 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> OTOH, some of those people *are* greedy bastards who only think about
> themselves and would sell their own grandmother if it was legal and there
> was enough profit involved.
That's true. On the other hand, environmentalists often don't have too
much trouble making people starve or die of disease to protect the
wildlife or the mosquitoes. And I'm always amused at the "pro-life"
folks willing to murder people to save a fetus.
I think you'll get nasty selfish people everywhere. They're still people.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > OTOH, some of those people *are* greedy bastards who only think about
> > themselves and would sell their own grandmother if it was legal and there
> > was enough profit involved.
> That's true. On the other hand, environmentalists often don't have too
> much trouble making people starve or die of disease to protect the
> wildlife or the mosquitoes. And I'm always amused at the "pro-life"
> folks willing to murder people to save a fetus.
> I think you'll get nasty selfish people everywhere. They're still people.
The problem is not really your ideology, but how extremist you are.
No matter what the ideology, if you take to an extreme, bad things will
happen.
Most ideologies have a root of rationality to them. Almost every
idology started from a good and right idea. However, when taken to
an extreme, when the ideology becomes an obsession, when the people
supporting that ideology start believing it's the *only* correct
solution to every problem, that's when things start going bad.
I have always wondered why humanity likes extremes so much. The
typical story goes like this: First someone gets an idea, good or
not, which gets widely popular, and at some point the ideology is
taken to a far extreme, causing irreparable damage. Later humanity
as a whole starts realizing the damage it caused and then try to
fix it by going to the other extreme. The problem is that it's, once
again, an extreme, and they just end up doing as much damage as the
original problem did.
Another common problem seems to be that people always need someone
to hate, someone to blame, someone to be accused of all the problems,
someone to be recipient of their extremist hatred. During the entire
history there has always been a group of people, often chosen quite
randomly, which has got its turn in being this scapegoat and receiver
of all the hatred. Sometimes the group of people is completely innocent
and the hatred completely unjust and prejudiced, sometimes the group
of people is not completely innocent, but their crimes are hugely
exaggerated through fear-mongering.
Sometimes some people would like to do something about it and try
to push the "can't we just all get along" ideology. The hippie movement
is a very good example of this. Sadly, even the hippie movement can be
and has been taken to an extreme, with all the negative repercussions.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why humanity likes extremes so much.
I guess because seeing the world in black and white is easier than
reasoning about shades of grey? It's the only reason I can think of...
> Another common problem seems to be that people always need someone
> to hate, someone to blame, someone to be accused of all the problems.
I read somewhere that a scientific study showed that amoung American
social groups, there was a need for a "deviant". I forget the exact
experiment, but they found that no matter which way they put a bunch of
kids into social groups, eventually one or maybe some small number of
the kids would be singled out as "the deviant", and thereafter harrassed
and bullied. Change the social groups and the person who's the deviant
changes, but there still *is* a deviant.
The study was done in America. I forget where I read all this, but the
study made subtle hints that similar results were not found in
non-Western societies.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Another common problem seems to be that people always need someone
> > to hate, someone to blame, someone to be accused of all the problems.
> I read somewhere that a scientific study showed that amoung American
> social groups, there was a need for a "deviant". I forget the exact
> experiment, but they found that no matter which way they put a bunch of
> kids into social groups, eventually one or maybe some small number of
> the kids would be singled out as "the deviant", and thereafter harrassed
> and bullied. Change the social groups and the person who's the deviant
> changes, but there still *is* a deviant.
I'm suspecting there's something inherent in human DNA which causes this.
(Of course exceptions exist. They always exist. But they are very rare in
this case.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I read somewhere that a scientific study showed that amoung American
>> social groups, there was a need for a "deviant". I forget the exact
>> experiment, but they found that no matter which way they put a bunch of
>> kids into social groups, eventually one or maybe some small number of
>> the kids would be singled out as "the deviant", and thereafter harrassed
>> and bullied. Change the social groups and the person who's the deviant
>> changes, but there still *is* a deviant.
>
> I'm suspecting there's something inherent in human DNA which causes this.
> (Of course exceptions exist. They always exist. But they are very rare in
> this case.)
The subtle hinting that this phenominon doesn't occur in some other
places [though it didn't specify WHERE] suggests that this might be
learned rather than innate. But I could be very wrong...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The problem is not really your ideology, but how extremist you are.
> No matter what the ideology, if you take to an extreme, bad things will
> happen.
I think we're in violent agreement here. :-)
> supporting that ideology start believing it's the *only* correct
> solution to every problem, that's when things start going bad.
That's one of the problems with monotheism. When your god is the *only*
god, you *obviously* have to do something to fix all the unbelievers.
When your gods are the Greek gods, and their gods are the Roman gods,
well, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
> I have always wondered why humanity likes extremes so much.
Probably survival instincts. Maybe only one out of 20 snakes is
poisonous. But if you react badly to all of them, you do far less damage
to yourself than guessing wrong one out of 20 times.
> Another common problem seems to be that people always need someone
> to hate, someone to blame, someone to be accused of all the problems,
> someone to be recipient of their extremist hatred. During the entire
> history there has always been a group of people, often chosen quite
> randomly, which has got its turn in being this scapegoat and receiver
> of all the hatred. Sometimes the group of people is completely innocent
> and the hatred completely unjust and prejudiced, sometimes the group
> of people is not completely innocent, but their crimes are hugely
> exaggerated through fear-mongering.
Possibly. Certainly moreso in recent history when communication is fast
and spreads more widely. I'm trying to figure out who the (say) Greeks
or Romans hated. I'm wondering if slavery (not based on racial
characteristics, perhaps) takes the edge off such. Or if living in a
dangerous brutal world (say, aboriginies of various stripes) reduces it.
And of course, even in peacetime, people are afraid of demons, evil
spirits, stuff like that. I suspect that's the same sort of thing, to
some extent.
> Sometimes some people would like to do something about it and try
> to push the "can't we just all get along" ideology. The hippie movement
> is a very good example of this. Sadly, even the hippie movement can be
> and has been taken to an extreme, with all the negative repercussions.
Again, part of it may be that if you're trying to get along with me, and
I'm trying to take advantage of you, I'm more likely to win.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > supporting that ideology start believing it's the *only* correct
> > solution to every problem, that's when things start going bad.
> That's one of the problems with monotheism. When your god is the *only*
> god, you *obviously* have to do something to fix all the unbelievers.
Somehow I knew you would convert this into a discussion about religion
(something I really didn't want to do, as I was talking in a more general
manner about human nature, independently of indivudal ideologies), but
I'm going to pass on that troll this time, sorry. I'll let others take
that bait if they want.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Somehow I knew you would convert this into a discussion about religion
Hmmm... Pull one line out of a whole post, and call it a troll? Very good.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:25:41 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> > supporting that ideology start believing it's the *only* correct
>> > solution to every problem, that's when things start going bad.
>
>> That's one of the problems with monotheism. When your god is the *only*
>> god, you *obviously* have to do something to fix all the unbelievers.
>
> Somehow I knew you would convert this into a discussion about religion
> (something I really didn't want to do, as I was talking in a more
> general manner about human nature, independently of indivudal
> ideologies),
Well, it seems to me that this is one of the most common applications of
applying a single "good vs. evil" ideology to the world. It's really
easy to follow a religion (I'd go that far rather than just limiting it
to monotheism, myself) if the boundaries between good and evil are really
clear cut with no room for "shades of grey".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, it seems to me that this is one of the most common applications of
> applying a single "good vs. evil" ideology to the world.
I'm also amused that he quoted the monotheism sentence as an attack on
religion, rather than the Greek gods, the demons and spirits, or other
religion-based bits. I was actually thinking at least as much the modern
Chinese government banning Christianity as well as Fallun Gong (sp?) as
an "other" kind of thing as I was the Spanish conquistadors.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
