|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 24, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
Perhaps from the animals' point of view, we are aggressors. From our own, we are not (except from yours, of course). And I don't hate religion for being subjective; I hate it for being both false and excessively restrictive.
This is not the first time you've asked me about mental evolution, and this is not the first time I'm answering your question. The difference in mentality is that I'm able to look into the long term, unlike the animal. Very few animals would be able to refuse a marshmallow immediately to get two marshmallows later (that is, if the animal eats marshamallows  )
You see, the problem that nationalists have that I don't have is that there is usually more variation within a nationality than there are between nationalities. Another problem they have is that they don't realize that they stand to gain if they treat other nationalities the same as their own. Yet another is that other people might realize that they're exterminating people a lot like them, and might think, "Hey, if we can exterminate them, why not us? And why can't they exterminate us?"
I still don't see what hate has to do with self-interest. For self-interest to function well, we would be more considerate of others. If there was more self-interest, there would be less hate.
As for the elf example, you may be innocent because you don't know, but if I tell you that you're stepping on elves, and you still continue stepping on them, does that mean that you're not innocent any more? And it's true that you can't see the elves, but nor more can I see the need for animal "rights".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 08:28 PM |
|
|
[don't mind the quotes, my paragraphs are already too many and you'll get confused otherwise]
Quote:
Perhaps from the animals' point of view, we are aggressors. From our own, we are not (except from yours, of course). And I don't hate religion for being subjective; I hate it for being both false and excessively restrictive.
This is not the first time you've asked me about mental evolution, and this is not the first time I'm answering your question. The difference in mentality is that I'm able to look into the long term, unlike the animal. Very few animals would be able to refuse a marshmallow immediately to get two marshmallows later (that is, if the animal eats marshamallows )
Uhm, well the goal is the same, it's basically what "triggers" or "motivates" you, no? See, similar mentality. You may be more efficient, but you think the same -- to pursue your instincts, even though you can be different
Quote:
You see, the problem that nationalists have that I don't have is that there is usually more variation within a nationality than there are between nationalities. Another problem they have is that they don't realize that they stand to gain if they treat other nationalities the same as their own. Yet another is that other people might realize that they're exterminating people a lot like them, and might think, "Hey, if we can exterminate them, why not us? And why can't they exterminate us?"
Interesting, so we only abide by the laws out of fear? Seriously, I've encountered this argument against God being a tyrant and not loving (we fear His punishment) from atheists, and I tried to explain that we need not do good out of fear, since that wouldn't make us good. Now, you are a prime example I can use against them, but of course they won't believe me (narrow-minded? I don't know, take your pick).
Here is another case where absolute morals come to the rescue. You see, it's where thoughts matter. Now obviously you will keep on your definition, regardless of how many arguments, and say morals are relative. Now the above is a pretty good example itself. When you say that "humans are not evil" but at the same time say that if something doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't do it (neutral), but if we have desires and we CAN profit from something else, we do (evil) -- you proved it yourself that we're evil.
You call this the "neutral" perspective, where I view all societies the same (alien societies as well as human societies). But isn't a neutral view actually an absolute view, if you think about it? Then, doesn't it mean morals are absolute? And even further, let's split right now societies as "nations".
Gain is in the eye of the beholder, variation is too -- but you somehow imply it as a fact, like you do with everything else. What's the problem with nations fighting off each other and enslaving each other? Well, from your perspective (which is kinda a 'neutral' one) you think they would be "better off" (in YOUR opinion) to have peace.
Now, since you advocated a 'neutral' perspective above, why don't you advocate in my case? Simple: because you are similar to a nationalist. Really, there's no point in a system whether you bring it "near" the end or not at all -- it's only when you cross the winning line that counts. That is: there's no point in having "less" discrimination (no racism, but speciesism) or having racism, as long as you have discrimination (obviously from a neutral point of view). It's only when there's no discrimination that there's a difference in mentality, more evolved one (else we can go back to racism).
You see, you can't really argue with a nationalist from his viewpoint, can you? He won't listen to you (because you, mvass, will try to use a "neutral" perspective, neutral as in not favoring a nation).
Well, you can't argue with a society-list from his viewpoint either, and it's what I'm doing at the moment. I try to use a neutral viewpoint (for all beings, not just human society), and you are the "nationalist" (society-list).
Just to show you something: Turtle love goes beyond grave.
Humans are nazis for animals
Quote:
I still don't see what hate has to do with self-interest. For self-interest to function well, we would be more considerate of others. If there was more self-interest, there would be less hate.
I don't think you get it. I gave you an example with the "hive" based system (which would be without self-interest), but also without an authority (the queen), everyone would "work" for everybody else (not for a queen for example). There is no hate in that system simply because there is no self-interest. But of course you'll reply with "I don't see what it has to do with self-interest" -- frankly if you can't understand from that basic example I don't know how I can express myself better.
Simply put, a world without self-interest has no hate -- thus it's logical to conclude that hate comes with self-interest, or is caused by it, no?
Besides, you worship some kind of God, it's called "rights" -- I don't see them in humans either! The obvious problem here is that you KNOW that you are using them tyrantly, but you think they are less worth. That is, you read this thread, and you know it very well how you treat animals. WTF, there's nothing to do with rights here, there's nothing even philosophical about it. Are we having "how-the-world-is-now" arguments or philosophical arguments regarding how it should be? For the former it's pretty pointless to argue, I can read the news too, you know 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 09:19 PM |
|
|
If you use quotes, than so shall I.
Quote:
Uhm, well the goal is the same, it's basically what "triggers" or "motivates" you, no?
No, it's different. Look at it this way: let's say that you have a dog, and you put a table with a piece of meat in front of it. Then you tell it that if it doesn't touch the meat for 30 minutes, you will give it two pieces of meat? What will happen? Of course the dog will eat the meat (of course, it didn't understand what you were saying, but you get the point. I illustrated it earlier with the fox in the henhouse). Now, if you put a table with $5 in front of a human, and tell him that he will get $10 if he doesn't touch it for 30 minutes, he most likely will. So the goals are different. The non-human animal's goal is to get whatever it wants as soon as possible. The human's goal is to get (in a loose sense) as much as possible over his/her lifetime.
Quote:
Interesting, so we only abide by the laws out of fear?
No, not necessarily. I don't see where you got that idea. What I was saying is that it makes no sense to discriminate on basis of nationality. Look at me, for example. Ethnically, I am a Russian. Yet I'm sure that you could find Poles and Germans and Englishmen and Chinese that are a lot like me, and I'm sure that you could find a lot of Russians who aren't like me. So really this division on basis of nationality makes little sense (at least when it comes to rights). But I am very doubtful that you could find an animal like me.
Quote:
When you say that "humans are not evil" but at the same time say that if something doesn't benefit us, we shouldn't do it (neutral), but if we have desires and we CAN profit from something else, we do (evil) -- you proved it yourself that we're evil.
No, here you're suggesting that having desires and profiting from somethingn else is evil, which I disagree with. Second, my morals are absolute and relative simultaneously. They are relative in the sense that there isn't any absolute thing out there called "good" and "evil", and that good and evil are things that are good and bad for others, respectively, and also that these ideas are created by society protecting itself - acting in its own self-interest. They are absolute in the sense that they should be applied everywhere.
You see, the differences between my view and the nationalist's view are several. Besides what I have written above, though, there is one more. The nationalist, actually, is more like you, in the sense that he thinks that rights are inherent - you think that they're inherent in life, and he thinks that they're inherent in a certain nation. I, on the other hand, do not think that rights are inherent. Rights come from society trying to defend itself from damaging self-interest, and trying to make it a positive force rather than a negative one.
Now I understand what you're saying about hate and self-interest now, but I disagree. Certainly if you consider others as you do yourself, there can be no hate. But there are two problems with what you're saying. First, you're being too idealistic. Second, you can be considerate of others and still be self-interested.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now I understand what you're saying about hate and self-interest now, but I disagree. Certainly if you consider others as you do yourself, there can be no hate. But there are two problems with what you're saying. First, you're being too idealistic. Second, you can be considerate of others and still be self-interested.
Being idealistic has nothing to do with what I said (and yes I know I am idealistic, heck you think this discussion is going to change anything?).. but I proved my point, which was my original intent. 
We all have the same 'goals' as animals -- and that is to pursue our instincts, even though we humans can suppress them, something which animals DON'T HAVE -- it's only logical and natural to think that is the step in evolution.
But basically you do not know what it means to have absolute morals. Your point is not valid about the "differences" between a chinese and say a russian. Those are only in the eye of the beholder, albeit in your eyes here; some use religious or whatever else arguments -- by no means are yours any better. Do you really think you can convince and tell this to an extreme nationalist and not expect him to laugh at you back? You may most certainly say he is crazy or doesn't think straight -- fine, he'll do the same to you (call you crazy)
"Absolute" morals means that you take it from the most neutral viewpoint possible. For example, your morals are not absolute on the entire world's basis, but are on a human society basis. A nationalists' morals are not absolute on the world's level, neither on the society's level, but they are on a nation's level. See the pattern?
It goes like this (logically): Nation citizen included in Nation Circle, which is included in Society Circle, which is included in World Circle.
Since we see that (even in your opinion) the larger the circle, the better, since it's better to have a Society Circle than a Nation Circle, no??? Then, this is no exception, it means the World Circle is the most absolute. If we consider the Society Circle more "absolute" than the Nation Circle (which it is), then we also consider the next one -- the World Circle -- more absolute than the former, which is the Society Circle. Now of course not even logic will make a point for a religious/nationalistic/specie-listic extremist, right?
But now think about the D&D for a change. Someone must have designed it. That "someone" was put up with the problem of finding "morals" that apply to the entire world -- since that world is made up of tons of different races, some evil, some good, he had this task of finding the most "neutral" alignment system possible. And he did. Now, I'm sure if you were in his situation you would've thought up something similar. The point I'm trying to make is that, for you to truly understand absolute morals (100% absolute, applies well outside human tyrantness, since the Universe is much bigger than humans), then you need to use a fully neutral perspective. I'm pretty sure that if you were a sole alien in space, you would not favor humans as being "good" even though they feast on the weak and hopeless.
There is really no point in discussing this since we already understood our points. It's like me trying to argue with a nationalist, but only in your case, the nation is the human race.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it's only logical and natural to think that is the step in evolution
Maybe, but only if that would be the only thing that we could do with our intelligence, which, of course, it isn't. And think about it this way: what if an animal with an extra appendage evolved - this appendage would be a gun that could be pointed two ways: forward at the prey, or downward at the animal. Now, how should that animal use the gun - on its prey or on itself?
Quote:
Those are only in the eye of the beholder, albeit in your eyes here; some use religious or whatever else arguments -- by no means are yours any better.
Now, now, I've talked to ZanJerusalem as much as anybody else. But I don't see why mine are any worse than yours. You see, you talk about the nation being a circle within society, and society being a circle within nature. I disagree. Think about it like this: a nation is a rechargable battery, and society is a giant power plant. Nature, on the other hand, is more like a campfire. Saying that society is a circle within nature is incorrect, because it is society that creates rights in the first place. Why does it do so? To protect its own members from each other, and to modify the course of self-interest to make it more effective. Now, does nature create rights to protect its members from each other? I don't think so. Take a bee and a bear, for example. Do the bear and the bee have an implicit agreement not to harm each other? Of course not. You see, humans can and do (ideally) respect each other's rights, because that's what rights are for. If you create a hammer, you don't give it to a racoon or sea urchin, do you? Same with rights.
As for the D&D alignment system, I obviously disagree with it, and if it were up to me, I would construct it differently.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 10:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe, but only if that would be the only thing that we could do with our intelligence, which, of course, it isn't. And think about it this way: what if an animal with an extra appendage evolved - this appendage would be a gun that could be pointed two ways: forward at the prey, or downward at the animal. Now, how should that animal use the gun - on its prey or on itself?
Uh, it's not like other animals can't suicide either
But you see there's a very big difference here -- using the gun has absolutely nothing to do with mentality, and such in your example, the animal can't even choose -- that is, if evolution granted it a gun, and instincts told it to shoot itself, it would, without any guilt. Do you understand that? It's not like once it has that gun it gets more evolved mentally at all.
Quote:
Now, now, I've talked to ZanJerusalem as much as anybody else. But I don't see why mine are any worse than yours. You see, you talk about the nation being a circle within society, and society being a circle within nature. I disagree. Think about it like this: a nation is a rechargable battery, and society is a giant power plant. Nature, on the other hand, is more like a campfire. Saying that society is a circle within nature is incorrect, because it is society that creates rights in the first place. Why does it do so? To protect its own members from each other, and to modify the course of self-interest to make it more effective. Now, does nature create rights to protect its members from each other? I don't think so. Take a bee and a bear, for example. Do the bear and the bee have an implicit agreement not to harm each other? Of course not. You see, humans can and do (ideally) respect each other's rights, because that's what rights are for. If you create a hammer, you don't give it to a racoon or sea urchin, do you? Same with rights.
You are either ignoring my points and repeating when you're off point or simply don't understand. I'll address both of your points.
First is the "circle" logical view of the world. It is valid. But you must be obsessed with "rights". Nowhere did I say anything about rights. Can you think logically? isn't a human society part of the world (and nature)? Then, it is included in that circle (logical circles, don't tell me you never heard of them? also used in mathematics btw). I don't see any connection with what I said and "rights" in the first place
Besides you completely overlooked the "innocence" points I made, again. Tell me, what else can I use except bolding the words? You can't blame animals for killing since it's in their instinct and they really don't have a "choice", much as we. We can be accused of it. We choose, we can be blamed. It's so simple, it's basic psychology. Animals are like crazed children -- I'm not saying that they should be treated like gods, but don't blame them that they can't be 'peaceful'.
Also it is interesting that you expect someone else to be peaceful (animals in this case) when we are the most destructive race the Earth has ever known. We always expect others to act nicely when we should be looking in the mirror first.
Quote:
As for the D&D alignment system, I obviously disagree with it, and if it were up to me, I would construct it differently.
How exactly without favoring humans? Remember that Mind Flayers or Beholder (not even humanoids ) are extremely different so you'll have to make up a system that distinguishes them in that way. There can't be both "good" if you know what I mean. You have to select in that case: which one of them is good, and which one is evil? Your ideas about good/evil are the most flawed and subjective I ever heard. It's not like most people can't see that a race that harasses or enslaves another one is the same (in "goodness") as one that lives peacefully with its neighbors. It's pretty much a no-brainer.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 11:03 PM |
|
|
Okay, then, different analogy. Let's say that you have a hammer. What are you going to do with that hammer, bash people over the head with it or use it to hammer nails? It's suitable to both tasks, but it should only be used for the second one. Same with intelligence.
As for circles, I see what you're saying, but what you're suggesting (that the further circle you include, the better) is not neceesarily correct. What I was saying is that nations could be like mini-societies, but society isn't like a mini-nature.
All right, since you like talking about innocence so much, and insist that I haven't addressed it adequately. For someone to be guilty of a given action, two (2) criteria have to be fulfilled.
1. That person had to be consciously aware that he/she was preforming that action.
2. That action has to be bad.
As I said earlier, you can't say that a philanthropist is guilty of giving his money away, even though he did it consciously, because that action isn't bad. Now, I underestand that you can't blame animals for killing, but that doesn't make that big of a difference. They kill. And if they don't respect your rights, why should you respect their "rights"?
And I never said that I expected the animals to be peaceful. What I'm saying is that if they all were, the conversation would be quite different.
Quote:
How exactly without favoring humans?
Easy, except that I don't know much about the nature of mind flayers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 11:26 PM |
|
|
This is pointless (no pun intended)
We already discussed your "tools" analogies earlier (knife was the object if I recall) anyway so it's not like we're getting anywhere. Oh and intelligence is not a tool, it's an ability -- a mental ability (a hammer doesn't make you choose by itself, does it?).
Quote:
They kill. And if they don't respect your rights, why should you respect their "rights"?
Because we know better since we can choose, they can't? For example, you can't really blame a machine that has gone out of control, if it starts to kill people. Yes it should be probably "put down", but you can't blame it. And if said machine has a 'territory' it wouldn't be a good idea to get there anyway.
Why should we? Because we, ehm, are not primitive? Or because we are not savage? You really have to be different than your enemy if you want to be any better (again, it's because they have no choice! if they had, they would be an evil fantasy race)
(btw "guilt" doesn't have necessarily to do with bad actions (which are also subjective); someone can blame you for giving someone else money, because it was a choice -- however I think that would not be a "bad" action (you know what I mean), unlike killing; either you have never heard of respect for life, or respect for your "mother" (nature), this doesn't mean to give any "gifts", but just live in harmony with it rather than putting it on a leash, would you? ).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 11:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
intelligence is not a tool, it's an ability
Abilities are tools. You see, intelligence is just another hammer, except that we can actually change our interests with it. That's an important difference, now that I mention it. You can't trick an animal into hating food, but you can trick a human into rejecting "material" pleasure.
Quote:
Yes it should be probably "put down", but you can't blame it.
Well, I'm not really talking about blame, but about action. A criminal kills someone - you lock him up. A machine goes crazy - you break it. A psycho goes on a rampage - you lock him in an insane asylum. An animal goes and mauls someone - you kill it. Actions have represcussions regardless of whether the performer of the action is aware of them or not.
Quote:
You really have to be different than your enemy if you want to be any better
But we are better - simply because we are we, and they are they. I agree that our actions have to be more reasonable than those of animals, but that doesn't mean that the aim of those actions should be completely different. You see, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should, just because we can. We can suppress our instincts, but we have to have some sort of aim. I see self-interest as the only possible aim.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 24, 2008 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:03, 25 Jul 2008.
|
Intelligence is a tool? Isn't it actually the one that enables us to "use" tools (even animals have some intelligence). It's in the same category as life, you wouldn't say life is a tool now? (I'm not saying intelligence = life, but only that it's in the same category).
Oh btw who said that locking them up is the "divine" solution, is it sent by God or something? (don't start with the "good" of society, I'm just teasing philosophically with you)
Quote:
But we are better - simply because we are we, and they are they.
This has got to be the most cute and selfish example ever. You know, white people are better, simply because we are we, and black people are they 
http://innerbrat.livejournal.com/403827.html
Don't start with "differences" or "gains", they are again in the eye-of-the-beholder. Just because YOU think they shouldn't be discriminated, while you discriminate other species, doesn't mean everyone thinks that way -- some have strong beliefs that black people are not worth; or even religions. You're saying that the differences are small, maybe from your view. Some people might consider black people demons (not necessarily religious people). What makes your point stronger than theirs? Both of you discriminate
You see, you discriminate, just like racists, but on a different level. My arguments are superior simply because they do not discriminate anything. Plain and simple. I think that should be enough here.
Quote:
You see, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should, just because we can.
Yeah, just because we can kill them doesn't mean we should
Aim? What about not being savages? What about being peaceful and not greedy or selfish? That should be the highest of aims for a race that CAN do it. Or showing respect (since we CAN understand what it is, unlike animals) to the surroundings, since we are part of it? This doesn't mean we should 'help' it, but simply just not feasting on it for us?
this isn't going anywhere
ok just to add a bit of this. Suppose there are 2 races: elves and mind flayers. You have to classify them as different somehow, since they are. One is good, the other is evil.
Elves never try to pursue their self-interests (in THIS example), and not place it above others in any way. And most certainly they NEVER EVER do it at the expense of something else (life and/or balance of nature!). They would not enslave any other race nor nature (balance) to their own pleasures, as they think that is path to barbarism and being tyrants. If faced with Mind Flayers, they would never enslave them -- even if they possess a thread. They would simply eliminate the threat, if the Mind Flayers are not innocent (which they are not), otherwise they would try to be understanding of the situation and try to help the flayers since it wouldn't be their fault at all.
Mind Flayers, on the other hand, do whatever they want as long as they are satisfied (this can even mean destroying the world, if that makes them feel "satisfied" and "accomplished"). They enslave other races (by sucking their brains ), and twist the surroundings to their pleasure. For example, they would enslave elves if possible.
Please don't tell me Mind Flayers are good You either lack the very psychological neutral view from this, or you're simply a human society-list extremist, much like nationalists are for their nation (your nation = humanity).
You know, picking on the weak is the least form of evolution -- it's the thing that instantly defines us as savages and primitive bastards.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 12:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Intelligence is a tool? Isn't it actually the one that enables us to "use" tools
Well, it's kind of like electricity, which is a tool, and allows us to use other tools.
Quote:
Don't start with "differences" or "gains", they are again in the eye-of-the-beholder.
No, actually they're objective. The fact is that there is more variation within races than between them, so any discrimination based on race is irrational. Not extending rights to animals, though, makes perfect sense, because they're completely different.
We're not savages. Our actions are not those of savages. We (ideally) act in our rational self-interest, as opposed to animals' irrational self-interest.
But I agree, this isn't getting anywhere.
As for elves and mind flayers, you can't look at either one of them this way. Do Mind Flayers act rationally? Of course, I wouldn't like Mind Flayers, but I would say that the elves are just as evil, but in a different way. Mind Flayers have self-interest at the expense of others, and elves don't have self-interest at all. It's hard to say which is worse.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 01:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, actually they're objective. The fact is that there is more variation within races than between them, so any discrimination based on race is irrational. Not extending rights to animals, though, makes perfect sense, because they're completely different.
Oh rly? Remember that not everyone thinks the same as you -- let's say that some racists considered black people demons. In that case, they would be a lot "different" than white people, and actually worse than animals. It doesn't matter how different they are, it is always in the eye of the beholder.
(irrationality is subjective; there's nothing rational in pursuing your own self-interests, that's only subjugating easily to seduction (instincts))
Quote:
As for elves and mind flayers, you can't look at either one of them this way. Do Mind Flayers act rationally? Of course, I wouldn't like Mind Flayers, but I would say that the elves are just as evil, but in a different way. Mind Flayers have self-interest at the expense of others, and elves don't have self-interest at all. It's hard to say which is worse.
You are joking right? Elves are "evil"? In what sense exactly just because they don't mistreat others? How can you possibly say that... well it's not like I understood religious extremists either, and wouldn't like it.
ok so this is why this isn't getting anywhere. You know those extreme nationalists? Those that you can't possibly argue with, because if you do, they'll resort to "We have nukes! We shall the enemy! Stop us if you can." (supposing that they are the only ones with nukes). You know arguing with them is pointless right? Nation is called 'humanity' (not America) and citizen is called 'human' (not "american"). Difference? Yeah, depending on which side you're viewing, either yours or his. Both of you have "might makes right" arguments. Now, what about an absolute view, that takes a look from a neutral standpoint, and simply says "if both of you contradict yourself on discriminations, then maybe the compromise is no discrimination at all?"? Is there a point in arguing with that extreme nationalist (you tell me, what would you do in that situation)?
Then why am I doing it?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 01:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Remember that not everyone thinks the same as you -- let's say that some racists considered black people demons.
And some people think that elves live next door to them. It doesn't make them right. But approached rationally...
Quote:
there's nothing rational in pursuing your own self-interests
???
Quote:
you tell me, what would you do in that situation
Nuke 'em. 
-------------------------------------------
But I see that there's no point in arguing with you. You are a primitivist. I don't know who's worse, primitivists or nationalists. But I'm sure that much of the Other Side will be happy to hear this: I have decided to reduce my participation in Other Side debates, except maybe in "United States President 2008" and if the Abortion thread revives, until the pendulum swings closer to my way, and there are more people with my view. There's no point arguing with Misanthropic Community. It seems that you, Moonlith, and, to a lesser extent, Mytical run Other Side discussions, and you are haters of humanity and self-interest. There's no point in arguing with you guys - you just won't listen. Every time I make some kind of point, you just stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "Lalala, I'm not listening to the greedy capitalist!" I'm not going to argue with eco-Stalinists when they outnumber me (the whole active Other Side community):1. What the Other Side really needs is some balance. Currently, it's even more Red than Marx. There's just no point in arguing now. When there are more people who agree with me, the conversation may resume. Thank you for your time.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 01:26 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:27, 25 Jul 2008.
|
I'm a bit surprised that you call me a communism when I actually don't tell you to do anything, apart from not "blowing stuff up" (hehe, actually "disturbing" that which you have not created, such as nature for example). But if that's the definition of communism, then I think it's quite ok, better than being an aggressor on things I pick up because they're weaker than me. It's not like I should go somewhere else -- people that disturb it are actually the ones who need to go and disturb themselves, and leave the things they would want to disturb alone. Since they are the ones picking on those things, not me on them. I only pick on them AFTER they pick on things. You see, I'm like a police force
I am not against humans having a free will, as long as they are responsible and not disturb things just because they CAN (pick on the weak). That is, I'm some form of "police", but not an obligation, just restrictions, to treat everything EQUAL.
Also, I'm primitivist? LOL that's nice, I don't see animals doing what I do... animals must be pretty non-primitive huh? Or rather, I'm not even thinking like them. But hell, it's not like you had experience with neutral systems like in fantasy or D&D, and neither with AI (I'm a programmer, so trust me here). If you had, probably you'll realize how subjective and narrow-minded you are by restricting yourself to your primitive pleasures. I have a reason for calling you primitive (rather than just an offense, I never intended to offensd you) -- it's because you listen to the same instincts that primitive organisms had, even though you can resist them. For me, being seduced doesn't show very strong will power. With will power comes mental evolution
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 01:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm a bit surprised that you call me a communism
"ur a communism"  I'm not just referring to this thread. I'm talking about all of our massive Other Side debates in general.
Quote:
I am not against humans having a free will
As long as they don't use it. Also, see my elf example. You may think that animals should have rights. I may think that you're killing elves. Neither of us should impose our preferences on each other. You know, you're acting like a religious fanatic. "Believe in God or I'll kill you!" "Believe in animal rights or I'll lock you up!"
Quote:
Also, I'm primitivist?
Yes, you are. You think that we could ideally return to caveman days. That's primitivism.
And D&D is heavily biased towards traditional morality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 01:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You may think that animals should have rights. I may think that you're killing elves. Neither of us should impose our preferences on each other.
Actually I want to get rid of the "rights" system altogether and use my "influence" (negatively, means disturb) system which is not flawed and subjective like rights --> influences can even be measurable 
Quote:
"Believe in God or I'll kill you!" "Believe in animal rights or I'll lock you up!"
(sorry had to use a quote for this)
Well really, would you blame me if I tell you that "Don't disturb other people or I'll kill you!" 
Similar to the abortion thread, in page 1's end (countered in page 2's second post).. really you can say that I impose my values on your, but I do so after you impose your values on animals or the environment. See? I'm only doing an eye-for-an-eye approach
Quote:
Quote:
Also, I'm primitivist?
Yes, you are. You think that we could ideally return to caveman days. That's primitivism.
"Caveman smash. Caveman kill! Caveman not care 'bout morals, only wants to feel good. Caveman wants to feel good, yeah. Caveman eats, caveman feel good. Caveman see bear -- caveman hate bear -- caveman kill, caveman feel good... Caveman feasts on weak, is good since it makes caveman feel good."
it's not really what I would consider myself, actually I think it's the other way around, just that you are more "efficient" but that doesn't mean more evolved mentally
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 02:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Similar to the abortion thread, in page 1's end (countered in page 2's second post).. really you can say that I impose my values on your, but I do so after you impose your values on animals or the environment.
But I am not imposing my values on you.
Quote:
it's not really what I would consider myself
"TheDeath hate people! TheDeath think people evil! TheDeath want live up to namesake! TheDeath would sit under a tree and sing Kumbaya, but the guitar would be fashioned through violence against trees!"
But, I'm done with philosophical debates on HC with you for now (except if you respond to this post, in which case I'll respond to your response). Maybe in the future you'll change your mind. Or there'll be more people who think like me. Because whenever I start talking about self-interest, I start feeling like I'm an African-American in one of those Southern towns with signs like "****** (n-word)! Don't let the sun set on you here!"
Oh, and one more thing. To understand why I called the elves evil, I suggest you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". A brilliant book.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 07:29 AM |
|
|
quooooooooooooooooote warrrrrrrrrr
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 10:43 AM |
|
Edited by william at 10:46, 25 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
But, I'm done with philosophical debates on HC with you for now (except if you respond to this post, in which case I'll respond to your response).
Yeah, that is the typical thing that you do, Mvass. What you need to learn is to let it go, let it rest. There is no point saying that you're finished arguing when you keep on starting it and then it just becomes an endless cycle. If you really want to finish the argument, just don't click on this thread, but if you do click on it then just choose not to respond.
This thread was going quite nice until all the quotes started to happen again and it just became the same old story again, which was the exact opposite of what this thread was trying to achieve in the first place.
Just let it go dude.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be "HC's conscience" like you once said, but if you say that you are done with an argument then there really is no need to keep on replying to the poster you are arguing with. At least back up what you say by actually doing it.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 10:46 AM |
|
|
The quality of this thread has dropped tremendously during this page.
You should maybe start this again in a week or so with a fresh mind.
When things start getting personal the debate has gone awry.
But please do continue this on some occasions. It's very good reading.
Maybe the best thread I have seen for awhile. 
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
| |
|
|
