VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ 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: 06:12:25 11/08/99 Mon
Author: Anonymous
Subject: h



> (jack) Yet the rule of nature is that the strong eat
> the weak. Doesn't the animal kingdom represent a
> large part of nature? Certainly, humans are part of
> nature, yet when we talk about "nature", we're not
> just talking about humans, but all that exists.
> Humans are nature's greatest achievement, don't you
> think? But humans are a product of nature, and we've
> gotten to the top because we're the best predator. We
> don't need to kill animals to maintain our position
> today, but we had to kill animals to achieve this
> position. That's what I think of as a law of nature.

(Ok, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. Let's move on to the next one....)



> > (Aha. What I was saying, is that you cannot compare
> > man to other animals, because of his free will.



> (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?)


> 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.)


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 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, 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.)


> But clearly, there are valid comparisons which can be
> made, don't you think?

( Of course. But, as you see, non 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.)


I mean, we don't think like
> they do, we think much better.

(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.)


Infinitely better,
> perhaps, but even the "infinitely better" can
> be compared to the much worse, can't it?


(I think U got the point already. I think there is a lack of intellitenge 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.)



> (jack) In America, people who earn just barely above
> minimum wage have a third of their paychecks taken
> from them in taxes. These people work long, hard
> hours, doing things that they don't want to do. They
> just want to be able to live comfortably, yet they
> can't because a third of the money they have earned is
> taken from them. You see, this is what I want to
> change in America: I want these people who work 50
> hours a week to be able to live comfortably. It seems
> to me that if we could just let them keep their entire
> paycheck, instead of just two-thirds of it, that would
> help immensely. Did you see my post about how 1/2 of
> Americans pay only 4 percent of taxes? I would like
> to see government spending cut by 4 percent, so that
> these people could keep their whole paycheck, and
> thereby keep their heads above water.
>
> You and me are perhaps in agreement on this point?


(I think we agree in principle here. But I don't know what you consider living comfortably. Look at our society (finland). We have a lower GNP per capita, yet we are all (almost everybody) living pretty comfortably. By this, I mean that we have enough money for food, etc, and we don't have to work more than 8 hours a day. I don't know what you we're taught, but I was taught that your material needs are satisfied if you have enough food, books to read, and occasionally go to movies. Then it's also nice to have money for hobbies, like tennis, guitar playing (that's what I do), etc, etc....Besides, do you say that 1/2 of americans don't work hard? These are the people who don't have enough to pay the taxes, yet they still do long hours in a job they don't want to do. Of course there are some lazy bums out there, also. I'm not definding these people, if they only want to lie in the sofa and get money from goverment, but there can't be a lot of them.)




> (jack) I'm advocating that we have the right to
> choose.

(Definetly, and by that right we may do treaties which will make our existence safer, and more meaningful.)


If we have extra money, we can choose to help
> others with less, or we can choose not to.

(Still remember John Rawls? I mean, when you enter the battle of life, how do you know how strong or weak are you? That's why we have made great achievments, like society treaties, which will protect us.)


> But, if the government takes the money from
> those barely able to support themselves and gives it
> to others to spend on what the people who earned the
> money in the first place can not afford because
> their earnings are taken from them, and these people
> didn't have enough money in the first place, then they
> have their right to choose taken away from them.

(U know what? I agree with you. Think about a worker. He works very hard, barely able to support himself, and his work is valuable. But then, when he gets the pay, most of it goes to the manager or owner of the company, sitting in a chair and getting money. All this because the person who gets the money, decided to found the company, expand it, and succeeded in it. Why should he earn millions, while the persons who do the work, are barely able to support themselves?)



>
> 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.


(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.


> (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.

(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.)




> (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?

(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.)


> (jack) A great many animals communicate with each
> other.

(I mean creative languegal 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.)

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?)




> (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.).)


> Look forward to hearing your response Think Tank,
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jack (And I'm not that other "Jack" who's posted on
> this board recently :)

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

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.