First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Humanity Being Animal-like
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/28/09 , edited 12/28/09

DomFortress wrote:


We're all about control. Human beings live to control.

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what it is you want to hear." -Alan Coren


Then how would you explain those who surrendered their control to their dictators via democracy?


Democracy, at least the way it functions today, simply gives people an illusion of control. Since the people elect the leaders they feel like they're in control of what happens to the nation, but in reality they have no control over their leader's actions once they are in office. So even people who live in supposedly free society are under control, and by allowing them to press some buttons on a voting machine once a year the leaders make them feel like they aren't being controlled, which satisfies their human desire to feel like they are in control. As far as they know they haven't surrendered their control, even though they'll just go home and be hypnotized by their TV and carry out the same monotonous daily schedule that they've always followed, while their leaders waste their power and money on things that won't help their voters.


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Humans act like most if not all other animals. We have the same needs that we all strive for. From the noble wolf, to the Army Ant.'

On top of that list is survival. We like all animals strive to survive. Like most pack and herd animals we do this by creating are own families and communities, with are own rules that we fallow. If you look at the ants, you find there is some form of a government ,something of a Communism with a Queen at the top. It is also true ants use other insects much like we do with a cow. (or a slave)

Greed? All animals have that. Compassion and Greed are both natural instincts. 'WE like all other animals fight over land, fight each other for love, Fight over food and other natural resources. You find all animals do this.. "Loners and herders."

You can not suppurate us from the animal for better or worse because deep down are brains work the same way. We do what we do for the same resins they do what they do.


I agree with everything except the part about greed (and partly about compassion, I wouldn't call it love but rather lust, although that's not the point I want to make). While other animals do fight and kill over resources and mates, they will not do so if they already have enough resources and mates. If any other animal has enough space and food to live in and a mating partner to carry on their genes, they will not go out to find more resources and more mates than they need. They aren't greedy because they stop taking things once they have enough to satisfy their basic needs.

Humans, on the other hand, will do anything and everything to acquire as much as possible, even if they don't need it. That is why we have a history of nations conquering each other to acquire resources that they don't need to survive, but they want them just so they can have more things. That is why many developed and developing nations put economic goals before everything else, because they want to acquire as much money and resources as possible, even though they don't need that much to survive. That is why we cheat on our partners after making a promise to be only with them, even though they may be enough to satisfy our reproductive needs, we still go behind their backs to find more partners simply because we want more than what we need.

Greed is what separates us from all other animals. Humans are the only organisms who strive to obtain more than what they need to survive, and that is the root of most, if not all man-made problems in this world.
Posted 12/28/09 , edited 12/28/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


We're all about control. Human beings live to control.

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what it is you want to hear." -Alan Coren


Then how would you explain those who surrendered their control to their dictators via democracy?


Democracy, at least the way it functions today, simply gives people an illusion of control. Since the people elect the leaders they feel like they're in control of what happens to the nation, but in reality they have no control over their leader's actions once they are in office. So even people who live in supposedly free society are under control, and by allowing them to press some buttons on a voting machine once a year the leaders make them feel like they aren't being controlled, which satisfies their human desire to feel like they are in control. As far as they know they haven't surrendered their control, even though they'll just go home and be hypnotized by their TV and carry out the same monotonous daily schedule that they've always followed, while their leaders waste their power and money on things that won't help their voters.

What is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Nation.



Greed is what separates us from all other animals. Humans are the only organisms who strive to obtain more than what they need to survive, and that is the root of most, if not all man-made problems in this world.
I second that notion about greed. And I think until we can truly understand our selves worth and apply ourselves accordingly, the human race as a whole won't stop acquiring excessive material wealth and social status. Because there's too few of us know how to truly be content with what we have as who we are.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/28/09 , edited 12/28/09

DomFortress wrote:



Democracy, at least the way it functions today, simply gives people an illusion of control. Since the people elect the leaders they feel like they're in control of what happens to the nation, but in reality they have no control over their leader's actions once they are in office. So even people who live in supposedly free society are under control, and by allowing them to press some buttons on a voting machine once a year the leaders make them feel like they aren't being controlled, which satisfies their human desire to feel like they are in control. As far as they know they haven't surrendered their control, even though they'll just go home and be hypnotized by their TV and carry out the same monotonous daily schedule that they've always followed, while their leaders waste their power and money on things that won't help their voters.

What is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Nation.


If somehow Sarah Palin became our next president, then the TPN would be satisfied because they'd feel like they have met their goals. But there's nothing stopping her from turning her backs to them once she's in office. So even if they put her in power, they can't control what she does while she's there.
Posted 12/28/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Democracy, at least the way it functions today, simply gives people an illusion of control. Since the people elect the leaders they feel like they're in control of what happens to the nation, but in reality they have no control over their leader's actions once they are in office. So even people who live in supposedly free society are under control, and by allowing them to press some buttons on a voting machine once a year the leaders make them feel like they aren't being controlled, which satisfies their human desire to feel like they are in control. As far as they know they haven't surrendered their control, even though they'll just go home and be hypnotized by their TV and carry out the same monotonous daily schedule that they've always followed, while their leaders waste their power and money on things that won't help their voters.

What is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Nation.


If somehow Sarah Palin became our next president, then the TPN would be satisfied because they'd feel like they have met their goals. But there's nothing stopping her from turning her backs to them once she's in office. So even if they put her in power, they can't control what she does while she's there.

Nothing except Sarah Palin's own individual self-worth, personal values, and moral stance. And even if she's responsible to who she represents, if the TPN consists of irresponsible individuals with low self-worth, lack of personal values, and zero moral stance. Then democracy still managed to represent the people's will as a collective value of the greater good, with Sarah Palin and the TPN as the symbol of that collective.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/28/09

DomFortress wrote:
Nothing except Sarah Palin's own individual self-worth, personal values, and moral stance. And even if she's responsible to who she represents, if the TPN consists of irresponsible individuals with low self-worth, lack of personal values, and zero moral stance. Then democracy still managed to represent the people's will as a collective value of the greater good, with Sarah Palin and the TPN as the symbol of that collective.


Her morals are a result of her own will, her voters can't control that, and they wouldn't be able to control them if she decided to change her values after she got elected. Although democracies can and often do represent the will of the majority, the majority doesn't control that, the people they put in power control that. The only person stopping Obama from abandoning his current values and becoming a far-right Republican is himself, not the people who elected him.
Posted 12/28/09 , edited 12/28/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Nothing except Sarah Palin's own individual self-worth, personal values, and moral stance. And even if she's responsible to who she represents, if the TPN consists of irresponsible individuals with low self-worth, lack of personal values, and zero moral stance. Then democracy still managed to represent the people's will as a collective value of the greater good, with Sarah Palin and the TPN as the symbol of that collective.


Her morals are a result of her own will, her voters can't control that, and they wouldn't be able to control them if she decided to change her values after she got elected. Although democracies can and often do represent the will of the majority, the majority doesn't control that, the people they put in power control that. The only person stopping Obama from abandoning his current values and becoming a far-right Republican is himself, not the people who elected him.

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are. When collectively every leaders in their respective animal society are responsible of their own tribes' chance of survival. It's up to every individuals' self-interest to be on the lookout for their immediate family members' own chance of survival.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/28/09 , edited 12/28/09

DomFortress wrote:

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are.


Sure they will criticize him for it, but it is his decision whether to listen to them or not. I'm not saying he will do a complete 180 someday, but there's nothing stopping him or any other democratic leader from doing so.
Posted 12/28/09 , edited 12/28/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are.


Sure they will criticize him for it, but it is his decision whether to listen to them or not. I'm not saying he will do a complete 180 someday, but there's nothing stopping him or any other democratic leader from doing so.

If he doesn't, then we'll know for sure we're in trouble. When some far-right Republican managed to outperform a free spirited Michelle Obama in the White House.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 12/28/09

DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are.


Sure they will criticize him for it, but it is his decision whether to listen to them or not. I'm not saying he will do a complete 180 someday, but there's nothing stopping him or any other democratic leader from doing so.

If he doesn't, then we'll know for sure we're in trouble. When some far-right Republican managed to outperform a free spirited Michelle Obama in the White House.


Why does in need to be a republican. I am rooting for the day one of the 3rd parties gets in and removes most of the dictatorship bullshit the two parties have us pinned into.
Posted 12/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are.


Sure they will criticize him for it, but it is his decision whether to listen to them or not. I'm not saying he will do a complete 180 someday, but there's nothing stopping him or any other democratic leader from doing so.

If he doesn't, then we'll know for sure we're in trouble. When some far-right Republican managed to outperform a free spirited Michelle Obama in the White House.


Why does in need to be a republican. I am rooting for the day one of the 3rd parties gets in and removes most of the dictatorship bullshit the two parties have us pinned into.

Then you're just asking one dictatorship overthrowing another one using faction loyalty, not democracy.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 12/29/09

DomFortress wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are.


Sure they will criticize him for it, but it is his decision whether to listen to them or not. I'm not saying he will do a complete 180 someday, but there's nothing stopping him or any other democratic leader from doing so.

If he doesn't, then we'll know for sure we're in trouble. When some far-right Republican managed to outperform a free spirited Michelle Obama in the White House.


Why does in need to be a republican. I am rooting for the day one of the 3rd parties gets in and removes most of the dictatorship bullshit the two parties have us pinned into.

Then you're just asking one dictatorship overthrowing another one using faction loyalty, not democracy.


What I am asking is to throw the power out of wack.. If another branch wins the two main parties lose some of there power. That leads to other parties getting more fighting chance.. witch in my opinion leads to a more fair election!
Posted 12/29/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Not if Michelle Obama and their two daughters have anything to say about that. Which is why I will judge every individuals by their own definitions of what strong family values are.


Sure they will criticize him for it, but it is his decision whether to listen to them or not. I'm not saying he will do a complete 180 someday, but there's nothing stopping him or any other democratic leader from doing so.

If he doesn't, then we'll know for sure we're in trouble. When some far-right Republican managed to outperform a free spirited Michelle Obama in the White House.


Why does in need to be a republican. I am rooting for the day one of the 3rd parties gets in and removes most of the dictatorship bullshit the two parties have us pinned into.

Then you're just asking one dictatorship overthrowing another one using faction loyalty, not democracy.


What I am asking is to throw the power out of wack.. If another branch wins the two main parties lose some of there power. That leads to other parties getting more fighting chance.. witch in my opinion leads to a more fair election!

It also means anything more than 33% of votes can be considered as a "minority" victory, in what's suppose to be a democratic election of "majority" as the greater good. That's what I meant as overthrowing one dictatorship with another using faction loyalty, not democracy. Otherwise how did you think that the Taiwanese ex-president Chen Shui-bian got elected as the president of Taiwan in year 2000 with only 39% of the total votes.
Posted 1/1/10
Human are animals. Often people forget what our roots are. We came from the jungle, yet exist in a different one; the concrete jungle. Here we live out our days trying to control our basic urges to maintain a course towards a good life by the standards that be. Some folks prefer to be entirely uninhibited though they end up in a great deal of trouble. Mankind is unfortunately such a being that if we completely follow our instincts, Earth might become Hell itself.

I think of divine animal right and how that applies to us all. Everything has its place and the right to live. All too often, our basic rights are stolen from us by the inconsiderate. Where is it that one person gets the right to make life difficult for another? Those who call themselves just are often the most devious criminals to ever taint this world of ours.

We are animal-like in the sense that we have needs, and they must be fulfilled or we face starvation.

Posted 1/8/10
My last post was entirely inappropriate. Dom called me on that.

When it comes to people being animal-like, that really has to do with basic instincts. Ours are lesser versions of what wild animals utilize to get along in life. We also seem to have different instincts from other creatures.
Posted 1/8/10

Anonymous4 wrote:

My last post was entirely inappropriate. Dom called me on that.

When it comes to people being animal-like, that really has to do with basic instincts. Ours are lesser versions of what wild animals utilize to get along in life. We also seem to have different instincts from other creatures.

I think the only human behavioral trait that's distinguishing humanity from the rest of animal species, is our human civilization through human engineering by design. As human behaviorism study shows, our brains still retain all of our social animal instincts. However due to our civilization impacting our behaviors, we're loosing our ability to sustain ourselves as social animals.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.