EPTOn November 26 2009 23:04 koreasilver wrote:
So basically you don't want to be taken seriously.
So basically you don't want to be taken seriously.
so basically you are an idiot?
Dying boy wants Christmas cards - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
so basically you are an idiot? | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
The second thing were a few people saying they are disappointed with the more "philosophical" issues being raised in this topic. They take this argument and jump to the conclusion that their POV is all we need. Unfortunately, people who disagree do have something to talk about, and telling them that they should turn their brains off and accept what someone says without reason is obviously delivering some faulty form of argument. If people are wrong for having qualms with all this hubbub about sending a card, you have to do more than say they're wrong if you want to convince anyone, and TBH just stating your conclusion without any reasons is one of the more vicious forms of trolling on the internet. | ||
|
druj
137 Posts
Something related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchausen_syndrome_by_proxy Very fascinating, but I wouldn't generalize it as being simply egoistical, there are many personal problems within the parent(s) that make it the more tragic. In this case (this is not directed at "you"), this is very tragic for the parents, and the loss of a child is a suffering that no parent should go through, probably the worst kind of emotional suffering there is, and really, even if it is egoistical, why should it matter? You can always deduce any human motivation to being egoistical down by a game of semantics. | ||
|
Captain Mayhem
Sweden774 Posts
On November 26 2009 23:03 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: only if someone is as stupid as you. /.../ But maybe you can explain to me, what exactly made my words look like I see the lack of pain as the only thing making a life worth of living. Jesus, settle down a bit. how about let him die before those 2 years of pain? that would've saved him 2 years of pain with the exact same outcome. aka his passing would be extremly easier. why should i cut my string of life right now? I already clearly said that I am not suffering any pain at all yeah, im a miserable cunt for not letting someone suffer massive pain. are you some kinda sadist that you prefer ppl suffering than beeing dead? There you go. | ||
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
On November 27 2009 10:26 druj wrote: /.../ why should it matter? You can always deduce any human motivation to being egoistical down by a game of semantics. it should matter, because you shouldn't just think about yourself, that is what defines our civilisation (f.e. we normally dont steal from others for our own benefit). Not any human (or animal) motivation is egoistically in its rawest form. There are animals(also humans) who don't have children on their own, and help their brothers/sisters to raise their children or the bro/sis itself. This makes genetically perfect sense, because they (bro/sis) carry the same genetic information as the one withouth own children. @Captain Mayhem I responded in the manner I did because of a simple word, champ. As I already explained if I'm in a shop for rims I don't talk about the engine of the car. So if I say that someones rims are ugly and he responds that his engine rocks, I continue pointing out that the rims suck because we are in a rims shop after all. He shifted the stuff I wrote to fit his need, doing this he will have a strong attack on me, but it is not really related to the stuff I wrote. F.e. you are braging how fast your car is and how big of a dick you have, I come and say but your car is pink, thats fucking gay. Totally unrelated although it might be accurate. | ||
|
Captain Mayhem
Sweden774 Posts
On November 28 2009 20:23 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: @Captain Mayhem I responded in the manner I did because of a simple word, champ. I suggest you stop doing that to people who are actually trying to help you then (in my case by answering your question as to why the rest of the people read your text in a certain way, and point out what parts). Do you know any people who like being insulted as payback for helping others? Because I sure as fuck don't. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
On November 28 2009 20:23 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: it should matter, because you shouldn't just think about yourself, that is what defines our civilisation (f.e. we normally dont steal from others for our own benefit). Not any human (or animal) motivation is egoistically in its rawest form. There are animals(also humans) who don't have children on their own, and help their brothers/sisters to raise their children or the bro/sis itself. This makes genetically perfect sense, because they (bro/sis) carry the same Gene selection doesn't apply to humans, hm? Biologists should be quick to point out that humans are animals too. Our morality clearly is in our own self-interest in most cases, and when not, clearly a misfiring of a tendency that won out because it helped our ancestors with the same tendency have more grandchildren and so on. Many basic civilizations, disconnected from the major tradition, have the same tendency you are referring to--and many animals, too! So even if we aren't thinking about ourself, we have just internalized it. For instance, in the case of this boy, our caring is probably a misfiring of a past time when he would be a likely niece or nephew, our own genetics, for whom protecting would be benefiting our own genes (because they have them too!). How this happens mentally is clearly secondary to the obvious selective pressures that bring about the tendency, and to put it prior is to make the mistake of the naive romantic (which is the standard form of the literate, mildly educated person today, so it is not meant as an insult). It's wishful thinking to believe that our social tendencies are so free from the shackles of our genes and their history. We have much more in common with mammals and indeed all vertebrates than you seem to be implying. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
| ||
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
On November 29 2009 04:38 old times sake wrote: Gene selection doesn't apply to humans, hm? Biologists should be quick to point out that humans are animals too. Our morality clearly is in our own self-interest in most cases, and when not, clearly a misfiring of a tendency that won out because it helped our ancestors with the same tendency have more grandchildren and so on. Many basic civilizations, disconnected from the major tradition, have the same tendency you are referring to--and many animals, too! So even if we aren't thinking about ourself, we have just internalized it. For instance, in the case of this boy, our caring is probably a misfiring of a past time when he would be a likely niece or nephew, our own genetics, for whom protecting would be benefiting our own genes (because they have them too!). How this happens mentally is clearly secondary to the obvious selective pressures that bring about the tendency, and to put it prior is to make the mistake of the naive romantic (which is the standard form of the literate, mildly educated person today, so it is not meant as an insult). It's wishful thinking to believe that our social tendencies are so free from the shackles of our genes and their history. We have much more in common with mammals and indeed all vertebrates than you seem to be implying. Yeah, I do agree with you that many of our altruistic actions are egoistic because we expect good feedback from them, which we benefit from again. The example I made with the brother helping his sibling to raise the children is exactly one of those examples. (btw, I didn't really get it if you directed that at me, but I always looked at humans like animals) The point I'm applying the leverage is where we know that our altruistic actions are egoistic in it's most basic "form". We have the knowledge that we are triggered by basic instincts, but we don't necessarly have to advocate them. We are on an intelectual niveau where we can form ourself and become something bigger than a bunch of egoistic assholes. In reality it's just so, that it's way easier to control someones basic instincs than break or bend them for his own benefit. A simple example is the oversexualized media we are confronted with. An omnipresent sentence I can hear from friends is: "Yeah, I know this show sucks, but the chicks are hot". This means, they are happy as long as their basic instinc (bone a chick) is satisfied. Yeah, we could say now, why bother? If someone is happy watching a crappy show with a few random tittys and asses, why shouldn't he do it? It's simple, such stuff is degenerating them. Your basic instinct tells you to fucking eat that chicken that is frizzling in the oven, but do you just grab it with your hands and hit your teeth into it? Rather not, because you are not following your basic instinct (as much food as fast as possible right now). | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
In your sexualized example, why bother indeed? The impulse represents genes that we should care little for, if not actually actively resent for their interference. Why would I care how many of my genes get passed on mostly after I'm dead and at any rate, would I really rate myself whether I manage to have 30+ children or not? If not, then I guess the impulse is misleading me. We've tried to transform the impulse into its smaller definitions in an attempt to salvage it, but I feel like this is just a disguise for keeping the actual reason alive. Disguises help it fool us yet again. As for your second example, and I think this applies to the former as well, the way we eat chicken is most likely just another one of our impulses misfiring--our capacity for copying our ancestors' behaviors, our affinity for ritual, etc. Come on now, that fork and knife and all is not exactly a procedure reasoned out through critical thinking, a scientific achievement in optimal eating. It's rubbish from the past that won out for reasons that have more to do with its effectiveness spreading than its truth. I'm sure you agree. Where I think we disagree is that you seem to give civilization more credit than I think it has earned. | ||
|
ForSC2
United States580 Posts
On November 30 2009 01:40 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Yeah, I do agree with you that many of our altruistic actions are egoistic because we expect good feedback from them, which we benefit from again. The example I made with the brother helping his sibling to raise the children is exactly one of those examples. (btw, I didn't really get it if you directed that at me, but I always looked at humans like animals) The point I'm applying the leverage is where we know that our altruistic actions are egoistic in it's most basic "form". We have the knowledge that we are triggered by basic instincts, but we don't necessarly have to advocate them. We are on an intelectual niveau where we can form ourself and become something bigger than a bunch of egoistic assholes. In reality it's just so, that it's way easier to control someones basic instincs than break or bend them for his own benefit. A simple example is the oversexualized media we are confronted with. An omnipresent sentence I can hear from friends is: "Yeah, I know this show sucks, but the chicks are hot". This means, they are happy as long as their basic instinc (bone a chick) is satisfied. Yeah, we could say now, why bother? If someone is happy watching a crappy show with a few random tittys and asses, why shouldn't he do it? It's simple, such stuff is degenerating them. Your basic instinct tells you to fucking eat that chicken that is frizzling in the oven, but do you just grab it with your hands and hit your teeth into it? Rather not, because you are not following your basic instinct (as much food as fast as possible right now). How do you feel about people that sometimes do good things, but don't let anyone know? Like if an anonymous source writes a 100,000 dollar check to someone that's going to lose their house? Or someone that's gruff when helping someone so the other person doesn't feel the need to thank them as much if at all, so they don't create that sense of obligation in the person they're helping and in doing so can keep the relationship the same as equals no matter how much they give? Or someone that tries to help someone anyway even when the other person rejects and abuses them because that person thinks they really could use some help and if they don't help them how can they expect anyone else to? If someone makes it so they can never be thanked anytime they help anyone what is that defined as to you as altruism or whatever? I'm not arguing anything. Because you guys seem to know this stuff, I'm just trying to think of what could a person theoretically do to create the same outcomes without being as selfish. | ||
| ||
