that is distasteful to that particular being. That, I believe makes for an incorrect title. I believe it has been said on this thread before, and I believe it too. "Humans aren't simply evil, they're simply stupid."

This may have no relevance, but PheonixFlame, like countless people have said, I suggest that you take a look at you post's grammar.[/font]

[wilder.schwein]

I love the use of words that you gave us all, and the descriptions are very well used as well. As far as us being monsters, you must look at it from several point of views:

1. Are we truly here, and for what reason?

2. May we truly be the judges of ourselves?

3. What world are we currently living in to make us those so-called monsters?

And the list goes on and on...

I love what you wrote, though. Power to you...

In my opinion, there are monsters, and there are those whom care for the rest of the world. The problem is, is that 95% of the world is filled with monsters...