Dark Side of the Moon

General Discussion => Real World Topics => Topic started by: Umbra of Chaos on May 22, 2014, 07:08:32 PM

Title: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on May 22, 2014, 07:08:32 PM
Morality, philosophy, or god, I don't really care what you argue about. Just keep it civil and stop cluttering all the other threads.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Puck-Chan on May 22, 2014, 07:12:19 PM
K.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on May 22, 2014, 07:13:34 PM
Good job, Salto.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: The Man With All The Cute Boats on May 22, 2014, 09:04:55 PM
K.
I disagree with the content of this post and ask that we debate about it. Would you be willing to enter a debate with me, sir?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Puck-Chan on May 24, 2014, 07:50:30 AM
K.
I disagree with the content of this post and ask that we debate about it. Would you be willing to enter a debate with me, sir?

Very well, sir!
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on May 28, 2014, 01:51:24 AM
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is a stupid quote. Anyone contest this?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: The Man With All The Cute Boats on May 28, 2014, 01:58:46 AM
you're right. Whoever loses both eyes first can't stab the other guy in the eye unless he's really lucky.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on May 28, 2014, 02:08:36 AM
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is a stupid quote. Anyone contest this?

Yes, me.

The point is that, if I out your eye out for putting out someone else's, then surely I should logically have my own eye put out, by the same reasoning.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on May 28, 2014, 02:11:06 AM
Still needs to be a way to stop the jackass who keeps on stabbing out eyes.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on May 28, 2014, 02:16:12 AM
Cut off his hands.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on May 28, 2014, 02:19:24 AM
Yes. I'm just talking about the significance that it holds in terms of general doing bad against someone. Cutting off a person's hands is still terrible to do and would be the metaphorical eye in this situation. If you truly have no penance you have no system to stop some guy from screwing around with everyone.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on May 28, 2014, 02:32:43 AM
If someone wrongs you, then make sure they can never wrong you again. Of course this all depends on the context of the situation, but you probably see my point.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on May 28, 2014, 03:16:07 AM
Yes. I'm just talking about the significance that it holds in terms of general doing bad against someone. Cutting off a person's hands is still terrible to do and would be the metaphorical eye in this situation. If you truly have no penance you have no system to stop some guy from screwing around with everyone.

Sure, but putting someone's eye out doesn't stop them from doing it again, it just makes them less able to do anything.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 08, 2014, 01:51:01 PM
Link to my poll thread, a case of shameful self-advertisement:

http://darksidemoon.net/SMF_forum/index.php/topic,438.0.html (http://darksidemoon.net/SMF_forum/index.php/topic,438.0.html)
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 08, 2014, 05:41:45 PM
I do, the quote refers to the cycle of violence. It's not stupid, it's philosophical.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 10, 2014, 10:54:57 AM
It's just a cheap cliche.

This was actually written by a philosopher:

"Man is evil"—so said to me for consolation, all the wisest ones. Ah, if only it be
still true today! For the evil is man's best force. "
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 10, 2014, 05:49:53 PM
That's not at all what I meant. And seriously Man is not evil, not inherently.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: KAIZA on June 10, 2014, 06:31:56 PM
To be fair, "good" and "evil" are not things that actually exist; they are things that are defined.

In fact, you could say they are defined by each individual (one might see an action as morally right, other as horrible, other as questionable, and so on, and so on...), but for the most part, society as a whole helps to give them a "global definition", you could say.

It still varies from culture to culture, but for the most part the same basic views tend to be shared by the majority (like killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc).

And this is still not taking into account people's tendency to try to validate/justify their actions regardless of what they are or how they are seen morally.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 10, 2014, 07:38:28 PM
I interpret this Nietzsche's statement as the fact that the conflict is drawing the best out of humans.

Bonobos are still climbing trees, humans are the highest primates. Being a pacifist does not make you thrive.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 10, 2014, 07:40:46 PM
To be fair, "good" and "evil" are not things that actually exist; they are things that are defined.

In fact, you could say they are defined by each individual (one might see an action as morally right, other as horrible, other as questionable, and so on, and so on...), but for the most part, society as a whole helps to give them a "global definition", you could say.

It still varies from culture to culture, but for the most part the same basic views tend to be shared by the majority (like killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc).

And this is still not taking into account people's tendency to try to validate/justify their actions regardless of what they are or how they are seen morally.

I think that, to some extent, good and evil are a matter of definition, but I do also think that there is a fundamental psychological basis for the divide. It is true that someone from 500 years ago would consider different things to be evil from me, but at the core there is some basis of caring for others vs. not caring for others. Even 15th Century people would consider acts done for your own selfish gain at the expense of others to be "evil", and acts done for the benefit of others at your own expense to be "good". The exact definition of that is very open to interpretation (they thought that burning witches was "saving their souls"), but the basic principle does still hold (and is the fundamental psychological underpinning of the whole human concept of good and evil, I think).

I interpret this Nietzsche's statement as the fact that the conflict is drawing the best out of humans.

Bonobos are still climbing trees, humans are the highest primates. Being a pacifist does not make you thrive.

I don't think that's entirely true. All animals have some sort of conflict, whether it be direct fighting or indirect competition for food and territory. It's the fundamental driving force of all evolution.

Actual military conflict, though, is only good at making us better at fighting, at least in concept. I think that, because we have evolved to be war-like creatures, we do focus a lot on war and achieve a lot through it, but I don't think that is necessarily a fundamentally "better" strategy than other sorts of "conflict" (such as finding ways to obtain more food).
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 10, 2014, 07:58:04 PM
Quote
Actual military conflict, though, is only good at making us better at fighting, at least in concept. I think that, because we have evolved to be war-like creatures, we do focus a lot on war and achieve a lot through it, but I don't think that is necessarily a fundamentally "better" strategy than other sorts of "conflict" (such as finding ways to obtain more food).

Military conflicts have hastened our technological progress.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 10, 2014, 08:02:04 PM
They have, yes, but that's not an inherent property of military conflicts. It's a property of human nature being so military-biased. We don't fund science and technological development properly until we want to kill someone with it....

A pacifistic society could still have technological development, it would just happen in a different way. Rather than waiting for wars to provide the need, some other challenge would provide that need instead (which is what happens now, mostly, especially in terms of healthcare).
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 10, 2014, 08:05:31 PM
World peace and lack of conflict would make us stagnant as species. Nasu is right saying it is an horrible idea.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 10, 2014, 08:23:16 PM
No, Nasu never said World Peace was a bad idea, what he said was that wishing for World Peace on a corrupted grail was a bad idea, because the only way the world is likely to ever have peace is if everyone is dead (or, at least, stripped of their free will)....
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 10, 2014, 08:25:30 PM
No, Nasu also expressed idea that world without conflict as envisioned by Harways would be a horrible thing. It has nothing to do with corrupted Grail. Rin also pointed out in FSN that world peace would be horrible because lack of conflict means stagnation.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 10, 2014, 09:01:34 PM
There is also the fact that any type of world peace can only be achieved through morally questionable means.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 10, 2014, 11:15:51 PM
Then humans are effectively worthless Umbra
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 10, 2014, 11:21:13 PM
Because we cannot achieve world peace? Calling all of humanity worthless because we cannot do the impossible? Do you really think that little of all that we've achieved?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Knick on June 10, 2014, 11:29:36 PM
The world itself is a system of conflicts. Things take from one another to survive. Things take from their own species to survive, to make sure their lineage continues.

Killing, living, survival, dieing.

The world functions on basic principle that make world peace impossible. Because conflict is something inherent when there are limited resources, space, water, food, energy, and so on and so forth.

Humans are animals, we cannot suddenly say we are going to change the fundamental way the world works, fundamental laws about how life works, just because it is "beautiful".

With world peace all you need is one person who refuses to follow it, then everyone else of completely unprepared and it will result in chaos.

Take and read some actual philosophy before arguing it Lantz.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 10, 2014, 11:35:36 PM
No, Nasu also expressed idea that world without conflict as envisioned by Harways would be a horrible thing. It has nothing to do with corrupted Grail.

I don't think the problem with the world envisioned by the Harways is the lack of conflict....

Quote
Rin also pointed out in FSN that world peace would be horrible because lack of conflict means stagnation.

Isn't that Extra Rin?

Then humans are effectively worthless Umbra

As long as there are bad people in the world and people who are stupid enough to follow them, there will always be conflict. And even without that it's hard to avoid, as long as people are capable of disagreeing.

The world itself is a system of conflicts. Things take from one another to survive. Things take from their own species to survive, to make sure their lineage continues.

Killing, living, survival, dieing.

The world functions on basic principle that make world peace impossible. Because conflict is something inherent when there are limited resources, space, water, food, energy, and so on and so forth.

Humans are animals, we cannot suddenly say we are going to change the fundamental way the world works, fundamental laws about how life works, just because it is "beautiful".

That's true in a world where there isn't enough for everyone. Our current world is not like that, we can in theory provide for everyone. Further, war in the modern form is not beneficial to anyone (well, aside from arms companies...), even the winner. So, no, there is no inate reason why we must continue fighting, the only genuine reason left to fight is ideology.

Quote

With world peace all you need is one person who refuses to follow it, then everyone else of completely unprepared and it will result in chaos.

Take and read some actual philosophy before arguing it Lantz.

This, however, is true.

Personally, I believe that the necessity to fight is bad, but possessing the will to fight if necessary is definitely a good thing. If people won't stand up for what is right, then people will get away with great evil.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Knick on June 10, 2014, 11:43:00 PM
Mike, we will run out of supplies. Because humanity can keep growing. There will reach a point where we lose to much to regain.

And when that happens the "world peace" that was obtained? It will crumble.

And war is plenty beneficial. Japan went to war in WW2 because it ran out of natural resources, so invaded other lands. It was incredibly beneficial for them. Most other benefited greatly from wars, getting more land, income, resources, population and so on.

War is not a fun thing and causes suffering, but saying its worthless and benefits no one is foolish and uneducated.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 10, 2014, 11:48:17 PM
Mike, we will run out of supplies. Because humanity can keep growing. There will reach a point where we lose to much to regain.

And when that happens the "world peace" that was obtained? It will crumble.

Not really, because we can get resources from elsewhere. Plus, the human race is not growing anything like as quickly now than it was before.

Of course, if there are more people than resources we will end up fighting, but I think we've advanced to the point where our initial approach is to find more resources for all of humanity rather than to kill off someone else and take their resources.

Quote
And war is plenty beneficial. Japan went to war in WW2 because it ran out of natural resources, so invaded other lands. It was incredibly beneficial for them. Most other benefited greatly from wars, getting more land, income, resources, population and so on.

War is not a fun thing and causes suffering, but saying its worthless and benefits no one is foolish and uneducated.

Yeah, go to Japan now and ask them if WW2 was worth it....

Sure, localised wars can be worthwhile, but modern all-out war rarely is.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 10, 2014, 11:58:42 PM
Quote
Isn't that Extra Rin?

No, normal Rin. Reread.

Post scarcity economy is a utopia of deluded socialists, since it is impossible to provide everyone with everything unless we trample on their rights and keep them at the same low level. There will be always richer and poorer.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 12:08:41 AM
Quote
Isn't that Extra Rin?

No, normal Rin. Reread.

I don't remember normal Rin saying that, but I do remember hearing that Extra Rin did.

Quote
Post scarcity economy is a utopia of deluded socialists, since it is impossible to provide everyone with everything unless we trample on their rights and keep them at the same low level. There will be always richer and poorer.

It's impossible to provide everyone with everything, but it's possible to have a society where everyone is comfortable and only extreme luxuries are not available to everyone. Indeed, we are probably heading rapidly in that direction, with the existence of things like 3D printers that will allow printing just about anything you might want from cheap building-block materials.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
Quote
with the existence of things like 3D printers that will allow printing just about anything you might want from cheap building-block materials.

These materials are not free. Also many 3D printer products are inferior to the original.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Knick on June 11, 2014, 12:16:36 AM
Mike are you one of the guys who approves of people assembling non trackable guns with 3d printers?

Because you sound like it.

Also Japan ended up as one the the leading technological producers in the world along with having one of the most powerful military forces in the world rather then being bogged down in gorilla wars for their entire existence. Honestly, losing WW2 to the USA worked out incredibly well for them.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 12:17:28 AM
Found FSN Rins quote:

http://lparchive.org/Fatestay-night/Update%2086/ (http://lparchive.org/Fatestay-night/Update%2086/)

"But don't get me wrong. If the Holy Grail will truly grant any wish, permanent world peace is the worst wish ever.
It means there's nothing, right? A world without conflict is dead. If things aren't moving, all they do is rot."
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 12:22:31 AM
No Mike, 3D printing is currently infantile in it's production abilities.

and yes Umbra I find that the most basic concept of don't punch your neighbor in the fucking face having to be called impossible (in fact the word impossible itself is ) disgusting. Go on and make your phone a fucking codec, see who you can call when the world blows sky high because the human race couldn't manage civility.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 12:24:40 AM
These materials are not free.

No, but they're cheap.

Quote
Also many 3D printer products are inferior to the original.

Yes, at the moment. I'm not so sure that will be true in 20 years time.

Mike are you one of the guys who approves of people assembling non trackable guns with 3d printers?

Because you sound like it.

Not really, because guns are overwhelmingly bad. 3D printing actually useful things I am totally OK with.

Quote
Also Japan ended up as one the the leading technological producers in the world along with having one of the most powerful military forces in the world rather then being bogged down in gorilla wars for their entire existence. Honestly, losing WW2 to the USA worked out incredibly well for them.

It did, but the war itself most certainly didn't.

Found FSN Rins quote:

http://lparchive.org/Fatestay-night/Update%2086/ (http://lparchive.org/Fatestay-night/Update%2086/)

"But don't get me wrong. If the Holy Grail will truly grant any wish, permanent world peace is the worst wish ever.
It means there's nothing, right? A world without conflict is dead. If things aren't moving, all they do is rot."

Fair enough.

Anyway, I don't entirely disagree with that, it depends how you define conflict. Wars are generally a bad thing, arguments are not. If no-one ever disagreed with anyone else, the world would stagnate. And, further, I also think that it is extremely important for governments to know that they can be overthrown. If everyone knew that no-one could ever fight back no matter what they did, some people would take advantage of that at the expense of everyone else.

No Mike, 3D printing is currently infantile in it's production abilities.

Yes, currently. In 20 or 30 years, it won't be.

Quote
and yes Umbra I find that the most basic concept of don't punch your neighbor in the fucking face having to be called impossible (in fact the word impossible itself is ) disgusting. Go on and make your phone a fucking codec, see who you can call when the world blows sky high because the human race couldn't manage civility.

Saying "don't punch your neighbour in the face" is all well and good, but it doesn't get you too far if he punches you, or if he is just standing in your doorway making sure you can't get out of your house and generally being a jerk.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 12:26:18 AM
Quote
No, but they're cheap.

Cheap means often that it is of shoddy quality and dangerous to environment. Are we going to wreck planet just to make everyone have everything?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 11, 2014, 12:34:29 AM
and yes Umbra I find that the most basic concept of don't punch your neighbor in the fucking face having to be called impossible (in fact the word impossible itself is ) disgusting. Go on and make your phone a fucking codec, see who you can call when the world blows sky high because the human race couldn't manage civility.

If it was that easy there would be no wars. People can fight over everything. Money, religion, vengeance, and justice are just a few things people will fight over. It is impossible because people will never agree about everything, and there are always people who will want more then what they have. The ambition to climb to the top, and they are not always nice. All it takes is one person to disagree and world peace falls to pieces.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 12:37:34 AM
Quote
No, but they're cheap.

Cheap means often that it is of shoddy quality and dangerous to environment. Are we going to wreck planet just to make everyone have everything?

Cheap doesn't always mean that. Technological progress tends to make things both cheaper and higher quality.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 12:57:36 AM
More important is if these materials are actually ecological. Cheap materials that increase polution are bad news. Sustainable development is more important than providing everything for free (which is wrong because it turns people into freeloaders).

Future of the planet is more important than socialist delusions.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 01:34:32 AM
From one of guys who actually produce 3D printer:

“The most common myth that’s propagated by the media is 3-D printing will replace entire manufacturing and it’s clearly not. Moussa says in a recent interview. “We will never, ever be able to produce plastic parts as cheaply in 3-D printing as you can in injection molding. In volume and customization and in prototyping, there is just no chance at all to be as efficient or productive as mass manufacturing techniques. ”

Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 02:16:18 AM
Yeah Umbra, whatever dude. Humans should always reach further, the word impossible is an excuse when it comes to philosophy and technology.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 02:22:40 AM
Yeah Umbra, whatever dude. Humans should always reach further, the word impossible is an excuse when it comes to philosophy and technology.

No, it's not impossible, just exceptionally difficult, to the point that it might as well be called such. Maybe there will come a time when humans legitimately do not fight each other any more, but it's going to require a significant change in human society for it to happen, and even then I would imagine people would still get into fights and the like sometimes.

For there to be no war, we need a situation where there is no need to fight over resources and where no-one ever has a desire to hurt, control or impose their beliefs on anyone else, at all (even their own children), so there is legitimately no need to fight. Currently, we have neither and, whilst I can see the first happening, the second is going to take a long time.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 11, 2014, 02:41:15 AM
Next you'll say we'll dismantle all the nuclear weapons and the sky will be filled with double rainbows.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 02:56:41 AM
Next you'll say we'll dismantle all the nuclear weapons and the sky will be filled with double rainbows.

I think the first is considerably more likely than outright world peace (although still not particularly likely...).

And, my point was that permanent, true World Peace requires there to be no reason for people to even want to fight, and that requires both a post-scarcity society and a society in which no-one tries to control or harm others, and the second of those seems unlikely to ever arise. The best we're likely to ever get is a society with no large-scale conflicts (i.e. wars), and even that is exceptionally difficult to achieve.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 11, 2014, 03:04:03 AM
We would only dismantle nukes if we were absolutely sure the other side doesn't have any. We cannot make sure that it will happen, so every nation will keep them hidden somewhere else. It would only happen if other countries trusted each other completely, and you and I both know that this is ridiculously unlikely.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 03:25:11 AM
Well, yeah, it's unlikely to happen in anything remotely like the current world. I wouldn't say it will never happen, though. If nothing else, there will probably come a time when nukes are just obsolete.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 03:46:10 AM
The inability to do anything but see the negative possibilities makes further debate pointless. Believe what you want Umbra, I prefer to believe in the intelligence and good nature of people rather than believing people are selfish, evil or violent.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Arch-Magos Winter on June 11, 2014, 06:25:48 AM
The inability to do anything but see the negative possibilities makes further debate pointless. Believe what you want Umbra, I prefer to believe in the intelligence and good nature of people rather than believing people are selfish, evil or violent.
I like to believe it too until some asshole tries to brain me with a bottle of gin he's stealing because he fucking can.

People are selfish, greedy, and violent. It's in our nature to want more, want to keep things, and to hurt those that want to take away our things. It's called survival. Pacifism only works when there isn't a guy with a big stick around the corner about to kick the shit out of you.

Humanity will never escape violence, simply because violence is in our nature.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Alice on June 11, 2014, 07:06:48 AM
Quote from: Agent Kay, Men in Black
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
I think this about sums it up, really.

Reducing or even eliminating war is possible, if quite difficult (far more the latter than the former). Eliminating conflict altogether? Not only is that pretty much impossible, but it'd also be detrimental. Some things simply must be fought for, whether by words or via fists. If we don't fight to make things better, then they will never change.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 08:28:18 AM
Quote
Yeah Umbra, whatever dude. Humans should always reach further, the word impossible is an excuse when it comes to philosophy and technology.

Get down to Earth. There are things that are certain, like that the heat death of universe is foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 02:14:07 PM
The inability to do anything but see the negative possibilities makes further debate pointless. Believe what you want Umbra, I prefer to believe in the intelligence and good nature of people rather than believing people are selfish, evil or violent.

The problem is, Lantz, that it only takes one person to be selfish, evil or violent for there to be a potential for conflict. Sure, it's reasonable to assume that most people are intelligent and good-natured, but to assume that all people are intelligent and good-natured is a huge stretch, and one that is quite obviously not true just based on our own experiences (I would sure as hell not call CV "good-natured", for example).

Quote from: Agent Kay, Men in Black
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
I think this about sums it up, really.

Reducing or even eliminating war is possible, if quite difficult (far more the latter than the former). Eliminating conflict altogether? Not only is that pretty much impossible, but it'd also be detrimental. Some things simply must be fought for, whether by words or via fists. If we don't fight to make things better, then they will never change.

Pretty much impossible? Yeah. Detrimental? It depends how you do it.

If you eliminate conflict by eliminating the means to fight without removing the will to do so then, yeah, that would be bad, but if you can find a way to eliminate all the reasons why people want to fight then that's very definitely a good thing. Extremely implausible, sure, but definitely good.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 02:17:32 PM
Most people are selfish. People who are extremely altruistic are often also not right in the head (fictional example - Emiya). Being selfish and prioritising yourself and closest people over every single stranger is actually beneficial from the evolutionary standpoint if not done in extreme way.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 02:33:48 PM
Most people are selfish. People who are extremely altruistic are often also not right in the head (fictional example - Emiya).

Most people are selfish to an extent, but not as far as you and Arch seem to think.

Quote
Being selfish and prioritising yourself and closest people over every single stranger is actually beneficial from the evolutionary standpoint if not done in extreme way.

Not entirely. It is in principle advantageous on an individual level, but not necessarily in terms of the survival of your genes (although favouring those closest to you generally is). Hell, that basic principle is probably why we have evolved a concept of punishing people who do "bad" things, because doing so makes behaviour that is harmful to the species as a whole less beneficial to individuals.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 02:38:07 PM
I said in extreme way.

People still hire their relatives, prefer to spend money on their children over anonymous Ethiopian orphans unless they are filthy rich and want to boast and pay more attention to their families.

It must be so deeply ingrained that socialists here want to abolish state alimony fund so tax payers won't pay on strangers' children just because their mother or father evades paying money.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 03:10:41 PM
Anyone who says but after the statement I would like to believe is lying. One can believe in and work toward a goal without disassociating reality.

the effective reply here is movie quotes and lies. At least, I suppose, I understand the boundless rage I get attacked with. It certainly makes more sense now considering your answers here.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 03:15:06 PM
Who the heck quote movies here? As for me, I bring up legitimate arguments from the field of bology and psychology. Our brains are hardwired to help relatives first over strangers because we spend overwhelming majority of our history as species in close knit nomadic packs that competed over resources. Homo Sapiens Sapiens as species is 200000 years old, and our hominid ancestors exhibited similar behavior for millions of years. It takes another millions of years of changing the nature of species.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 03:22:34 PM
Quote
It depends on the nature of your job. Personally, I simply cannot focus on doing something for 8 hours straight, unless it is extremely interesting. All that ends up happening is that I get nothing done. But, at the same time, my job doesn't require me to do so. For one thing, I often have to wait for programs to compile, run etc., and I also don't really have any fixed time when I need to work, so my work is also flexible. It's not a lack of effort, it's simply that I work in a different way. I have at times done work at home when there was something I needed to run.

Ultimately, I do not have the same view of work as you do. I will try to make sure I get everything I need to get done done, but I am not going to rigidly adhere to an 9-to-5 schedule. You do not have to be self-employed to work flexibly.

My friend worked as a programmer in a machine tools factory during his internship and indeed there was time when nothing particular was expected of him, but you know, instead of procrastinating at Asian porn game forums (or metal music forums in his case) you can do things for self-improvement or socializing with other workers that are not doing currently anything.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 03:24:35 PM
Who the heck quote movies here? As for me, I bring up legitimate arguments from the field of bology and psychology. Our brains are hardwired to help relatives first over strangers because we spend overwhelming majority of our history as species in close knit nomadic packs that competed over resources. Homo Sapiens Sapiens as species is 200000 years old, and our hominid ancestors exhibited similar behavior for millions of years. It takes another millions of years of changing the nature of species.

Yeah, unfortunately your understanding of Biology is not as great as you are making out. We are, of course, hardwired to care more for our close relatives, but that doesn't mean we are not going to care for other people. Further, whilst we did evolve in certain ways, humans now have got to the point where our development has massively outpaced our ability to evolve, and our intelligence is sufficient to cause us to act in ways that aren't necessarily optimal in an evolutionary sense.

Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent. There's a reason we have animal rights campaigners, human rights campaigners and so on, and why many people actually support those things. Sure, we do have a bias towards people we know, but we're also pretty good at stretching the definition of "people we know" to an absurd extent.

Quote
It depends on the nature of your job. Personally, I simply cannot focus on doing something for 8 hours straight, unless it is extremely interesting. All that ends up happening is that I get nothing done. But, at the same time, my job doesn't require me to do so. For one thing, I often have to wait for programs to compile, run etc., and I also don't really have any fixed time when I need to work, so my work is also flexible. It's not a lack of effort, it's simply that I work in a different way. I have at times done work at home when there was something I needed to run.

Ultimately, I do not have the same view of work as you do. I will try to make sure I get everything I need to get done done, but I am not going to rigidly adhere to an 9-to-5 schedule. You do not have to be self-employed to work flexibly.

My friend worked as a programmer in a machine tools factory during his internship and indeed there was time when nothing particular was expected of him, but you know, instead of procrastinating at Asian porn game forums (or metal music forums in his case) you can do things for self-improvement or socializing with other workers that are not doing currently anything.

Yeah, well, I'm not "your friend". I will live my own life the way that I want to live my life. Plus, it's not just an "Asian porn game forum", it's one that I actually own, and I am not someone who can easily socialise with random people (plus, I work for a small company, we only have three or four people in the office most of the time, and I do talk to them when appropriate).

So, no, just because I don't fit into your narrow definition of how people should live, that doesn't mean how I act is wrong. Just like the fact that my sexual tastes do not fit with yours does not make them wrong. You have no damn right to tell me how I should and should not act, that is between me and the people who my actions are actually affecting (i.e. my boss and co-workers). If my boss is OK with the work I produce, then it is none of your damn business how I produce it.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 03:35:21 PM
Quote
Yeah, unfortunately your understanding of Biology is not as great as you are making out. We are, of course, hardwired to care more for our close relatives, but that doesn't mean we are not going to care for other people. Further, whilst we did evolve in certain ways, humans now have got to the point where our development has massively outpaced our ability to evolve, and our intelligence is sufficient to cause us to act in ways that aren't necessarily optimal in an evolutionary sense.

Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent. There's a reason we have animal rights campaigners, human rights campaigners and so on, and why many people actually support those things. Sure, we do have a bias towards people we know, but we're also pretty good at stretching the definition of "people we know" to an absurd extent.

People can afford to behave somewhat altruistically because we are not pressed to devote all we have into protecting our family and close relatives/associates. But during times of great need we would generally revert back to prioritising our families.

And yeah, unfortunately you keep forgetting I said being selfish is good when not in extreme way. Most humans are somewhat selfish.

Remember this all is happening in First World countries, generally. People in regions where you have to devote your most time on supporting family does not give a shit.

Good, I'm neither yours and I'm glad about that.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 03:44:54 PM
People can afford to behave somewhat altruistically because we are not pressed to devote all we have into protecting our family and close relatives/associates. But during times of great need we would generally revert back to prioritising our families.

Yeah, agreed. Hell, that's pretty much the entire crux of my argument about why society needs a social safety net in order to enforce property laws, because no person is going to let theirselves or their family starve just because theft is illegal (and nor do I think that they should).

Quote
And yeah, unfortunately you keep forgetting I said being selfish is good when not in extreme way. Most humans are somewhat selfish.

I think some level of selfishness is not a bad thing (protecting those you care for makes sense), but I think that being selfless is generally a good thing not a bad thing, unless taken to a real extreme and coupled with a lack of any limits (someone like MoS Shirou, for example).

Quote
Remember this all is happening in First World countries, generally. People in regions where you have to devote your most time on supporting family does not give a shit.

Yeah, and?

Quote
Good, I'm neither yours and I'm glad about that.

Yeah, I meant that in the sense of "I'm not that person", not "I don't like you", although the second is also true....
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Knick on June 11, 2014, 04:02:18 PM
Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent.

Quick note, evolution is not development of sociological concepts. Please for the love of god get your terms right.

Compassion is not at all a biological trait, it is a sociological construct which no other, non trained animal, with a social system has developed, because it is unnecessary for survival. 

Now back to reading more papers about spider genetics.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 11, 2014, 04:02:51 PM
Anyone who says but after the statement I would like to believe is lying. One can believe in and work toward a goal without disassociating reality.

the effective reply here is movie quotes and lies. At least, I suppose, I understand the boundless rage I get attacked with. It certainly makes more sense now considering your answers here.

Can someone explain what lantz is talking about?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 04:04:34 PM
Yeah, humans did evolve to compete over resources, but that doesn't mean we're not smart enough to realise that we have no need to do so, and humans did also evolve to be compassionate to a large extent.

Quick note, evolution is not development of sociological concepts. Please for the love of god get your terms right.

Compassion is not at all a biological trait, it is a sociological construct which no other, non trained animal, with a social system has developed ,because it is unnecessary for survival. 

Now back to reading more papers about spider genetics.

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 04:11:56 PM
Quote
Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

Compassion is what certain species of apes call a particular response of the nervous system, nature itself is blind to emotions. It does not even care, because there is no directed evolution. It just happened that our selfish ancestors survived over selfless ones because they were more efficient.

Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Knick on June 11, 2014, 04:16:27 PM
Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

You underestimate just how much society influences people. New born children to not innately feel compassion, they simply act on their base instincts, however it is quickly taught to them though observation and so they adopt it. It is the same with many things. New born children are the best examples of observing innate traits, the ability to learn, desire for survival, the preference of those closely related.

Now, you are an astrophysicist, if what you have said is true in the past and so I will trust you on matter that are related to such. But please do not act like you know to much about biology.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 04:19:19 PM
Well, Knick, Mike probably thinks he is more knowledgeable in the area of law than third year student of MA law studies (namely moi). Scratch that, he probably thinks he knows better than everyone. He was infamous for being Instant Wikipedia Expert back at BL.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 04:20:06 PM
Quote
Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

Compassion is what certain species of apes call a particular response of the nervous system, nature itself is blind to emotions. It does not even care, because there is no directed evolution.

Nature isn't "blind" to emotions, because emotions drive how we act, and how we act is obviously something that is susceptible to evolution. Obviously nature doesn't care what we call it, but compassion itself is an evolutionary adaptation to solve the problem that, ultimately, pure selfishness is a bad thing for any animal that lives in groups.

Quote
It just happened that our selfish ancestors survived over selfless ones because they were more efficient.

Except that, no, our selfish ancestors did not survive over selfless ones. Otherwise, we would not have any concept of altruism or compassion at all. Selfishness might be beneficial on an individual level, but on a group and species level selflessness is better. That is why we have developed not only compassion and altruism, but also a concept of morality and of punishing people who act selfishly against the interests of society as a whole. The first encourages us to be selfless, the second ensures that selfish individuals that are individually better-off but worse for society as a whole do not gain a selective advantage over more selfless people.

Compassion is definitely a "biological trait". It's something we feel innately. Who we feel it for is somewhat of a construct of society, but the existence of the feeling itself is not.

You underestimate just how much society influences people. New born children to not innately feel compassion, they simply act on their base instincts, however it is quickly taught to them though observation and so they adopt it. It is the same with many things. New born children are the best examples of observing innate traits, the ability to learn, desire for survival, the preference of those closely related.

Well, how exactly it is passed-on to children doesn't really matter, if it wasn't an evolutionary advantage then it would not be.

Quote
Now, you are an astrophysicist, if what you have said is true in the past and so I will trust you on matter that are related to such. But please do not act like you know to much about biology.

I am not an expert in Biology, but nor am I uneducated on the topic. I understand the basic principles of how evolution works, and I did study it to A-level (which is, I suspect, probably a similar level to about 1st-year degree level in the US), plus I read about things. And, one of my best friends is a biologist, so I do have discussions with him over it (and I do understand what he is talking about). So, yeah, I would say my understanding of biology is greater than the average person.

Well, Knick, Mike probably thinks he is more knowledgeable in the area of law than third year student of MA law studies (namely moi). Scratch that, he probably thinks he knows better than everyone. He was infamous for being Instant Wikipedia Expert back at BL.

I'm not sure exactly how studying law makes you qualified to comment on Biology....

And, no, I don't claim to be more knowledgeable in the area of law than you. I just don't care what the legal position on the matter is. The law is not morality, and nor does knowing where the law comes from make that law necessarily right.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 04:23:40 PM
Morality is not genetic, Mike. It is memetic. We are not born with instilled moral code as you can flexibly mould infant in that matter.

Quote
I'm not sure exactly how studying law makes you qualified to comment on Biology....

I read sources.

Haldane pointed out that the altruistic behavior could only survive if it helped survival of people related to our by genes, like for example saving a nephew drowning in a river even if it could cause death of the savior.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 04:26:26 PM
Morality is not genetic, Mike. It is memetic. We are not born with instilled moral code as you can flexibly mould infant in that matter.

Our actual moral code is not genetic, no, but the existence of morality itself is. We're born with the capacity to develop a concept of right and wrong, and a very loose concept of what exactly is "right" (i.e. "not harming others", in a broad sense). How we're educated affects the development of the details, but not the basic principle.

Quote
Quote
I'm not sure exactly how studying law makes you qualified to comment on Biology....

I read sources.

As do I....

Quote
Haldane pointed out that the altruistic behavior could only survive if it helped survival of people related to our by genes, like for example saving a nephew drowning in a river even if it could cause death of the savior.

Right, and everyone on the planet is related to you in some manner, so that is hardly much of a restriction....

Further, whilst that is the original reason for it evolving, that is simply the cause of the base emotion, not necessarily an explanation for everything we do in response to it. As has been pointed out several times, the way we interpret that emotion and what causes it is also somewhat determined by society, particularly in situations where evolutionary pressures are lesser (i.e. in richer countries).
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Knick on June 11, 2014, 04:30:06 PM
If you understand what evolution is, then please give a definition. It would be a good way to see if you actually know what it is.

Also Kat, I am a senior biology major, I have gone to more biological seminars and read more papers then probably all of you. This is not Wikipedia knowledge. Although Wikipedia is a good way to find articles and direct sources it is not where I am pulling this from.

Also morality is completely a social construct. There is nothing to imply it is a biological trait. The ability to determine right and wrong comes from human's reliance on a social system to function. One who does not have a social system, such as wild people, will not have any definition of those terms or way to distinguish it as a concept.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 04:34:22 PM
Quote
As do I....

It depends what sources you read. If you tell me it's from Wikipedia, I'll roll on the floor laughing.

Quote
Our actual moral code is not genetic, no, but the existence of morality itself is. We're born with the capacity to develop a concept of right and wrong, and a very loose concept of what exactly is "right" (i.e. "not harming others", in a broad sense). How we're educated affects the development of the details, but not the basic principle.

There is no basic idea of good and evil ingrained in our genes, because morality is ultimately subjective. People develop morality because they tend to copy behavior of others, there is nothing particular in that mechanism that leads you specifically to developing morality.

Knick, never said you are using Wikipedia knowledge. Myself, I ignored Wikipedia completely, and just looked for sociobiologists who wrote papers on evolution of altruistic behaviors.

I very RARELY visit Wikipedia. I'm used to reading books, online or paper.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 11, 2014, 04:50:38 PM
Anyone who says but after the statement I would like to believe is lying. One can believe in and work toward a goal without disassociating reality.

the effective reply here is movie quotes and lies. At least, I suppose, I understand the boundless rage I get attacked with. It certainly makes more sense now considering your answers here.

Can someone explain what lantz is talking about?

pls
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 04:54:38 PM
By the way, I'm surely that I'm still more than qualified to talk about biology since as a linguist I need to keep up with latest advancements in neuroscience and behavioral studies, as linguistics is a crossdisciplinary field.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 05:03:39 PM
Not sure which part you are asking about Umbra.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Umbra of Chaos on June 11, 2014, 05:07:12 PM
Where you're talking about movie quotes and lies. What do you mean by that?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 05:45:49 PM
Alice was quoting Men in Black. As for the lies bit, a belief is something you have or don't. The statement I believe in X is made into a lie by adding but. Acknowledging reality such as it stands is one thing but to discard your belief immediately because the current world cannot accept or bend to hearing the idea is disingenuous at best.

I grew up watching stuff like star trek, hope is an intrinsic part of what I believe in and the sheer lack of hope shown here disgusts me. You're free to believe what you want but if these truths presented here are yours in earnest then I find that the critical behavior on either side is fundamentally flawed.

I've been through depression, I know what it's like to only see the bad but that is also why I don't tolerate that attitude. Not in life and not in my writing either fan fiction or original work.

with such an attitude prevalent I find that any critical assessment of the fan work I do to be pointless. The philosophy is fundamentally different and therefore nothing of worth can be gleaned from such criticism.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 05:49:58 PM
Ironically, one of Star Trek episodes clearly shown that without inner evil humans are not humans. When Kirk was robbed of his evil self in a freak accident he was pure good but inept and incapable to act under pressure.

You probably think Star Trek is all rainbows and sunshine which is a very superficial belief.

Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 05:57:00 PM
I grew up watching stuff like star trek, hope is an intrinsic part of what I believe in and the sheer lack of hope shown here disgusts me. You're free to believe what you want but if these truths presented here are yours in earnest then I find that the critical behavior on either side is fundamentally flawed.

But, Star Trek still has conflict. It still has fighting and wars, and bad things do happen. Yes, the Federation is generally a good place to be, but it is sure as hell not perfect.

Ironically, one of Star Trek episodes clearly shown that without inner evil humans are not humans. When Kirk was robbed of his evil self in a freak accident he was pure good but inept and incapable to act under pressure.

You probably think Star Trek is all rainbows and sunshine which is a very superficial belief.

Star Trek is generally a very Utopian vision of the world. It's a post-scarcity society with little crime and technology that means that people can live far better lives (in general) than we have now. It is probably close to the best that humans are ever likely to achieve (I don't think there's anything in there that is fundamentally impossible).

But, even so, it is not a perfect society, and it is sure as hell not an entirely peaceful one. The Enterprise has weapons for a reason.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 05:57:49 PM
You are assuming Kat, you are wrong.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 06:29:03 PM
Quote
Star Trek is generally a very Utopian vision of the world. It's a post-scarcity society with little crime and technology that means that people can live far better lives (in general) than we have now.

That's debatable. Earth, probably, but frontier colonies have it hard, as well as there is still currency in use in some parts. What is thought provoking thought that before reaching that level of relative prosperity the verse went through series of cataclysmic conflicts which implies the road was not bloodless.

No, I'm using deduction, lantz.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 06:34:15 PM

Quote
Star Trek is generally a very Utopian vision of the world. It's a post-scarcity society with little crime and technology that means that people can live far better lives (in general) than we have now.

That's debatable. Earth, probably, but frontier colonies have it hard, as well as there is still currency in use in some parts.

No, I'm using deduction, lantz.

Like I said, it's not perfect, but the original Star Trek in particular does have a very Utopian view of the Federation (later spin-offs are much less so). There is still currency in use, yes, because some things are inherently rare, but it's pretty clear that the average person in the Federation has little or no need for money.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 06:36:44 PM
You are assuming Kat, you are wrong.

No, he's actually remembering the episode he's talking about, unlike you.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 06:37:37 PM
You are wrong Kat. I do not think as you believe I do.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 06:38:58 PM
You think? This is news to me.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 06:40:05 PM
Quote
Like I said, it's not perfect, but the original Star Trek in particular does have a very Utopian view of the Federation (later spin-offs are much less so). There is still currency in use, yes, because some things are inherently rare, but it's pretty clear that the average person in the Federation has little or no need for money.

A janitor still leads different life than an officer.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 06:44:37 PM
Quote
Like I said, it's not perfect, but the original Star Trek in particular does have a very Utopian view of the Federation (later spin-offs are much less so). There is still currency in use, yes, because some things are inherently rare, but it's pretty clear that the average person in the Federation has little or no need for money.

A janitor still leads different life than an officer.

I somewhat doubt they even have janitors. I also assume that there is no need for people to work, since just about everything is provided for them.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on June 11, 2014, 07:27:55 PM
Alice quoted the movie Lantz because it illustrated the point eloquently. And who are you to point fingers at people?, you have admitted to following entire fictional character's beliefs and in that very paragraph you just noted how your philosophy is heavily infuenced by fiction. Do you even know the definition of hypocrite? I suggest you look in a mirror if it eludes you.

Lantz you have been through depression yeah that's sad and all, you're not the only one who went through that. It isn't a get out of logic free card. Then again I assume you also ascribe to "ignorance is bliss". Idealism is a nice thing but that means nothing in a practical sense.

Also you ascribe to the idea that hope is a good thing. While it can make you reach forward and push boundaries (needs a lot ambition with that in order for it to work, to be honest) there is a darker side to it. Take for example the story of Pandora's Box. You ever wonder why hope was there inside a box with all of the evils ever? That's because in the original myth the Greeks actually viewed hope as the last and greatest evil. Hope can extend any suffering and in the right amounts bring in any naivety.

Also if you write in the Nasuverse Lantz you should be used to a certain amount of bleakness. The best situation for Shirou when it comes to his ideal for example is "Well it sucks to slaughter and kill people for the greater good and I'll go through a lot of torment doing it but damn it it is worth it and I'm not wrong"
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 07:32:08 PM
Also you ascribe to the idea that hope is a good thing. While it can make you reach forward and push boundaries (needs a lot ambition with that in order for it to work, to be honest) there is a darker side to it. Take for example the story of Pandora's Box. You ever wonder why hope was there inside a box with all of the evils ever? That's because in the original myth the Greeks actually viewed hope as the last and greatest evil. Hope can extend any suffering and in the right amounts bring in any naivety.

Sorry, but I disagree totally with this last bit. Yeah, hope can cause you to suffer when you otherwise would not, but the lack of hope is worse. At least hope gives you the ability to believe things might get better, and the will to fight for that.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 07:35:18 PM
What you do and do not agree with does not have anything to do with what the Greeks felt. And it's like you can just call it some crazy religious idea like Sharia or circumcision of women; The Greeks were pretty fucking smart.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 07:39:31 PM
What you do and do not agree with does not have anything to do with what the Greeks felt. And it's like you can just call it some crazy religious idea like Sharia or circumcision of women; The Greeks were pretty fucking smart.

Well, I'm not particularly convinced of that interpretation of the myth anyway (I always got it as "hope was the one good thing in the box"), but even if it is true, just because the people who wrote and told the Greek Myths thought it was true, it doesn't mean it was. The Greeks were pretty educated and intellectual, yeah, but they weren't always right. And nor were they smarter or better-educated than modern people. We just view them as intellectuals because they were way ahead of other civilisations from the same period.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 07:42:42 PM
Greeks made a lot of fancy stuff and were at least pretty reasonable, but calling them far ahead of their time is an insult to India, Arabia and China (at least until that one tosser burned all their history).
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 07:48:04 PM
Greeks made a lot of fancy stuff and were at least pretty reasonable, but calling them far ahead of their time is an insult to India, Arabia and China (at least until that one tosser burned all their history).

Well, I'm not sure about China or India, but Arabia didn't come about until a long time after (you might, however, mean Persia...). Plus, neither China nor India had any significant contact with the Ancient Greeks, so comparing them is kind-of irrelevant. And, whilst I think Persia was reasonably advanced, I think that Greece was some way ahead in terms of philosophy, science and general intellectualism.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 07:50:27 PM
You clearly don't understand the point Grey, I suggest you cease trying because you've managed to be nothing but offensive with your assumptions.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on June 11, 2014, 07:52:52 PM
Please explain the point to me and how offensive I am being?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 07:55:41 PM
Well, I'm not sure about China or India, but Arabia didn't come about until a long time after (you might, however, mean Persia...). Plus, neither China nor India had any significant contact with the Ancient Greeks, so comparing them is kind-of irrelevant. And, whilst I think Persia was reasonably advanced, I think that Greece was some way ahead in terms of philosophy, science and general intellectualism.

Greece was but an infant in it's cradle in terms of philosophy and religious philosophy in comparison to India. And you of all people should know that ancient India are some of the first (if not the first) to invent astronomy.

You clearly don't understand the point Grey, I suggest you cease trying because you've managed to be nothing but offensive with your assumptions.

Lantz Gray is asking you a question regarded your ridiculous hypocrisy, lies and repeated assumptions about stuff, at least dignify it with an answer.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 07:57:09 PM
Greeks were not even in the picture when India enjoyed advanced and refined civilisation.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 07:58:37 PM
Well, I'm not sure about China or India, but Arabia didn't come about until a long time after (you might, however, mean Persia...). Plus, neither China nor India had any significant contact with the Ancient Greeks, so comparing them is kind-of irrelevant. And, whilst I think Persia was reasonably advanced, I think that Greece was some way ahead in terms of philosophy, science and general intellectualism.

Greece was but an infant in it's cradle in terms of philosophy and religious philosophy in comparison to India. And you of all people should know that ancient India are some of the first (if not the first) to invent astronomy.

Honestly, my knowledge of ancient Indian history is basically zero (and I think that's a pretty common situation in the West in general). I was mostly comparing the Ancient Greeks to the other civilisations around them and with which they had significant contact.

Quote
Lantz Gray is asking you a question regarded your ridiculous hypocrisy, lies and repeated assumptions about stuff, at least dignify it with an answer.

Right, yeah, because comments like this are totally going to get him to answer....
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 08:02:52 PM
Lantz dismisses Alice's movie quote like it's complete hogwash despite spouting on dozens of occasions that his mindset and morality are copypasted from stuff like Star Trek. That's example one of his hypocrisy on just this last page. Then he goes on to say "lolnousuck" when Kat brings up the episode of Star Trek that literally spells out "without negative traits that are harmful to others, humans aren't humans". That's example #2

Gray is asking for clarification. So am I.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 08:06:43 PM
Lantz dismisses Alice's movie quote like it's complete hogwash despite spouting on dozens of occasions that his mindset and morality are copypasted from stuff like Star Trek. That
's example one of his hypocrisy on just this last page.

Well, I'm not honestly sure what he meant.

But, yeah, just because a quote came from a movie, it doesn't mean it's automatically invalid. Alice was just using a movie quote to state an opinion that she thought the quote illustrated well. It's no different from someone quoting 1984 or Animal Farm (which I'm pretty sure is not uncommon).

Quote
Then he goes on to say "lolnousuck" when Kat brings up the episode of Star Trek that literally spells out "without negative traits that are harmful to others, humans aren't humans". That's example #2

I'm not sure that is necessarily contradictory with idealism.

Quote
Gray is asking for clarification. So am I.

Sure, clarification would be good. Asking for it like that, however, is not.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 08:15:29 PM
Until I see some manners exercised I'm not answering thing one.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Alice on June 11, 2014, 08:17:13 PM
Considering that you may well have intended to insult me again and discount the worth of my opinion, I would answer if I were you...
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 08:18:47 PM
Until I see some manners exercised I'm not answering thing one.

Lantz, treat others as you would like to be treated. As in, I'll have absolutely no respect for you because you don't respect anyone but your gayboy berserker Mike. You wouldn't know what manners were if I violently inserted them into your face with my fist.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on June 11, 2014, 08:21:25 PM
I believe that I was justified in pointing out the hypocrisy. Please just answer what was your point and give me specifics on how I offended you.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 08:24:00 PM
Lantz, whilst Brah is being a complete dick about this, Gray does have a valid point. I'm honestly not entirely sure what you meant with a lot of this stuff.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 08:25:29 PM
There's a difference between karma and being a complete dick. I'm given lantz what he has built for himself for months.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 08:26:59 PM
There's a difference between karma and being a complete dick. I'm given lantz what he has built for himself for months.

Then don't complain when he responds to your attitude in a similarly-negative manner. If you want to actually get a response rather than to just be an ass, then be polite about it.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 08:27:43 PM
Perhaps Mike, but Alice just kinda threatened me last page, so I'm not answering out of principle.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Brahmastra on June 11, 2014, 08:28:57 PM
There's a difference between karma and being a complete dick. I'm given lantz what he has built for himself for months.

Then don't complain when he responds to your attitude in a similarly-negative manner. If you want to actually get a response rather than to just be an ass, then be polite about it.

Mike I don't actually give a shit if he responds to me in a negative manner. What I demand is a response to begin with.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Alice on June 11, 2014, 08:43:18 PM
lantz. It was not intended as a threat, merely I was being intimidating because you insulted me, and wanted an answer. But you know what? Fine.

Consider this. You're pretty much one step away from a warning at this point. That's how angry I am about this. I would take that seriously if I were you, instead of just continuing to treat me this way.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 11, 2014, 08:47:08 PM
Hmm, certainly it's inconsistent to be against movie quotes while claiming to follow a comic book character's political leanings. Just saying, it's inconsistent.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Gray on June 11, 2014, 08:58:37 PM
Okay Lantz. Alice just explained that what she said wasn't a threat but can I at least try to understand this piece.
Even if it was a threat and you were right from my perspective it seems like you want to refuse out of principle because a moderator threatened to moderate you since you were refusing to be cooperative. That doesn't make any sense Lantz.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 09:37:48 PM
Once again Gray you missed basically everything going on.

in any case. In order to be a hypocrite I'd have had to imply it was wrong in some way and then do it myself. I did not, I am therefore not a hypocrite. There's a difference in not liking or ignoring an approach and stating it is wrong. I hate movie quotes and disregard them because they are a cheap away of putting up an argument (See kill bill volume two and superman therein) and are often accompanied by straw arguments or no argument at at.

however in this context I mostly ignored Alice's post due to recent history, not the movie quote itself.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 09:40:55 PM
But, Lantz, in another thread you used a comic book as a basis for your political beliefs. I'm not sure how that is not the same (in concept) as using movie quotes to back up an argument, if not worse. Plus, sometimes people do say sensible things in movies....
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Puck-Chan on June 11, 2014, 09:42:00 PM
But, Lantz, in another thread you used a comic book as a basis for your political beliefs. I'm not sure how that is not the same (in concept) as using movie quotes to back up an argument, if not worse. Plus, sometimes people do say sensible things in movies....

Even your buttboy agrees you're being a hypocrite, Lantz.  :P
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 11, 2014, 09:53:57 PM
The difference being that I explained what those beliefs were and didn't try to claim them as realistic. My example of movie quotes is one that in particular proves my point about them being unreliable at best and an utter pile of garbage at worst.

I actually went on to accurately explain the belief rather than just saying I believe this and never replying. Again movie quotes are often never backed up to begin with. There's the difference.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 09:57:17 PM
The difference being that I explained what those beliefs were and didn't try to claim them as realistic.

Erm, you were acting like you thought they were realistic, and that you genuinely wanted them to happen....

Quote
My example of movie quotes is one that in particular proves my point about them being unreliable at best and an utter pile of garbage at worst.

One bad quote doesn't make all quotes bad....

Quote
I actually went on to accurately explain the belief rather than just saying I believe this and never replying. Again movie quotes are often never backed up to begin with. There's the difference.

Well, we kind-of never got to the "explain the belief" stage because all of this exploded....

And, the movie quote was just illustrating how she felt. It doesn't make it any less of an expression of an opinion just because someone else said it first.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Puck-Chan on June 11, 2014, 09:59:02 PM
The difference being that I explained what those beliefs were and didn't try to claim them as realistic. My example of movie quotes is one that in particular proves my point about them being unreliable at best and an utter pile of garbage at worst.

I actually went on to accurately explain the belief rather than just saying I believe this and never replying. Again movie quotes are often never backed up to begin with. There's the difference.

Only point it proves is that you still reek of hypocrisy~
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Arch-Magos Winter on June 11, 2014, 10:42:53 PM
The difference being that I explained what those beliefs were and didn't try to claim them as realistic. My example of movie quotes is one that in particular proves my point about them being unreliable at best and an utter pile of garbage at worst.

I actually went on to accurately explain the belief rather than just saying I believe this and never replying. Again movie quotes are often never backed up to begin with. There's the difference.
See, the difference is that they're not taking the example of philosophy from a movie quote, they're using it as a way to sum up their argument. Plus, movies can be as philosophical as comic books.

Even Star Trek points out that conflict is good - conflict is what drives people to do things. Man Vs Man, Man Vs Nature, Man vs Self. Pure good is just as bad as pure evil, because pure good is stagnation and lack of desire to advance. See, perfection is a horrible thing, as it prevents any attempt to beat perfection - your perfect isn't everyone elses perfect.

For that matter, you even acknowledging your belief's aren't even realistic proves that they're horrible, horrible beliefs to have. Sure you can think people are intrinsically good - but if that prevents you from acknowledging that people act selfishly and like assholes and that'll fuck shit up (Like you do), it's a horrible belief to have.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 11, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Even Star Trek points out that conflict is good - conflict is what drives people to do things. Man Vs Man, Man Vs Nature, Man vs Self. Pure good is just as bad as pure evil, because pure good is stagnation and lack of desire to advance. See, perfection is a horrible thing, as it prevents any attempt to beat perfection - your perfect isn't everyone elses perfect.

It's not that "pure good" is bad, it's that the unwillingness to fight for something is bad. I'm not sure that we can even define what "pure good" is well enough to say that it's bad.

Still, whilst I don't think perfection is bad, claiming "my system is perfect and no-one is allowed to challenge it" is definitely bad. Like you say, not everyone is going to agree what "perfect" is.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 12, 2014, 12:26:47 AM
No, I want the result, I concede that the methodology of his ideas leads to undue suffering however given the current world it is the most likely avenue to the overall utopia presented. If possible avoiding suffering is always the proper way to get to a goal.

as I said I avoid her posts period, the movie quote thing was just another reason to do so. Ever since Kill Bill volume 2 I've never seen a well constructed argument using a movie quote.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Cherry Lover on June 12, 2014, 12:31:53 AM
No, I want the result, I concede that the methodology of his ideas leads to undue suffering however given the current world it is the most likely avenue to the overall utopia presented. If possible avoiding suffering is always the proper way to get to a goal.

The problem is that his methodology does not actually work in reality. If you try it in the real world, what you ultimately get is the USSR, Cuba or, worse, North Korea. Plus, even if it did work, you're ignoring the effect on the people who oppose it, which would undoubtedly include people like me. The reasoning here seems to be much like what I can tell of the reasoning of the Harways in Extra. Sure, the world they ultimately create will generally not be too bad a place to live (provided you don't like freedom...), but they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with killing billions of people to achieve it.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 12, 2014, 12:57:03 AM
True Mike, it doesn't take into account our world's state. Mainly because that world has super science and magic evident. Fact is no one philosophy works due to religion and cultural politics. Hence why I support the ideal, not the method.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 12, 2014, 09:53:21 AM
Quote
as I said I avoid her posts period, the movie quote thing was just another reason to do so. Ever since Kill Bill volume 2 I've never seen a well constructed argument using a movie quote.

Watch movies then, since Kill Bill is an old news. Even better if you watch some of those experimental European movies
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 12, 2014, 05:04:18 PM
Watching movies doesn't solve the issue. The issue is the lack after someone quotes a movie.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 12, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
In English, please, because the second sentence is quite incomprehensible.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 12, 2014, 05:22:46 PM
Not as long as you mock me.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 12, 2014, 05:27:39 PM
I'm a linguist, so I notice when sentences are not much readable.

Quote
The issue is the lack after someone quotes a movie.

The lack of what?
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: lantzblades on June 12, 2014, 05:34:49 PM
Why you notice is unimportant. I have been clear about my grammar issues. Mocking someone for something beyond their control is cruel and despicable. This is the exact reason I do not listen to you Arch or Brah. You want answers then learn to ask respectfully.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Puck-Chan on June 12, 2014, 05:37:17 PM
Why you notice is unimportant. I have been clear about my grammar issues. Mocking someone for something beyond their control is cruel and despicable. This is the exact reason I do not listen to you Arch or Brah. You want answers then learn to ask respectfully.

lmao, he wasn't even making fun of you here. Even I couldn't even understand your sentence. And again, the lack of "what"? You never made that clear.
Title: Re: Debate Everything
Post by: Kat on June 12, 2014, 05:40:57 PM
We literally don't understand that sentence.