The Second Titanic Will Apparently Be Built

Yes, but you were talking about the media after the sinking saying it was "unsinkable" I was just referring that there was some talk of unsinkability while the ships were being constructed.

It still had nothing to do with being all knowing. Not really. It was very vague. And how was it classist bullshit? So now secretaries can't have children? Now secretaries can't write a book, paint something, or contribute to something? Secretaries can't influence an important decision? Now THAT'S classist bullshit.

Its funny how whenever someone disagrees with you their automatically "ignorant". And can you explain how someone who never did anything with their lives and is leaving nothing behind, no traces of existence, are worth anything in the grand scheme of things? They have accomplished NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. That's a terrible way to live a life, and a waste of someone who could have been important.

If someone leaves absolutely NOTHING on Earth, and no one will remember them after 50 years, then their life was a complete waste.

I like how the capitalist accuses socialists of being 'classists'.
Class warfare exists.

Didn't you just(like 5 minutes ago) say that we should stop this and we wouldn't achieve anything by doing the whole Capitalism vs. Socialism stuff again...

Touche. Kali just really pisses me off.

I feel your pain man

EDIT:

Well that's impossible... That's why I mentioned the butterfly effect...

No, its not impossible. You do know the term "unidentified bodies" right? These are people who were killed or died of natural causes, and no one recognizes them or cares enough to come identify the body. These people are cremated and quickly forgotten, and in 50 years no one will know about them. They have left no effect on Earth or the human race. I'd also like to point out that, no, not all unidentified bodies are burnt to death or FUBARed, some of them are simply not known. These will most likely be impoverished and homeless people.
Also, I hate to say it, but babies that die also leave no trace on Earth. Because, unfortunately, a baby has no chance to leave any lasting effect on anyone or anything besides probably their parents and/or siblings. Mind you, I am using baby to mean anyone below the age of 6 months. I know the real definition of a baby is like below a year or two or something like that.

Of course I think it has an effect. One of my exes mum had a miscarriage 7 months ago. She still cries about it, poor girl. Believe me, I know there is a massive psychological effect on the parents and siblings, but when her parents, her and her siblings die, who's going to care? I think in terms of lasting effects, things that will outlast even yourself.

Like Pedro said, the death of the baby will have a huge effect on parents and siblings, which in turn will affect other people and so on, and so forth, until the world is a vastly different place(I'm talking about a long timeline here) if that baby hadn't been born and died. THAT is what I mean by a butterfly effect.
The mere fact that a human being is present and alive means that they are affecting and leaving a mark on their environment... I feel like you're just being dense because you don't want to admit you're wrong...

I have no idea where you're coming from with this. I never said any of that. My point was, in fact, quite the opposite. You were the one who claimed a secretary was wholly unimportant and worthless. Every single person that has ever lived has changed the world in some way. Your ridiculous assertion that people "waste their lives" or accomplish nothing is just that - absurd.

No one leaves behind no trace of their existence. All people are born. All people have family. Most people live and have friends. Most people will work in their lives. Many people champion specific ideals or viewpoints. Some people invent new things or ideas. All of them will change the world.

And we're supposedly the close-minded materialists? You don't have the right to make that call, and any examples you can give will easily be shot down. Claiming that some people's lives were worthless is the ultimate hubris.

I was just using a secretary as an example. Actually secretaries are pretty well placed to effect major decisions. It was a job off the top of my head, and I claimed nothing about it.

Being born and having a family isn't an accomplishment. And the rest of your post contains the words many/most/some. I'm not saying most people are worthless. I'm saying there are a select few people who simply have offered nothing to the world and lived like robots, and in the grand scheme of things don't matter. I'm gonna quote HG. Wells, who perhaps gave the best example of people acting like robots in the grand scheme of things. "I've seen hundreds of 'em, bit of breakfast in hand, running wild and shining to catch their little season-ticket train, for fear they'd get dismissed if they didn't; working at businesses they were afraid to take the trouble to understand; skedaddling back for fear they wouldn't be in time for dinner; keeping indoors after dinner for fear of the back streets, and sleeping with the wives they married, not because they wanted them, but because they had a bit of money that would make for safety in their one little miserable skedaddle through the world".
@Warburg they are still not leaving a drastic effect. I believe that no matter what there will always be parallels between timelines, and nothing effects anything forever. It makes for a good theory, but its just that, a theory.

What..... I don't even know... The "butterfly" theory is backed up by pretty much every historian of any caliber. The smallest change can have huge consequences down the line... That's just common sense, or apparently not.
Also the whole theory argument is stupid. You know evolution is also "just" a theory right?

You clearly said that secretaries who don't get married or have kids are worthless.

It's not about accomplishment. Accomplishment is relative and aqueous. Being born fundamentally changes the world. There is meaning attached to everything that happens and the true implications of any one event, let alone an entire lifetime, are completely beyond our ability to guess.

That's such a disgusting and factually invalid view to take. Especially coming from a child.

You can quote all the famous people you want; doesn't change the reality that every single person who ever lived has contributed to the present we live in.

There's no theory involved here. There is a certainty that if things are not exactly as they are, then the future will be different. Kill one man in the Bronze Age and you kill ALL of his ancestors. Talk to someone on the bus, they never enter the train of thought that led them to cure cancer. It's impossible to know what the ultimate effect of any action is, and because of that (although there are other compelling arguments to be made) we cannot ever judge the value of a person's life.

Yeah Kali is just better to explain stuff than me... So I'm just gonna... leave.

You can't prove that though. You can prove evolution, you can prove gravity, you can prove the Earth is round and the sun is at the center of the solar system. But because of the nature of the butterfly effect, it can't be proven. Without a time machine, that is. I tend to think of it as this. Everything that has ever happened on Earth has led up to this very moment. If one thing changed, then we would never know what our other reality was. Everything leads to another, and its impossible to prove or predict what could have happened, there are way too many variable. THIS is our world. THIS is the present. Things that happened, well, happened. We can't change that. For all we know they were always meant to happen. So, the butterfly effect is absolutely unproven theorizing. Its interesting to write about, but it really has no use.

Not at all

If you're born, and then die seconds later, you have not made an impact on the world. If you die at old age but no one remembers or knows you, you have not made an impact on this world.

Do you just hate the idea of people younger than you daring to attempt to contradict you or something? Let's put this to rest, you're four years older than me. Only four fucking years. Age does not matter. Stop acting like it does, it makes you look like a total arrogant bastard.

Prove it. You can't. Neither of us can prove anything in this debate. But, there are some people out there who lived and died without making an impact on anything. In the short term, they matter. In 200 years, they won't matter. Their blood line has died out. They did not leave works of art or any other material proof they existed. And no one who knew them is still alive. Therefore, its like they never existed. Some people choose to live like that, and its understandable. I'm not trying to say they're worthless human beings, although it is coming across as I am. I'm just saying, in the long run, they won't matter, and maybe they like it that way. Maybe they don't want to matter. Maybe they just want to exist.

Once again, prove it.
You said:

How can you then guess that the outcome of history would be any different if you had changed something? You are trying to analyze something SO much bigger than a life, the entirety of human history, while at the same time trying to use the argument that no human has the ability to understand a life.

Just existing means you have had an impact on the world. Let's say you walk into a walmart and start talking to this guy, and that conversation convinces this guy not to kill himself. So and so then goes on to eventually goes on to be successful, and has children. One of his children becomes a scientist, and makes this major breakthrough, and finds a cure for cancer.
Now other than that, you did absolutely nothing important for the rest of your life, and everybody forgot about you and nobody was at your funeral.


Now let's say you don't exist. Since so and so didnt talk to you, he kills himself. His wife, instead of living a happy successful life, is now broke and forced to live in poverty. Since he killed himself, he never has children, so one of his sons never becomes a scientist. Therefore, his son never discovers the cure for cancer, and thus there is no cure for cancer.

I'm really hoping this new Titanic will sink. It probably won't, but oh the irony if it did.

Regarding the statement that anybody who lacks a greater purpose is a waste of life, my intention was to state that on a personal level, everybody should have some goal/viewpoint greater than just becoming rich/famous/getting material things. They should have a view of what they want humanity to be, and a genuine cause for which they would be willing to die, or suffer greatly for. I view a life based entirely around the acquisition of material goods, or 'Fame' to be incredibly selfish and pety. So, I'm gonna have to disagree, at least in part with General Mosh's argument - That being said, I don't at all agree with the arguments made by the capitalists.

Minorly and irrelevantly.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was contributing to some masterpiece of the human race? However it's not the case.

Actually in all likelihood you and I will live relatively dull lives, come up with little new thought, accomplish very little, and die. Our bodies will be buried six feet under ground where they will decompose and fertilize daisies. Your children will remember you as their father. Your children's children will vaguely remember you. Your children's children's children will not remember you. You will pass along and die as a minor cell that really never mattered.

Do you really think the world would be any different tomorrow if you killed yourself right now?
But oh well, that's kind of depressing and even I'm not that pessimistic. I think it's just to fight against you.
Why are we talking about this anyway?

This has nothing to do with materialism. You're just throwing insults around.

By that logic no one here has the right to make any calls about anything because they're not trained in any study. This is all theoretical.

He hasn't really given any examples. If I might reference your next line, it seems like the ultimate hubris to be saying you could accomplish anything without even hearing it happen yet.

How is claiming the majority of lives are pointless hubris? If you didn't notice, most strongly implies the person saying it as well. If anything he's wildly under-shooting himself. It's the ultimate sign of humbleness.