World War III.

[sledge]

"given enough time EVERYONE dies", thats why its number 1.

The Christian Crusades is just one example. They were fought over a period of nearly 200 years killing millions. So yes you've missed a few huge scale wars.

Find me an example, just one, of someones cause of death being attributed to `Time`

The figures I quoted were based on the last 100 or so years since the start of ww1, not the last 1000 years. I suggest for everyones benefit we keep it in the 100 year timescale owing to the fact the records for this period can be described as reasonably accurate and we dont have to rely on guesses and unknown quantities.

So again, my question to you based on your original claim that more people have died of wars motivated by religion than anything else........300miliion deaths due to malaria over the last 100 years, knock off the 100million deaths due to ww1 and ww2 combined, thats a shortfall of 200 million or about 5500 lives lost per day everyday for the 100 year period.........so without dodging the issue or back-pedaling, exactly which wars of the last 100 years other than ww1 and ww2 were these 200 million individuals killed in???

I look forward to a pertinent answer from you

 

[Shadeyman]

I look forward to a pertinent answer from you

"Time" example. My grandfather, he died of old age.

Man has been around a lot longer than the last 100 years, no study of "mans killers" would be complete if one chose to ignore thousands of years of mans violent history.
If you insist on only quoting the last 100 years because it helps your argument, feel free to continue ignoring the hundreds of millions of people that have died before. I'm sure you could ignore most of mans history and only quote from the last 2 minutes in the sub-Saharan Africa area.

 

[sledge]

No....Your Grandfather, assuming he didnt succumb to illness died of natural causes, which unlike conflict is NOT a result of mankinds influence or effect. You seem to have problem with the differences.

I agree with your suggestion that no study would be complete without considering the past, however as I stated, records prior to the turn of the century are unreliable and in some cases do not exist therefore no acurate comparisons can be drawn. Quoting your example, millions died in the crusades, there is no doubt over that fact, however, how many died from malaria over the same period? Fact is you and I dont know it was never documented, therefore how can you expect a reliable comparison to be made?......it cant be so we have to discount it.

So...with this in mind lets focus just on the past 100 yrs. Malaria (not the mosquito ) has killed more people in the last 100 years than all conflicts, religiously motivated or not over the same period combined. Your claim is BS, prove me wrong

 

[Shadeyman]

I agree with your suggestion that no study would be complete without considering the past

:yeahthat: your chosing to ignore mans history so you've proven your own claim to be BS.


Edit
http://www.metrolic.com/top-10-killers-of-man-143434/2

http://listverse.com/2010/11/02/10-greatest-killers-of-man

http://www.duniaterselubung.info/2010/12/10-greatest-killers-of-man.html

 

[sledge]

To compare as you suggest deaths in the crusades against deaths over the same period due to malaria we need the exact figures, we dont know them therefore neither of us can make an accurate comparison therefore your argument cant be substantiated and is very much open to question. So much in fact it can be considered as even relevent.......does that make sense to you or are you just dodging the issue?

Talking about dodging the issue remember this??

Man (notably, religion and wars of which nearly all were/are religiously motivated)

Lets not digress and if you dont mind lets get back to the matter in hand ie. me calling BS on the above comment.

100 years of documented history, 300 million malaria deaths, 100 million WW casulaties, so again I ask you to back up your statement and tell me what wars are/were responsible for the other 200 million?

I like to deal with facts Shadey, I have given you hard facts to support my arguement against you so if you dont mind please recipricate and provide answers in the form of hard facts from reliable sources to support your claim and arguement against me, I would really like to hear them. But not if you dont mind your usual boring links to dubious and unsubstantiated websites that merely state opinions.....

I trust you will come back when you can.

 

[Shadeyman]

All I see is your waffle and unsubstantiated rantings, no hard facts.


If it makes you feel any better,

"I'm wrong, so are all the researchers on the 3 sites I linked to"

Feel better now?

Some people eh? :shrug:

 

[sledge]

So I can call BS on the `researchers` as well as you then

Shadey? IIf you read on the internet that the sky will turn pink at 2pm tomorrow, by 2:15pm tomorrow you would have a stiff neck. I would put money on it

Some people?.... indeed

 

[Shadeyman]

I'm sure your right, I and all researchers on all websites are just as full of BS as the ones I linked to.

Hundreds of thousands of people all proven wrong by you.

 

[Eklipze3k]

You make it sounds like all information found on the internet is made up, sledge.

 

[sledge]

Hundreds of thousands of people all proven wrong by you.

I believe there are hundreds of millionsof people on the net who willingly allow themselves to be influenced and proven wrong by others. These people lack the where with all to stop and ask questions or think for for themselves, nor are these people capable of making sound unbiased judgements and decisions for themselves. Furthermore the ironic thing is these people never see their own faults or realise it for themsleves, instead they insist on constantly forcing there opinions and beliefs on others on the assumption that everyone thinks the same and will always agree with them.........much I hasten to add to the irritation of those concerned.

Right...Shadey???

 

[sledge]

You make it sounds like all information found on the internet is made up, sledge.

Nah....I just like to look at the source and make a decision on its credibilty before I even think about the information it holds.

 

[Shadeyman]

Furthermore the ironic thing is these people never see their own faults or realise it for themsleves, instead they insist on constantly forcing there opinions and beliefs on others on the assumption that everyone thinks the same and will always agree with them.........much I hasten to add to the irritation of those concerned.

Some even continue to do so when they're wrong and making an ass of themselves, dont they sledge?

 

[sledge]

That Shadey........is perhaps the most plausable and realistic comment you have made for quite some considerable time now

 

[ChrisUK]

You make it sounds like all information found on the internet is made up, sledge.

A lot of it is. Your not allowed to use Wikipedia for sources while doing a University Degree even though a lot of it is validated from well known text's especially a lot of the medical articles.

 

[Radlet6]

My ol' man who used to work on nukes in the RAF always used to tell me that the greatest threat wasn't nuclear, but biological warfare. Now given that these will be targeted at highly populated areas it is likely that the only survivors will be those people living in remote areas such as the Monguls in China, South American Tribesmen etc.

For two reasons: 1) they are less likely to be a target and: 2) They don't need fossil fuels and the global economy to live.

Old Einstein could be right.

 

[Prilliant03]

The biggest threat we face is someone with ebola making it onto a plane and out of Africa.

If the ebola virus makes it to mass population centres we are royally f*cked

 

[bredsticz]

The biggest threat we face is someone with ebola making it onto a plane and out of Africa.

If the ebola virus makes it to mass population centres we are royally f*cked

Ebola is spread by bodily fluids so it wouldn't be THAT bad. If it was contagious through air, THEN we'd be f*cked.

 

[Prilliant03]

Ebola is spread by bodily fluids so it wouldn't be THAT bad. If it was contagious through air, THEN we'd be f*cked.

True, but it doesn't take much bodily fluid. A sneeze or cough would be more than enough. The only reasons ebola hasn't killed many more people is it's relative isolation in african village settings, quick incubation period, and very high mortality rate. Place ebola on, say, a crowded train, then follow the paths of all those potentially effected of the next 48 hours, and you can see why it's so potentially terrifying.

I work in a hospital lab, and ebola is the one virus that genuinely scares the crap out of everybody here. Thankfully the chances of us ever coming into contact with it are minute.