First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Is it possible to wear off evil from Humanity?
21840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
A baby at 3 months has a sense of justice, leading to the possibility that we are born with a sense of justice, and that justice is not a learned trait.
10014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
404
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
Possibly the other way around
Posted 8/5/13

Nyuboom wrote:

Possibly the other way around


evil eminates from those with usernames that were inspired by elfen lied
Posted 8/5/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

A baby at 3 months has a sense of justice, leading to the possibility that we are born with a sense of justice, and that justice is not a learned trait.


Yes, as one study suggests
.....this is not because babies and young children lack a sense of right and wrong; it’s because the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be.

But I'm still with Freud and Kohlberg.
10014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
404
Offline
Posted 8/5/13

Strahfobiya wrote:


Nyuboom wrote:

Possibly the other way around


evil eminates from those with usernames that were inspired by elfen lied


You know me so well
14963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/5/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

My point is, the study doesn't support your statement, "Empathy wasn't decided by a rational process, that's an evolved trait..." because the study was done on participants who have already been socially conditioned to feel a certain level of empathy.


Analogy:
Pretend we're arguing about whether the ability to do Maths was an evolved trait or a learned trait. In order to prove that people evolved the ability to do maths (without any environment influences), you would have to test mathematical questions on people who have never learned maths before... if they're able to do those questions, then that would prove that maths was indeed an evolved trait on the DNA.

If the study was testing maths questions on people who already learned maths, then that method would not support the question of whether maths was an evolved trait or a learned trait.
However, the same method can be used to assess whether genetics vs. environmental factors can impact on a person's ability to do maths; which is what the twin study you showed me was trying to do.

Now replace the word maths with the word empathy... and you'll understand what I mean.


"The ability to do maths" is a term that conflates a raw ability that humans are actually born with with a learned skill.

There are some humans who will never be able to learn calculus, and there are some to whom it comes easily: That, on average, the amount of intelligence a human is assigned at birth by their genetics is so high that, unlike any other species, they can learn maths, is a fact caused by evolution.

On the other hand, actually knowing how to differentiate an equation isn't a skill anybody can get without being taught it.

Now, if someone made an assertion like "someone who was raised by wolves, wandered into a village, and saw "2+2" written on a blackboard couldn't tell the answer was 4, so mathematical ability is entirely learned", and asked for evidence to contradict his hypothesis... well, obviously we aren't going to find any studies of people left to be raised by wolves, or deprived of any mathematical education, so what's the next best thing? Well, twin studies showing that a large fraction of the variance in mathematical ability is due to genetic and not environmental factors are probably the best bet




The fact that empathy is one of the main factors behind humans being moral is he only reason we're discussing empathy in the first place. It's a study of how pro-social people tend to be, which is roughly the same as how benevolent they are, which is roughly the same as how much empathy they feel

"Don't give me examples of rabbits not being benevolent, they're benevolent creatures and it's a universal fact that I'm right"

Just not being violent and aggressive isn't quite quite the same as being benevolent. Most people would agree that rabbits are peaceful, but benevolent? Kind? Altruistic? I don't think that's true at all. And I think one of the reasons it's not true is a lack of an advanced capacity for empathy.


I don't understand this statement, so when a mother snake is protective of her eggs, is she being empathetic or relying on natural instinct? When a mother tiger is taking care of her cubs... and so forth?


No, and a bit of both - I suppose it varies by species, and how intelligent they are. Some species might notice feelings of hunger in their young and react to it by feeding them, some would just have an instinctive response to certain signals that their young make when they're hungry. I'm not sure if the former has any selection advantage over the other.


So if humans instinctively felt empathy for animals, why is it most people only empathise with domesticated animals such as dogs or cats, but not with cockroaches or ants?


I don't think anyone's domesticated seals or pandas yet.

The reasons we don't care about arthropods are more along the lines of them not being similar enough to us, not showing emotions we would empathize with, and a revulsion towards them that probably evolved because of how many poisonous insects and spiders and scorpions there are.


Like I said, empathy is a relative thing, it's not uniformed like anger for example. It doesn't matter if you get bitten by a dog or bitten by a spider, you will feel anger towards the same stimulus but different animal.

Whereas empathy, you feel empathy towards an animal because society planted that ideal in you, but you might not feel empathetic about cockroaches because society didn't implant that ideal in you.


Or maybe because what an animal looks like and how obviously it seems to be feeling a particular feeling have nothing to do with how much pain it can inflict, but have a lot of an effect on to what extent we perceive that the animal is in pain.

The stimulus is "X amount of pain" vs "X amount of pain" for anger, whereas it's "An animal suffering X amount of pain which we can identify with Y certainty and empathize correspondingly" vs "An animal suffering X amount of pain which we can identify with Z uncertainty, and empathize correspondingly".



It's not uniform because it's genetic, if it were socially instilled I would find variation within a society to be extremely suspicious.

What examples are there of a geographical area featuring a higher tendency for sociopathy? Or, you know, whatever other examples of variation by geographical area that are big enough or have specific enough traits that you could distinguish them as varying abilities to feel empathy?


I don't know if they exist now, but in the past (maybe 50 to 100 years ago), there existed many tribes in Africa that were cannibalistic.

And? People have been killing each other all over the world for whatever political/religious/cultural reasons they find convenient, what's so exceptionally empathy-lacking about people who decide that it'd be a shame if the pile of meat that used to be the enemy was left to the crows or the worms?




While there are plenty of off-hand mentions that herbivores sometimes eat meat when the opportunity arises, I can't seem to find any more in-depth studies. I did find more examples of your assertion being wrong though, and this one doesn't have any kids involved which rules out one of your objections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQOQdBLHrLk

This is really weird, you'd think someone would have been interested enough to do some studies of herbivores eating meat.

Sure, it wouldn't prove anything, but what's the simpler hypothesis? "Herbivores never see other animals as food, except for the ones that do, but they have a virus in their brain or something so they don't count" or "herbivores sometimes see other animals as food"? (or possibly "herbivores always see other animals as food, but are much better adapted for eating plants so that's what they eat most of the time"?)


Well, this second youtube video of yours made me really curious (because this video is much more natural and the deer is living in an area with enough lush grass).
One question that immediately came to mind though was, "Why didn't that deer spit the bird out after it tasted meat?" Because uncooked meat should taste really really bitter to a herbivore.

I would have accepted this youtube video as sufficient evidence, HOWEVER, I researched further, and found this interesting article.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2003/08/0825_030825_carnivorousdeer.html

The need to adapt to the environment caused the deers to become omnivorous; which doesn't contradict my previous statement at all.
After all, even human ancestors were herbivores at one point, then turned into omnivores later on along the timeline (most likely due to scarce food resources or the need for new nutrients to be incorporated into their diet).

So no, they don't eat meat because "opportunity arises", they eat meat because their diet/environment calls for it.


Think about how evolution works when applied to this: Deer don't know that birds have calcium in them and plants don't. Some deer ate live birds when they got the opportunity, because they thought they were delicious and didn't care that they moved around as long as they didn't escape. Some deer didn't, and because the birds's bodies turned out to contain a mineral lacking in the surrounding vegetation, the bird-eating deer prospered.

For this to start to happen, a substantial number of herbivores had to start eating living things, be better off because of it, and pass on the tendency to decide to snack on live birds when the opportunity arose up until this tendency was so strong that you might describe them as omnivores. I'm pretty sure that this does, in fact, prove your assertion that herbivores don't see other animals as food as being completely bogus.

...I mean, unless you use a strict definition of herbivore that makes the claim tautological and boring and irrelevant.




If we were able to set traps and build weapons without thinking about it, why did we ever evolve the ability to think?


I don't know the answer to that question, nobody does. This is like asking, "how the universe came into existence"... it's one of those "biggest mysteries of life questions".


Except that it's not even a mystery if you accept my hypothesis, that humans figured out how to make traps and weapons by thinking about it, which is the way any traps and weapons made in the present day are made, which is how you would have to go about making even the most primitive of traps or weapons if you set out into the wild: If intelligence helps you hunt food, more intelligence is a tremendous selective advantage.




When I linked to an article about a gay Mormon happily married to a woman, your responses seemed to relate to asexuals (your definition of "people able to feel platonic love" seems synonymous with "asexual) and so were basically irrelevant.


Your point is irrelevant.
If that gay Mormon is sexually interested in the woman, then he is not gay, if he is not sexually interested in her but is doing it for love... then he is in it for platonic love.


The way you defined "people capable of platonic love" seemed to rule out someone being gay and also capable of feeling platonic love. That seemed to be your point, since my point was that if love was socially instilled, heteronormative society would cause gay men to always (or at least, much more frequently) choose arrangements like that, and not even conceive of a romantic (as opposed to merely sexual) relationship with another man as being a thing that would be possible, because society wouldn't have instilled that belief in them.




Over the past few hundred years, the economy has been growing exponentially, and considering the causes of that growth, projecting that growth into the future is much more reasonable than not, failing some apocalypse. Thanks to demographic shift as third-world countries become first-world, we won't even have population problems - the world population will probably be decreasing, at worst it'll have levelled out - so per capita wealth will have actually increased, and be increasing, a lot more than today.

That abundant wealth, and some reasonable programs by half-way competent governments, will be enough to make it so that most people, perhaps even all people, will be living not just in safety without fear of starvation, but actually in some degree of comfort.

A change in interest rates that makes the gap between the least-rich and most-rich a little bit bigger won't matter, even if the government doesn't have the knowledge and skill to make the problem go away, but they probably will. Why should it matter whether I know exactly what methods a competent government well-advised on economic policy would use to try to fix a problem in interest rates? They would probably work, but it wouldn't matter if they didn't.


Well, if you believe that economic growth and closing gaps between rich and poor people will decrease crimes in society, then I'm not going to stop you from believing in that notion.

All I'm saying is there are other aspects to consider, like the effects of economic strains such as interest rates on low income people in relation to crime. (And I haven't even gotten to the problems of society itself... such as people's psychology, social classes, discrimination, prejudices and racism).



Yeah, and I'm saying that you're wrong to say those economic effects need considering because they're tiny in comparison. The difference between a boom year a century from now and a bust year a century from now wouldn't even be perceptible to us, it'd just be dizzying wealth vs dizzying wealth.
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/5/13

PhyongHwa wrote:


AshRandom wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:
and if there is a designer why did he design rape to be evil instead of eating your own crap.


This is an actual research topic called: THEODICY.

It's the attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.

Essentially a human mind, regardless of which millennium it was born to, is capable of recognizing the obvious flaws in whatever religious system they're born into. This is done simply by paying heed to the vast amount of injustice, pain and suffering in the world around them. The conclusion was most famously reached by Epicurious, an Athenian living around 300 B.C. but has been restated repeatedly by thinkers and philosophers and laymen again and again throughout history.

If God is unwilling to prevent suffering -- God is either impotent, or evil.



.......If I had a dollar for every time someone..... Look, evil is a choice that people make, not something that can be blamed on something or someone else. That's all a cop-out people make to escape blame or responsibility for their own choices and actions. Evil is choosing to do harm to yourself, others, or society. It is intentional, and not blindly done. People sometimes wrongly label things or people as "evil", but they are actually "tragic" instead, like unfortunate things that happen unintentionally, by either the sane (short-sighted/ignorant) or the insane (have no control of themselves).

Expecting a higher power or anyone else to save humanity from itself is like expecting our moms to wipe our asses after taking a dump even though we're adults and physically able to wipe our own sh*t off.


You have utterly failed to absorb, or comprehend the meaning of my post.

It's like you only read the last line and then jumped to the most fallacious of all possible conclusions.

Theodicy is the problem of evil, or suffering, in a universe presumed to be the result of a creator. Look it up.

As I said, theodicy is an actual topic long discussed and philosophized, your response wasn't even tangential, it was askew.
12503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
I don't believe people are evil, though they may be more inclined to do evil acts when put in certain situations. And people will also act differently based on how they were raised. There's a difference between considering people as evil instead of just certain actions as evil.
527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/5/13
nope evil is all around and even within everyone so never it will stick around
45413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 8/6/13

Rowan93 wrote:
"The ability to do maths" is a term that conflates a raw ability that humans are actually born with with a learned skill.

There are some humans who will never be able to learn calculus, and there are some to whom it comes easily: That, on average, the amount of intelligence a human is assigned at birth by their genetics is so high that, unlike any other species, they can learn maths, is a fact caused by evolution.

On the other hand, actually knowing how to differentiate an equation isn't a skill anybody can get without being taught it.

Now, if someone made an assertion like "someone who was raised by wolves, wandered into a village, and saw "2+2" written on a blackboard couldn't tell the answer was 4, so mathematical ability is entirely learned", and asked for evidence to contradict his hypothesis... well, obviously we aren't going to find any studies of people left to be raised by wolves, or deprived of any mathematical education, so what's the next best thing? Well, twin studies showing that a large fraction of the variance in mathematical ability is due to genetic and not environmental factors are probably the best bet


What the study is trying to do is to find out how much altruistic genes can affect a person's pro-social behaviour in relative to environmetal upbringing.

This is analogous to saying how a person's brain size can affect a person's maths results in relative to having a good or bad maths teacher.

The study doesn't support your original statements. Because your original statements require an experiment using a different method and subjects that aren't already living in a civilised society.


I've said this before. Humans have the ability to empathise and feel guilt, but only if they are taught on what is wrong and what is right. Without the concept of right and wrong in society, there would be no such things as empathy and guilt.

Would you feel guilty for eating ice cream? You wouldn't, right? But back when you were a child, you would probably feel guilty for sneaking some snacks into your room without your parents' permission--why is this? Because they told you it was the wrong thing to do.

Guilt can only be felt if somebody you respect or has authority over you tells that you that something is wrong to do, then you would feel guilt.
You don't find eating ice cream to be wrong in adulthood, so you stop feeling guilty over eating ice cream now.




I don't think anyone's domesticated seals or pandas yet.

The reasons we don't care about arthropods are more along the lines of them not being similar enough to us, not showing emotions we would empathize with, and a revulsion towards them that probably evolved because of how many poisonous insects and spiders and scorpions there are.


Seals and pandas have already been domesticated, seals are used for entertainment in water parks and both animals have been put in zoos around the world.

Snakes are not arthropods, fish are not poisonous yet people don't empathise with them.

The only reason people start to empathise with any animal in the present time is because of persistent propaganda from environmentalists and animal rights groups. (And especially regarding endangered animals, people get worked up over that, but LET'S BE REAL, even with current propaganda, only a small percentage of people actually care about endangered animals).




Or maybe because what an animal looks like and how obviously it seems to be feeling a particular feeling have nothing to do with how much pain it can inflict, but have a lot of an effect on to what extent we perceive that the animal is in pain.

The stimulus is "X amount of pain" vs "X amount of pain" for anger, whereas it's "An animal suffering X amount of pain which we can identify with Y certainty and empathize correspondingly" vs "An animal suffering X amount of pain which we can identify with Z uncertainty, and empathize correspondingly".


I'll let this one slide since I can't think of any counter argument.





And? People have been killing each other all over the world for whatever political/religious/cultural reasons they find convenient, what's so exceptionally empathy-lacking about people who decide that it'd be a shame if the pile of meat that used to be the enemy was left to the crows or the worms?


How can you turn around and ask me this?
So according to you, killing things they knew were "humans" and eating them up are not considered having more tendency for sociopaths?

Why did you ask me this question then? "What examples are there of a geographical area featuring a higher tendency for sociopathy?"

The people in those tribes ALL do it. It's not like in civilised countries where some people kill things but others don't kill or don't agree with killing/war.




Think about how evolution works when applied to this: Deer don't know that birds have calcium in them and plants don't. Some deer ate live birds when they got the opportunity, because they thought they were delicious and didn't care that they moved around as long as they didn't escape. Some deer didn't, and because the birds's bodies turned out to contain a mineral lacking in the surrounding vegetation, the bird-eating deer prospered.

For this to start to happen, a substantial number of herbivores had to start eating living things, be better off because of it, and pass on the tendency to decide to snack on live birds when the opportunity arose up until this tendency was so strong that you might describe them as omnivores. I'm pretty sure that this does, in fact, prove your assertion that herbivores don't see other animals as food as being completely bogus.

...I mean, unless you use a strict definition of herbivore that makes the claim tautological and boring and irrelevant.


How can my statement be bogus if in the wild, it's observed that herbivores don't eat or kill other animals? Even if you put dead meat in front of them, they wouldn't eat it.

I never said anything about herbivores not being able to turn into omnivores; it's a widely accepted theory that humans' far ancestors were once herbivores.

The fact that the deer incorporate meat into its diet indicate that species of deer is already omnivore, thus rendering your evidence (video of deer eating a bird) as void against my original statement.


How herbivores progress into omnivores is a different story. It could be due to scarce resources or competition in available plant food forcing the herbivore to incorporate a meat diet in addition to a vegetative diet.




Except that it's not even a mystery if you accept my hypothesis, that humans figured out how to make traps and weapons by thinking about it, which is the way any traps and weapons made in the present day are made, which is how you would have to go about making even the most primitive of traps or weapons if you set out into the wild: If intelligence helps you hunt food, more intelligence is a tremendous selective advantage.


Actually, your original statement was talking specifically about "abstract" thought, which wasn't developed until humans started forming the first civilisations. Quote: "Humans, with our abundant ability for abstract reasoning, can just be acting on the emotion of hunger when we set traps".

I was replying to that. Of course primitive people needed to think to make traps but they relied on instincts such as hunger and murderous instincts, not ON abstract thoughts.

Then your second question was much more general, not focusing on abstract thought: "If we were able to set traps and build weapons without thinking about it, why did we ever evolve the ability to think?"
I thought you were talking about why humans developed higher intelligence (in which case I replied it was a mystery).




The way you defined "people capable of platonic love" seemed to rule out someone being gay and also capable of feeling platonic love. That seemed to be your point, since my point was that if love was socially instilled, heteronormative society would cause gay men to always (or at least, much more frequently) choose arrangements like that, and not even conceive of a romantic (as opposed to merely sexual) relationship with another man as being a thing that would be possible, because society wouldn't have instilled that belief in them.


This was the case 100 years ago and before that, when homosexuality was frowned upon. Gay men would marry women and lead unhappy lives.

But now that it is considered part of a sexuality spectrum, people have re-defined the meaning of love.

I mean just look at the case of bisexuality. Even in a time where homosexuality is widely accepted, a bisexual man would rather marry a woman and lead a normal life/have children, rather than marrying a homosexual man.


(But you just dismiss everything I say, because you don't see it the way I see it).


14963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/6/13 , edited 8/6/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

I've said this before. Humans have the ability to empathise and feel guilt, but only if they are taught on what is wrong and what is right. Without the concept of right and wrong in society, there would be no such things as empathy and guilt.

Would you feel guilty for eating ice cream? You wouldn't, right? But back when you were a child, you would probably feel guilty for sneaking some snacks into your room without your parents' permission--why is this? Because they told you it was the wrong thing to do.

Guilt can only be felt if somebody you respect or has authority over you tells that you that something is wrong to do, then you would feel guilt.
You don't find eating ice cream to be wrong in adulthood, so you stop feeling guilty over eating ice cream now.


Okay, I suppose I can grant that the scientific evidence doesn't prove I'm right, although since your criteria are too stringent for anyone to have actually performed the experiment in history, it's maybe a bit dishonest to ask for evidence against your position and say you'll change your mind if you get any.

Although I think I'm going to stick with "If a child was raised by wolves, they wouldn't be able to add 2 + 2" as an analogy for how what you're saying about empathy sounds.




I don't think anyone's domesticated seals or pandas yet.

The reasons we don't care about arthropods are more along the lines of them not being similar enough to us, not showing emotions we would empathize with, and a revulsion towards them that probably evolved because of how many poisonous insects and spiders and scorpions there are.


Seals and pandas have already been domesticated, seals are used for entertainment in water parks and both animals have been put in zoos around the world.


That's not what domestication means, there's a difference between "domesticated" and "in captivity", an animal in a zoo is not domesticated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication


Snakes are not arthropods, fish are not poisonous yet people don't empathise with them.


Well, as for snakes, you know how I said "that probably evolved because of how many poisonous insects and spiders and scorpions there are"? Well there are plenty of poisonous snakes too.

Fish are still not as similar to us as mammals are, and don't indicate emotions in ways we can understand. We're not as revolted by them as we are of arthropods... but I'm pretty sure we're more inclined to feel bad for a wounded fish than for a wounded spider.




And? People have been killing each other all over the world for whatever political/religious/cultural reasons they find convenient, what's so exceptionally empathy-lacking about people who decide that it'd be a shame if the pile of meat that used to be the enemy was left to the crows or the worms?


How can you turn around and ask me this?
So according to you, killing things they knew were "humans" and eating them up are not considered having more tendency for sociopaths?

Why did you ask me this question then? "What examples are there of a geographical area featuring a higher tendency for sociopathy?"

The people in those tribes ALL do it. It's not like in civilised countries where some people kill things but others don't kill or don't agree with killing/war.


If you've already killed someone, I don't think eating the body is, in itself, even morally wrong, so people who do so are no more sociopaths than anyone else engaging in endemic warfare. And endemic warfare happens just about everywhere, geographically and historically, where there aren't organised countries who have "normal" wars instead.

I'm not sure how you can be so specific about how these tribes operate when you're not even talking about a specific example but rather a general "some tribes in Africa". And being able to have a war with most of the population being against it is a very new state of affairs - in a group orders of magnitude smaller than an entire country, which is engaged in endemic warfare, it's not really possible.




Think about how evolution works when applied to this: Deer don't know that birds have calcium in them and plants don't. Some deer ate live birds when they got the opportunity, because they thought they were delicious and didn't care that they moved around as long as they didn't escape. Some deer didn't, and because the birds's bodies turned out to contain a mineral lacking in the surrounding vegetation, the bird-eating deer prospered.

For this to start to happen, a substantial number of herbivores had to start eating living things, be better off because of it, and pass on the tendency to decide to snack on live birds when the opportunity arose up until this tendency was so strong that you might describe them as omnivores. I'm pretty sure that this does, in fact, prove your assertion that herbivores don't see other animals as food as being completely bogus.

...I mean, unless you use a strict definition of herbivore that makes the claim tautological and boring and irrelevant.


How can my statement be bogus if in the wild, it's observed that herbivores don't eat or kill other animals? Even if you put dead meat in front of them, they wouldn't eat it.


That's only true if you define "herbivore" such that a herbivore that is observed to eat or kill other animals in the wild, or eats dead meat that's put in front of them is automatically not a herbivore. This is, I suppose, a reasonable definition of "herbivore" to use in most circumstances, but it's what I was referring to when I said "...I mean, unless you use a strict definition of herbivore that makes the claim tautological and boring and irrelevant."

If you claim that herbivores never see other animals as food and thus lack some mysterious "murderous instinct", and then claim that any herbivore that does see other animals as food is no longer a herbivore because of that fact... can't you see why this is dumb?




Except that it's not even a mystery if you accept my hypothesis, that humans figured out how to make traps and weapons by thinking about it, which is the way any traps and weapons made in the present day are made, which is how you would have to go about making even the most primitive of traps or weapons if you set out into the wild: If intelligence helps you hunt food, more intelligence is a tremendous selective advantage.


Actually, your original statement was talking specifically about "abstract" thought, which wasn't developed until humans started forming the first civilisations. Quote: "Humans, with our abundant ability for abstract reasoning, can just be acting on the emotion of hunger when we set traps".

I was replying to that. Of course primitive people needed to think to make traps but they relied on instincts such as hunger and murderous instincts, not ON abstract thoughts.

Then your second question was much more general, not focusing on abstract thought: "If we were able to set traps and build weapons without thinking about it, why did we ever evolve the ability to think?"
I thought you were talking about why humans developed higher intelligence (in which case I replied it was a mystery).


Well, this has turned into a fuss over my use of the word "abstract" (yeah, I guess I misused it - I think "people needed to think to make traps but they relied on instincts such as hunger and murderous instinct" is a hypothesis that makes just as much sense, probably a lot more, if you just delete the "murderous instinct" bit from the end.




The way you defined "people capable of platonic love" seemed to rule out someone being gay and also capable of feeling platonic love. That seemed to be your point, since my point was that if love was socially instilled, heteronormative society would cause gay men to always (or at least, much more frequently) choose arrangements like that, and not even conceive of a romantic (as opposed to merely sexual) relationship with another man as being a thing that would be possible, because society wouldn't have instilled that belief in them.


This was the case 100 years ago and before that, when homosexuality was frowned upon. Gay men would marry women and lead unhappy lives.

But now that it is considered part of a sexuality spectrum, people have re-defined the meaning of love.

I mean just look at the case of bisexuality. Even in a time where homosexuality is widely accepted, a bisexual man would rather marry a woman and lead a normal life/have children, rather than marrying a homosexual man.


(But you just dismiss everything I say, because you don't see it the way I see it).


If love is an "emotion" that's actually taught by society, why would a gay man who was married to a woman not be happy? Why would he not fall in love with women?

Right back at you on the "dismiss everything I say" line, with some diss on the side about how cynical you are.
2393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 8/6/13 , edited 8/6/13

KaosProphet wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:


KaosProphet wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:

your definition of evil is questionable if you ask me.



That's sort of my point.



ham is beef because that's what i believe.


That is unquestionably silly.

I do hope you weren't expecting me to concede based on some false equivocation premise though?


okay let's ASSUME that.........

ham is beef because that's what i believe.

why are you questioning my belief basing on my internal knowledge?

and how can you say that it's false when you don't even know the reason why i'm saying that in the first place.

now you get what i mean?

your definition of evil is

survival or justice to another.


i won't say that it's FALSE but it's questionable.

now....

1.)

A murdered B

C can't accept that A is evil. (murder is not evil according to C)

therefore A is not evil.

now let me share you a famous quote by William Shakespear.

"There is neither Good nor Evil - Thinking makes it so."

so you agree with WS?

because if you do that's really................











6370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/6/13 , edited 8/6/13
There is no such thing it's a delusion that people created in order to extinguish or distinguish the undesirable aspects of reality, and painting/categorizing it in either black or white. When you take that all away suddenly good people are not as good as they appear to be and bad guys are not as bad as they appear to be; its just the circumstances and situations that made them what they are, however that does not hold true in all cases and neither does that mean what I'm saying is absolute or truth (Its just my view point).
45413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 8/6/13

Rowan93 wrote:
Okay, I suppose I can grant that the scientific evidence doesn't prove I'm right, although since your criteria are too stringent for anyone to have actually performed the experiment in history, it's maybe a bit dishonest to ask for evidence against your position and say you'll change your mind if you get any.

Although I think I'm going to stick with "If a child was raised by wolves, they wouldn't be able to add 2 + 2" as an analogy for how what you're saying about empathy sounds.


It's not dishonest to ask for evidence, because you don't really need to use a scientific evidence, you can use something you've observed about human behaviour vs. animal behaviour, I wouldn't really know because it's not my point of view--that's why I'm curious about what you have to present... I am genuinely curious, I'm not one of those internet users who say something just to win an argument, I'm curious about others' point of view.

But in no way, am I saying your point of view is wrong, I haven't said that. I'm just saying you can't overturn my original point of view (which was what you were trying to do in your first reply) when you have nothing substantial to overturn it besides saying it's an evolved trait.

And I applaud you for being brave enough to challenge my statements.





That's not what domestication means, there's a difference between "domesticated" and "in captivity", an animal in a zoo is not domesticated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

Well, as for snakes, you know how I said "that probably evolved because of how many poisonous insects and spiders and scorpions there are"? Well there are plenty of poisonous snakes too.

Fish are still not as similar to us as mammals are, and don't indicate emotions in ways we can understand. We're not as revolted by them as we are of arthropods... but I'm pretty sure we're more inclined to feel bad for a wounded fish than for a wounded spider.


You're right about the domestication thing, my bad.

I don't know if physical appearance have anything to do with how much we empathise with an animal; because chimpanzees are 98% identical in DNA to humans' and look like humans the most, yet we have been using them for unethical scientific experiments for a while...




If you've already killed someone, I don't think eating the body is, in itself, even morally wrong, so people who do so are no more sociopaths than anyone else engaging in endemic warfare. And endemic warfare happens just about everywhere, geographically and historically, where there aren't organised countries who have "normal" wars instead.

I'm not sure how you can be so specific about how these tribes operate when you're not even talking about a specific example but rather a general "some tribes in Africa". And being able to have a war with most of the population being against it is a very new state of affairs - in a group orders of magnitude smaller than an entire country, which is engaged in endemic warfare, it's not really possible.



This sentence is debatable, but I'm not here to argue about what's moral and what's not, so I'll let it slide.

Doesn't this sentence supports my original view point, and not yours? *confused face*

My view point: "How can you not see that empathy is based on upbringing, society, culture, moral values and religious values? It's not something that is uniformed. It differs depending on the geographical area a person is living in. Because it is a learned trait. Humans have the ability to empathise, but they're not born with it."




That's only true if you define "herbivore" such that a herbivore that is observed to eat or kill other animals in the wild, or eats dead meat that's put in front of them is automatically not a herbivore. This is, I suppose, a reasonable definition of "herbivore" to use in most circumstances, but it's what I was referring to when I said "...I mean, unless you use a strict definition of herbivore that makes the claim tautological and boring and irrelevant."

If you claim that herbivores never see other animals as food and thus lack some mysterious "murderous instinct", and then claim that any herbivore that does see other animals as food is no longer a herbivore because of that fact... can't you see why this is dumb?


Ok.

Let's suppose your hypothesis is true; that herbivores do indeed see other animals as potential food like a carnivore, and that both lack murderous instincts but see food as simply food.

And let's make up an imaginary statistical result, say for example, 10% of all herbivores on Earth in the next 100 years will turn into omnivores...

In your opinion, what exactly does this result prove?? Your hypothesis only? or other hypotheses too?




If love is an "emotion" that's actually taught by society, why would a gay man who was married to a woman not be happy? Why would he not fall in love with women?


This is the most absurd question I've seen from you... I'm not sure if you already know the answer and you're curious about my answer, or you genuinely don't know the answer or asking this rhetorically.

Even a straight man and woman in romantic relationship can cause unhappiness for either gender, due to bad sex or incompatibility or whatever the reasons are.
So a gay man being unhappy in a romantic relationship with a woman will suffer similar strains.

And like I said before, social conditioning cannot suppress natural instincts like sexuality, because a person's sexuality is pretty much... one of the strongest instinct there is in the animal kingdom.
You can pretend to "love" a sex you're not sexually attracted to, but you won't be happy even if society dictates that man-woman relationship is 100% right/moral.



Right back at you on the "dismiss everything I say" line, with some diss on the side about how cynical you are.


I'm not cynical at all. I'm only interested in finding out objective truths about human behaviour. There is nothing bad about social conditioning. Social conditioning is what adhere different races of humans together to live peacefully.

I'm not one of those people who claim all humans are inherently evil. I haven't even said anything that would make me a cynic.

I don't even believe in the concept of evil and good. Like Shakespeare said, "There is no good or evil, only the mind thinks so".
14963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/6/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
That's not what domestication means, there's a difference between "domesticated" and "in captivity", an animal in a zoo is not domesticated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

Well, as for snakes, you know how I said "that probably evolved because of how many poisonous insects and spiders and scorpions there are"? Well there are plenty of poisonous snakes too.

Fish are still not as similar to us as mammals are, and don't indicate emotions in ways we can understand. We're not as revolted by them as we are of arthropods... but I'm pretty sure we're more inclined to feel bad for a wounded fish than for a wounded spider.


You're right about the domestication thing, my bad.

I don't know if physical appearance have anything to do with how much we empathise with an animal; because chimpanzees are 98% identical in DNA to humans' and look like humans the most, yet we have been using them for unethical scientific experiments for a while...


How much we empathize with an animal doesn't have quite as much to do with whether we use them for experiments as how useful it is to perform experiments on them. Chimpanzees are very similar to humans, so experiments that we might want to perform on humans but can't because that would be monstrous can sometimes be performed on chimpanzees instead.

That said, there is more outrage against experiments on chimpanzees than there is against experiments on, say, mice. People are in more agreement that some of the experiments performed on them are unethical.




If you've already killed someone, I don't think eating the body is, in itself, even morally wrong, so people who do so are no more sociopaths than anyone else engaging in endemic warfare. And endemic warfare happens just about everywhere, geographically and historically, where there aren't organised countries who have "normal" wars instead.

I'm not sure how you can be so specific about how these tribes operate when you're not even talking about a specific example but rather a general "some tribes in Africa". And being able to have a war with most of the population being against it is a very new state of affairs - in a group orders of magnitude smaller than an entire country, which is engaged in endemic warfare, it's not really possible.



This sentence is debatable, but I'm not here to argue about what's moral and what's not, so I'll let it slide.

Doesn't this sentence supports my original view point, and not yours? *confused face*

My view point: "How can you not see that empathy is based on upbringing, society, culture, moral values and religious values? It's not something that is uniformed. It differs depending on the geographical area a person is living in. Because it is a learned trait. Humans have the ability to empathise, but they're not born with it."


Yeah, I suppose it does, a little. If empathy is inborn, people's ability to go to war does need some explaining, whereas it just follows easily under your hypothesis. But there is an explanation, and I think it fits the facts quite well: When you go to war, you don't lose the ability to empathise with the enemy, you and your society work to suppress and ignore it. Sometimes you succeed and commit atrocities, sometimes you fail and act like a decent person.




That's only true if you define "herbivore" such that a herbivore that is observed to eat or kill other animals in the wild, or eats dead meat that's put in front of them is automatically not a herbivore. This is, I suppose, a reasonable definition of "herbivore" to use in most circumstances, but it's what I was referring to when I said "...I mean, unless you use a strict definition of herbivore that makes the claim tautological and boring and irrelevant."

If you claim that herbivores never see other animals as food and thus lack some mysterious "murderous instinct", and then claim that any herbivore that does see other animals as food is no longer a herbivore because of that fact... can't you see why this is dumb?


Ok.

Let's suppose your hypothesis is true; that herbivores do indeed see other animals as potential food like a carnivore, and that both lack murderous instincts but see food as simply food.

And let's make up an imaginary statistical result, say for example, 10% of all herbivores on Earth in the next 100 years will turn into omnivores...

In your opinion, what exactly does this result prove?? Your hypothesis only? or other hypotheses too?


I don't think the idea of a "murderous instinct" being wrong would be the proof that I'm right about anything else, if that's what you're asking.




If love is an "emotion" that's actually taught by society, why would a gay man who was married to a woman not be happy? Why would he not fall in love with women?


This is the most absurd question I've seen from you... I'm not sure if you already know the answer and you're curious about my answer, or you genuinely don't know the answer or asking this rhetorically.

Even a straight man and woman in romantic relationship can cause unhappiness for either gender, due to bad sex or incompatibility or whatever the reasons are.
So a gay man being unhappy in a romantic relationship with a woman will suffer similar strains.

And like I said before, social conditioning cannot suppress natural instincts like sexuality, because a person's sexuality is pretty much... one of the strongest instinct there is in the animal kingdom.
You can pretend to "love" a sex you're not sexually attracted to, but you won't be happy even if society dictates that man-woman relationship is 100% right/moral.


I'm not sure about what relationship you think exists between love and sexuality. Presumably, if you think love is a socially conditioned thing, you think that if a (straight or bi) boy raised by wolves met a (straight or bi) girl raised by wolves, they might bonk but would be incapable of falling in love with each other?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.