Chat

General Community Chat Currently: 248 Topics, 3521 Posts

arguments made to look official(debate)

	hundunhod Just have debates and debate matters they bring you to. dont break any rules by discussing real world politics, this is not real politics but real sciences. remember: a debate is an argument made to look official. I just wanted to argue with someone. To kick it off, what do you think congress would do if all of humanity changed into furries at the same time? would the human race be renamed? Tuesday, February 7, 2012 3:58pm RiskyFrisky Probably die from stress(Not good for old people) and heat exhaustion as furred bodies lack pores. This would allow for younger, more intelligent politicians to take power and fix the issue. These politicians would use media announcements to calm the masses and restore order. They would impose new laws to prevent, instead of racism, speciesism(Not even a fucking word). And more to come when I can think of it. Thursday, February 9, 2012 3:56pm hundunhod ...is that joke ageist? im not sure youre correct on that. we would automatically all be used to it... ...right? Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:34pm Lakota Wolf RF...horses have fur, they sweat,also the Brahman cattle breeds has pores and sweat. (((Brahman cattle breeds are the only breed of cattle that can sweat thru their skin))) Def got fur there also. :) Saturday, February 18, 2012 6:53pm Greymyst <Cracks his knuckles> Heh, first post here in a while! Stupid computer virus! Anyway. It would really depend on the situation surrounding the transformation of humanity into furries, would it be sudden? Or would it come slowly? Would we even know before hand? Or simply wake up someday and be something new? For that matter, what would cause this? Radiation? Some strange chemical in the food and water? Divine Intervention? Or simply evolution? But, those things can perhaps be explained later. Say we didnt know, and we just woke up the next day suddenly as walking talking animals. What would the world be like? What would life in general be like? I can tell you one thing, there'd be chaos right off the bat. The former "people" would attempt to find and establish a new hierarchy between themselves. Races, or Species in this case, would attempt to mimic the natural order, food chains and all that fun stuff. Would Predators (Wolves, large cats, birds of prey, ect) attempt to dominate the Prey (Deer, smaller birds, ect) or would the natural order of things in the wild be turned upside down and the normal predator pray relationships be tossed out the window? But beyond that, think of the war, the political upheaval, the fighting that would errupt in the streets as people would become scared. You can almost, if you allow yourself, hear the sound of the civil-raid sirens going off, and the crashing of windows as people decided that civil and federal laws no longer applied; for is it not written that "No man" shall do such things as murder, it does not cover the animals that they have now become. And think of the Religious upheaval as well, the overzealous would believe it is a punishment from the Divine, for we have not done as it has asked. Religious purges are not out of the question, Crusades even. People would flock to the churches, seeking answers and guidance, and when they could not find it there, the churches would crumble beneath the fury of those who are driven by fear. Of course, it could not even happen like that at all, and the world would simply continue turning and all would be happy and bright... But...I doubt it. Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:36am All good worlds start with a good story. A good World is worth a thousand stories. RiskyFrisky Quote by Lakota Wolf: RF...horses have fur, they sweat,also the Brahman cattle breeds has pores and sweat. (((Brahman cattle breeds are the only breed of cattle that can sweat thru their skin))) Def got fur there also. :) There are exceptions to most subjects. Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:02am Direlda Volunteer Hmm... I'll tackle the naming bit first, since that falls into my area of expertise. A government body, such as the United State's Congress, wouldn't have the power to decide whether or not the human race would be renamed. Human is, after all, one of several English words for ourselves (others including "Man," "mankind," "humankind," "people") and English is spoken all over the world. Congress might pass a law declaring a renaming in light of the changes, but that would be a rather absurd law for a few reasons. First, that a handful of people attempt to decide on whether or not humanity remains being called humanity. If I decide to call myself human, you decide to call yourself a furry, someone else decides to use modified animal names, and yet another person decides to use a newly coined word, who is to say that these aren't all right? To illustrate my point, do you say "soda," "coke," "cola," "pop," "soft drink," "tonic," "soda pop," "soda water," "drink," or "cold drink" to refer to a cold (generally), carbonated, non-alcoholic beverage? All of these are used within the United States to refer to that type of drink. Granted, there may be some confusion if the dialects/idiolects of the speakers use different words to mean the same thing and the speakers aren't aware of the variation in terminology, but that doesn't make either word wrong. At this point I probably should mention prescriptive vs descriptive grammar… In short, prescriptive grammar is grammar that tells you what you ought to do while descriptive grammar is grammar that tells you what actually happens. Take the following sentences: 1) Over there is the guy with whom I went to the park. 2) Over there is the guy who I went to the park with. 3) *Over there is the who I went to the party with guy. 4) *Over there is guy the who I went to party the with. Descriptively both sentence 1 and 2 are grammatically correct. Prescriptively, only sentence 1 is grammatically correct. Sentences 3 and 4 are descriptively ungrammatical (in English) because they violate the syntactic rules of English (and are thus marked with an asterisk). There’s a lot more to this issue, but suffice to say that excessive prescriptive grammar is something I will not put up with. Second, that they assume the meaning of “human” is fixed. According to Saussure, the connection in a sign between the signifier (or form of the word) and the signified (or object, idea, etc) is arbitrary. I could call what I have in my paws a pen, a frindle, or a gloupheaux. The first one you would understand if you had a basic level of English, the second if you read the book it is from, and the third only if I explained it to you (being a random signifier I created for the signified). And other languages have their own signifiers for this particular signified. Furthermore, when you hear the word pen, what signified comes to mind? Is it a disposable pen or refillable? What colour ink does it have? Is it plastic, wood, or metal? Is it a ballpoint, felt-tip, rollerball, or fountain? We may have a similar image in mind or it may be vastly different. So if people decide to have the sounds/letters of human to mean the sort of being we have been changed into and use it that way, then that is one of its meanings. The “were” in werewolf meant “adult human male” (at least according to one possible etymology), which also shows up in OE wergeld, which literally means “man payment” and was the name for the reparative payment for homicide paid by the murderer to the victim’s family. But to say that since “were/wer” once meant “adult human male” it cannot mean anything else disregards the nature of language. Were could be used to mean those who transform into animals, as in, “We have a number of different weres in here” or “He’s a were and proud of it.” Finally, worrying about whether or not humans should still be called humans is an issue for philosophers, lexicographers, biologists, theologians, doctors (and veterinarians), and potentially lawyers and judges to spend their time considering, but not much of one for politicians to devote their energies to. Would you rather politicians spend their time wondering about what we should call ourselves or attempting to minimize the damage caused by the transformation? As for people exploiting loopholes in laws because they refer to “human beings” and not what we have become… that depends upon human being no longer being used to refer to ourselves. If some people remained unchanged, then I can see the loophole being legitimate, but if everyone changed, then there is no reason that human being can’t still refer to what we are. Or if following this event it eventually becomes the case that in English human being refers to what we were pre-transformation and something like furry refers to what we are post-transformation, then law codes will need to be updated, but they might not drop the usage of human being “just in case.” This loophole would also depend on how animal we actually had become. Would those who became like a predator species, such as a wolf, hunger for those who became like a prey species, such as a deer? Or would that feel like cannibalism due to the shared upright and talking nature causing only actual animals (i.e. non-transformed) end up on the menu? ((it should be noted that dehumanization of groups/individuals has and has had disastrous results for human rights – ex: these people are sub-human so we can enslave them, etc)) I think I’ll save my other thoughts for a later time, to prevent one massive wall of eye-glazing text. Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:35am May God bless you and may a star shine down upon your path. Direlda lives here: www.direlda.net hundunhod Well, before going on, lets just say every country will meet up at say UN head quarters to decide this. What would congress and the variants other nations have decide to vote on, what would happen around the world, and what would each country do to restore order? Bringing back a topic. Monday, September 3, 2012 10:57pm Jeremii da`Ariiel Moderator Forum Rules: Discussions about sex, real-world politics, or religion are not permitted. These topics tend to be highly controversial, and can make the forums unwelcoming. Discussions on in-game politics/religions are acceptable. Also, necroing a thread that's over a half-year old? Locked. Monday, September 3, 2012 11:09pm

Page: 1