|
| Thread: The strong and the weak |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:02 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
If you are born poor in a poor country your personal strength may be used up just for surviving. If you are born rich in a rich country you may be weak but still manage pretty well.
I disagree. Certainly the poor strong person's strength will indeed be used for surviving, but the weak person in a rich country will not "manage pretty well". Sure, he/she might have a higher standard of living, but that doesn't mean that they're managing well. They could still be unhappy and insecure (because emotional stability is a source of strength).
Who do you think is happier - a Chinese who worked in a factory all of his life but is proud of his work, or an American emo?
Quote:
the strong do NEED the weak, because without the weak there would only be strong and then they would lose their relative strength. On the other hand the weak - since the strong do nothing for them - do NOT NEED the strong, because all they do is keeping them weak.
If you kill all tall people, will you be tall? Relatively, yes. If you kill all tall people, will you be able to reach things on high shelves? No. Same here.
Totoro (and TheDeath):
Regarding 6, that's not what I meant. Say you have two identical Earths, and two identical populations except for one trait: strength. Everyone on Earth A has a strength of 10, and everyone on Earth B has a strength of 1. Neither population knows about the other's existence. Now, suppose you watch them for 20 or so years. Which Earth do you think is going to be doing better - A or B? Or will they be the same, since there are no differences in strength on both planets?
To phrase the question better: beyond the definitions of strength and weakness, are there inherent qualities that make the strong and weak different other than those of differences in strength?
TheDeath:
Quote:
If you do "carry" the weak then you are already trying to use your strength for something better than they could!
You are using it for something other than they could. "Different" doesn't mean "better". Is a graphing calculator better than a four-operation one? Yes, but not because it graphs but because it can graph. Birds may be considered "better" than reptiles because they can fly. Does that mean that they should fly all of the time? The strong are better not because they help the weak, but because they can help the weak. Although that's only one reason, and only a facet of the main one.
Just because you can do something that others can't doesn't mean that you should do it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:04 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:05, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
You are using it for something other than they could. "Different" doesn't mean "better".
Yes it is, because they can't do it. So you use YOUR 'gifts' to do something that they can't (in our case, compassion for example). Therefore you ARE better.
Quote:
Just because you can do something that others can't doesn't mean that you should do it.
No but it does make you better if you do something to help them when they don't (because they can't, not because they're lazy). It shows off. 
of course I agree that if someone is weak because he/she is lazy then it's not worth it.
With the fisherman example: You teach him how to fish --> he must not be lazy, but you must be understandable for his situation (his lack of skill) so you teach him --> much like you teach a child.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you use YOUR 'gifts' to do something that they can't (in our case, compassion for example). Therefore you ARE better.
Let's say that you're the only person in the world that has a hammer. Does it mean that you're better if you go and wave that hammer around everywhere?
Quote:
No but it does make you better if you do something to help them when they don't
How?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:10 PM |
|
|
@Death: What the hell you're talking about? Completely off my point, as usual.
1. I said, if everyone was strong, then everyone will be able to defend themselves  less violence.
2. If everyone was weak, there would be less violence as well, since there will probably won't be anyone strong enough to challenge the other.
But, since there are already strong people, then it means the second case is not an option, so the weak should strive to become strong rather than be lazy and 'suffer' (and then complain that the strong abuse them)
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:12 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:13, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
1. I said, if everyone was strong, then everyone will be able to defend themselves less violence.
Against who? Against the weak? Or against themselves?
In that case, the weak can defend themselves against the weak too 
Quote:
If everyone was weak, there would be less violence as well, since there will probably won't be anyone strong enough to challenge the other.
Right, and if everyone is strong, and there is only one stronger, then all of them are WEAK, and that person is strong.
Same stuff. If everyone is the same, they are nor strong nor weak, because it's irrelevant how you call them.
It is relative. Do you get my point or do I have to spell it out for you?
@mvass:Quote:
Let's say that you're the only person in the world that has a hammer. Does it mean that you're better if you go and wave that hammer around everywhere?
No lol. That would be the opposite, because you see, you just smash them more efficiently than they can -- in short, you're doing the SAME stuff but with more efficiency --> you're even worse because you CAN choose. I'm talking about mentalities here...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:13 PM |
|
|
|
If every one was weak, or everyone was strong, then that means they have the same strength, and words like strength wouldnt exist in this perspective. Everyone would have to be the same other wise there would be a weak and strong class.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:14 PM |
|
|
Yes Celf that was kinda my point 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:17 PM |
|
|
what if I define a strong person as someone who can use his skull and stand on his own two feet? Yes, the weak would be the weak-minded people and I have nothing against them and I think it'd be harder to take advantage off, since it would be hard for them to work in society... I'm probably horribly off-topic, so I'll just ask around...
When you two (ash and death) discuss weak and strong, do you basically mean who has the biggest guns/ paychecks?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you get my point or do I have to spell it out for you?
I do, but you seem to not get mine AT ALL.
Actually I would have to say the same stuff I said in my previous post, so I don't think I will bother... meh
Short story:
Strong DEFEND against strong
Weak DEFEND against weak
What's so hard to understand? Since there ARE some strong people, the only option to prevent 'abuses' is for everyone to become strong. So instead of being lazy and complaining the weak should strive to become strong.
I don't care about your point with relativity. What has that to do with what I say? You just all the time can't get others' view point and continue with your off-the-point posts.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you two (ash and death) discuss weak and strong, do you basically mean who has the biggest guns/ paychecks?
LOL I'm talking more about mentality, she's the one with the "defend yourself" definition. I'm waaaay past above the "might makes right" principle
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What's so hard to understand? Since there ARE some strong people, the only option to prevent 'abuses' is for everyone to become strong.
No, the thing is, there are "stronger", not "strong". There are stronger people than you and will always be. Therefore you are weak no matter what. It's relative.
You say there is always "strong" people but what does that mean, if not in comparison to the "weak"? 
In that respect, there is always someone "stronger" so to speak, therefore you are weak. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. maybe you should use the term 'stronger' instead of 'strong' to get my point (in your phrase that is).
Quote:
Strong DEFEND against strong
Weak DEFEND against weak
And stronger defend against stronger, and stronger stronger defend against stronger stronger, and stronger stronger stronger beat the crap out of stronger stronger weak
Get it now?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:24 PM |
|
|
Could we use a bit of practice, because it's a bit hard, like for example:
In the earliest days of liberalism, people were completely free to maketheir own fortune. Nothing protected the poor people (like minimum wage laws). So the weak would simply keep starving and weakening because the strong became stronger to fend of other strong manufacturers. So what if you can't become strong? what then, ash? Tough luck, you die?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
the strong do NEED the weak, because without the weak there would only be strong and then they would lose their relative strength. On the other hand the weak - since the strong do nothing for them - do NOT NEED the strong, because all they do is keeping them weak.
If you kill all tall people, will you be tall? Relatively, yes. If you kill all tall people, will you be able to reach things on high shelves? No. Same here.
"High Shelves"? Which high shelves? It's like asking if you kill all people who can read who'll read all the books? What books?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 20, 2008 11:55 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 23:56, 20 Nov 2008.
|
Actually I'm staying out of this thread anyway... I'm really tired of repeating myself, but to make this post not completely off-topic I'll address one last thing:Quote:
"High Shelves"? Which high shelves? It's like asking if you kill all people who can read who'll read all the books? What books?
You know, stronger people (and I mean physical strength here) are able to lift heavier objects (which you find in NATURE, etc), agile people are able to run faster (and reach destinations faster), intelligent people will probably invent computers, etc.
The thing is, a world filled with strong people will be BETTER (lift heavier objects, run faster, invent computers, etc) than a world filled with weak people, even though you will be considered as strong/agile/intelligent as in the weak case, since you compare with the other strong people. I think this was mvass' point.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 12:04 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:05, 21 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Actually I'm staying out of this thread anyway... I'm really tired of repeating myself
Well to be honest I think you should repeat less and listen more to others. ALso to change your arguments depending on what we're discussing instead of repeating the ones you had at the beginning -- that is a dead conversation.
Quote:
You know, stronger people (and I mean physical strength here) are able to lift heavier objects (which you find in NATURE, etc), agile people are able to run faster (and reach destinations faster), intelligent people will probably invent computers, etc.
That is a comparison too, comparing yourself to Nature. But that is off the point as we did not discuss about that (or did we? I thought it was about conflict between strong and weak). Then again, it's still a comparison no matter how you look at it
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 03:02 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
That's not what I meant with the hammer analogy. I didn't mean that you're using the hammer to smash people or their stuff. What I meant was that you're better because you are capable of using the hammer, not because you're using it to help those without one.
Also, again you ignore my restatement of my question. I realize that the concept of strength and weakness comes from the difference between them, but are the differences between the strong and weak caused merely by the difference in strength?
Dagoth:
Minimum wage laws hurt the poor, not protect them.
JJ:
The high shelves will still be there even if you kill the tall people. The books will still be there even if you kill all the literate people. The heights of power will still be there (conceptually) even if you kill all the strong people.
The shelves aren't going to lower just because all the tall people are dead.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 08:31 AM |
|
|
Ok, if you insist on it:
The small will climb a ladder or a chair.
The weak will build machines.
The dumb are too simple to kill everyone who's not dumb. Besides they would read books with pictures in it.
Besides, what I said is IF THE STRONG DON'T HELP THE WEAK the weak are better off (and therefore it is logical to do so) to get rid of the strong - plain and simple, since being weak means in this case being taken advantage of.
However, the strong are not strong anymore without the weak, and being strong among the weak is something good. Which means that the strong basically MUST help the weak - but not too much, mind you: just enough, so the weak have something to lose (the help of the strong), but not enough to make them strong.
Which is incidentally the way it works.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 09:15 AM |
|
|
btw where's the third option?
Strong and weak ignore each other. They neither try to get advantage, nor need help 
and as for physical strength, remember the funny quote?
"God created men but Sam Colt made them equal"
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 09:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is, a world filled with strong people will be BETTER (lift heavier objects, run faster, invent computers, etc) than a world filled with weak people, even though you will be considered as strong/agile/intelligent as in the weak case, since you compare with the other strong people. I think this was mvass' point.
If that's his point it makes no sense. BETTER is relative. Whether the world record for 100 meters is 10 seconds or 20, what does it matter?
You might say that we are all weak since we cannot run 100 meters in 5 seconds and haven't invented space flight yet - or even find a way to lengthen our life span and so on. It's just relative.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 01:20 PM |
|
|
That's perfectly true. Ash, let's take physical strength as an easy example.
Suppose the weak can only lift 30 kg while the strong 100 kg... is that what makes them strong, the fact that they can lift 100 kg, or the fact that they can lift +70 MORE kg than the weak? Think about it.
In other cases, what about people who can life 200 kg? 500 kg? Are they strong? In comparison to the ones with 100 kg, they are the strong, and the ones with 100 kg are weak. That's how it is. It's relative. It's only IN COMPARISON.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
