VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:46:45 04/26/02 Fri
Author: Anonymous
Subject: Re: EGO! EGO! EGO! and more
In reply to: 's message, "Re: EGO! EGO! EGO! and more" on 12:17:11 11/10/99 Wed

>> I have A LOT of input on
>this
>> subject:
>>
>> > (Aha. What I was saying, is that you cannot compare
>> > man to other animals, because of his free will.
>> >
>>
>> I GREATLY disagree. I think
>> it is all too egotistical to believe we are anything
>> BUT animals.
>>
>> >
>> > > (jack) What I'm saying is that humans, like all
>> > > animals and plants, are a product of nature.
>> >
>> > (Of course.)
>> >
>> > > This planet started out as a big ball of gas,
>> which
>> > > due to the effects of gravity, ended up as a
>rough
>> > > sphere composed of various elements. Then came
>> > > something called evolution, or simply random
>> chance;
>> > > I won't go into the chemistry of it, but we ended
>> up
>> > > with life. First there was plant life, eventually
>> animal
>> > > life. Eventually, nature created apes,
>> which
>> > > evolved into neanderthals and cro-magnons, which
>> further
>> > > evolved into humans.
>> >
>> > (Do you think I don't know this all?)
>> >
>>
>> Yes, thank you very much for
>> the science lesson.
>>
>> >
>> > > Surely, the simple fact that we evolved from
>these
>> > > lower species means that we must share certain
>> traits
>> > > with them.
>> >
>> > (Yes, and we do share a lot with apes. The looks,
>for
>> > example. But only few apes share one thing: The
>free
>> > will I explained. Don't make any comments on this
>> one,
>> > because I'm going to explain it better further to
>> this
>> > post.)
>> >
>>
>> Explain it all you like, but
>> once again, this concept of 'free will' is
>> faulty. What IS your definition? As far as I can
>> tell, 'free will' is just that -- the freedom to do
>> things of your own volition. Animals do this all the
>> time. My cat DECIDES to sleep even if he hasn't done
>> anything exerting to require rest. My cat DECIDES to
>> eat even though he's had plenty of food and hasn't
>> done anything (besides sleep) to burn those
>calories.
>> My cat DECIDES to piss on people when they won't do
>> what he wants them to do (such as play with him or
>> feed him). ALL of these examples are signs (by my
>> definition) of 'free will'.
>>
>> >
>> > > We eat plants and animals, just like other
>> > > animals.
>> >
>> > (Of course.)
>> >
>> > > We protect ourselves from harm, just like
>> > > them. We're just much better at it.
>> >
>> > (Sure we protect ourselves from harm. We protect
>> > ourselves unconsciously, like other animals, when
>we
>> > face a threat. That is called insticts. But, we
>also
>> > protect ourselves consciously (for example,
>> > treaties.). The best protection we may have, is a
>> safe
>> > society, which is something we have been close to,
>> yet
>> > not achieved it. A society where there is no
>crime,
>> > poverty, or other things which lower life. I'll
>> > explain this to you. This is a quote from John
>Rawls
>> > (an american philosophist, in case you don't know):
>> > Imagine, that you would get to a group of people,
>> > people who you don't know anything about (In this
>> > case, we may think [of] this as a society, or the
>> planet
>> > earth). You should soon decide, how you divide your
>> > wealth. Would it be wise to think that you would
>take
>> > it all by yourself? Maybe others have the same
>> > intentions. Therefore, there will be a battle,
>which
>> > will be won by the strongest and the meaniest. This
>> > isn't wise, if you want to protect yourself (like
>all
>> > animals, like man, do.) Therefore, ...there
>> > will be a society treaty, for everyone's
>protection.
>> > We may also think this as a treaty between nations,
>> as
>> > if we wouldn't have treaties like this, I don't
>think
>> > there would be anyone left here alive. U may think
>me
>> > as a cynical person, but I think that, because of
>few
>> > nations (see U.S., ) our great achievments will
>cease
>> > to exist.)
>> >
>>
>> Treaties are as meaningless
>> as the promises they are based upon. A FALSE sense
>of
>> security. There are plenty of countries who have
>> signed treaties banning the production and
>development
>> of chemical and biological weapons. If these
>> countries all practiced what they promised everything
>> would be quite a bit safer for us all, but as most of
>> us are aware, the U.S., Russia (formerly the
>> U.S.S.R.), and a handful of others have still
>> researched and created these 'invisible' weapons of
>> mass destruction. People might think that they
>> wouldn't because they signed a treaty, but they
>have.
>> Treaties are just a way for governments to give their
>> citizens a false sense of security and to
>diplomaticly
>> deal with other countries without having to really do
>> anything or make any REAL concessions.
>>
>> >
>> > > But clearly, there are valid comparisons which
>can
>> be
>> > > made, don't you think?
>> >
>> > ( Of course. But, as you see, non[e] of the animals
>> have
>> > been able to create such a safe society. I'm not
>> > saying that man has created a perfect society, but
>I
>> > think the Nordic Countries are very, very close to
>> it.)
>> >
>>
>> Animals' 'societies'
>> are no less secure than our own. Man's
>> 'security' has allowed him to over-populate,
>> making his future far less secure than many other
>> creatures. Ants are more secure than people --
>> they've been around longer and are less likely to go
>> extinct than man is (even if man's extinction is
>> caused by our own hands -- hell, they'd just eat our
>> dead rotting carcasses). Plus, they don't have all
>> this health care to keep the weak alive draining
>their
>> resources. A chain is only as strong as its weakest
>> link, therefore humanity is only as strong as its
>> weakest member. We spend a lot of time trying to
>help
>> our weak survive -- rarely do they become more than
>> marginally stronger, instead they suck us dry and
>> weaken the whole. By that logic, our
>> 'security' has made us weaker.
>>
>> >
>> > > I mean, we don't think like
>> > > they do, we think much better.
>> >
>>
>> How do you know?
>>
>> >
>> > (Yes, and we also think to protect ourselves. But
>> > since we have a free will, we don't just act by our
>> > instincts, and therefore are able to create
>treaties
>> > which will protect us.)
>> >
>>
>> AH! Back to that
>> 'treaty' fallacy again...
>> {i know that said treaty dosen't make me sleep any
>better at night. i feel that i can protect my self
>but i protect myself using wit(shut up s138)and
>instinct. no treaty or law is going to stop anyone
>but a nato member (and maybe not even them) from
>shooting me or other wise. and i'm not even to sure
>about your free will statment either. DO YOU
>SERIOUSLY THINK THAT OTHER ANIMALS HAVE NO FREEDOM TO
>CHOOSE? sometimes i think most wild animals get to
>choose more of what they do than i do. our lives or
>rationed and regulated to the utmost degree. FREE
>WILL? i don't know.}
>
>> >
>> > > Infinitely better, perhaps, but even the
>> > > "infinitely better" can be compared to the much
>> worse,
>> > > can't it?
>> >
>>
>> 'Infinitely better'?
>> Once again, HOW DO YOU KNOW?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > (I think U got the point already. I think there is
>a
>> > lack of intelligence among many of us (again, see
>> U.S.
>> > and NATO, for example). But we are still able to
>> think
>> > much better, as many of us do.)
>> >
>> > > I know many people who are barely able to support
>> > > themselves, and they have 1/3rd of their
>paychecks
>> > > taken from them in taxes. This is not fair, and
>> > > their lives would be much better if they could
>> keep all
>> > > of what they earn.
>> >
>>
>> I think the first question
>> should be, "Why are THEY barely able to support
>> themselves when so many others in similar situations
>> aren't having anywhere near as many problems?". Yes,
>> the federal bastards swipe a good third of my income
>> (I admit I get a good chunk of it back in the form of
>> tax returns, tho'), but I'm not having TOO hard of a
>> time with it. Let me give you some background: I am
>> married, have a child, and, together with my wife,
>> make less than $32,000 per year (working 40+ hours
>> each -- and neither of us have better than a high
>> school education). We're not homeless, and we don't
>> live on welfare or get food stamps or anything like
>> that (aka making society weaker) -- when we're done
>> paying our bills money's sometimes a little tight,
>but
>> I still have enough left over to support my musical
>> habit (guitar, 8-track digital recorder, high-end
>amp,
>> synth, computer, etc...) so why are these other
>people
>> having such a hard time? Is the rent too high?
>MOVE.
>> Job not pay enough? QUIT. GET ANOTHER. Drugs too
>> expensive? STOP BUYING THEM. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD
>> THEM, YOU SHOULDN'T BE BUYING THEM. Hobby too
>> expensive? FIND A NEW HOBBY (OR JUST BE MORE
>> PATIENT). Kids too expensive? CONDOMS ARE
>CHEAP(ER).
>> See the point?
>>
>> >{s138 i agree life, sucks buy a fucking helmet.}
>> > (That's a bit over the top. Here in Finland, rich
>> > people pay more taxes than in the U.S. The highiest
>> > taxes are about 60%, and the people who pay them,
>> have
>> > a yearly income in millions. Nobody needs millions
>to
>> > support himself, or his hobbies. Then why should
>they
>> > have it? What work have they done so hard? I think
>> the
>> > ones who own millions should have more taxes, not
>the
>> > ones who barely support themselves.
>> >
>>
>> I think the taxes should be
>> an EQUAL percentage for everyone. The rich will
>still
>> be paying more than the poor in amount but at least
>it
>> is more fair across the board. Why should the rich
>be
>> punished for being rich? How would YOU feel if the
>> tables were turned? Would you say, "Gee, I've got so
>> much cash I don't mind giving most of it away." Or
>> would it be more like: "Why do I have to give up 60%
>> of my money when everyone else doesn't have to give
>up
>> more than 5%?" If the first one is what you would
>> say, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you.
>>
>> {as of this moment of my life i am considered to be
>"below the poverty line" i get raped for taxes. I
>also was really never GIVEN a chance to dig myself out
>of this financial rut
>but i trudge along none the less. i also belive taxes
>should be an even spread across the classes.}
>> >
>> > > (jack) Oh, whatever Think Tank. Man's nature is
>> to
>> > > help the poor, and it's nice that we can rise
>above
>> > > that nature as the Smoking Man has complimented
>you
>> > > on suggesting, because then, I guess, we wouldn't
>> help
>> > > the poor. Or maybe it's the other way around...
>> > > Whatever.
>> >
>>
>> Man's nature isn't to help
>> the poor, it's to help himself. When was the last
>> time YOUR landlord said, "It's too bad you can't
>> afford to pay the rent this month. Don't worry about
>> it, I've got more money than you so one month won't
>> matter to me."? I'll tell you when: NEVER! Only the
>> incredibly rich are willing to take a major loss to
>> help out the less fortunate (and they're just doing
>it
>> for a tax write-off or because they're a little
>> excentric.
>> {NO SHIT}
>> >
>> > (Your argument is controversial. You say that
>people
>> > who barely support theselves, pay too much taxes,
>> > right? By that, they are the poor. Then, you
>> > suggest we should rise above the nature to help the
>> > poor. This is very, very funny.)
>> > {i don't know who you are or who you think
>youy are but yes I pay too may taxes. I barely
>can take care of myself AND I PAY TOO MANY TAXES!!! I
>am sorry if i am coming across harshly but aound here
>the poor get shit on. I don't know where you live but
>it sounds like a nice place you quite obviously have
>not been exposed to nearly as
>much negativity as i have.}
>> > > (jack) Precisely. Don't you think that if
>> something
>> > > can neither be proven nor disproven, that we
>should
>> > > then admit that we don't know?
>> >
>>
>> That's somewhat sensible.
>> BUT we SHOULD admit it could be possible.
>>
>> >
>> > (I was a bit of slippy here. If something cannot be
>> > proven true, than we can assume that it is false.
>> > Right? I mean, I think we have to prove that we
>have
>> a
>> > free will, don't you? And this is proven.)
>> >
>>
>> Your 'True & False' Theory
>is
>> logically wrong. You can prove something is true (or
>> exists) but you can NEVER prove something is false
>(or
>> does not exist). By your logic, the world WAS flat
>> until Columbus proved to Europe that it wasn't.
>(Yes,
>> I know Columbus wasn't believed to be the first
>person
>> to discover the Western Hemisphere, but he WAS the
>> first to return to Europe and PROVE it.) The world
>> was not round (aka RoundWorld = FALSE) before he
>> proved it to be round (RoundWorld = TRUE). Does this
>> make sense?
>> {wonderful observation but wouldn't that mean that
>there is only one truth for every thing what about
>religion slave
>i know that you hate that kind of thing as much as i
>do or at least you don't advocate it?}
>> >
>> > > (jack) A great many animals communicate with
>each
>> > > other.
>> >
>> > (I mean creative languegal >> color="#FF0000"> (probably not as creative as the
>> spelling...) skills. Which
>> > means that one can produce sentences that have
>never
>> been
>> > produced before. I did say this, if you have read
>the
>> > earliest posts of this discussion.)
>> >
>> Yet a third time: HOW DO YOU
>> KNOW? It's VERY egotistical of anyone to think that
>> we are the only intelligent animals on earth just
>> because other animals do not speak our language. Do
>> YOU understand the sounds they make? If not, HOW DO
>> YOU KNOW THEY AREN'T USING THEM IN A CREATIVE
>MANNER?
>> Yes, they repeat many sounds over and over -- maybe
>it
>> is a COMBINATION of the sound & the number of
>> repeats that gives their language structure (not
>> unlike our own, I might add -- How many of our words
>> are made of completely original sounds?)
>> {now i will proceed to rip you a new asshole(exscuse
>my use of crude language) every thing that is possible
>to have been said has already been said probably 100
>times over. the only time there is a new sentance to
>be said is when a new word is developed. then you can
>be langeugal or whatever.
>> >
>> > > Dolphins are said to have a huge vocabulary;
>> > > whales sing to each other, and they apparently
>pass
>> > > information back and forth via the songs. Cats
>> meow
>> > > and dogs bark, and those sounds convey
>> information.
>> > > And a whole lot of other animals too.
>> >
>> > (Of course they communicate, you know I ain't
>stupid.
>> > But only man (and few apes) have a talent of using
>> our
>> > language creatively, adding words to words, and
>> > therefore producing sentences. If it can be proven
>> > that whales can do this, than we may assume that
>they
>> > have a free will apart from their instincts. Cats
>and
>> > dogs can express themselves, but very primitively,
>as
>> > it shows in their primitive behavior. They don't
>have
>> > society treaties, do they?)
>> >
>>
>> After reading that last part
>> it makes me question human intelligence all
>together.
>> 'Producing Sentences' = 'free will'?? Is
>Marijuana
>> legal in Finland?? On top of that close-minded
>> opinon, we also get 'TREATY' thrust in our
>> faces again!! I wish I still believed in fairy
>tales!
>>
>> {preach on}
>> >
>> > > (jack) Well, animals are quite fond of killing
>and
>> > > eating each other. I sort of think that such
>> behavior
>> > > qualifies them as being the ultimate dissidents.
>> >
>> > (No no no, I meant dissidents apart from their
>> > instincts, like how many capitalists or socialists
>or
>> > fascists or peacelovers do you see in the nature?
>> Even
>> > if few apes have a bit of the same talents we have,
>> > they don't have it enough to use it well, like we
>do.
>> > Sadly, very often we ignore the using of these
>skills
>> > (wars, etc.).)
>> >
>>
>> Ever heard of wolves? How
>> about lions? Elephants? Almost all animals exist in
>> their own little 'societies' -- many of them
>communist
>> (in the philosophical sense -- not the USSR/CHINA
>> version of corruption). They hunt with each other,
>> they travel together for protection, etc... and they
>> ALL do their part (or they get left behind to starve
>> and feed something else, be it predator or
>scavenger.)
>>
>> {i really wish that is how humanity operated most of
>the time. I find that weakness is far to tolerated
>most of the time.}
>> >
>> > > Look forward to hearing your response Think Tank,
>> > >
>> > > Sincerely,
>> > >
>> > > Jack (And I'm not that other "Jack" who's posted
>on
>> > > this board recently :)
>>
>> Well, I'm not Think Tank,
>but
>> I hope this puts a different light to a few ideas.
>>
>>
>> -s138
>{reading through this i now realise another reason why
>i find humanity disturbing. i am sorry i anybody has
>been offended by my outbursts but i really don't
>understand egotism what so ever. i don't find the
>human race supirior
>i think that the human race needs one serious REALITY
>CHECK. free will died with the rise of government,
>laws, and TREATIES. -larva

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.