Humanity, u so crazy!. . For me, the most ironic token of that moment in history is the plaque signed by President Richard N. Nixon that Apollo 11 took to the M the Moon carl Sagan Apollo 11
x
Click to expand

Humanity, u so crazy!

For me, the most ironic token of that moment in history
is the plaque signed by President Richard N. Nixon that
Apollo 11 took to the Moon. It reads: Ile came in Peace
for all mankind.’ As the United States was dropping 7. S
megatons of conventional explosives on small nations in
Southeast Asia, we congratulated ourselves on our
humanity: He would harm no one on a lifeless rock.
Carl Sagan
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+841
Views: 36230
Favorited: 74
Submitted: 07/16/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to casinoer Subscribe to fucking-science submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4 - I Am Monkey (07/17/2013) [-]
I understand people like to get caught up in the guilt and whatnot, but realistically what else is it supposed to say? "We're here to **** **** up"?
On second thought that would probably be awesome
User avatar #23 to #4 - fargone (07/17/2013) [-]
Next planet we land on, no plaque. We should just stab a sword into the dirt. Show those alien ******* we mean business.
User avatar #6 to #4 - thelastamerican (07/17/2013) [-]
We're here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and we left the gum in the command module.
#15 to #4 - krasnogvardiech (07/17/2013) [-]
We poison our air and water to weed out the weak.
We detonate nuclear weapons in our only sustainable biosphere.
We nailed our god to a stick.

Don't you dare **** with the human race.
User avatar #8 to #4 - feelythefeel (07/17/2013) [-]
"We come in peace. Unless you have oil or something, ****** mad useful".
#1 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
We were there representing the achievements of humanity. We are the first to send life off of another planet and into the stars. No other life that we know of has ever done that. We have lived for over 200,000 years, made some fantastic achievements, are self aware, and can contemplate and speculate the reason and cause and effect of our existence. That is what the plague on the moon represents.

The plague on the moon does not represent:
One nations ideals that lead to war against others.
Petty squabbles that can lead to war death and genocide.
The problems that all exist on our Earth because hey, we left them behind.

Because we intent to come and explore in peace so we don't screw up again.
#19 to #1 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
What gave the right to the self entitled self righteous douchebag U.S. of 'Murica to talk in behalf of humanity and put all mankind's achievements on their account?
Hell no, only the yankees have their head so up their own ass.
#17 to #1 - themongoose (07/17/2013) [-]
This is complete crap.   
   
The entire reason the Space Race and then the Race to the Moon was started was because of the Cold War. The whole thing was a petty squabble to show the those communist bastards that democracy is King. That is why NASA was created as part of the Department of Defense. There was no peace. There was no lack of "One Nation's Ideals," or "the problems on earth." ALL of those things are represented in the very trip to the moon and that plaque is just a threadbare veil of lip service to "humanity."
This is complete crap.

The entire reason the Space Race and then the Race to the Moon was started was because of the Cold War. The whole thing was a petty squabble to show the those communist bastards that democracy is King. That is why NASA was created as part of the Department of Defense. There was no peace. There was no lack of "One Nation's Ideals," or "the problems on earth." ALL of those things are represented in the very trip to the moon and that plaque is just a threadbare veil of lip service to "humanity."
#5 to #1 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
That wasnt the first time something or someone was sent in space.
User avatar #22 to #1 - stupro (07/17/2013) [-]
Don't delude yourself, anon. If humankind were to find another life form on a habitable planet, we would most likely try to enslave them and the Geneva conventions in the world wouldn't be able to stop that. That is, if we had better technology than them. Best case scenario, we are technologically inferior to them and they want to live in peace with us.
#3 to #1 - nooneofinterest (07/17/2013) [-]
There's a plague on the moon?
There's a plague on the moon?
#7 to #3 - feelythefeel (07/17/2013) [-]
Why do you think they stopped sending people there? Lack of funds?
Why do you think they stopped sending people there? Lack of funds?
#21 - ljetibo (07/17/2013) [-]
is it just me or are people here missing the point of the quote?
it's not about USA being the whole world, the fact that Nixon ended the war it's not about one nations strive for dominance or whatever.
It's about us treating what we knew beforehand for a fact is a lifeless environment devoid of everything except dust and rock better then we do ourselves.
It's exactly as #1 said:

"No other life that we know of has ever done that. We have lived for over 200,000 years, made some fantastic achievements, are self aware, and can contemplate and speculate the reason and cause and effect of our existence."

and yet we keep on treating our uniqueness as second grade. Maybe it's better then not to find someone else out there .
(but on the other hand I do have to agree with #4 it's too easy to get caught up in the feels, realistically writing anything else would be lame)
#37 - DanLacasky (07/17/2013) [-]
that's it, you just made my list
#30 - xainest (07/17/2013) [-]
Guys this is a reflective plate that we shoots beams of light at to see how the moon is moving in space
#34 to #30 - chudboy (07/17/2013) [-]
They still put a plaque up there.
#31 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
considering the war was based on body-count for both sides, that's a pretty reasonable number
#9 - douthit (07/17/2013) [-]
And our current president holds a Nobel Peace Prize, while his DJ 4DM1Nistration has assassinated several American citizens overseas, and has killed hundreds to thousands of civilians abroad.
#10 to #9 - jimli (07/17/2013) [-]
I like to think that the peace prize was Europe warning Obama not to **** up. Basically saying "now you have something to live up to," especially since his predecessor couldn't even have qualified as a parody of an example. But I agree that there's irony. Whatever the motive of giving it to him, he definitely didn't live up to it.

pic unrelated, unless Obama is a cat and on acid... which would explain a bit
User avatar #29 to #9 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (07/17/2013) [-]
>content is slightly political
"Wow, better take some cheap shots at Obama now!"

Keep that **** on the Politics board bro.
#46 to #29 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
I didn't see anyone say that when Romney was insulted.
User avatar #47 to #46 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (07/17/2013) [-]
I don't see it when Obama gets ripped on either. And no one takes cheap shots at Romney because he lost.
User avatar #72 to #29 - douthit (07/17/2013) [-]
You're right, nothing in politics affects anything in any of our lives. Oh wait, no, it affects every single facet of them.
User avatar #80 to #72 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (07/18/2013) [-]
And gosh, it's not like people who take cheap shots at the president at the slightest opportunity come off as whiny bitches who can't stand the fact that they lost. Oh wait, no, they really do.
User avatar #81 to #80 - douthit (07/18/2013) [-]
LOL I'm no Romney supporter. The matrix has you...
User avatar #82 to #81 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (07/18/2013) [-]
Bro even if you're not a Romney supporter you're angry cause you lost. You mad. Keep it on the politics board.
User avatar #97 to #82 - douthit (07/19/2013) [-]
Lost when? Lost what?
User avatar #56 - valyn (07/17/2013) [-]
"We came in peace for all mankind" seems legit. ******* commies aren't people
#71 to #56 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
I was getting rustled until I saw your avatar.
User avatar #11 - kingron (07/17/2013) [-]
I was expecting something funny
no offense
User avatar #12 - sketchE (07/17/2013) [-]
nixon ended the war though.
User avatar #25 to #12 - CollinTB (07/17/2013) [-]
Nixon wasn't in office when the Vietnam war ended, and it ended due to North Vietnam conquering South Vietnam.
User avatar #27 to #25 - sketchE (07/17/2013) [-]
disregard im wrong he started the withdrawl though
User avatar #26 to #25 - sketchE (07/17/2013) [-]
nam ended in 72 nixon was president till 74 he pulled the US troops out resultin in the end of the war. nam was a poliical defeat not a military one. we kicked there asses up and down that peninsula
#32 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
We were at ******* WAR! What the **** do you expect? Butterflies and candy? You're a ******* dumbass for this post. We were fighting our enemies, of course we were dropping bombs on them. We needed to in order to fight.
User avatar #53 to #32 - azumeow (07/17/2013) [-]
A war that was created because the US decided that a country wasn't allowed to run itself if it was gonna become a country of dirty communists.

History lesson: The Vietnamese didn't necessarily want to be communist. They just wanted independence. They offered to give up communism.

We responded by annihilating 90% of their ports and firebombing them back to the stone age.
#64 to #53 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
And they deserved it. Don't fight us if you can't win.
User avatar #65 to #64 - azumeow (07/17/2013) [-]
People like you are the reason the Holocaust happened.
#79 to #65 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
... what the **** do you mean? How does that make any sense at all to you?
User avatar #83 to #79 - azumeow (07/18/2013) [-]
Might does not equal right.

What you're saying is "Don't fight us if you can't win." So, by that logic, if I can beat somebody, they have no right to try and fight back, no matter what I'm doing?

That's the exact logic that went into a LOT of the minds of SS members when they were massacring people by the thousands.
#88 to #83 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
I'd rather be on the stronger side that's more likely to win. Watching out for myself really. But the thing is the USA was in the right, we were trying to help them.
#98 to #32 - greatgranpapy (07/19/2013) [-]
Did you... Did you just call Carl Sagan's words dumb?
Did you... Did you just call Carl Sagan's words dumb?
#55 to #32 - joethebeast (07/17/2013) [-]
that's not the point, war shouldn't have to happen, we are all humans and we need to get along, or i doubt humanity will survive past 2050
#63 to #55 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
I promise you we will. Stop being paranoid. War is very necessary. We need **** , someone has **** , wont give us **** , we start war, take **** .
User avatar #68 to #63 - joethebeast (07/17/2013) [-]
i'm not paranoid, if you just look at all the subtle **** happening here and there, **** builds up quick, or maybe i am paranoid, idk
User avatar #70 to #68 - joethebeast (07/17/2013) [-]
i guess i could say, everyday it seems to be more bad news, and it sickens me because things look like they are falling apart at the seams, thats just how i see it
#74 to #70 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
How you see it is stupid and wrong. You're over reacting. You're making mountains out of mole hills, calm down. And yes you are paranoid, not just maybe.
User avatar #96 to #74 - joethebeast (07/18/2013) [-]
alright alright, relax, dont get your panties in a bunch
User avatar #33 to #32 - mechaemperor (07/17/2013) [-]
A fairly pointless war at that... even more so than the previous one.
User avatar #36 to #33 - JesuschristofAZ (07/17/2013) [-]
Pointless for the Americans involvement? Yes. But if America didn't step in eventually, another nation would of had to. The primary goal was preventing the spread of communism, but people forget the NVA tortured innocent Southern Vietnamese and killed them on the regular because they didn't want to bow into the North.
User avatar #38 to #36 - JesuschristofAZ (07/17/2013) [-]
**primary goal for the US
#54 to #36 - tranminh (07/17/2013) [-]
I'm Vietnamese, and my mom with from the south while my dad was from the north. Both sides committed atrocities and the funny thing is both sides were fighting for the same thing: reunification of Vietnam. However the South was a government built by the US and was catholic in a buddhist majority which was a huge political failure.

For the Vietnamese people this wasn't communist vs democracy, it was a fight for a true Vietnam, not a false leader like ngo dinh diem. Anyone who says that America was fighting to free the Vietnamese would be wrong. We would never let the Chinese or the Russians into our country without a fight. Contrary to popular belief the Chinese and the Vietnamese are historical enemies.
#78 to #54 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
USA tried to reunite it but the people we were fighting against wouldn't allow it. You should be thanking us.
User avatar #86 to #78 - azumeow (07/18/2013) [-]
You know jack **** about history.
#91 to #86 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
I know that you shouldn't start a war you can't finish.
User avatar #93 to #91 - azumeow (07/18/2013) [-]
THEY DIDN'T START THE ******* WAR
#95 to #93 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
The people we were fighting did start it. We were trying to help them improve their country but they refused.
User avatar #40 to #36 - jewishcommunazi (07/17/2013) [-]
Was that why they put Pol Pot in power? Because the NVA killed people?
User avatar #42 to #40 - jewishcommunazi (07/17/2013) [-]
Besides, the South Vietnamese government was no better than the North Vietnamese, it was probably worse.

I don't really like NVA either though.
User avatar #73 to #36 - mechaemperor (07/17/2013) [-]
As a user posts below, both sides committed war crimes. The reason was indeed to stop the spread of communism, not to prevent civilians being tortured/killed, hence why it was indeed pointless.
#77 to #73 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
The point was to prevent the spread of communism like you said, it was very meaningful.
User avatar #39 to #32 - dumbasshunter (07/17/2013) [-]
it COULD have been prevented, the whole reason it started was because the british and the USA ignored the soviets demands in various meetings after the second world war. and even then, the USA were in the wrong in my opinion, speaking as a brit, as they had the chance to prevent the potential nuclear war that was the cuban missile crises, when they were discovered spying on the soviets during the U2 incident. all they had to do was admit that they were spying, and apologies. and also, you say we were at war, but the people the US were fighting were innocent people. Hiroshima. innocent people. various napalm strikes during vietnam. innocent farmers, defending their land against strange aliens that spoke a different language. (and may i add, that the chemicals used in the other bombs dropped in vietnam are still showing the effects in innocent children today? and even worse is the fact that the americans nearly lost that war. they were nearly defeated by children with pointy sticks.)



User avatar #67 to #39 - youngfearless (07/17/2013) [-]
while i agree with the first part, in WWII the Japanese would not give up unless we did something drastic . if we didn't bomb hiroshima the citizens would never have thrown the emperor (or what ever he was) out of power and more lives on both sides would have been lost. in Vietnam, the vietcong looked like citizens, and blended in with the citizens of south vietnam, they hid in civilian homes and fox holes. they often ambushed the soldiers in civilian towns comeing out of said homes and fox holes. if they had to investigate a house, they would be in a trap door underneath and when they opened the door, took out each troop before the realized it, most of the soldiers stationed in vietnam were there because of the draft, all they wanted to do was survive, so they did the best they could and unfortunately it involved killing civilians. was it right? no. was our reasoning for being there good? no. but that's hindsight
User avatar #69 to #67 - dumbasshunter (07/17/2013) [-]
they were killing the soldiers, because they were defending themselves...its all defensive tactics....
#76 to #69 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
Don't fight us, simple as that. Don't fight in a war you can't ******* win.
User avatar #84 to #76 - azumeow (07/18/2013) [-]
You are a ******* psychopath, you know that right?
#90 to #84 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
Ok seriously i'm just going to tell you that i've been called a sociopath and psychopath so many ******* times in my life that I just don't give a **** anymore. All I can say is at least my judgement isn't blurred by weak emotions causing me to make illogical decisions because "MUH FEELINGS!" I make sense. I make logical decisions based on facts, not emotions. Emotions are a weakness mostly but of course you need them for some things, but no always. I'm glad that I am the way I am, makes life easier and more fun really. Everything is funny when you have no morals. So yeah, **** you, call me a psychopath, I couldn't care less.
User avatar #85 to #69 - azumeow (07/18/2013) [-]
Don't bother with this anon, he's a goddamned psychopath.
#75 to #39 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
We were watching our possible enemies, how silly of us. You act as if no country has ever spied on us, that's how **** works. We have to keep an eye on possible threats. **** that innocent people thing you talked about. Please tell me how it's our fault that our enemy would fire at us from a village then hide out among the people using them as human meat shields. They were at fault for all those casualties. We would have much rather fought them out in the open with no civilians around but they obviously didn't, we had no choice but to have some innocent casualties. Blame them, they were the bad people.
User avatar #92 to #75 - dumbasshunter (07/18/2013) [-]
there is no good or bad in war you uneducated dipstick. only different opinions. society usually decides to go with the opinion that is most suitable for them and them only, and not the world, that's why communism failed. they were fighting for their country, just like the americans were your moron
#94 to #92 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
There is such thing as a good war. We were good to fight the Nazi's in a war right? We were good during the revolutionary war. The Civil war. All good wars. They were wrong to fight for their country. We were trying to HELP them IMPROVE their country but they wouldn't allow us to. We wanted to do it in a peaceful way but they refused, they are to blame not us.
User avatar #100 to #94 - dumbasshunter (07/19/2013) [-]
and further more, who says they wanted to be improved? its like saying "your house is wrong, so im going to blow it up and rebuild it the exact same way as my one, because my one is right."
#99 to #94 - dumbasshunter (07/19/2013) [-]
no, i mean there are no good guys and bad guys, just different points of view....for example, nazi soldiers were fighting for a future of purity and equality. viet cong soldiers were fighting for their lives and land. the reason we think they are bad is simply because they are pointing guns at us, and killing our friends, when we are doing the exact same to them.
User avatar #87 to #75 - azumeow (07/18/2013) [-]
"We would have much rather fought them out in the open with no civilians around but obviously they didn't."

That sure explains why we just decided ' **** the civilians' and there were quotas made on daily village bombings that were met, regardless of whether a village actually had VC/NVA in it.

That sure explains why pilots where told to radio in artillery coordinates on towns where they explicitly stated that there were no VC/NVA forces at all, with command knowing that they'd be murdering innocent civilians while doing no damage to the enemy.

" **** that innocent people thing you talked about." Yes, because killing 20 innocent people on the off chance that a guilty person was hiding out among them is definitely not how a ******* sociopath would solve his issues. The world would be better off without your kind of person.
#89 to #87 - anon (07/18/2013) [-]
That's where they were ******* hiding. We couldn't take the chance of going to every single ******* village to see who had the enemies and who didn't. That's dangerous because we could have been attacked. Bombing them was a lot easier. It's psychological war fair. Scare the enemy into making them surrender. Want to stop all the innocent deaths? Give up.

As long as we get our target i'm good. He shouldn't be hiding out among civilians if he cares so much about them.
#18 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
'Murica!
User avatar #43 - qwertyuioplkjh (07/17/2013) [-]
>ctrl+shift+j
>copypaste: $('.thUp').click();
>enter
>???????
>profit
#14 - bollenn (07/17/2013) [-]
We have not been on the moon yet.
#59 to #14 - bollenn (07/17/2013) [-]
-83, ******* record, wuup wuup!
#103 to #59 - Viggiator ONLINE (07/30/2013) [-]
Nothing to be proud of kid.
Nothing to be proud of kid.
#104 to #103 - bollenn (07/30/2013) [-]
Ofc it is my man. Im the opposite man.
User avatar #48 to #14 - firstresponder (07/17/2013) [-]
yeah because you can only see the flag on the moon from a telescope. I guess that cant be real
User avatar #60 - vuican (07/17/2013) [-]
So why do people think dropping the bombs were the wrong thing to do?
User avatar #101 to #60 - threadz ONLINE (07/27/2013) [-]
Because it killed people. Surely there was a more civilized way to deal with the problem, such as diplomacy.
User avatar #102 to #101 - vuican (07/27/2013) [-]
That was tried though.
User avatar #62 to #60 - nortledrones (07/17/2013) [-]
Since anything America does is horrible according to funnyjunk.
#52 - nortledrones (07/17/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Didn't Great Britain imperialized like 1/4 of the planet at one point and abused citizens across the globe while taking resources from places such as India?
User avatar #58 to #52 - AvatarAirBender (07/17/2013) [-]
You should see the videos of british people in india just beating women and kids with huge sticks.
User avatar #61 to #58 - nortledrones (07/17/2013) [-]
I guess no one here wants to respond to my comment with a rebuttal like they always tend to do, whether it be from Trayvon Marvin, to America, to religion. Oh well. Just shows how hypocritical this website tends to be.
#66 to #61 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
This. ******* this.
#51 - anon (07/17/2013) [-]
I think carl sagan needs to look up the definition of irony
User avatar #57 to #51 - quoterox (07/17/2013) [-]
Princeton defines irony as 'incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs'.

As we(Americans) were being incredibly violent against our fellow man, we claimed to have 'come in peace for all mankind'.

That's, by definition, irony.

Check your ******* facts before you **** out a stupid comment next time, anon.
 Friends (0)