VoyForums

[ 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: 21:12:53 11/09/99 Tue
Author: Anonymous
Subject: Re: EGO! EGO! EGO! or <i>The Absence of Logic</i>
In reply to: 's message, "h" on 06:12:25 11/08/99 Mon

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...

>
> > 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?

>
> (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.

>
> > (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.

>
> (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?
>

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?

>
> > (jack) A great many animals communicate with each
> > other.
>
> (I mean creative languegal (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?)

>
> > 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!

>
> > (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.)

>
> > 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

[ 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.