FIve things that you believe never should have been invented.

[Paksenarrion]

1. The Wheel
2. The Engine
3. Language
4. Civilization
5. Sliced Bread

You want us to go back the Dark Ages, don't you!

OT: All I can think of is...the nuclear bomb.

Much farther than that! We still had Language and The Wheel during the Dark Ages. I'd say, small Hunter-Gatherer Tribes. ^_^

Would this be before or after we crossed the Bering Strait?

Either/or. As long as there was no established language, we're good.

Well, not "good", but...

 

[W8NKA]

1. Wii, a few years the brang out the motion plus so it works as it should of when they first realesedit

2.Big brother, one of the most annoying shows on tv

3.Justian Biebir, i know he is not really an invention but he was carated

4.Tiddy Bear, what the feck

5.viva pinata, agian, what the feck

 

[Biosophilogical]

1. Guns and bombs. Seriously, they are designed for killing other humans, how messed up is that? Even swords can be used for play-fighting (blunt weapons, padded armour and good spirited fun, get these three things and a parnter and away you go).

2. Capitalism. I mean the american kind, where the bottom can't be stuffed working up because of how ridiculously hard it is, and the top don't have to work hard at all because they pay other people to make them more money.

3. Cars (motorbikes are fine). They are multi-tonne pieces of metal travelling in excess of 60km/h, controlled by a bunch of impatient drivers through the use of three pedals and a wheel. I mean seriously, half the people I've met don't even care that they are in control of something that can kill dozens of people with nothing more than a brief lapse of concentration.

Now are there any other major ones I haven't mentioned ... oh yeah, most offense-based inventions. I mean, nuclear power is pretty good, but we had to blow shit up with it; fire is helpful, but we had to burn people with it; bows would be handy for game-hunting, but we had to use it for war. The list goes on but I can't be stuffed listing every invention that has been used for harm when it could have been used for alternative purposes.

based on your current theory you just described mainly anything on earth im pretty sure i could figure out a way to kill someone with just about anything for example ice id hit someone over the head with it the computer your typing on same thing and for real fire i dare you to go one winter with no heat or not being able to eat a hot meal nuff said

What I meant was stuff that exists with the sole purpose of violence. I mean sure, you could kill me with a hammer, but you could also use that hammer to help in the construction of a house; something like a gun is almost violence given physical form, I mean seriously, unless you have a great dislike of flying dinner plates, there isn't really all that much you could or would do with a gun besides cause destruction, pain and death. The reason for cars, however, is sort of a combination of things; cars are large, heavy, high-speed vehicles that are incredibly popular, dangerous and misused. Think about it, if all you need is to stop down at the local store for the sunday paper, you could walk, or ride a bike, or even just use a motorcycle, all these options require less fuel, less metal for constructive purposes, take up less road-space and do not have the mass of a car (thereby having a lower force-velocity ratio). Of course, there are cases where cars are useful (large grocery shopping trips, group outings, transporting furniture, etc) but a lot of the time they are larger, heavier and faster than they need to be, and are driven by almost everyone, not just those whom are patient, careful, considerate and skillful enough not to kill anyone.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure you meant my 'offense-based inventions' thing. Basically, most things on earth have alternative and non-violent uses, however, some things are made, and used, solely for violent purposes, and it is these things I'm against.

 

[C95J]

1. The Wheel
2. Sliced Bread
3. Ignore those last two is was joking
4. The Wheel
5. Sliced Bread

 

[Feniel]

1. Guns and bombs. Seriously, they are designed for killing other humans, how messed up is that? Even swords can be used for play-fighting (blunt weapons, padded armour and good spirited fun, get these three things and a parnter and away you go).

2. Capitalism. I mean the american kind, where the bottom can't be stuffed working up because of how ridiculously hard it is, and the top don't have to work hard at all because they pay other people to make them more money.

3. Cars (motorbikes are fine). They are multi-tonne pieces of metal travelling in excess of 60km/h, controlled by a bunch of impatient drivers through the use of three pedals and a wheel. I mean seriously, half the people I've met don't even care that they are in control of something that can kill dozens of people with nothing more than a brief lapse of concentration.

Now are there any other major ones I haven't mentioned ... oh yeah, most offense-based inventions. I mean, nuclear power is pretty good, but we had to blow shit up with it; fire is helpful, but we had to burn people with it; bows would be handy for game-hunting, but we had to use it for war. The list goes on but I can't be stuffed listing every invention that has been used for harm when it could have been used for alternative purposes.

based on your current theory you just described mainly anything on earth im pretty sure i could figure out a way to kill someone with just about anything for example ice id hit someone over the head with it the computer your typing on same thing and for real fire i dare you to go one winter with no heat or not being able to eat a hot meal nuff said

What I meant was stuff that exists with the sole purpose of violence. I mean sure, you could kill me with a hammer, but you could also use that hammer to help in the construction of a house; something like a gun is almost violence given physical form, I mean seriously, unless you have a great dislike of flying dinner plates, there isn't really all that much you could or would do with a gun besides cause destruction, pain and death. The reason for cars, however, is sort of a combination of things; cars are large, heavy, high-speed vehicles that are incredibly popular, dangerous and misused. Think about it, if all you need is to stop down at the local store for the sunday paper, you could walk, or ride a bike, or even just use a motorcycle, all these options require less fuel, less metal for constructive purposes, take up less road-space and do not have the mass of a car (thereby having a lower force-velocity ratio). Of course, there are cases where cars are useful (large grocery shopping trips, group outings, transporting furniture, etc) but a lot of the time they are larger, heavier and faster than they need to be, and are driven by almost everyone, not just those whom are patient, careful, considerate and skillful enough not to kill anyone.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure you meant my 'offense-based inventions' thing. Basically, most things on earth have alternative and non-violent uses, however, some things are made, and used, solely for violent purposes, and it is these things I'm against.

last i checked i owned 7 guns (3 rifles 2 shotguns and 2 handguns) all of which i use to hunt the original concept of projectile weapons ( cause lets face it a gun is the evolution of the bow and arrow) was at first hunting until it nwas adopted for killing and to your rant about cars i live in northern canada and a motor bike isnt a real legit option 9 months of the year and are also very impracticle unless your some urban city dweller who can drive a tiny lil thing around and not carry anything besides motorbikes are as dangerous as any other vehicle i have seen many accidents caused by idiot motorcyclists cutting off people and zooming around like they own the road.

 

[ike42]

Well that was the argument wasn't it? I said that morals do not stem from religion. You once again accepted my point. Why are you arguing? Also, I'm not sure if it was you, but someone said that they couldn't have this argument without atheists breaking down to cursing. I haven't yet used a single vulgar word (with the exception of god and religion), you have. Good day sir.

Here are a number of things you have claimed:

1. Morals did not originate from religion (correct)
2. Religion has no links with morals (incorrect)
3. Morals and religion are mutually exclusive (totally fucking ludicrous)

I agreed on the first point, argued against the last two.

Yes, it was me, but it wasn't this argument. And it wasn't about cursing, it was about insulting due to belief. I'm an Australian at an all boys school, I cuss like a champ.

Morals and religion are independent. I.E. you can have one without the other, so they do not rely upon one another. Religion is just a parasite sucking the blood of society and claiming that it's moral.

Also, I said good day!

 

[Ampersand]

1. Religion - Pretty basic thing here. I suppose it wasn't necessarily an "invention" depending on how you look at it, but... Whatever.

I'm still waiting for "Bad Things" threads to go ten posts without someone pulling this bull, but you people never fail to disappoint.

5. Atheism (because I'm annoyed at them right now).
4. Blackboards (my teachers always scratched them).
3. Hand sanitizer (causes allergies).
2. Nukes (No explanation required).
1. Pedobear (No explanation required).

This pole asks for peoples opinion, and Jezzeh posted a pretty valid one. Deal with it.

Atheism isn't an invention.........i'm with you on the other four, although in lue of No.2 I would probably have just said weaponry.

 

[Okuu_Fusion]

1. Motion Capture Animated films...
2. Reality TV...
3. Religious...
4. Nationalism...
5. iPad...

 

[Dorian6]

1. Religion
2. Reality Tv
3. New jersey
4. Baconaise
5. War on Drugs

 

[Bruin]

"To learn is good, even if it is from the enemy,".

Therefore, I don't have anything I wish to take back.

 

[Daverson]

Everyone says war... well... to quote Harry Hill:
"War! Hunh! Yeah! What is it good for!? Well... it got rid of Hitler..."

Anyway...

1. None standard sized staples - I mean, seriously. There's a standard, when you make a stapler that uses non-standard sized staples, it's pretty much just saying "Oh hey, I see you need a stapler, why not buy mine. Oh, I forgot to mention, you can only use my staples in them. What do you mean the student shop doesn't stock my staples? Well, I'm sure your nearest office supply store does? What do you mean it doesn't? All the major chains do! What do you mean the major chains don't have stores within 60 miles of your university? Well! That's your own fault! You fool! You shouldn't have brought my stapler!"

Of course, it doesn't say that on the box, does it?

2. Those matches that are like normal matches, but shorter - seriously, why would anyone ever think this was a good idea? They burn your fingers, that's all they do. They don't even have more of them in a pack!

3. White Crayons. I've never understood this one.

4. Those stickers people put on screens and glasses and stuff with OSHA warnings, and then when you remove them, it never really gets rid of all the glue residue. Man, I really don't like those things.

5. The 2 pence coin. What possible use does it have? I mean, I agree with the idea of reducing the amount of change, but unless you get the one seller who decides to offload all their shrapnel on you, you're never actually going to get more than 4 copper coins. I don't think I've actually ever spent a 2 pence coin since I turned 10. Oh, and it doesn't actually take up that much less space than a 1 pence coin either. (And before anyone says "well, 2 pence used to be worth a lot more!", bear in mind we only switched to Pounds Sterling recently, which rendered the useful 2 pence coins useless!)

 

[WarriorFH]

Capitalism

 

[Treeinthewoods]

1) Those novelty ball sacks rednecks hang on their truck trailer hitches (although kicking your car in the balls when it won't start is funny it doesn't help).

2) Quadruple bladed razors

3) Trolling

4) KFC's Double Down Sandwich

5) Some guy I saw on Leno made a bacon cheeseburger served on a Krispy Kreme donut for his restaurant in Louisianna, so I'm going to say... Louisianna.

 

[rhoads1982]

No. This is about opinions. That would be like if I told you to not say Call of Duty 4.

 

[the rye]

1. Those Kanye West Glasses
2. Chavs & Bimbos
3. facebook and other social networking sites
4. mosquitoes
5. The endless hollywood remakes

 

[Biosophilogical]

last i checked i owned 7 guns (3 rifles 2 shotguns and 2 handguns) all of which i use to hunt the original concept of projectile weapons ( cause lets face it a gun is the evolution of the bow and arrow) was at first hunting until it nwas adopted for killing and to your rant about cars i live in northern canada and a motor bike isnt a real legit option 9 months of the year and are also very impracticle unless your some urban city dweller who can drive a tiny lil thing around and not carry anything besides motorbikes are as dangerous as any other vehicle i have seen many accidents caused by idiot motorcyclists cutting off people and zooming around like they own the road.

First off wow, seven guns? Even given your use of them as hunting instruments, that's a lot. Secondly, I have a feeling I've been less than perfect in conveying my overall tone; I'm not going around saying 'All these things are horrible manifestations of pure evil', I'm basically saying that, given the choice, I'd have preferred our technological history to have gone a different way, seeing as, in most cases, there are alternatives to most of the things I've stated: bows/slings instead of guns; motorbikes, push-bikes and walking instead of cars. And even if we didn't have cars but needed something to serve the same purpose, I'm sure we could have invented a better alternative.

As for you 'northern canada' thing about motorbikes and accidents and what-not, what do you think would cause a bigger accident, a motorbike being annoying and distracting, causing a crash involving the bike and a few cars, or a motorbike crashing and forcing people to move to the edge of their lanes to not have the same fate? After all, even if we didn't have cars (or many of them anyway) that doesn't mean we couldn't still have wide lanes, given that motorbikes are easier to lose control of. But yea, once again, either I'm misinterpreting your tone, or I was unclear in mine, as I have the feeling that you view my posts as irrational rants made by a whiny teenager, rather than the day-dream musings of just another escapist poster.

 

[ike42]

Morals and religion are independent. I.E. you can have one without the other, so they do not rely upon one another. Religion is just a parasite sucking the blood of society and claiming that it's moral.

Also, I said good day!

Oh, you said good day, so that automatically exempts you from having to explain your retarded arguements now does it?

I'll add independant to the things you have claimed, so that's four. You can't even hold a single line in an argument man, come on.

And religion is moral, if you can't see that then there's something wrong with your worldview. Where do you think religious ethics come from? Morals, huur.

Oh, I don't know. I produced solid logic for an argument and all you've done is call them retarded, which is no argument at all. Religion is amoral, as I've argued effectively. A religious person can be moral, but religion as a whole cannot. As I've repeated multiple times, if morals come from religion, an atheist like myself should not be able to be a moral human being. As this is obviously not true, then you have to accept that they don't rely upon each other. I posit that there is in fact something wrong with YOUR world view, in that I see it for what it is and you feel the need to believe in Santa Claus/The Tooth Fairy/jesus. I look at religion and see that religious individuals can do good, while I see religion as a whole being used as a tool to manipulate (mainly poor, undereducated) people. I don't believe in taking away people's rights to their religion (that would be amoral), religious people should give me the same respect. If you really believe all that drivel, then you shouldn't need to try to belittle other people who don't agree; all that matters is that you do. You don't need me to legitimize your beliefs, stay deluded for all I care.

 

[Outright Villainy]

5. Atheism (because I'm annoyed at them right now).

Because we all fly under the one banner, right?

I mean, not that's like exactly the same generalisation that he just did or anything.

I apologise if I missed some ironic intention on your part, but that seemed like a particularly silly thing to post.

Ot: War! Good god, y'all!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!