Print

[steve-la]

it's inevitable

[Pedestrian]

/facepalm.

[JimmyLost]

lol faceplant facepalm

[steve-la]

does that exxist

[Nikki-La]

hahaha.

I think Pedestrian and Emma-la really do have a point. debates are fun. and i would miss going against what other people do. its one of my joys (lol). but what about the revolution that Tally started? she got people to not be like everyone else, but still be bubbly.

................ ....................hmm........................ ..........................but i'm thinking...........?........what if they could do the operation to effect what we do on on the environment and to each other but leave the prettiness and thought.

now, i'm not so good with the brain technics here (didn't focus that much when we went over it in AP Psych), but is there a way to let you think freely but not actually act on it if it was too dangerous or violent? like turning off that switch in your brain or something?

PS. whats facepalm and faceplant???

[JimmyLost]

to quote batman:  It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me. So a a wold full of people who want to do something but just won't seems wrong to me. Also we can save the earth without lobotomizing ourselves. Also Also if the people who look after the pretties decide one day that they want to do the opposite of the perfect world-ness like wage wars and destroy things all the pretties would just go along with it cuz that's what pretties do.

[Nikki-La]

well....... lets think scientifically on this, social darwinism. aka SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. the pretties that could make it into Crims, they would know enough to not go along with it. sure, they'd still be pretty-minded, but the other pretties could maybe be the ones to retain the bubble-headedness and let whoever could make it into the Crims could be the ones to be free thinkers. Survival of the Fittest, right? wouldn't that work? it makes sense to me.

[JimmyLost]

ya but power corrupts, being in charge of everyone would be alot of power, and what if there was a dissagrement within the crims? Also that still leaves the majority of the population easy to control.

[steve-la]

let's go back off topic who likes oranges?

[Mara-la]

Well, maybe we could only alter the way we do things. War was an example. Switch that gear off, and you've got everything good with no bad!

[JimmyLost]

I don't think it's that easy... why do people go to war (well idealy let's leave out government stuff and money)? It's usualy to defend there belifes/values/oppinoins/ext so that gear would be those things, which is essencialy what pretties are.

[Pedestrian]

But war is just a really exaggerated form of argument.
What about debate, freedom of speech?
I don't think there's a little brain section for "war", so I don't think you can just turn that off without turning off the right to have an opinion.

Big things like "war" and "harming the enviroment" aren't really switches in our brains. They're results of a combination of instinctual desires and how we achieve them as an entire society.

[steve-la]

gggo off topic!!

[JimmyLost]

But war is just a really exaggerated form of argument.
What about debate, freedom of speech?
I don't think there's a little brain section for "war", so I don't think you can just turn that off without turning off the right to have an opinion.

Big things like "war" and "harming the enviroment" aren't really switches in our brains. They're results of a combination of instinctual desires and how we achieve them as an entire society.

ya what he said,
sorry mate I like this topic

[Nikki-La]

so before there was language, a "pre-rusty" was already arguing with another one because it was instinct? how is that? if there was no language, there was no argument. but yeah, i bet they did throwdown to the death of that piece of chicken their mom to them to split.............