|
| Thread: The strong and the weak |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted November 21, 2008 01:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
But lets say the somebody who lifted 30 was bullied by the 100 guy, but then the 30 guy kicks his ass. So who is the stronger?
Its NEVER posssible to define anything like that using some measure as physical strenght because its nothing about that, in the case of weak and strong.
Its about will and standing up, moving forward, realizing dreams and building roads. The strong/weak consept is only because a difference betwhen strong and weak exists.
Simply, the idealit who stands up and fights for his/her dreams is the strong. The ones who back down and don't dare to stand up can be the weak.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But lets say the somebody who lifted 30 was bullied by the 100 guy, but then the 30 guy kicks his ass. So who is the stronger?
I tried to make it easy. And my point was that it's relative, which is true (even in your example).
So they key here is not "weak" and "strong" but rather "weaker" and "stronger".
(and of course it's not only about physical strength, like I said, it was only an easy example --> I am more towards mind/mental strength/weakness)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 02:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But lets say the somebody who lifted 30 was bullied by the 100 guy, but then the 30 guy kicks his ass. So who is the stronger?
The one who lifts 100 kg, of course. The fact he lost doesn't make him physically weaker than the other guy.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 02:43 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Who says that the small can't climb a ladder or chair now? Who says that the physically weak can't build machines now? Why do they have to get rid of the strong first?
The weak benefit from the strong's existence even if the strong don't go out of their way to help them. If all the strong people of the world were to disappear, our cities would crumble and the world would go dark. The strong would be somewhat worse off if the weak disappeared (although, in some ways, they'd be better off). But if the strong disappeared, the weak would be screwed.
You're acting like the only reason that the strong and weak are different is because the strong can oppress the weak. That's not true; that's not the only difference.
Quote:
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?
Would a world where Bill Gates was killed as a teenager (for being strong) better or worse than the one in which he was left to be? It would be worse, because whether there's a massively used good OS matters. With other things, it's very similar. If Edison hadn't invented the light bulb, we would be worse off. If Ford hadn't popularized mass production, we would be worse off. Many benefit from the strong's existence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who says that the small can't climb a ladder or chair now? Who says that the physically weak can't build machines now? Why do they have to get rid of the strong first?
*sigh*
mvass, he was talking when THERE ARE NO STRONG. If there isn't anyone stronger than you, then you are not weak. How can you be if no one is stronger? It is only relative. For example, if all people were Superman, then Superman himself is not STRONG, he's just average... or 'weak', depending how you want to call him -- because no one else is WEAKER.
So if everyone is superman, it means they aren't strong anymore -- on the other hand, if there's only ONE superman, he is strong and the others weak -- so he benefits (if he is evil of course). If there aren't weaker people than you are, then you aren't strong. Strong NEED the weak to compare themselves to and to show off their 'strongness'.
Quote:
Would a world where Bill Gates was killed as a teenager (for being strong) better or worse than the one in which he was left to be?
Again, you compare the two worlds. Worse than what? If the other world where he wasn't killed didn't exist, then it isn't "worse" because there's nothing to compare to. If there aren't any tall people then there's nothing to compare yourself and a 1.60 guy can feel tall -- because there's nothing taller than him (for example). So in such a case he is "strong" (in height) while a 1.2 is weak. However if we are in a world with 1.90 guys then he isn't strong anymore, because it's relative to the others.
No such thing as "weak" and "strong". Period. It's only "weaker" and "stronger" than another.
There is no such thing as "Be strong", rather "Be stronger than some people".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 03:27 PM |
|
|
Moreover, Mv, you seem to ignore the line, IF THEY ARE NOT HELPING THE WEAK.
Think of a herd of cattle. If the old bulls do nothing to guard the herd, when attacked, while bullying around the weaker members when not, the herd is better off to get rid of the old bulls.
On the other hand the old bull is something - respected, strong and so on - only within the herd: he MUST actually guard the weaker members therefore because in doing that, in helping the weaker, he's ascertaining his strength and position.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 05:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Minimum wage laws hurt the poor, not protect them.
Okay, could you care to explain (my studies don't go as far as economics)
Is it the unions that protect the common labourer, then?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2008 11:04 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
For example, if all people were Superman, then Superman himself is not STRONG, he's just average... or 'weak', depending how you want to call him -- because no one else is WEAKER.
Yes. But again you misunderstood what I'm saying. Of course it's relative, so if there were no strong people, then there would be no strong people. But the things that the only the strong could accomplish would then never be accomplished - and the weak would be worse off for that.
Quote:
So if everyone is superman, it means they aren't strong anymore -- on the other hand, if there's only ONE superman, he is strong and the others weak -- so he benefits (if he is evil of course).
Wrong. If there is one Superman, then society benefits (if he is "Good" or Neutral) a certain amount. But if everyone is Superman, then society benefits even more! And if there are no Supermen, then society doesn't get ahead as much (and could even fall behind).
Take, for example, a duplicate Earth. It's exactly the same as Earth, except that instead of humans, it has h()man5, who are ten times stronger (not necessarily physically) than humans are. (Yes, I realize that strength is not quantifiable, but let's say it is for this example.) The differences in strength between h()man5 is 10 times greater than that of humans - since everyone is 10 times stronger. But they are as a whole going to be better off than ours (assuming their society functions roughly the same way as ours does), since they are 10 times stronger.
To express it mathematically, 1 + 2 =/= 2 + 3, even though 2 - 1 = 3 - 2. Same with strength.
Quote:
Worse than what? If the other world where he wasn't killed didn't exist, then it isn't "worse" because there's nothing to compare to.
It's worse than what could have potentially happened. If Bill Gates hadn't have gotten killed in that hypothetical world, then they would have been better off. They could possibly use their imaginations to imagine a world in which they could be better off than they were. And who is to say that we live in the best of all possible worlds? We don't. We have had our own equivalents of killing Bill Gates. And even though we can't imagine what the world would be like if we didn't make our big mistakes, we can say with certainty that it would be better.
JJ:
If the strong are "good" (that is, they go out of their way to help the weak) or Neutral (that is, they don't bother the weak, but don't go out of their way to help them, either), then the weak should have nothing against the strong. Of course, if the strong oppress them, then that's a different matter. But it's different to have to avoid oppressing someone and owing it to them to help them.
And your bull analogy doesn't work, because the strong bull is heavily dependent on the rest of the herd. And they bully around the other members of the herd. The difference between your analogy and what I'm talking about is because if the weak refuse to help the strong, then the strong will maybe be worse off, but still be stronger than any of the weak. But if the herd leaves the bull, then he will be nothing.
Dagoth:
It's a concept called dead weight loss. If the boss can fire a guy who works for $6 an hour and has 6 productivity points, and hire two guys who work for $3 an hour and each have 4 productivity points (thus, the total would be 8 productivity points for $6), then he would be better off. The two guys, too, would be better off, since they got hired. The one guy, is worse off, so he either has to ask for less money or try to get a new job. But society as a whole is made better off, because the extra productivity and savings allow more surplus spending, which creates jobs, which lets the one guy get hired again.
What minimum wage laws do is that they prevent the $3 guys from being hired.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 12:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes. But again you misunderstood what I'm saying. Of course it's relative, so if there were no strong people, then there would be no strong people.
Yes there would. If the world would be filled only with blind people (example) then they would be considered "strong" -- compared to let's say, deaf & blind people. This is because there is nothing to compare them to, nothing STRONGER. If a guy walks and can both hear and see, then EVERYONE ELSE is weak now (previously they were considered 'strong') and that guy is strong.
It's like this (higher numbers means stronger):
Guy A = 0
Guy B = 5
in this scenario, Guy B is strong, while A is weak. In fact it would be MORE CORRECT and in fact it would solve this issue once and for all if we DO NOT USE the terms 'strong' and 'weak' but rather 'stronger' and 'weaker' instead.
In the scenario above, Guy B is stronger than A. But that's it. He's only strong as long as there's nothing higher to compare to. Suppose there's also:
Guy C = 10
Then Guy B is WEAKER than Guy C -- Guy C being "stronger". And in the FLAWED context of using 'weak' and 'strong' we say that BOTH Guy A and Guy B are now WEAK and Guy C is STRONG.
How come Guy B was previously strong? Is he strong or weak? He can't be both right? The question is extremely unreliable because it is relative. 'weak' and 'strong' only cause confusion. Let us use 'weaker' and 'stronger' from now on.
Therefore the term "strong" and "weak" are not reliable because it varies on the comparison being made. There is no such thing as "strong" guy or "weak" guy. When we say that, we actually mean "stronger than X" and "weaker than Y" (X Y being two self-defined entities, with which you compare to).
Quote:
Wrong. If there is one Superman, then society benefits (if he is "Good" or Neutral) a certain amount. But if everyone is Superman, then society benefits even more! And if there are no Supermen, then society doesn't get ahead as much (and could even fall behind).
What the hell has that got to do with what I said? It seems no matter what we discuss you always resort to the benefit of society in some way.
Dude, I said that if everyone is superman then they are not strong anymore, and not even "heroes" because everyone is like that. It doesn't matter if it benefits anything.
How do you define strong? By what humans can accomplish? What about in Planet X where everyone is superman? Are we both strong and weak? No, it's just that some of us who we call strong we compare to others who are WEAKER. And compared to the Planet X inhabitants, we are WEAKER.
Therefore who sets the standard of what is strong? In our everyday lives, without knowing of Planet X's inhabitants (with all being supermen), then we say that some of us are strong. Lifting 300 kg is very strong (physically) right?
Not so... because the ones from Planet X can lift 5000 kg with no effort. So where do we draw the line? What about Planet Y which can lift 100000 kg? How do we classify those if we consider 300 kg 'strong'?
Basically, the classification is ALREADY flawed. You see, if the world had ONLY supermen they will not be considered strong. Because they are... average.
Any Guy can beat any other Guy (all are supermen) --> no one is "strong"... just average. It doesn't matter whether their society is 'better' off (again: compared to which society? to ours? to the ones on Planet Y? to the ones on Planet Z? what about the edge of the Universe? it would be folly to say they are strong -- because there's always AT LEAST a stronger CONCEPT, if not reality).
Why is a guy that can lift 1000 kg 'strong'? Because no one can lift that! If we were all able to lift it, the guy wouldn't be strong anymore, and 1000 kg would be the norm 
but if you think supermen are strong, think about Planet Y, or Planet Z. The point is, there's always a STRONGER CONCEPT. You can't be 'strong' unless you actually mean 'stronger than X'. It doesn't matter how the society is 'better off' because THAT ALSO IMPLIES A COMPARISON. If you think that our society is 'strong' because we can do better than, let's say, ants, then how do you define a superman society? Or society from Planet Y?
The conclusion is that the terms 'weak' and 'strong' are bad and should be avoided, and we should only use 'weaker' and 'stronger'
(not going to comment on your Minimum Wage explanation but it's flawed  )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 12:43 AM |
|
|
Yes, what you're saying is correct, but you're missing the point. The point is that if the weaker killed the stronger, then the weak would be making themselves worse off, even if the strong didn't go out of their way to help the weak. (On the other hand, if the strong were hurting them, then that's different.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 01:01 AM |
|
|
All I keep thinking is "I Am Legend" the movie.. interesting indeed.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 02:56 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 03:03, 22 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
3. No, the strong do not have a duty to carry the weak any more than the weak have the duty to carry the strong. Why would they?
The wild wild west was awesome wasn't it ? xD
It's a thing called civilisation, development, realizing you are not just here as an individual and personal materialistic gain doesn't make you happy. It's about realizing there is more than just selfishness; symbiosis.
Moreover this whole discussion about "weak" and "strong" is retarded. You can't qualify people as "weak" or "strong". You are dealt a deck of cards with random qualities, and those you have to live with. What one might deem strong another might deem as weak.
For example, you think you're right, and I think you're wrong.
Your problem is that you deem the idea of "the strong carry the weak" as Paratisism. While in fact it is more like Commensalism.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 03:42 AM |
|
|
The Wild West was flawed, but I like the "every man for himself" principle, in a loose sense.
Quote:
It's a thing called civilisation, development, realizing you are not just here as an individual and personal materialistic gain doesn't make you happy.
I beg to differ. I am here as an individual (and so is everyone else, unless they're schizophrenic ). And I'd like you to point me to gain that isn't materialistic.
The strong carrying the weak is sometimes mutualism, sometimes commensalism, and sometimes parasitism. But when the strong are forced to carry the weak, then it is parasitism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 09:56 AM |
|
|
Mv, I wonder what's the problem with you to always start with the killing.
1) TheDeath is completely right in that strength is relative and a concept used always in comparison. Weak and strong therefore makes differences necessary. A planet full of supermen will be just the same as a planet full of halflings, since there is no way to compare those two with each other.
2) If the society is one of 99% economically weak and oppressed and 1% strong and oppressors, than the weak are better off when they get rid of them (exclude them from society), simple and easy, and civilization or not, the stronger should realize that and act accordingly. Basically that's why something like the French Revolution was right and necessary (and, yes, I know, it's not so easy with reasons for it, but that's not the point here).
That's why
3) The stronger ones have a DUTY to help (not CARRY, but HELP) the weaker ones, because ONLY in helping the weaker ones their strength means something for the society (which is what humans live in). If there life does NOT mean something for society then their being stronger is helping only THEM and becomes a liability for society - society is, after all what makes them strong (in comparison). In that case they should see whether they are still strong alone and outside of society.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath is completely right in that strength is relative and a concept used always in comparison.
Indeed he is right, and I don't disagree here.
Quote:
A planet full of supermen will be just the same as a planet full of halflings
Now here I disagree completely. If humans could fly, then I think you would agree that the world would be different than it is now, even though everybody could do it. Even though people can't fly by themselves, we can compare our current world with what it could be like if people could fly. Or if all humans' intelligence were to be halved. Or something else. And so on. Just because a different world doesn't exist doesn't mean that we can't compare ourselves with an idea of what it could be like.
So a world full of supermen would be very different from a world full of halflings.
As for 2, the key word there is "oppressors". If the strong are oppressing the weak, then that's one thing. If they're merely letting them be, then it's another. Of course the weak would benefit from removing an oppressor. No doubts there.
But 3 is much more nuanced. The strong do not have to go out of their way to help the weak, but they may often inadvertently do so by helping themselves. Indeed, unless one kills, steals, or tortures, or becomes a hermit, it is hard for someone (whether strong or weak) to not make a contribution for society.
Nevertheless, if the strong just leave the weak alone, and vice versa, then the weak would have no qualms with the strong and would have no right to eliminate them. Likewise, the strong have no obligation to help the weak. However, it may be mutually beneficial for them to interact. The strong may be acting in their own self-interest, but if they don't oppress the weak in doing so, the weak would probably benefit too.
And what if the strong were to withdraw from interacting with the weak and build a society for themselves? What would there be left for the weak to do?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now here I disagree completely. If humans could fly, then I think you would agree that the world would be different than it is now, even though everybody could do it. Even though people can't fly by themselves, we can compare our current world with what it could be like if people could fly. Or if all humans' intelligence were to be halved. Or something else. And so on. Just because a different world doesn't exist doesn't mean that we can't compare ourselves with an idea of what it could be like.
Yes but we're not talking whether it would be better off or not, we're talking whether you would be strong or not. If everyone is a halfling, then you wouldn't be considered weak, like humans consider you (because let's say they are stronger/taller).
Such that for example, you can't call yourself strong -- if you think you are strong, what about supermen society?
Yes it would be different but none of them is 'strong' per se, unless you have a strict absolute method to compare them (that also fails in CONCEPT because it is always something stronger in CONCEPT).
Quote:
But 3 is much more nuanced. The strong do not have to go out of their way to help the weak, but they may often inadvertently do so by helping themselves. Indeed, unless one kills, steals, or tortures, or becomes a hermit, it is hard for someone (whether strong or weak) to not make a contribution for society.
Nevertheless, if the strong just leave the weak alone, and vice versa, then the weak would have no qualms with the strong and would have no right to eliminate them. Likewise, the strong have no obligation to help the weak. However, it may be mutually beneficial for them to interact. The strong may be acting in their own self-interest, but if they don't oppress the weak in doing so, the weak would probably benefit too.
If the strong don't have anyone weaker then they aren't strong anymore. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.
For example: suppose you are one of the only 5 humans on the planet, and you can communicate with ants. Now since you are stronger than ants, you can feel that 'strongness' indeed because you can oppress them at any point you wish.
However ONCE the ants go extinct you begin to be WEAK because there's no one WEAKER (in this example). WEAK is always the WEAKEST entity (or something like that) and since now the ants disappeared you are at the bottom now (compared to let's say, supermen).
Furthermore if you are strong indeed and don't have anyone WEAKER then it means that everyone else must be as strong as you or even greater -- which means YOU WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY oppressing them. YOU are not strong anymore because you can't oppress anyone anymore! You aren't an 'authority' anymore, you are weak unless you have someone weaker than you.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 07:39 PM |
|
|
Your example about Guy A and Guy B and Guy C has a flaw TheDeath.
Only because A has 0 and B has 5, you can't say B is strong. You only can say B is stronger than A. That's it.
Just take the same example with height.
Guy A is 145 cm, Guy B is 155 cm. Would you call B a TALL guy?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 07:44 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:46, 22 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Only because A has 0 and B has 5, you can't say B is strong. You only can say B is stronger than A. That's it.
Just take the same example with height.
Guy A is 145 cm, Guy B is 155 cm. Would you call B a TALL guy?
If there wouldn't be anyone taller then yes. But that is exactly my point, that these two terms are unreliable 
For example, we call 1.90 tall right?
What about the 'creatures' on planet X which are 5.56? In fact, I know you say to restrict to our area, but that is the exact point: the fact that WITHOUT Guy C existing, Guy B would be considered 'strong'.
If 1.90 people wouldn't exist then 1.55 would be considered strong. On the other hand these terms 'strong' and 'weak' are flawed like you said and unreliable (my point).
And yes you're right, the ONLY thing objectively right is the 'stronger than' and 'weaker than' expression.
Thus it is flawed to say "Be strong" because it implicitly refers to "Be stronger than X" (where X is usually computed by just limited experience/common sense). As long as there's no one weaker you can't be considered strong (well nature is a bit part of this, but who is to say that we are 'strong' against nature? what about some aliens who happen to be even more for example?)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes but we're not talking whether it would be better off or not, we're talking whether you would be strong or not.
I was.  I was talking about strength in comparison with what is average now.
Quote:
However ONCE the ants go extinct you begin to be WEAK because there's no one WEAKER (in this example).
Not quite. Your strength hasn't changed, and you can still compare yourself to the ants, even though they aren't around any more.
And there's much more to strength than ability to oppress. Indeed, some kinds of strength don't give you the ability to oppress.
And "be strong" can easily be taken to mean "be stronger than you are now".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 22, 2008 08:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not quite. Your strength hasn't changed, and you can still compare yourself to the ants, even though they aren't around any more.
Yes in CONCEPT but you can also compare yourself to Superman in CONCEPT and you will be weak
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
