On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
On October 24 2008 13:20 D10 wrote: Damn Jibba, how could I have missed that huge flaw, altruism doesnt exist, its just a big lie
a reasonable argument can be made that it doesnt
moreover, why is altruism a good thing?
Altruism is a basic biological principle that explains a lot of animal behavior. Questioning its existance is rediculous.
We may label altruism the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others, but in reality altruism is simply behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage that benefits others of its kind.
i meant that the evolution of 'altruistic' behavior was driven by self preservation so it isnt really altruistic, since it isnt selfless. i was talking about 1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ). not the one in relation to animal behavior.
Being altruistic is the antithesis of being a psychopath. Being a psychopath doesn't mean your schizophrenic all it means is that you have no empathy i.e you do not have a single altruistic bone in your body. People are born psychopath's it is all about the chemicals in your brain. Some people are born good some are born bad it is as simple as that.
Altruism's evolution may be the product of evolution helping each other for mutual betterment but at the same time focusing entirely on yourself and doing whatever it takes to better yourself could evolve for much the same reason minus the mutual betterment.
It may appear their is no altruism some times but this is because all corporations are by definition psychopaths, and they largely run the show. At the same time nations themselves are 'realist' particularly the United States, China and Russia. This forces other nations to be realist themselves. Realists are psychopaths as well by definition.
It is worth noting that many animals seem primarily altruistic like dolphins or pandas whilst others are primarily self centered, like for example Chimpanzees the only big ape which kills its own for fun and also the animal we share the closest relation with some 99 odd percent.
On October 25 2008 01:07 DrainX wrote: Also animals living in small groups(like humans used to) can benefit from altruistic behavior when they are bound to meet the same individuals again and again. This can be shows with some simple game theory.
Then it's not altruism. I think it probably exists, but I don't immediately dismiss the claim that subconsciously it doesn't.
EDIT: To claim that it exists within animals is ridiculous. Altruistic acts may exist, but altruism is a state of mind and there is no way to understand their motivations. The question is: is it possible to be 100% selfless? This is totally irrelevant btw!
Claiming that altruism exists within animals is ridiculous? Humans are animals. Evolutionary biology has explained the rise of altruistic behavior in animals, including humans.
Altruistic acts may exist, but altruism is a state of mind and there is no way to understand their motivations.
You might want to give more thought to your definition of altruism, it seems vague and very subjective as it stands.
Richard Dawkins wrote: When biologists talk about ‘selfishness or ‘altruism’ we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. We do not even mean the words in a metaphorical sense. We define altruism and selfishness in purely behaviouristic ways: ‘An entity… is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity’s welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect.'
Please read "The Selfish Gene" (could have been equally been named "The Altruistic Animal" according to its author).
Ok, now you're just spewing out bullshit definitions for anything you'd like. Barack Obama is the goulash choice for President of the United States, and John McCain is utterly francophone in his necktie.
Psychopathy is absolutely not the same thing as being selfish. Psychopathy is an antisocial disorder marked with a dysfunctional, purely id driven subconscious. It has nothing to do with being self interested and while corporations are generally greedy (as they should be), they don't act without reason or purely for immediate gain.
On October 25 2008 01:07 DrainX wrote: Also animals living in small groups(like humans used to) can benefit from altruistic behavior when they are bound to meet the same individuals again and again. This can be shows with some simple game theory.
Then it's not altruism. I think it probably exists, but I don't immediately dismiss the claim that subconsciously it doesn't.
EDIT: To claim that it exists within animals is ridiculous. Altruistic acts may exist, but altruism is a state of mind and there is no way to understand their motivations. The question is: is it possible to be 100% selfless? This is totally irrelevant btw!
Claiming that altruism exists within animals is ridiculous? Humans are animals. Evolutionary biology has explained the rise of altruistic behavior in animals, including humans.
I meant proof of it is ridiculous.
You might want to give more thought to your definition of altruism, it seems vague and very subjective as it stands.
Richard Dawkins wrote: When biologists talk about ‘selfishness or ‘altruism’ we are emphatically not talking about emotional nature, whether of human beings, other animals, or genes. We do not even mean the words in a metaphorical sense. We define altruism and selfishness in purely behaviouristic ways: ‘An entity… is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity’s welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect.'
Please read "The Selfish Gene" (could have been equally been named "The Altruistic Animal" according to its author).
Ok, this is the problem. You're using a biologist's definition, I'm using a philosopher's/psychologist's. I'll clarify. Is it possibly to be consciously and subconsciously altruistic?
On October 25 2008 01:07 DrainX wrote: Also animals living in small groups(like humans used to) can benefit from altruistic behavior when they are bound to meet the same individuals again and again. This can be shows with some simple game theory.
Then it's not altruism. I think it probably exists, but I don't immediately dismiss the claim that subconsciously it doesn't.
EDIT: To claim that it exists within animals is ridiculous. Altruistic acts may exist, but altruism is a state of mind and there is no way to understand their motivations. The question is: is it possible to be 100% selfless? This is totally irrelevant btw!
I was just responding to Savios post about altruism in nature. Thats how its defined in biology.
I don't think that anyone would ever be 100% selfless but I do think that most of us would like everyone in the world to live a happy life. I think that most of us want to live in a fair and equal world. I don't think that people only act to increase their own wealth and pursue their own agendas. We dont need everyone to be completly selfless to agree to live in a society that makes sure everyone gets a fair chance in life.
On October 25 2008 10:53 Choros wrote: Altruism's evolution may be the product of evolution helping each other for mutual betterment but at the same time focusing entirely on yourself and doing whatever it takes to better yourself could evolve for much the same reason minus the mutual betterment.
the argument is that altruism DID develop by animals focusing only on what is better for themselves, and a byproduct of that was behavior that also helped others, sometimes at no apparently benefit to the animal itself. doesnt change the fact that its selfish behavior when you examine all the outcomes. (and since its selfish its not altruistic in that its not selfless)
It may appear their is no altruism some times but this is because all corporations are by definition psychopaths, and they largely run the show. At the same time nations themselves are 'realist' particularly the United States, China and Russia. This forces other nations to be realist themselves. Realists are psychopaths as well by definition.
On October 25 2008 11:05 Jibba wrote: Ok, now you're just spewing out bullshit definitions for anything you'd like. Barack Obama is the goulash choice for President of the United States, and John McCain is utterly francophone in his necktie.
Psychopathy is absolutely not the same thing as being selfish. Psychopathy is an antisocial disorder marked with a dysfunctional, purely id driven subconscious. It has nothing to do with being self interested and while corporations are generally greedy (as they should be), they don't act without reason or purely for immediate gain.
You are wrong it is as simple as that. Definition: psy·cho·path, amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. What you describe psychopath as is a standard and incredibly misleading definition. There are many people who are psychopaths but they learn at an early age how to pretend to care about other people so as to appear normal, but when it is in their interest to do so they will back stab you without remorse. In fact their is a clinical test for a psychopath, you put sensitive electrodes on peoples skin on their face and monitor the iris in their eye, then you show them distressing pictures of starving children etc, normal 'altruistic' people have subconsciousness responses, the iris dilates and minuscule barely noticeable droplets of water come out of the skin. Psychopaths have no response because they feel no empathy. The capacity to feel empathetic and being altruistic is one and the same. Some people have it and some people do not it is that simple. Most psychopaths seem perfectly normal it is estimated that perhaps 25% of people are psychopaths (from the same study i was referring too above).
Infact the movie 'the corporations' goes into specific detail as to how corporations are psychopathic. They got a police psychologist to go through the check list and every single box is ticked. Being a psychopath does not mean short sighted or without reason it simply means with no empathy. Psychopaths do not kill people as often as they would like because of the consequences to themselves, just the same corporations only do good things like protect the environment if it becomes in their interest to do so through legislation or if their is commercial benefit.
I think some people are arguing semantics about the definition of altruism. You can help out other people without pretext, which I would consider altrusitic, but it could still help you out somehow because you could feel good about it or these people may help you back in the future, I would still consider this altruistic. Pretty much all good parents are altruistic. You could make the argument that parents get emotional satisfaction out of being a good parent so that's not true altruism but again you are just arguing the semantics of the word, and clearly nature has made altruism a desirable trait, at least in some circumstances. The real test is to expand altruism to a global level, beyond your friends and family.
On October 25 2008 06:44 Savio wrote: But, if you put that aside, then arguing that it is harder for a person with half the income of another to pay half the taxes...just because....doesn't make any sense.
By common sense, a person earning more money than another person will have a much "easier" time paying taxes because they are left with a lot more money, thus their standard of living is higher, thus they have an easier time in life monetarily. Is this what you are saying doesn't make sense? I'm not arguing whether it is "fair" or not to tax the wealthy more, but it is obviously easier for the wealthier to pay taxes even when they are taxed at a higher percentage rate. Getting breaks on sales tax for things like food does little to change the wealth discrepancy.
I understand what you are saying, but the rich will always be better off than the poor no matter wha the tax rates are. That is just life. And that is the way it should be. Trying to change that fact has ruined too many countries and led to world's worst atrocities and sad outcomes (think North Korea).
Yeah, it's not the totalitarianism that fucked over the country, it's totally the economic egalitarianism! Who cares if the country is ruled by a small group of elites who are much better off than everyone else; it's economic egalitarianism that caused all the problems. Never mind the fact that the early Kibbutzim had no such problems!
It may appear their is no altruism some times but this is because all corporations are by definition psychopaths, and they largely run the show. At the same time nations themselves are 'realist' particularly the United States, China and Russia. This forces other nations to be realist themselves. Realists are psychopaths as well by definition.
that doesnt even make any sense
The realist ideology in international politics simply means acting in ones self interest, their is no room for empathy. A realist acts in the exact same way that a psychopath does, realism dominates international politics this is basically my argument, it makes it easy to see their is no altruism.
How does a human organization (MADE UP OF HUMANS) lack empathy and remorse? Unless it's an entire fucking club of psychopaths, it doesn't. What they act on is totally irrelevant.
You're equating self interested behavior to amoral behavior, which is 110% bullshit.
It may appear their is no altruism some times but this is because all corporations are by definition psychopaths, and they largely run the show. At the same time nations themselves are 'realist' particularly the United States, China and Russia. This forces other nations to be realist themselves. Realists are psychopaths as well by definition.
The realist ideology in international politics simply means acting in ones self interest, their is no room for empathy. A realist acts in the exact same way that a psychopath does, realism dominates international politics this is basically my argument, it makes it easy to see their is no altruism.
Ok, in that case 100% of the population is psychopathic. Well done, Choros.
On October 25 2008 09:00 D10 wrote: Lol here in Brazil theres no progressive income tax if you make over X amount of money you pay 46% of income like everybody else.
Sucks a lot
46%! How much do you have to earn to pay that much?! I thought the whole idea of a flat tax was to minimise bureaucracy so overall, everyone paid less tax!
EPT
