Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

yurp

The State Of Play

Recommended Posts

:lol: Thanks Abbas! I do have occasional brain activity though its usually when asleep and comes in the form of dreams.

Yea, me too. My friends say I say wise things when I am asleep......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah....You don't get it..I am trying to be the top poster..

I faked those double posts...

now what do you call that? POSTGATE?:P

Oh well..Abbas gate sounds perfect...

:lol: Maybe gatepost.

Yea, me too. My friends say I say wise things when I am asleep......

You sleep with your friends? It's time like these I wish we were closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sleep with your friends? It's time like these I wish we were closer.

:mellow:

some years back, yes.

Not now..I got a single room and an annoying flatmate whose dad happens to own this appartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these topics sound like some movie names..

Crash Gate,

Gatepost,

State of play

Balding Avenger,

Lewis the great,

Bye bye Flavio,

Mauregate 2

Piquet Jnr must be punish

Some guys brought BMW

Kimi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not saying all bad behaviour is 'acceptable' at all. Whether or not our behaviour is normally selfish is a matter of fact, to be settled by looking at how we do in fact behave. Whether that behaviour is to be commended or accepted is a completely different issue, and one that is more to do with ethical principles than empirical facts. I find it's a common problem of the Left (Andres is a classic case in point!) that they can never face up to awkward realities. :P Any philosophy that requires adherents to ignore facts is probably a bad one.

:lol:that reminds me of the arguments of one who shall remain nameless.

firstly - from a personal point of view - I wouldn't call myself a leftist or rightist. I see flaws in the logic of both. but I wouldn't say this is an argument cheifly of politics - I have named thatcherite philosophy as starting this downward trend in the modern era, but it was certainly helped by blair - so really what we call the left and right (politically speaking in UK) is a fairly moot point in this discussion.

secondly - if we are to talk about empirical facts - why is it that the large majority of the scientific community are actually left leaning in their politics? i would say that they are the people most swayed by impirical data and yet they reach a position towards the left of the political spectrum. they also tend to be the more intelligent in society (to be a scientist, you generally have to learn a lot of Sh#t no?).

http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1208 - check this source out - it shows EXACTLY what I'm saying (US based, but essentially along the same lines). Indicates both the public's perception of scientists and scientists actual party affiliations.

but moving on to political divisions...

further on the subject of scientists - your last post claimed that most would further their own carreers by stealing from others. that is equally a falsification of fact. scientist publish papers for peer review for a) recognition yes and B) so that their field in general can benefit from new findings - just as their own research benefits and relies upon the findings of others - they do not walk around to each other's labs and steal each other's research - it is a field of sharing - yes with some healthy competition (which aids the proccess), but fair competition - not cheating as you suggest. I would say that you must have a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and the scientific community to have made such a flawed statement.

You talk about ignoring the facts and an unwillingness to face up to awkward realities - I would suggest that that is exactly what you are doing. By trumpeting the negative media you are ignoring the normal behaviour of mankind which doesn't sell papers but that is prevalent 99% of the time. You think that what you read in the papers is actually going on all around you all the time. Actually it's not. If you walk down the street you are not mugged or raped. If you take you child to the hospital, they are not murdered by some crazy doctor. If you watch TV it isn't all strictly come dancing or big brother.

I have a background in Mathematics (including statistics) and I can tell you that politicians can show whatever they like with stats - the key is to bury down into the data they've used and see how they've gone about misconstruing it (becuase, believe me, they inevitably have). All politicians do it - look at scientific papers and you'll find a very different use of stats - stats that are there to show exactly what occurs - not what they want you to believe occurs. You have spent too long listening to the politicians and media rather than looking at the actual facts (those awkward ones that don't fit your reality) :P.

Open your eyes to what humanity demonstrates we are capable of every day - cooperation, kindness, sharing and order.

Look out of your window - is there anarchy?

Regarding the first (empirical) issue, my view is that you just gloss over all the uncaring things we all do. People who hate beggars and think they carry disease are ignorant, I agree. But that is the whole point! Most people do in fact shun beggars like the plague. We can both wish it weren't so - but it is, and you know it. Do some people give more money to Africa than I do? Sure. But not many people. And that again is the whole point. The majority of the British population will give next to nothing to Africa this year. Am I saying this is a good thing? No, I am simply stating a fact.

:blink: - if I gloss over the bad things we do, then why this whole thread?

but no, you deserve a better retort than that - I would say again that the bad things are the exceptions, the good things the rule. That is not to say that we don't do bad things and as I have said before, I think that greed has become more acceptable in recent times and so therefore we are doing more bad things in general.

second - yes, but most people are kind caring people - giving money to Africa is not the only good thing people can do you know. You keep saying is that we are naturally selfish - which we are not. the reason so few act on their feelings of compassion is because in the last 30 years that has become 'abnormal' behaviour - it used to be normal to help the needy. With Africa in particular there is also the aformentioned separation that makes not giving easier - but we covered that already and I seem to remember you agreed.

Personally I don't find your latest supposed examples of fairness any more convincing. Although people will refuse to accept it, we didn't fight Hitler because we cared that much about Poland, or the Jews. If we did, we would have intervened long before 1939. We stopped Hitler once, and only once, he became a threat to us. The Americans were no better - it took a direct threat against them to make them toactively fight Hitlero. Note also that it is usually the Left that opposes military intervention against oppressive regimes.

Actually - I agree with the first (you see, I know the historic facts), but we still could have rolled over more easily than fought, so my point stands exactly as before.

To the second - this is once again fact as touted by politicians. Look at which "oppressive regimes" and who names them as such. There are many more "oppressive regimes" that we prop up as a country. There are many more "oppressive regimes" that we sell arms to daily so they can oppress their subjects. We set up the "oppressive regimes" in Iraq and Afganistan. Study some history - your being a little naive yourself here. This argument couldn't be more false and straight from the mouth of a US neo-con.

Furthermore - talking about our recent military endevours - 'the Left' were in charge in the UK. If your talk is of the liberal party (who didn't support the war in Iraq) or people like me (who also didn't) then listen to why I didn't. It was not the idea of getting rid of an abhorent leader who we (as a country) put in place (in Thatcher's day incidently) that I was against. I was all for removing Saddam. What I was against was killing lots of innocent civilians in a bid to gain political support back in the UK and oil for our economy - anyone who thought that conflict was about getting Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people is fooling themselves.

Free education and healthcare are good things but are not massively altruistic. They're not only beneficial for the poorest: we all use them and the majority of people personally benefit from those services being provided through taxation rather than paying for it themselves. Imagine getting to 60, developing a serious form of cancer and hraving to pay for all the teatment yourself. Most people couldn't do it and therefore prefer the NHS. Those who can pay for better treatment privately, usually do.

What exactly do you think altruism is? Think about it.

Children can be cruel just like adults. You can see that on the recent Channel 4 show, Boys and Girls Alone. The behaviour was pretty vicious and horrid. Regardless, how human behaviour develops is a different and no doubt complicated issue. The fact remains that as adults we are usually quite selfish.

again - media reports what sells papers/get's bums on seats - media even manipulates situations exactly like the one you talk about - just like they pick the people most likely to fight/entertain/make tits of themselves when the set up big brother - a bunch of normal people just wouldn't be entertaining would it - if this kind of behaviour was normal it WOULDN'T get on TV. As a teacher I can say categorically that children are inquisitive, cooperative, sharing, kind and thoughtful 99% of the time - but you're not interested in that are you.

So far, I've seen no evidence that humans have gotten more selfish over recent decades. Seems to me that we weren't much better back in the days of Apartheid, rampant sexism and homophobia, segregation, colonialism, slavery, religious crusades... If you give me an exact date when we were selfless people I will look it up and see if I'm wrong but I doubt there has ever been such a time. :P

this is where we differ - there has never been a time when we weren't predominantly selfless.

simple test - were you or any of your family involved in apartheid, rampant sexism and homophobia, segregation, colonialism, slavery, religious crusades etc?

if yes - then they were the exception weren't they - be honest.

for me the answers (to the best of my knowledge) are - no, no, no, yes (lived in a colony anyway), no and no.

you keep quoting the exceptions in behaviour as standard - they are not.

whether or not greed has increased over the last few decades is admittedly subjective - I think it has, you think it hasn't, meani just thinks I'm getting old. I could be right, you could be right, meani actually is right.

We could go on about human nature and you will provide proof that people can act atrociously and I will continue to say that it's the exception not the rule - but that also gets us nowhere.

In any case, I doff my hat to you sir - it has been/is an intriguing discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - that post was LONG :blush:

Here's a simple question for those with shorter attention spans...

If you knew your couldn't get caught for it, would you murder a millionaire for their money?

If you believe that we are all inately selfish (as you do Max) then your answer must be yes.

If not, then like me, your answer would be no.

What's your answer and why? Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Adam! Nothing wrong with long posts!

To answer your question, I think its completely unfair. Yes, there is selfishness. To murder a millionaire for his money is not selfish. Its plain psychotic. Now, I'd rob a bank if I knew I wouldn't get caught. Thats selfishness. Why would I do it? To ensure the lives of my family and future generations was sorted. Survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - that post was LONG :blush:

Here's a simple question for those with shorter attention spans...

If you knew your couldn't get caught for it, would you murder a millionaire for their money?

If you believe that we are all inately selfish (as you do Max) then your answer must be yes.

If not, then like me, your answer would be no.

What's your answer and why? Think about it.

If that's the test then you can still keep your faith in human nature (a faith I don't hsare, regretfuly). This is something I thought about millions of times (and this is something I've never shared with anyone). I've spent many a night in bed, anguished and deprived of sleep due to my financial troubles. This is something that most people might have felt at some point in their lives, I guess.

While juggling money figures in my head trying to balance my income and expenses to make it to the end of month, I've spent countless hours thinking about "the perfect crime" (yeah, I am not proud about it). It starts with that idiotic, well known unscrupulous co worker at your office which, nonetheless, seems to always win at least twice as you do, and keeps getting promoted though everybody acknowledges that he doesn't do anything with a minimum degree of efficiency and he is suspected of stealing. You hate him. You would kill him for just the money he has in his house, because that's all you need to at least have some financial peace for a month. Eventually, you give up. You get tired of thinking such things and feel guilty. So you start to fantasize...what if I could make myself invisible and had a weapon that leaves no traces? Would I go and kill Bill Gates? Why not? I don't know the guy, and I don't think he deserves to live anymore than the thousands of lives wasted for nothing everyday. But I just can't even imagine killing him even knowing that in such case I would never get caught. I can imagine reading later in the newspaper about his family and I would not stand knowing that it was me who caused them such loss. Ok, so no killings. What about robbing a bank? I am invisible and will leave no traces, nobody has to die, the bank will certainly get its money bank...and again, I confess to myself that I would not do it. I finally drift off to sleep...and another day at my hopeless job.

But I still think that that was an acquired trait. I am in contact with many, many usncrupulous people in my line of work. And 90% of them show not the slightest sign of guilt. Some of my friends too (embarrassing to say). My line of work offers you plenty of opportunities for making some "easy money" on the side. It is almost socially accepted. At my previous work my superiors even encouraged me to do so, as in such case they would not have to give me a raise. I always refused.

And the bad news for you are: I am not proud of it. Tonight is a Sunday night, the night I sleep the least. In a few minutes I will go to my bed, recall all my troubles at work and how much I hate it and how little I get paid for it (less than USD 1,250 a month)...now I am depressed. Good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly i would like to understand where in the rules does it say you cannot ask your driver to do something? Is there a code of conduct or is it in the small text on your super linence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry folks - just realised I forgot to pick Max up on this in my last marathon post...

Regarding the first (empirical) issue, my view is that you just gloss over all the uncaring things we all do. People who hate beggars and think they carry disease are ignorant, I agree. But that is the whole point! Most people do in fact shun beggars like the plague. We can both wish it weren't so - but it is, and you know it. Do some people give more money to Africa than I do? Sure. But not many people. And that again is the whole point. The majority of the British population will give next to nothing to Africa this year. Am I saying this is a good thing? No, I am simply stating a fact.

Now hang on a second - in your first post you just said that they avoid beggars because they think they'll catch something - you said nothing about hating them. I then said that thinking they'll catch a disease was just ignorance.

Now you've changed what I thought was ignorant (into something else, which I also think is ignorant, but which I also think is entirely untrue most of the time). Let me clarify - most people don't "hate" beggars at all. I don't know anyone who "hates" beggars. That's just not the case.

Secondly you missed why I said that it was just ignorant to think you could catch something from beggars and thereofre avoided them. My point was this - ignorance is not selfishness. They are quite different things. You were arguing that people avoiding beggars because they were ignorant equated to being selfish - which it doesn't at all. That it is what I mean by 'that's just ignorant' i.e. it's not in any regard indicative of selfishness.

Anyway - I'll have a look at some other posts now - I covered everything else this morning I think. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the test then you can still keep your faith in human nature (a faith I don't hsare, regretfuly). This is something I thought about millions of times (and this is something I've never shared with anyone). I've spent many a night in bed, anguished and deprived of sleep due to my financial troubles. This is something that most people might have felt at some point in their lives, I guess.

While juggling money figures in my head trying to balance my income and expenses to make it to the end of month, I've spent countless hours thinking about "the perfect crime" (yeah, I am not proud about it). It starts with that idiotic, well known unscrupulous co worker at your office which, nonetheless, seems to always win at least twice as you do, and keeps getting promoted though everybody acknowledges that he doesn't do anything with a minimum degree of efficiency and he is suspected of stealing. You hate him. You would kill him for just the money he has in his house, because that's all you need to at least have some financial peace for a month. Eventually, you give up. You get tired of thinking such things and feel guilty. So you start to fantasize...what if I could make myself invisible and had a weapon that leaves no traces? Would I go and kill Bill Gates? Why not? I don't know the guy, and I don't think he deserves to live anymore than the thousands of lives wasted for nothing everyday. But I just can't even imagine killing him even knowing that in such case I would never get caught. I can imagine reading later in the newspaper about his family and I would not stand knowing that it was me who caused them such loss. Ok, so no killings. What about robbing a bank? I am invisible and will leave no traces, nobody has to die, the bank will certainly get its money bank...and again, I confess to myself that I would not do it. I finally drift off to sleep...and another day at my hopeless job.

But I still think that that was an acquired trait. I am in contact with many, many usncrupulous people in my line of work. And 90% of them show not the slightest sign of guilt. Some of my friends too (embarrassing to say). My line of work offers you plenty of opportunities for making some "easy money" on the side. It is almost socially accepted. At my previous work my superiors even encouraged me to do so, as in such case they would not have to give me a raise. I always refused.

And the bad news for you are: I am not proud of it. Tonight is a Sunday night, the night I sleep the least. In a few minutes I will go to my bed, recall all my troubles at work and how much I hate it and how little I get paid for it (less than USD 1,250 a month)...now I am depressed. Good night.

I've always thought about the ice dagger method myself. I think I saw it on Columbo or something. Freeze water into a dagger shaped weapon and then use that. Once its melted there's no murder weapon to find!

Oh Sh#t - what have I done.

On a more serious note (and the real reason for asking that question) is why would we not murder someone? Where does that inate inability (for most people) come from.

I think its time to move this discussion on to something that I've always wondered about and will admit to being undecided on.

We can all agree that we have some inate moral traits. We can all agree that they have aided our evolution as a species.

Leaving the question of whether we are naturally more selfish or selfless (since we've fairly well covered that), where do the instinctive moral traits that we do have come from?

I can't really decide.

I think most would agree that they don't come from religions. My question is more one of nature vs nurture. What stops us from killing that millionaire? Is it empathy, is it a learned morality or an inate one, is it societal convention, what?

And to those who say 'I'd take down a bank but not kill a millionaire' you're missing the point of the question. This is not a matter of how guilty you think you would be, but why you should feel any guilt at all.

Back to the perfect crime:ph34r:

Here's one that I always thought would work too...

1) set up several remote control cars (all looking the same) with boxes on the back and cameras and speakers / mics on the front.

2) drive them into a bank (or somewhere with lots of cash/loot - betting shop whatever) and use the speakers to say 'there's a bomb on this car, put loads of good Sh#t in each of these cars, or else we blow you all up.

3) drive all the cars out of the bank and off in different directions (so the police can chase them all) and eventually back to your lair (when you know there no longer being followed by having lookouts checking the routes along which they're travelling. you could even remotely drop stuff off or arange fake drops - whatever.

you wouldn't actually be there, so very little risk and people would believe that you would blow them up, because you're safe and sound miles away. because there would be lots of cars, it would be impossible for the police to track them all - therefore some would surely get away if you arranged your escape routes properly. also - remote control cars can go where people can't (remember the get away in the Italian Job?)

so who's in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - I think my post count should be somewhere more like 1000 to be honest. Surely there should be a 'words' or 'effort' rather then 'posts' stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPS - this is a shameless attempt to get my post count up to where it should be :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah....You don't get it..I am trying to be the top poster..

I faked those double posts...

now what do you call that? POSTGATE?:P

Oh well..Abbas gate sounds perfect...

Suspended for 2 years from this forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - that post was LONG :blush:

Here's a simple question for those with shorter attention spans...

If you knew your couldn't get caught for it, would you murder a millionaire for their money?

If you believe that we are all inately selfish (as you do Max) then your answer must be yes.

If not, then like me, your answer would be no.

What's your answer and why? Think about it.

Say if the police took a day off, I don't think most people who have been conditioned in this society would (or could) suddenly start going out and murdering other people. I think it would take quite a while for people to get back to those caveman instincts. However, stealing is another matter. Stealing provides a clear benefit (and even more importantly, is easier to justify your actions, e.g. "it's all insured; they don't need it" etc), and if most people could do it, I'm pretty sure they would (at least, from a "show of hands" exercise I once saw, most people would steal clothes from a shop if they could, etc.

If that's the test then you can still keep your faith in human nature (a faith I don't hsare, regretfuly). This is something I thought about millions of times (and this is something I've never shared with anyone). I've spent many a night in bed, anguished and deprived of sleep due to my financial troubles. This is something that most people might have felt at some point in their lives, I guess.

While juggling money figures in my head trying to balance my income and expenses to make it to the end of month, I've spent countless hours thinking about "the perfect crime" (yeah, I am not proud about it). It starts with that idiotic, well known unscrupulous co worker at your office which, nonetheless, seems to always win at least twice as you do, and keeps getting promoted though everybody acknowledges that he doesn't do anything with a minimum degree of efficiency and he is suspected of stealing. You hate him. You would kill him for just the money he has in his house, because that's all you need to at least have some financial peace for a month. Eventually, you give up. You get tired of thinking such things and feel guilty. So you start to fantasize...what if I could make myself invisible and had a weapon that leaves no traces? Would I go and kill Bill Gates? Why not? I don't know the guy, and I don't think he deserves to live anymore than the thousands of lives wasted for nothing everyday. But I just can't even imagine killing him even knowing that in such case I would never get caught. I can imagine reading later in the newspaper about his family and I would not stand knowing that it was me who caused them such loss. Ok, so no killings. What about robbing a bank? I am invisible and will leave no traces, nobody has to die, the bank will certainly get its money bank...and again, I confess to myself that I would not do it. I finally drift off to sleep...and another day at my hopeless job.

But I still think that that was an acquired trait. I am in contact with many, many usncrupulous people in my line of work. And 90% of them show not the slightest sign of guilt. Some of my friends too (embarrassing to say). My line of work offers you plenty of opportunities for making some "easy money" on the side. It is almost socially accepted. At my previous work my superiors even encouraged me to do so, as in such case they would not have to give me a raise. I always refused.

And the bad news for you are: I am not proud of it. Tonight is a Sunday night, the night I sleep the least. In a few minutes I will go to my bed, recall all my troubles at work and how much I hate it and how little I get paid for it (less than USD 1,250 a month)...now I am depressed. Good night.

But surely you have the comfort of knowing you're a good person? Then again, you're probably too intelligent to believe in religion and the afterlife. Bummer for you.

I've always thought about the ice dagger method myself. I think I saw it on Columbo or something. Freeze water into a dagger shaped weapon and then use that. Once its melted there's no murder weapon to find!

Oh Sh#t - what have I done.

On a more serious note (and the real reason for asking that question) is why would we not murder someone? Where does that inate inability (for most people) come from.

I think its time to move this discussion on to something that I've always wondered about and will admit to being undecided on.

We can all agree that we have some inate moral traits. We can all agree that they have aided our evolution as a species.

Leaving the question of whether we are naturally more selfish or selfless (since we've fairly well covered that), where do the instinctive moral traits that we do have come from?

I can't really decide.

I think most would agree that they don't come from religions. My question is more one of nature vs nurture. What stops us from killing that millionaire? Is it empathy, is it a learned morality or an inate one, is it societal convention, what?

And to those who say 'I'd take down a bank but not kill a millionaire' you're missing the point of the question. This is not a matter of how guilty you think you would be, but why you should feel any guilt at all.

Back to the perfect crime:ph34r:

Here's one that I always thought would work too...

1) set up several remote control cars (all looking the same) with boxes on the back and cameras and speakers / mics on the front.

2) drive them into a bank (or somewhere with lots of cash/loot - betting shop whatever) and use the speakers to say 'there's a bomb on this car, put loads of good Sh#t in each of these cars, or else we blow you all up.

3) drive all the cars out of the bank and off in different directions (so the police can chase them all) and eventually back to your lair (when you know there no longer being followed by having lookouts checking the routes along which they're travelling. you could even remotely drop stuff off or arange fake drops - whatever.

you wouldn't actually be there, so very little risk and people would believe that you would blow them up, because you're safe and sound miles away. because there would be lots of cars, it would be impossible for the police to track them all - therefore some would surely get away if you arranged your escape routes properly. also - remote control cars can go where people can't (remember the get away in the Italian Job?)

so who's in?

Well, I think we (well, 99% of people) are born as "blank slates", and morals are socially constructed through norms and values of society; people's morals change as society changes. As children we are socialised into certain patterns and traits by our families and other, secondary influences such as school, e.g. we are taught about sharing and cooperating with others at school. That is where morality first comes from, I don't believe it is innate (even if potentially some people are born with the capacity to do great good whereas others are the opposite). Then, as people get older, it comes from ideas like religion, in the form of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else you choose to believe in. Eventually, once you have been socialised enough, your moral stature probably becomes set in concrete (hence my answer above why people wouldn't start murdering, it would take a long time without socialisation for cracks to appear in the concrete).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what this thread needs?

Cute%20Puppies.jpg

Remember, each and every one of is a unique and special and talented individual and you will always be loved by George forever and ever ('cos 'e's a bit of an 'ore)! Yay!

People can be jerks. People can be nice. I like to be happy so I am. I don't really care that people are better than me, or that people really genuinely don't like me, because I am what I am and they are what they are and that's life. Yay!

It sure is nice to still have a few more years left until the real world. Maybe I'm just overly happy because I have it too easy. I don't know. I don't care. I am who I am and I kind of sort of like that. I just need a haircut and some friends who know that life exists beyond their Xbox and I'd feel wonderful! Yay!

Okay, carry on. Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and many stay there.... :D

Indeed :lol:

You know what this thread needs?

Cute%20Puppies.jpg

Remember, each and every one of is a unique and special and talented individual and you will always be loved by George forever and ever ('cos 'e's a bit of an 'ore)! Yay!

People can be jerks. People can be nice. I like to be happy so I am. I don't really care that people are better than me, or that people really genuinely don't like me, because I am what I am and they are what they are and that's life. Yay!

It sure is nice to still have a few more years left until the real world. Maybe I'm just overly happy because I have it too easy. I don't know. I don't care. I am who I am and I kind of sort of like that. I just need a haircut and some friends who know that life exists beyond their Xbox and I'd feel wonderful! Yay!

Okay, carry on. Yay!

:lol: I love this post you've made. I am a person who knows life exists beyond an Xbox, you know why? 'Cos PS3 rulez! Noob! Anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what this thread needs?

Remember, each and every one of is a unique and special and talented individual and you will always be loved by George forever and ever ('cos 'e's a bit of an 'ore)! Yay!

People can be jerks. People can be nice. I like to be happy so I am. I don't really care that people are better than me, or that people really genuinely don't like me, because I am what I am and they are what they are and that's life. Yay!

It sure is nice to still have a few more years left until the real world. Maybe I'm just overly happy because I have it too easy. I don't know. I don't care. I am who I am and I kind of sort of like that. I just need a haircut and some friends who know that life exists beyond their Xbox and I'd feel wonderful! Yay!

Okay, carry on. Yay!

One too many Fried Chickems and that's what you get...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I love this post you've made. I am a person who knows life exists beyond an Xbox, you know why? 'Cos PS3 rulez! Noob! Anyway.

Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity there are almost too many issues to reply to now. :(

Lovely argument going on here.

I tend to agree with Graham that human beings are rather selfish by nature. I tend to agree with Adam that it is no excuse for trying to be more selfish, but a reason to improve and work towards solidarity and sharing efforts and benefits for "the greater good". I also agree that the selfishness has worsened steadily since the 80's and tatcherism. Not because it was a great world we had before, but because we came up with a philosophical/political excuse to relish in our own greed. It was not a totally new philosophy, btw. We've been through a similar pendulum swing towards individualism in the late XIXth century, when the robber barons ruled USA, and European colonialism was both rampant and extremely brutal.

She was before my time but I don't think Thatcher really wanted people to be more selfish, and I certainly don't. The way I see it, she was realistic about what motivates people and wanted to set up a system that got the best out of people - and in that I agree with her. If everyone is only allowed to work for the greater good, unfortunately very little work will ever get done. Bust economies are good for no one, rich or poor.

As well as seeing it as a motivational force, the Right usually couples individualism with other, related ideas such as personal duty, patriotism and individual responsibility for being a good person. I recently heard one of Thatcher's protégé's (Michael Portillo) saying how disappointed he was with how selfish people have turned out to be. Back in the '80s, according to him, the Thatcherites believed that if you appeal to individual responsibility in all areas of life, people will respond by taking care of their own community voluntarily (rather than through taxation). They might even argue that State intervention serves in some ways as an excuse for people to abdicate personal responsibility for those around them.

:lol:that reminds me of the arguments of one who shall remain nameless.

firstly - from a personal point of view - I wouldn't call myself a leftist or rightist. I see flaws in the logic of both. but I wouldn't say this is an argument cheifly of politics - I have named thatcherite philosophy as starting this downward trend in the modern era, but it was certainly helped by blair - so really what we call the left and right (politically speaking in UK) is a fairly moot point in this discussion.

secondly - if we are to talk about empirical facts - why is it that the large majority of the scientific community are actually left leaning in their politics? i would say that they are the people most swayed by impirical data and yet they reach a position towards the left of the political spectrum. they also tend to be the more intelligent in society (to be a scientist, you generally have to learn a lot of Sh#t no?).

http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1208 - check this source out - it shows EXACTLY what I'm saying (US based, but essentially along the same lines). Indicates both the public's perception of scientists and scientists actual party affiliations.

but moving on to political divisions...

further on the subject of scientists - your last post claimed that most would further their own carreers by stealing from others. that is equally a falsification of fact. scientist publish papers for peer review for a) recognition yes and B) so that their field in general can benefit from new findings - just as their own research benefits and relies upon the findings of others - they do not walk around to each other's labs and steal each other's research - it is a field of sharing - yes with some healthy competition (which aids the proccess), but fair competition - not cheating as you suggest. I would say that you must have a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and the scientific community to have made such a flawed statement.

You talk about ignoring the facts and an unwillingness to face up to awkward realities - I would suggest that that is exactly what you are doing. By trumpeting the negative media you are ignoring the normal behaviour of mankind which doesn't sell papers but that is prevalent 99% of the time. You think that what you read in the papers is actually going on all around you all the time. Actually it's not. If you walk down the street you are not mugged or raped. If you take you child to the hospital, they are not murdered by some crazy doctor. If you watch TV it isn't all strictly come dancing or big brother.

I have a background in Mathematics (including statistics) and I can tell you that politicians can show whatever they like with stats - the key is to bury down into the data they've used and see how they've gone about misconstruing it (becuase, believe me, they inevitably have). All politicians do it - look at scientific papers and you'll find a very different use of stats - stats that are there to show exactly what occurs - not what they want you to believe occurs. You have spent too long listening to the politicians and media rather than looking at the actual facts (those awkward ones that don't fit your reality) :P.

Open your eyes to what humanity demonstrates we are capable of every day - cooperation, kindness, sharing and order.

Look out of your window - is there anarchy?

:blink: - if I gloss over the bad things we do, then why this whole thread?

but no, you deserve a better retort than that - I would say again that the bad things are the exceptions, the good things the rule. That is not to say that we don't do bad things and as I have said before, I think that greed has become more acceptable in recent times and so therefore we are doing more bad things in general.

second - yes, but most people are kind caring people - giving money to Africa is not the only good thing people can do you know. You keep saying is that we are naturally selfish - which we are not. the reason so few act on their feelings of compassion is because in the last 30 years that has become 'abnormal' behaviour - it used to be normal to help the needy. With Africa in particular there is also the aformentioned separation that makes not giving easier - but we covered that already and I seem to remember you agreed.

Actually - I agree with the first (you see, I know the historic facts), but we still could have rolled over more easily than fought, so my point stands exactly as before.

To the second - this is once again fact as touted by politicians. Look at which "oppressive regimes" and who names them as such. There are many more "oppressive regimes" that we prop up as a country. There are many more "oppressive regimes" that we sell arms to daily so they can oppress their subjects. We set up the "oppressive regimes" in Iraq and Afganistan. Study some history - your being a little naive yourself here. This argument couldn't be more false and straight from the mouth of a US neo-con.

Furthermore - talking about our recent military endevours - 'the Left' were in charge in the UK. If your talk is of the liberal party (who didn't support the war in Iraq) or people like me (who also didn't) then listen to why I didn't. It was not the idea of getting rid of an abhorent leader who we (as a country) put in place (in Thatcher's day incidently) that I was against. I was all for removing Saddam. What I was against was killing lots of innocent civilians in a bid to gain political support back in the UK and oil for our economy - anyone who thought that conflict was about getting Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people is fooling themselves.

What exactly do you think altruism is? Think about it.

again - media reports what sells papers/get's bums on seats - media even manipulates situations exactly like the one you talk about - just like they pick the people most likely to fight/entertain/make tits of themselves when the set up big brother - a bunch of normal people just wouldn't be entertaining would it - if this kind of behaviour was normal it WOULDN'T get on TV. As a teacher I can say categorically that children are inquisitive, cooperative, sharing, kind and thoughtful 99% of the time - but you're not interested in that are you.

this is where we differ - there has never been a time when we weren't predominantly selfless.

simple test - were you or any of your family involved in apartheid, rampant sexism and homophobia, segregation, colonialism, slavery, religious crusades etc?

if yes - then they were the exception weren't they - be honest.

for me the answers (to the best of my knowledge) are - no, no, no, yes (lived in a colony anyway), no and no.

you keep quoting the exceptions in behaviour as standard - they are not.

whether or not greed has increased over the last few decades is admittedly subjective - I think it has, you think it hasn't, meani just thinks I'm getting old. I could be right, you could be right, meani actually is right.

We could go on about human nature and you will provide proof that people can act atrociously and I will continue to say that it's the exception not the rule - but that also gets us nowhere.

In any case, I doff my hat to you sir - it has been/is an intriguing discussion.

It has indeed been interesting. Just to reply to a few particular points, as you probably know I do science research for a 'living' and you'd be surprised what they/we are like. Quite a few of my friends have had their experiments sabotaged and even I have had the odd idea stolen by my 'colleagues'. Many people, like myself, keep their ideas to themselves until they have a chance to publish, and hence own, their discoveries. It's supposed to be the free, open and objective pursuit of knowledge but, because human beings are involved, it doesn't really turn out that way.

The fact that scientists have dodgy political views is no surprise to me! Imho a science training is not always a good one for forming sensible opinions. And of course there are many other biases in such data but that is another (fun) issue...

One more thing: I think almost all of us will have ancestors who were guilty of the sins I mentioned. My impression is that a great many people in my grandparents' generation were quite homophobic, sexist, colonialist etc.

Wow - that post was LONG :blush:

Here's a simple question for those with shorter attention spans...

If you knew your couldn't get caught for it, would you murder a millionaire for their money?

If you believe that we are all inately selfish (as you do Max) then your answer must be yes.

If not, then like me, your answer would be no.

What's your answer and why? Think about it.

OK, we can move on from this issue if everyone wants to. Just to summarise the way I see things: perhaps our definitions of selfishness are different. You think not committing murder makes us selfless, whereas I take it to mean we're not utterly ruthlessly selfish, or 'psychotic', as Steph puts it. Selflessness in my view would be something like: if you were the millionaire above, would you voluntarily give most of your money away to people who actually needed it? Most rich people don't - just ask the Africans I keep bringing up.

Say if the police took a day off, I don't think most people who have been conditioned in this society would (or could) suddenly start going out and murdering other people. I think it would take quite a while for people to get back to those caveman instincts. However, stealing is another matter. Stealing provides a clear benefit (and even more importantly, is easier to justify your actions, e.g. "it's all insured; they don't need it" etc), and if most people could do it, I'm pretty sure they would (at least, from a "show of hands" exercise I once saw, most people would steal clothes from a shop if they could, etc.

But surely you have the comfort of knowing you're a good person? Then again, you're probably too intelligent to believe in religion and the afterlife. Bummer for you.

Well, I think we (well, 99% of people) are born as "blank slates", and morals are socially constructed through norms and values of society; people's morals change as society changes. As children we are socialised into certain patterns and traits by our families and other, secondary influences such as school, e.g. we are taught about sharing and cooperating with others at school. That is where morality first comes from, I don't believe it is innate (even if potentially some people are born with the capacity to do great good whereas others are the opposite). Then, as people get older, it comes from ideas like religion, in the form of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else you choose to believe in. Eventually, once you have been socialised enough, your moral stature probably becomes set in concrete (hence my answer above why people wouldn't start murdering, it would take a long time without socialisation for cracks to appear in the concrete).

Yes I agree that most people would steal if they could. In fact, I've seen plenty of surveys that show that most people actually have stolen, albeit usually small things like shoplifting sweets or stationary from work etc. A scary thought is to consider a recent surveyfrom South Africa that showed that a quarter of all men (in the large and apparently representative areas surveyed) admit (anonymously) to being rapists.

In the end, I don't care whether selfishness is cultural or natural. Like I always say, peeing and pooing in your pants is natural. That does not mean it is desirable or unavoidable. If we can be potty trained (well, except Paul, who never learnt and Meanie, who was taught but forgot how to) then we can certainly learn how to cooperate.

It seems to be a rule here that we end long posts with a joke, so perhaps now is a good time to point out that some of us don't poo in our pants (any more) because it gets a bit messy and you end up smelling of Sh#t all day. I tried it in primary school and it wasn't for me. That said, if flushing the toilet less would save on my water bills, and if I could get away with it, I'd Sh#t all day long in George's pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...