Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href='http://www.game-advertising-online.com/' target='_blank'>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Age of Heroes Headlines:  
20 Dec 2014: A Christmas Gift: Random Skills in Heroes VII! - read more
16 Dec 2014: Introducing Shapers of Lore, Academy Line-Up Detailed - read more
10 Dec 2014: Heroes III HD Remake Announced for January 29th! - read more
5 Dec 2014: Website Update delayed, Community Q&A, new Vote on the way! - read more
24 Nov 2014: The Wizards’ Armies Have Arrived! - read more
14 Nov 2014: Dungeon Line-up Vote #2 Results! - read more
11 Nov 2014: HC Icon Contest, Sylvan Townscreen Vote #2 - read more
7 Nov 2014: Dungeon Line-up Vote Round 2, Sylvan Townscreen Part 1! - read more
2 Nov 2014: Dungeon wins, line-up vote starts! - read more
18 Oct 2014: Tidbits of Information from Twitch.tv Stream! - read more
20 Dec 2014: A Christmas Gift: Random Skills in Heroes VII! - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Why George Bush Should Not Be Re-elected.
Thread: Why George Bush Should Not Be Re-elected. [ This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (9) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ]
bjorn190
bjorn190


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
posted June 17, 2004 10:49 PM

Consis, watch Michel Moore's next movie pls

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted June 18, 2004 12:36 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 18 Jun 2004

Consis, in my attempts to be as objective as possible, I have listened to what Bush has said and I am not hearing the same inconsistencies as others seem to be hearing.

Don't you think there is a difference between the organization "Al Qaeda" and the particular attack they orchestrated on 9/11?  Bush never did claim (to my recollection) that Saddam had any direct hand in 9/11.  The claimed affiliation was in Saddam's relationship with the organization of Al Qaeda in general, for example, the standing agreement to provide tens of thousands of dollars to the families of individuals who lost their lives engaging in acts of terrorism against Israel and the West (basically an incentive to engage in such acts on behalf of one's family).

The organization Al Qaeda is a much broader organization than the single action of 9/11.  Saddam did not need to be involved or even know about this particular action (9/11) or any other particular action in order to offer general support to the organization over a period of time like he has been alleged to have done.

To all my liberal friends:  I just call them as I see them.  IMHO we will never get over this extreme polarization between the two parties until people start doing that. I just think that nobody should play these little word games against one another, no matter what the party affiliation is.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted June 18, 2004 06:52 PM

Quote:
I am glad you are all so set on not having George Bush re-elected. Just wait and see what happens if John Kerry becomes President of the United States.
Remember when you dumped your ex-girlfriend for her more attractive best friend? After a few weeks you suddenly realized that perhaps your ex-girlfriend was not perfect; however, the CONVERSATION, EMOTION, and SEX was definitely much better than with your current girlfriend, who you won't be able to get rid of for a very long time...about four years.

Hey khay, I never knew SEX with Bush was that great.
On this side of the Atlantic we get the impression that it's really one-sided, cos we only get f*cked.

Really though, I liked your post (it was great having in mind it came from a Bush supporter).
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Wub
Wub


Responsible
Famous Hero
posted June 25, 2004 12:59 AM
Edited By: Wub on 24 Jun 2004

Warning: this post contains explicit idealism...

Hello Khayman,

I must say that I did not find your post any similar to a ‘boring soliloquy’ at all. In fact I can have nothing but the deepest respect for your post. I even see that you appropriately disabled your signature for it . I may not agree with you on every point, but who am I to question the sincere expression of 32 years of life experience? Now that would be an example of arrogance. Therefore I do not really wish to criticize your views, but merely show how I arrive at a different opinion on certain issues (or, for that matter, at the same opinion via another way).

It is important to know that I study psychology and thus had to read through hundreds of theories and articles about human behavior. Needless to say, what I learnt impacted my understanding of humans quite a bit. Generally, I am quite skeptic of what I read as I found that scientifically obtained knowledge is much more controversial than many people suspect. Therefore, I always try to compare that what I read with what I experience in daily life, so my worldview is still mainly based on common sense (at least I hope ). Still, I am not in any way more objective than you are, of course.

Let’s begin with saying that you are a man of my heart . The description of a hopelessly romantic, utopia desiring, world peace seeking individual would apply nicely to me as well. But I think I am more optimistic (or naïve one might say) about the possibility of reaching those ideals and I also believe that striving after them is in itself valuable, even if it is in vain. Still, I agree for an important part with your beliefs, though I would add some thoughts about them.

Quote:
People are basically self-serving, evil creatures.

I don’t really believe in the concept of evil; in my opinion it merely exists in fairy tales or is used by governments as propaganda. I think there are few, if any, people who perform evil deeds just for the sake of it. To me ‘evil’ is more the absence of good, caused by certain needs that are not fulfilled. (This indeed comes very close to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which I noted you are a big advocate of in your posts. I myself am not really convinced, though).

But apart from this, I agree that people do have an obvious tendency to be self-serving. Still, we know that humans can be altruistic too, or at least not overly egoistic. So the question is not so much if people are basically good or ‘evil’ but more: under what conditions are people self-serving and under what conditions are they more altruistic? That is merely a psychological question of course.

Quote:
Given the chance, they will choose self-preservation 99.9% of the time vice choosing for the common good of society or others.

These short term interest versus long term interest problems are called ‘social dilemmas’ and these are exactly what I am going to study next year to write my thesis. The 99.9% that you give is very dependent on all kinds of factors though, so under certain circumstances this number will be way lower. Again, the trick is to find out which are these factors that lead people to choose for the common good of the society. It is a fact however, that the more people there are involved in a social dilemma, the less people are willing to cooperate. Also, communication promotes cooperation. So one could say that the self-serving attitude of people in today’s society stems for an important part from the fact that the society is too huge to know everybody personally.

Quote:
This rules out a utopian society and world peace, unless world peace is enforced via a dictatorial government.

I agree that laws will be necessary if world peace is to be achieved at some time, but I am not so sure if a dictatorial government is such an absolute necessity. In any case, I think we should realize that a democracy has big deficits as well and thus is not really the ultimate form of government either, despite of what propaganda teaches us sometimes.

Quote:
2. Money (and the pursuit of it) has become too much the cornerstone of society.

I find materialism one of the most despicable dispositions of humans too. That’s why I try to live very sober (measured by Western standards at least). Money, too, is a necessary product of large societies where social control is small. Another problem of such an external reward as money, is that it undermines intrinsical motivation. It is a well documented phenomenon in psychology that when you start paying people for pastimes activities and such, that they start finding them less enjoyable. Imagine that you are required to post at heroescommunity daily for a fee, would you still enjoy it? I think that money can sometimes corrupt as it can replace pleasure with greed.

Quote:
4. Humility is an endangered virtue in today's world.

That is very true to me and therefore humbleness is something I try hard to achieve myself. But I see little humbleness in world politics and frankly that upsets me to no end. In fact this exact frustration was the source of my first post in this thread and I must admit that it took me a lot of self-control to write it .

There are other personality aspects that I think are lacking in today’s society. Openmindedness is a very important one in my opinion as I think that the lack of it is one of the most important components of fundamentalism. But the tendency of people to think in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’ (ingroup and outgroup) may be even more dangerous as it can breed an unimaginable amount of hostility.

Quote:
I used to believe that 'people are basically good'...until I learned that there are people in this world who can bring themselves to murder an old man and his wife for the $47 and change in their corner store's cash register.

I even learnt that 2 out of 3 random people (like you and me) are willing to kill an innocent person, just because an authority tells them to (these are the Milgram experiments that I wrote about in an earlier post). As for the other examples that you say have shaped your beliefs I must agree that I too know such things happen. But the thing is, I am still less pessimistic than you.

I belief that per definition it is not beyond our reach to change society. It is not true that we are incapable to do so or do not have the opportunity. It is purely a matter of motivation. In fact, the most important thing that in my opinion is needed is a change in mentality. If we realize, for example, how fast the world population is growing…if we realize how quickly our resources are being exhausted…if we realize that at some point massive casualties by wars, diseases or natural disasters are unavoidable…what then keeps us from putting birth control, for example, at the political agenda? What will keep us from multiplying the current amount of foreign aid that is currently given? What keeps us western countries from stopping to strive after continuous economic growth? What keeps us from educating ourselves about the aspects and situations where humans tend to fail? Does this sound idealistic? Undoubtedly. Does it sound cliché? I guess. But I will do my best to contribute to this change in mentality by, for example, researching and publishing about human behavior to the best of my ability.

And even if I would think that my actions are ultimately useless, I still would not act opposite to my beliefs. If I dislike materialism while I see other people acting out of pure greediness, why would I want to become like them? I’d rather take the hard way than give up my striving for integrity. But who knows…when I have reached the age of 32 I may have grown a lot more sarcastic too .

I can imagine very well that this post looks quite chaotic, but that is merely caused by my naïve enthusiasm that brings up so many things to write about . Still, I would find it very interesting to read other people’s view on the topic.  

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted June 25, 2004 06:02 AM
Edited By: Consis on 25 Jun 2004

Point Taken Wub

I shall agree that the world has much room for improvement. I shall also agree that there are many people whom think not a second thought before selfishly indulging themselves. I will even agree that democracy is just as flawed as you mark it to be.

What I shall differ on are some very simplistic straight forward ideals. PrivateHudson has called my views quite simplistic, to which I'm sure everyone already knows this of me. But I would like to point out that while many of my views are simplistic, I continue remain true to myself. I suppose I am in the .01% that does not qualify for Khayman's 99.9% of all the people whom choose self preservation if given the chance. Regardless of society or someone they love, I believe that many people are this way. I also agree with Wub in that each person has a special set of circumstances that applies specifically to them and their decision making process. The influence can be towards self preservation or the opposite as Wub said.

What I would like to add to this is the nature of parenthood. I was a most selfish being until I came to know the truth of being a father with three children. It was then that I made the choice to become a servant. In short, my life is forfeit should the option ever arise bewteen my offspring or me. To me, this is my calling. I like to think of myself as a knight with the will to serve and protect. However, anyone with half a brain and even less education could easily point out that it is merely an instinctive genetic behavior. To these people I would disagree because there are many parents who find themselves exempt from the responsibility for whatever reasons(mostly fictional). I chose to stay and be a father therefore I am who I am because of what I decide.

As to the many comments about world peace and such, I favor abolishing currency and adopting ancient american indian forms of trading and bartering. The future of human civilization is dependent(I believe) on whether we can accept ourselves as our only competition. We must first find the great strength from within and then set out to apply that strength in a truly compassionate way. To better one's own self and society is the only way we shall overcome and surpass our own dismal history of cursed reoccurences.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Snogard
Snogard


Known Hero
customised
posted June 25, 2004 08:10 AM

Quote:
But apart from this, I agree that people do have an obvious tendency to be self-serving. Still, we know that humans can be altruistic too, or at least not overly egoistic. So the question is not so much if people are basically good or ‘evil?Ebut more: under what conditions are people self-serving and under what conditions are they more altruistic? That is merely a psychological question of course.


Hi Wub, can you elaborate what you mean by ?gthat?fs a psychological question?h?  I agree with you that there is no Evil or Good in people (most of the time at least) but I do think that ultimately people are self-serving creature.  My theory is any actions performed by people are ultimately to satisfy their most ?ginner desire?h (ego?), and I suspect that this desire is governed by their instinct.  I think any action that appeared to be altruistic was only so because other people perceived it that way, but ultimately the action was merely performed to satisfy one?fs ?ginner desire(s)?h.  The reason is because a person cannot possibly perform an action that fails to satisfy (any one of) his/her ?ginner desire?h because that wouldn?ft make sense to him/her.  It also doesn?ft matter if there are more than one conflicting desires, as eventually we still have to choose from one of them and not something that we do not desire.   Hence, I believe if we looked deep enough, there is always a ?gself-serving (selfish?)?h reason for every action we have done, but of course that doesn?ft make us Evil or Good.  What do you think?

Quote:
To these people I would disagree because there are many parents who find themselves exempt from the responsibility for whatever reasons(mostly fictional). I chose to stay and be a father therefore I am who I am because of what I decide.


Hi Consis, I hope you won?ft mind I using what you have said as an example to elaborate my points.  I truly believe that you love your children from the bottom of your heart, just as I love mine, but I still think that ultimately we do what we did not for our children (I want to stress ultimately), but to satisfy our inner desire.  In my opinion, I (hence also you) have chosen to take up the responsibility of a father because something in my heart tells me that I WANT to do it.  There are other choices, but those aren?ft what I WANT, and if I do happen to choose one of the other choices, it is again simply because that is also what I WANT.  You said that ?gI am what I am because of what I decide?h, but I am tempted to think that before you, or me, or anyone of us, decide on something, it has actually already been decided, to a certain extent at least.  What do you think?  That brings me back to my initial question to Wub about his comment of ?gthat?fs a psychological question?h, as I suspect he might be able to shed some lights to my thought/idea/theory.



____________
  Seize The Day.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted June 25, 2004 02:30 PM

Just popping my head in here.

I'm sure Wub can elaborate on this, but there is a certain set of brain chemicals which kick in upon bonding with a child in a parenting way.  Those chemicals are more powerful than any rational deliberative process about one's own needs and desires.  They are the result of eons of evoluntionary development favoring the preservation of the species.  Mammals(including humans), as well as other forms of fauna, as a general rule tend to become very selfless in guarding their young as part of the natural evolutionary process that has produced such brain chemistry.

I don't know what this means to this little side-debate, except that if it is possible for humans to become more invested in others, or feel more "bonded" with the larger portion of their communities beyond just their children, then maybe we'll have something going.  I have witnessed a degree of bonding between people beyond the nuclear family in tribal communities and do believe it is possible.  However, modern society encourages individualism and a fragmentation of community appears to have resulted, which works against this possibility.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted June 25, 2004 02:38 PM

Well...

I did mention that, however overshadowed by the rest of what I posted. I also said that I'd disagree with whomever posted in that direction, so.....

I disagree with you(reasons previously stated)
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted June 25, 2004 03:06 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 25 Jun 2004

Hey Consis!  Howya?

Actually I took your point as being that you chose to become a parent which would have been before the bonding process had already begun.  Certainly before this chemistry kicks in we are all free agents, as it were.  I don't believe we are in as much disagreement as my post might have initially appeared.

However, I don't think that the chemistry working on us is necessarily a bad thing.  All I know is that whenever anyone or anything comes between me and my son, for whatever reason, they have placed themselves in a great degree of peril because I would die protecting him, whatever it took.  This is true to a degree I would not have understood before I became a parent myself.  Of course I know you would react the same.  Again, for whatever reasons.

But either way, wouldn't it be great if we could harness some of that protective bonding and spread it to more people than just our offspring?  That I think is the real question I am asking. And I do think it is possible to do so.  (Just ask Romy or PH how protective I am of them when I sense danger LOL!!!)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted June 25, 2004 04:04 PM

Hrm...

I'm afraid you and I are straying off topic. My disagreement lies with the inner battle that takes place between human instinct and human emotions. To this end do we form our choices. Instinctively, we men have so strong an urge for procreation that it is a wonder our race has progressed at all. This is a small tidbit of my larger argument. And that is what I was talking about. We must rise above our origins(in my opinion) but never forget that the genes for such prehistoric behavior will be forever with us and acting upon our decision-making processes. To forget this is to let it slowly begin to affect and rule our lives as it once did before laws were created.

Back to the topic:

After speaking with my best friend, he tells me he will be voting for Bush because, of all the people we have to elect, Bush is best on his word. (ie. when he says something he "means it") The opposition(Kerry) has a poor record when matching against the incumbent on this issue. Also, my friend has always hated Iraq since the first Gulf War. I sort of knew he would vote for Bush because he's been deployed to the middle east on at least more than one occasion. His opinion has always been to get Saddam no matter the cost. Now that we have him, my friend tells me Saddam should be tried in an american court of law. But as many of you may know, the world at large would greatly disagree.

Personally, I made a prediction that Bush would lose to the economy but it has actually started to recover. Unfortunately for Bush though, this new recovering economy is being overshadowed by the events taking place in Iraq. One week before transfer of power to the Iraqis, and perhaps we'll see what happens.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Wub
Wub


Responsible
Famous Hero
posted June 27, 2004 02:23 AM
Edited By: Wub on 26 Jun 2004

Hello Consis,

I am not sure on which point you think we differ, as your post sounds quite reasonable to me.

Personally, I believe that human behavior has a nearly infinite amount of causes, which leaves us free to choose a certain cause and call that the reason for our behavior. I’ll give an example. As you say, you would be prepared to die protecting your children because you love them so much. But there is also the argument that your behavior is a genetic disposition. I think both causes are true, (they may even be part of the same causal chain – you are protective of your children because you love them, which is genetically predisposed). So in my opinion it is very legitimate to choose the cause that you like most (in fact, everybody does it all the time) and consequently say that it is the reason for your behavior. In this case: you protect your children because you love them. The other cause is less attractive, because it means your behavior is simply a result of your genes, which would make your behavior deterministic and thus less meaningful. But then again, this is simply my personal theory.


Hello Snogard,

Good to see that you are still around now and then . You pose a very interesting question, which has sparked a large debate among psychologists. I will elaborate on that debate and then add a few thoughts of my own, too. Hopefully it does indeed shed some light on your theory.

It is undoubtedly true that helping behavior can easily be explained from a variety of egoistical motives. In fact, psychologists have formulated many theories of this kind. An overview:

First, there is the theory of the selfish gene. It says that we want to preserve our genes, which can be done by means of kinship selection. This means we have an innate characteristic to help genetic relatives.

Second, helping behavior can be explained by reciprocal altruism. That is, we help others in hope that they return the favor when we are in need of help.

Third, there is the theory of the cooperative group, which states that helping can be explained as an attempt to solidify group ties. A strong group is especially important, for example, when the group as a whole faces external threats.

And these are only theories in which helping behavior is looked at from an evolutionary point of view. Helping behavior can also be explained simply because it gives us a good feeling to help others.

Fifth, we could also help others because that may let us appear as a ‘good’ person. So helping would then simply be some sort of moral obligation.

Sixth, we could also help because of the costs of helping are lower than the costs of not helping. This would mean that helping behavior is simply a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages and that we choose what is most beneficial to us.

These are just several of the many theories that describe helping behavior as a behavior with egoistical motives. As you can see Snogard, psychologists have found many confirmations for your theory. Personally, I too think your views are quite attractive as it is very hard to falsify them. A falsification would be a situation in which a person behaves in a way that can only be attributed to altruism. But such a falsification would be extremely difficult, which can be seen as follows.

Imagine that there really exists something such as altruism. How then can we prove that it is really altruism that is the reason for behavior and not an egoistical motive? It can only be proven if we find a situation in which the behavior can clearly not be attributed to the theory of the selfish gene, the reciprocal altruism, the cooperative group etc etc. You can understand that it is extremely hard to find such a situation, which would falsify your theory.

However, there has been conducted one single experiment which claims to prove the existence of altruism. This is a famous experiment executed by Daniel Batson and it is critical in the great altruism debate. I will give an explanation of the experiment and then it is up to you to judge if it proves the existence of altruism or not.

Batson defines altruistic behavior as behavior that is motivated by the desire to increase another person’s welfare. He states that altruism is a consequence of empathic concern. In order to experience empathic concern, we first need to go through the cognitive process of taking the perspective of another person. Then we experience feelings which are directed to others, such as sympathy or compassion. These feelings drive us to the motive of altruism to reduce the other’s distress. Egoistic motives however do not require perspective taking, according to Batson, but involve the emotional response of personal distress (such as feeling upset or uncomfortable). Therefore, an important difference between altruistic helping behavior and egoistic helping behavior is that the former reduces the other person’s distress while the latter reduces one’s own distress. Now this is the point where Batson stated that he had found a way to separate both these motives and thus could show the possible existence of altruism.

Batson proposed that egoism and altruism could be separated by implementing an escape from the helping situation. If you want to reduce your own distress, you can do that by helping, but also by simply walking away. If you want to reduce another person’s distress, however, you can’t do that by leaving the place but only by helping the person.

So this is what the experiment looked like. As a participant you meet a woman named Elaine who allegedly is another participant (in fact she is a confederate). By means of something that looks like a random assignment you are given the role of observer, while Elaine is tied to some cruel machine that seems to give painful electrical shocks during Elaine’s task. She clearly feels very uncomfortable, asks for a glass of water and tells she has some rather frightening childhood experience when she fell against an electric fence. Elaine wants to continue the experiment, but the experimenter hesitates. And then the experimenter has this very bright idea…he asks you to take the place of Elaine (who in reality never got shocked at all of course).

Now there were 2x2 experimental conditions. First there was the difficulty to escape. Half of the participants were allowed to leave when the request was made and the other half had to be present during the complete experiment. Second there was a manipulation of Elaine’s personality. Empathic concern is increased if another person is similar to you. So half of the participants were told that Elaine was very similar to them and the other half were told that Elaine was not like them at all.

Now the question of course was: in which condition were people likely to trade places with Elaine? If people really are capable of altruism, you would expect that if they truly experience empathic concern (i.e. in the condition where Elaine is similar) that it does not matter if there is an easy or difficult escape (after all, the possibility to escape is irrelevant if you want to help Elaine). Then it would only matter if the escape were easy when people do not experience empathic concern (i.e. when Elaine is not so similar to the participant). And indeed, this pattern was found (so the data did not show that people always helped less when the escape was easy as you would expect from Batson’s conceptualization of egoistical helping motives).

As you can imagine, this experiment has led to discussions about whether the data can be explained by egoistical helping behavior theories or not, but there has not been a conclusive judgment yet. Still, I think that what I described above could be the critical test for your theory. But frankly I think altruism is not an absolute necessity to create a better world. I think it would be more valuable to change (egoistical) behavior that is in pure self-interest into (egoistical) behavior that is in the interest of the society (as I described more extensively in my previous post under social dilemmas).

Well, I know it was quite a large read, Snogard, but I hope it was a bit what you were looking for and that you found reading it worthwhile.


Hello Peacemaker,

I’m not really into biological and developmental psychology, but I can confirm you are right. The phenomenon of bonding is defined as the parent’s initial emotional tie to the newborn. I’m guessing that it could also be an explanation for the fact that a mother can incredibly quickly recognize her baby by his odor. Some scientists have claimed, however, that bonding is only possible in the first few hours after birth. If that is true, then that would answer your question about spreading the phenomenon of bonding to other people.

It is important to note that bonding is something different than attachment. The latter is an enduring emotional tie between infant and caregiver. Attachment has to do with the way in which infant and mother interact and it has been much researched which factors lead to a secure attachment. Therefore it seems to me that the attachment process is more like something we could influence to reach what you propose than influencing the bonding process somehow.



For the rest I have the (humble) opinion that Bush should not be re-elected .
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted June 27, 2004 09:57 PM

Wub, that’s an excellent post. Thank you for ordering the chaos in my mind, since I’ve thought about this topic a lot, contemplating the same ideas, but never got to classify it as scientifically and neatly as you just did.

I’ll be short.
I do think that experiment can be easily explained through the “selfish reasons”. Namely the good feeling that helping would give, or the feeling of guilt that “not helping” would give.
I cant accept the theory that we can project ourselves in any other perspective than the one where we are; who we are. Our whole existance is observed and experienced from one single point. The ego is supreme. There’s no other reality than it.
But instead, I think we can project others in our mental scope of emotions and identify with them, but the decisions stemming from that are still selfish in its rude nature.
Still, the selfish/altruistic division imo is not dead yet, only slightly modelled with “altruistic” now meaning “more likely to identify with others”, and “egoistic” – “not likely to identify with anyone”.

Don’t vote for Bush. (just in case anyone even thinks of calling me being off topic)

____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted July 29, 2004 03:31 AM
Edited By: Consis on 28 Jul 2004

2004 Democratic Convention

Many comments, little to say, and much to yet foresee....First of all as a registered democrat in the commonwealth of the great state of Oregon, I'd simply like to say how proud I am of the way this convention is unfolding.

Thus far I am most impressed with the son of a man from Kenya, Africa named Barack Obama. I'd never heard him speak before and I have to say, his presentation was quite energetic. I am very pleased to be a member of the same party from which he hails. For anyone wanting to find out more about one of our most promising democratic up and coming members please visit this website:
http://www.legis.state.il.us/Senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=747

Secondly I must recognize the importance of the african american voting constituency, however I feel there has been too much of an emphasis on this particular voting block. I personally would have felt just fine with Obama's keynote speech but we also found ourselves listening to Rv. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I particularly found Jesse Jackson's speech to be a bit off the mainstream while Al Sharpton nailed it to the wall. There was something about Al Shaprton's speech that I can't quite place my finger on at the moment. I feel it was well done and quite the historic moment. I predict his speech will be used for future reference by many more americans in the years to come. It was sensational and motivating at the same time.

Now to downplay that recognition....the african american vote is important, yes, but there are many more americans who are being ignored when we focus on one constituency. I feel it is a diservice to do such and I think we need a more culturally varied convention.(but I truly enjoyed the national anthem being sung in native american indian--arizona tribe)

All in all, I'm enjoying the convention and I look forward to John Kerry's speech tomorrow.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted July 29, 2004 04:22 AM

COme on Mr. Moore you know what your talking about disrupting Bushes chances with the Truth.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khayman
Khayman


Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
posted July 29, 2004 08:00 PM

Ah, The Democratic National Convention!

Consis, a proud Democrat from Oregon wrote:
Quote:
First of all as a registered democrat in the commonwealth of the great state of Oregon, I'd simply like to say how proud I am of the way this convention is unfolding.
If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't be too proud of the convention.  Let me just point out two major reasons that come to mind.

1. Rolling out Jimmy Carter to speak. That's a pretty gutsy move by the Democrats to invite Mr. Peanut.  I would bet my bottom dollar that if former President Carter had not won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, then the Democrats would have distanced theirselves from this man and not invited him to speak.  Reason being, right now the economy is one of the Democratic campaign focal points.  I would have considered it very risky to have Carter speak when under his administration both inflation and gas prices were astronomical...but then  again, that's why I am not a Democrat.  I applaud Mr. Carter's efforts to further the causes of peace in our world, and he has proved to be a fine diplomat; however, without the Nobel Prize, I believe the would be a mere spectator at this year's Democratic National Convention.

2. Dems laughing along with Hillary Clinton after a health care comment.If I recall correctly, during Hillary Clinton's speech, she made the remark that went something like, "...and you all know that I know a thing or two about health care."  This was meant to be funny, and it worked, because the entire Democratic audience was rolling with laughter.  Laugh as they will, if I were a Democrat, I would not be laughing.  Hillary's debacle while pushing for a National Health Care system is probably the deciding factor of what caused the Democrats to lose control of Congress several years back.  Oh, how quickly we forget.  Americans are ignorant, but not ignorant enough to want a government centralized health care system.  Sure, I want to wait six months for a brain scan to determine whether I have cancer or not.  Plus, I am sure doctors want to take an ever further decline in income as a result of a government run program, plus the already outrageous malpractice insurance fees.  Her little brainstorm is why the GOP controls the House and Senate, and the entire room went right along with Mrs. Clinton's misleading attempt at humor.  How quickly we forget...
Quote:
Thus far I am most impressed with the son of a man from Kenya, Africa named Barack Obama. I'd never heard him speak before and I have to say, his presentation was quite energetic. I am very pleased to be a member of the same party from which he hails.
Now, Consis, I present this question to you.  Would you have been as impressed if Mr. Obama had been a white speaker?  Just a question that crossed my wandering mind...
Quote:
I must recognize the importance of the african american voting constituency, however I feel there has been too much of an emphasis on this particular voting block.
I believe that the Democrats have historically gotten about 80-90% of the African American vote, which is very impressive.  What the Democrats are trying to do is to get the 80-90% of African Americans who do not vote to the polls.  If I was a Democrat, I would not care whether I would have to go door-to-door or even drag African American voters to the polls, because the African American vote (along with other minority factions, primarily the Hispanic vote) is what is going to swing this election, IMO.
Quote:
All in all, I'm enjoying the convention and I look forward to John Kerry's speech tomorrow.
I am enjoying it and looking forward to John Kerry's acceptance speech as well.  I just wonder if he will address more issues than the War on Terror and the falsely-perceived 'struggling' economy.  i want to know what he is all about.

IMHO, what matters more to me than if a person is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, is whether or not they exercise their right to vote.  I think this will be a close election, and I am looking forward to an exciting campaign from all sides.  The only things I am looking forward to even more are the debates.  Oh, I so hope that they take place as planned!  
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted July 30, 2004 06:00 AM
Edited By: Consis on 30 Jul 2004

Khayman,

First of all let me address your question about Obama's skin color. Yes, I would be just as impressed if he were a white man whose father herded goats in Kenya. I don't know what you're implying but tread lightly my fellow american. Tread lightly....

Second, I agree with you partially on what will decide the vote in a very unprecedented fashion. I disagree that the black vote will do this. However I do agree that the hispanic vote is the new star of the show. This is the most important voting block of today in my opinion. The problem with our damned convention was that we only had one hispanic speaker who was a fat overweight sweet-talker. I don't like him.

Finally, I watched Kerry's entire speech and I along with my wife were unimpressed. My wife is an independent conservative who has yet to vote in any election. I personally felt Kerry's speech was weak, uninspiring, and avoided his voting record in the senate like the plague. I was very embarassed as a fellow democrat to see him shy away from his own voting record. My wife said she thought he just kept talking about nothing. Unfortunately, I felt like he was as he has been for the entire democratic election thus far. I know without a doubt that he would have better relations with foreign countries but here at home, I just don't know.

Thus far I haven't changed my mind about writing in Hillary Clinton's name on my ticket. We'll see how the republican convention goes. I also look forward to the debates in the fall but I see no change in Kerry's delivery.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted July 30, 2004 03:05 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 30 Jul 2004

Tell me something Consis.  If you're going to write in someone's name, why would it not be Colin Powell's?  I submit that the most critical challenge the presidency is being faced with now is the broad knowledge of international history and affairs, and the ability to engage in international relations effectively.

Surely you don't think Hilary has any great skill or knowledge in that area????

For that matter, why would you be writing in Hilary Clinton at all?  I don't mean to be snide I am just curious on your reasons and your take on her skills.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khayman
Khayman


Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
posted July 30, 2004 03:24 PM

Colin Powell?!?

Puh-lease, Peacemaker, where is your sense of reality?  

Do you really think that the American people want Colin Powell in-charge of their country?  I mean, who in their right mind would want an outstanding military leader with sound knowledge of international history coupled with a deep understanding of internal affairs running the most powerful nation on the planet?  

As for Hillary Clinton, the only points she would score with me are because I find her sexy in some inexplicable way.  I think it may be a result of how she carries herself, but I am not sure yet.  The only thing that ruins that sexy image of her is that in the back of her mind, she knows that her hubby got it on with his portly intern while she was working towards creating a national health care plan.  Oh yeah, I also like the way she dresses sometimes as well. <insert typical male gawking here>  
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Draco
Draco


Promising
Famous Hero
posted July 30, 2004 03:34 PM

now thats the way to choose a president

its just like highschool over again lol

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted July 30, 2004 06:46 PM
Edited By: Consis on 17 Sep 2004

Peacemaker,

First of all let's talk principles. This is a well known fact but I think it's also a very important one. The presidency of the United States of America is greater and larger than any one person. I've always seen our presidents more as a representative of the people than as the commander and chief of the armed forces.

In my humble opinion, the state of our union is stagnant. We are a pond whose waters aren't moving. I feel our country is barely making ends meet to simply stay on par with the global competition. I have many feelings as to what the cause of this is but in short, we need change, stability, and hope. Our children are our hope. Our military is stable only because of our economy. I believe our economy isn't moving forward.

That's why I've never agreed with any military general becoming the leader of any nation. If I may, only George Washington(our first president) was qualified. I don't think he wanted to be president. I think that he was a national hero to which he would always be there when called upon but deep down in his heart he just wanted to live in peace and quiet in his estate with his wife Martha. He never hesitated to perform when asked and the people around him always knew what kind of man he was. I hope that answers your question about Colin Powell.

Secondly, I believe the most important issues are jobs, security, and cheap affordable healthcare.
1. I oppose warring abroad.

2. I'm more enthusiastic about doing our part with the United Nations on global peacekeeping missions.

3. I do not support stem cell research. I believe conception(when life starts/begins) to be at the moment of fertilization, NOT upon embryo implantation in a mother's uterus.

4. I support freedom of gun ownership with heavy restrictions and accountability for the ownership of them.

5. I oppose privatizing social security.

6. I am in favor of more government funding for cost effective global recycling research.

7. I support a woman's right to abortion.

8. I oppose homosexuals being allowed to call their "civil unions" what I call "marriage".

9. I oppose affirmative action but support equal opportunity.

10. I oppose women being allowed to participate in lower echelon general military operations(i.e. frontline grunts). However I do support female participation in elite small, highly specialized, special operations teams for global peacekeeping missions.

11. I oppose our entire current and projected tax systems.

12. I am in favor of the death penalty for special circumstance convicted criminals.

In Hillary Clinton, I see something that I've not seen since Ronald Reagan. I see a spark of imagination, brilliance, willingness to listen, understanding, and the ability to lead our people into a new era. To me, she has the most fundamental ability to inspire change of the positive sort. She is strong, hardworking, and beautiful in her own right. I've written about how I think history proves female leaders to be what I call the "wild card leader". This means that they have they potential to abundantly inspire and devastatingly demoralize. I believe Hillary Clinton to be this wild card. I am optimistic that she will inpire more than she demoralizes.

Details....don't take my word for it though. Visit her website:
http://clinton.senate.gov/

I would be open to discussing any of her policies with you or anyone else. There are many to discuss so let's please do them slowly and one at a time if that is your wish.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (9) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2413 seconds