I have to.. It's too easy.

I'd like to congratulate your wonderfully composed grammatically correct sentence. But to answer your question: Yes, it does make me better at least in this facet of life.

We've already made things like axes. If necessary we can fast or hunt for food if absolutely necessary. We do not think this will be necessary however until MUCH later, probably not until after 2100 will people have to do that. We do not need electricity or heat, but we will be living in our homes until which have these things until they are destroyed. We can live without electricity or computers as humans did for millions of years. We do not live in the city or near the coast where hurricanes are. We have better ways to get water than from mud. I already own clothes, but if somehow someone took all my clothes and didn't let me buy more, I could probably kill a deer and make something. Why can I not consult other people? I am not a recluse or against technology we've come up with. I am not a hypocrite in doing any of these things.

The books we own will probably not be taken from us. Excercise equipment? For that I can use the ground, water, trees, friends, basically anything found outdoors. Weed does not end my ability or drive to exercise.

We do not currently expect air toxicity to be that bad, but if it is hopefully we can get together some masks. Global warming will not cause the planet to be underwater. Robots probably aren't taking over.

Why would I try to climb an electric fence with my bare hands? Why can I not use assistance or tools? Why do I need to go to an armed facility?

Your negativity is noted. So is your ignorance.

http://electricfencewhiz.ytmnd.com/

He never said he was going to an armed facility with electric fences. He hardly implied that he was going to physically attack any structure of the sort.


I think it's below you just for that reason. If it it's "too easy", then you don't need to say anything to the extent that you did.

Are you calling yourself a hypocrite? Otherwise, you should probably explain why you are calling someone a hypocrite when you do it. O, and you might not want to parade around idiotic video's to make your idiotic flames.

Wow... I thought I was the troll of SeN, lol.

It's sad because I still haven't seen a good reason as to why the idea is so bad/stupid despite all the reasonless nay saying by frazz and JordanN.

I've already said why I think your idea is bad, but I'll say it again. Don't bother rebutting, I don't want to debate. I just want to clarify myself.
1) Destroying the dam was pointless and illegal. I doubt it's actually helped anyone in any way yet. Moreover, it's illegal, and disrespect for the law is a bad thing. "The most dangerous weapon anyone can wield is self righteousness."
When one chooses to put their own judgment above that of the law, problems occur. I'm not even talking about disobeying silly laws that have no meaning.
When you put yourself above the law, you turn to an internal source to decide what's right. Ever seen one of those generic movies? Where someone starts out a good guy doing something good, but ends up disobeying the advice of others to achieve his ends. At the beginning there is nothing inherently too bad, but he ends up becoming outright evil because he lacks any respect for an authority. He becomes his own authority and whatever he was trying to do degrades into a quest to achieve an ends, often with disregard even for human life. Vader comes to mind.
Those movies have a moral, this it it: Respect authority.
That is why respect for the law is important. Once more, "The most dangerous weapon anyone can wield is self righteousness."

2) Your group doesn't really stand for anything particularly new. Eco-activists-generic, that's what you are. Except you also disregard the law.

3) You'll probably end up never doing anything anyway.


Ok, that's what I think. Now don't say I haven't made any points. Also, don't make a rebuttal, because I won't give you a response that is any more dignified than what you gave me. No offense, but your responses are kinda lame. They never really get to the point and provide a clear rebuttal that effectively counters the point. You are often more likely to say "You closed minded jerk" or something along those lines than you are to actually reply. Sadly, this is prevalent among so many SEN "debaters." (I could name a few)

Blowing up the dam allowed water to flow to create/fill a pond. The pond was used by the school for hydro power research and projects, which could help the environment.

You never came up with any new point I haven't already argued. And by the way, I don't know how my responses could be any more ON POINT. Your responses are total cop-outs compared to mine with things like "Don't bother responding" or just insults. You straight up ignore intelligent responses.

I don't care if you respond or not, but 1) we did do it for a real reason, you either didn't read or just don't understand. 2) I figure theres nothing wrong if it isn't spectacularly new, but I feel like it is, being formed by younger people who are being ACTIVE and taking matters into their own hands. 3)We've already done one thing, and this isn't just going to slip out of my mind. When a situation arises in which we can expose our purpose and make a difference, we will.

Just so you know, respect for authority is one thing. Disregard for what is actually right is entirely different.

I'll elaborate what I mean by your lamewad responses.
1) You ignored my whole point about self righteousness. Again. That's what I mean by stinky responses.


I said it before, it's been said before, and you haven't responded. What you did was wrong. You have a warped view of what is right. How is blowing up a privately owned, justly acquired dam for the purposes of a "hydro electric dam" which I'll be surprised if you EVER build, right?
I mentioned the difference between laws that just aren't right and what you did.



So yeah, forget what I said about leaving.

@Yenku: Stop bringing up your points to Frazz. He is a troll that does what he does to get attacked so he can try to blame you for attacking him, when he started it all in the first place.


Oh, and I think your idea is a good one. If those ass-hats wouldn't help you with your education, take it into your own hands

I'm sorry if pointing out to everyone what you are doing is trolling to you, Frazz.


If anything, you troll with your insults and ignorance to the subjects you partake in.

It's good, as long as it isn't my dam.
Plus for them, the one who built the dam was unright to build a dam on a stream where others shared also.
Also, if he's an eco-terrorist- then he wants to convince people that our environment needs to be fixed asap through force. No it does not involve killing people as long as they are careful enough- it has to do with vandalism of structures that involve change in environment- often not good for the entire ecosystem.

It's just a different way of telling people that polluting our surroundings is bad.

Yenku, I await your post. I don't want to become involved in this topic, so I will refrain from responding to anyone else for the time being.

I know. Rather then publish a book about the environment he must convince people through force. That's how 5 billion people will learn.

^+1

Force is the last resort for when the ignorant refuse to listen. Yenku is simply speeding up the aid of the environment.

Awesome. Now for me to make ignorant humans that I've told a million times they are evil and they don't listen I'll have to kill them. That will surely speed up the process and help the environment.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 5 2007, 1:56 am by JordanN.

Just as a further question to yenku's eco terrorist claim, how did blowing up the dam make people more aware of the environment? Did you leave a note somehow saying "Think twice before you harm the environment" or something?
Does anyone know your acts were environmentally encouraged?

If you reply, yenku, also reply to my previous post.