 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.
I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here.
You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as
somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
In this case "rational" is more of a synonym from "greedy" of "selfish"
(only less of a loaded term), which seems to be the most natural way of
interpreting his use of the word.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2009 7:28 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote in message
> news:49fa9ae4$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> If a species has been dying out for several hundred years, and we're
>> here to witness the end, it's one thing.
>>
>> If a flourishing species suddenly drops dead one day, that's completely
>> different.
>
> Why?
Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that
quickly.
I'm not saying we're the cause, I'm only saying that these extinctions
are different (which they are - at least, the timescale is different).
And, if the events now are different in some fundamental way from the
events of the past, we should pay attention to them. If we don't, we
risk be surprised by our own, sudden, extinction event.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2009 7:29 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>
> Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
> nothing to break.
Simply put, continued existence of as many species as possible.
While ego would dictate that I am more important than You,
philosophically I've progressed beyond that. I'm currently at the point
(consciously, if not unconsciously yet) where I value your life the same
as my own, for the simple reason that, according to chance, your life
could have been mine and vice versa.
Put another way, from an outside perspective there is no difference
between one human and another. Both lives are equally valid, therefore
both are equally important.
Taken even further, there is no difference between one form of life and
another. All are equally valid expressions of their own fate.
Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
kinds of life, here.
Since I recognize that I cannot preserve all specimens, I think the best
course of action would be to preserve as many unique types of life as
possible. Given that preservation is my goal, sustainability is a key
part of that.
Note that, in this case, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an idealist.
I'm perfectly willing to eat meat, and eliminate certain wildlife from
urban areas, et cetera.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2009 1:51 PM, Warp wrote:
> (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> Maybe nihilism?)
I think so. It's certainly pessimistic enough.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2009 7:31 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:49fa99fe$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 8:58 PM, somebody wrote:
>
>>> Besides, consistency is not a virtue.
>> ?
>>
>> It isn't?
>
> No. Would you like to be consistently wrong, for instance?
Assuming I have the ability to learn, than yes I would. Inconsistency
would result in sheer random chaos. Consistency, even if inaccurate,
puts a measure of control on it.
Once consistency has been achieved, in other words we are in control of
our own selves, then I would suggest that we set to work ironing out the
wrinkles, and correcting are faulty logic. This would be impossible
without consistency.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbb6fa$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Not quite. But let me ask you this: What philosophical school of thought
> > would you say that the average Joe on the street belongs to?
> Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> espoused by the state. Other than that, probably apathy,
I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".
I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
akin to ethical objectivism. Since you bothered to post at all, and
admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
"chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
>> but some might not consider that a "school of thought".
>
> I cannot say I blame them. Reality is too dull for philosophizing.
I'm tempted to make exactly the opposite claim, but I suppose dullness
is in the eye of the beholder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:49fbb052$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> >> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> >> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> >> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> >> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
> >>
> >> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think
he
> >> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him.
> >
> > I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the
> > self". As in "jumping from a plane without a chute is irrational", or
> And how do you suddenly declare that being concerned about the universe
> a few hundred years from now is "not benefiting the self".
You got me there, if I'm reading you right. It can of course benefit someone
if the act/thought of being concerned about the universe a few hundered
years from now makes the person warm and fuzzy inside. Homeopathy, to
incorporate another recent thread, benefits the individual if that
individual is under the illusion that it works. But if the cat is out the
bag, it stops working, and you cannot will the cat back in. I can no more
pretend that caring about the state of the universe hundered years from now
can make me feel good inside, and more than I can pretend that homeopathy
can cure my ailments. If caring about supernatural (universe in 200 years)
makes you feel good, more power to you. But that's as irrational to me as
(correct my assumption here if wrong) homeopathy is to you.
Similarly, I'm quite convinced that believing in various gods makes people
happy, and even successful. However, I still call them irrational, for their
belief is not based on the rational realization (*) that the benefit of
beliveing in god(s) is feeling good. It's a catch 22. You cannot belive in
god for rational reasons and still feel good, for the moment you realize
those reasons, the magic, that is, the reality of god, disappears. Placebo
doesn't work if you know it's saline solution.
> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
> definition) for others.
I have only my definition to judge others by. Pretending to use any other
definition would be dishonest.
(*) There are those who, out of rational reasons, *pretend* to belive in
god(s). "Belief" and "pretend belief" are very different, of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
> akin to ethical objectivism. Since you bothered to post at all, and
> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism. Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
>
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.
I'm not sure I catch your point. Are you arguing that others should be
apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
> > my case.
> I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god
> fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and
> desperados. But it is a reasonable position.
I honestly can't see the connection between wealth and this kind of
thinking. On the contrary, most rich people are worried what is going to
happen to their wealth and their family after they die. That's why most
of them have very specific testaments.
> > (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
> > Maybe nihilism?)
> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in
> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)
For as long as I remember the word "capitalism" has had a negative
connotation to it. And I have lived in more than one different culture.
When people say "capitalism" the only thing they think is the multinational
megacorporations abusing poor countries because of their cheap workforce.
However, that's only a very small side-effect of what encompasses
capitalism. That's like saying that the western schooling system is
completely corrupt because there have been cases of school shootings.
As far as I can see, capitalism seems to be the model of economy which
works the best, especially in countries where there's a rational government
controlling it. Common aspects of capitalistic countries include things
like freedom, human rights, social security and all kinds of public services.
One thing which seems to be relatively common in non-capitalistic
countries is the lack of freedom of its people. It seems relatively common
that in non-capitalistic countries people are opressed and basically forced
to submit.
Capitalism might not be perfect, but as far as I can see, from all the
possibilities it seems to work best.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Depends on the area, but probably one based on a religion or whatever is
> > espoused by the state. Other than that, probably apathy,
> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
That sounds to me a bit like nihilism.
"Nihilism is the philosophical position that values do not exist but
rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in
the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without
meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that
morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values
with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over
another."
Might also have undertones of fatalism.
"Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of
all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.
Fatalism generally refers to several of the following ideas:
[...]
4. That acceptance is appropriate, rather than resistance against
inevitability. This belief is very similar to defeatism."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other
> species is perfectly natural. I am quite sure that many of the species
> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until
> another species came along and bumped them off.
> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any
> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time.
> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.
> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during
> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes. This time around,
> man happens to be one of those causes. That is no more wrong than for a
> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to
> cause a massive die-off as well.
> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place
> for any other species to arise. We owe our own existence to the fact
> that our niche was vacant when we came along.
You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.
Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
avoidable.
I think you are comparing two things of completely different categories.
A meteor striking Earth and humans destroying the Earth are *not* the same
thing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49fbcdba$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something
more
> >> akin to ethical objectivism. Since you bothered to post at all, and
> >> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
> >> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
> > Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.
> I'm not sure I catch your point. Are you arguing that others should be
> apathetic but admit that you don't do it yourself?
Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
belive it's irrational for any individual to vote. I never did, won't.
However, I cannot advocate not voting. For while voting is irrational,
*advocating* not voting is also irrational (present company is too small,
and in any case, I have no delusions of convincing anyone even if I tried my
best). Advocating voter apathy is irrational because if too few voted, the
ensuing instability would likely degrade my quality of life. This is where
narrow definitions of consistency fail.
Of course, I may be posting here for edutainment, not because I care much
about the issues, which would eliminate the apparent paradox altogether.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I firmly
> belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.
While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.
There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
thus voting is useless and a delusion.
Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
happens.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2009 8:51, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
>>> my case.
>
>> I'd say that this kind of reasoning is untypical for law abiding, god
>> fearing poor people. I would more associate this with rich people and
>> desperados. But it is a reasonable position.
>
> I honestly can't see the connection between wealth and this kind of
> thinking. On the contrary, most rich people are worried what is going to
> happen to their wealth and their family after they die. That's why most
> of them have very specific testaments.
Then you have met other people than me, have watched other TV programs
and/or chose to remember other things from those encounters. That is to
be expected.
>>> (I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
>>> Maybe nihilism?)
>
>> Something in me want to suggest neo-capitalism but that might result in
>> a flamewar, so I won't. ;)
>
> For as long as I remember the word "capitalism" has had a negative
> connotation to it. And I have lived in more than one different culture.
The 'neo' was relevant here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2009 6:29, somebody wrote:
> "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> news:49fbc5ba@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>
>>> I like it. "Chronic apathy", it is then.
>
>> Honestly, it sounded to me more like you were "following" something more
>> akin to ethical objectivism. Since you bothered to post at all, and
>> admit to being concerned for your own self-interest I don't know if
>> "chronic apathy" is quite appropriate.
>
> Prophets are not followers of the religions they bring.
>
Note to self: add 'somebody is not a Muslim' to database.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I think you are comparing two things of completely different categories.
> A meteor striking Earth and humans destroying the Earth are *not* the same
> thing.
Unless, of course, you're an Evil Mad Scientist who directs a large asteroid
towards the Earth for that very purpose...
*echoey manaical laughter, lightning flash*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49fbfa7c@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > Something like that, but a little more complicated. Take voting. I
firmly
> > belive it's irrational for any individual to vote.
>
> While it wasn't really the point of your post (but just an example),
> I'm curious to know why you think voting is irrational.
>
> There's a widespread misconception (maybe an intentional one), that
> people can't really affect what happens in their country by voting, and
> thus voting is useless and a delusion.
People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.
> Practical examples contradict this notion. Voting has caused changes,
> and people have voted against mainstream and had got some effect on what
> happens.
I am certainly not against others (and by that, I mean those of the same
conviction as myself) voting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
>> definition) for others.
>
> I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here.
> You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as
> somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:
I was merely using somebody's definition of rational. He said:
'I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the self".'
And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.
My *own* usage of the word is simply "based on reasoning/logic" -
consistency need not apply.
I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
inconsistent with what most people consider rational.
--
(Ice rocks hit the hull) "Captain, we are being hailed."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
> happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
> me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
> person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.
To some people voting is an act with a strong symbolism in it.
There are countries where people don't get to choose who will rule them.
Many of such countries lack the most basic human rights, and people suffer
on the hands of the opressors who rules them by force.
Regardless of what one might think of free democratic societies, people
who live in such countries are very lucky. To some people voting is not
just electing who will represent your opinion. The them, voting is a symbol
representing that freedom. It's like a symbol of appreciation. "I vote
because I *can* vote, because I live in a country where people can elect
their leaders, and I really appreciate that. Maybe my vote won't count much,
but just the fact that I *can* vote is a huge, huge thing. There are
countries where people can't vote nor elect their leaders."
When someone doesn't vote because he doesn't care, it's like he doesn't
appreciate that he can vote in the first place, that he lives in a free
country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often
people don't miss something unless they lose it.
Sure, one person voting might not in itself affect anything, and it may
even be that in some/many "free" countries the results of voting is
heavily influenced eg. by the media, and thus not completely fair. However,
that doesn't remove the symbolism inherent to suffrage.
Some people also think that someone who doesn't vote doesn't have the
moral right to complain about the government nor the political situation
in their country because by not voting they have shown that they don't
care, and thus complaining afterwards would be hypocrisy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote,
By general, do you mean national?
There have certainly been cases where national elections have been
decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's
never come down to a single vote before.
On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more
immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen
votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
> And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
> changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
> actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
> person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.
Touche. I should have read your post more carefully.
> I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
> inconsistent with what most people consider rational.
I agree with that. I basically use the term only in your sense as well,
and substitute some synonym when I mean in in the economic sense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
> their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often
Most people I know who can vote but don't feel differently.
I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
legitimately feel knowledgeable about them. I really don't think people
should vote just to celebrate their right to.
--
Best file compressor around: DEL *.* (100% compression)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> avoidable.
It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.
That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.
The vast majority of votes are done for irrelevant reasons like "I have
always voted for this party", "my father has always voted for this party
and taught me to do so as well", "he made such a good speech" (without
ever hearing anyone else's speeches), "she is a woman, and as a woman I have
to support her", or even "he is so handsome". Reasons for *not* voting for
someone include ridiculous ones like "according to polls he won't win, so
I'm not going to waste my vote on him".
Yeah, this is a sad state of affairs. But my point is that if you are
voting as a symbol of celebration for suffrage, then it's probably a much
better reason than most. (In fact, I would say that if you are doing it
as a symbolic act, you are very likely to be more aware of the politics
of your country than most other voters.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> > the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> > species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> > avoidable.
> It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.
Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
meteorite can't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fc7bfa@news.povray.org...
> On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:
> > People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the
other
> > hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> > general election by his or her vote,
> By general, do you mean national?
More or less. Anything with voters in the thousands or more.
> There have certainly been cases where national elections have been
> decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's
> never come down to a single vote before.
>
> On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more
> immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen
> votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.
Possible, since there are so many elections everyday somewhere, but highly
improbable for any single election that I had a right to vote.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
>> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.
>
> That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.
Dunno. Most people I know who vote seem to be fairly ignorant on many
of the issues. That's a side effect of the reason they don't vote -
they're just not interested in the issues.
--
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other
>> species is perfectly natural. I am quite sure that many of the species
>> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until
>> another species came along and bumped them off.
>
>> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any
>> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time.
>> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.
>
>> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during
>> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes. This time around,
>> man happens to be one of those causes. That is no more wrong than for a
>> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to
>> cause a massive die-off as well.
>
>> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place
>> for any other species to arise. We owe our own existence to the fact
>> that our niche was vacant when we came along.
>
> You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
> selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.
Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
of nature, this is illogical.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
> of nature, this is illogical.
Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
a sentient malevolent being.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
> of nature, this is illogical.
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.
Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
I think his point is that since man is a product of nature (at least in
the atheistic view), then man cannot behave in unnatural ways.
This goes down to the philosophical definition of a sentient being,
and whether sentience makes humans to be above nature (in the sense that
humans are capable of unnatural behavior and thus can be held morally
responsible for it).
As I said, contrast a meteor smashing the Earth, and mankind making
the same kind of damage as a conscious, deliberate act (caused by
selfishness and greed). The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
because it's not a sentient being and thus doesn't make decisions, but
humans can.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> No prob. Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
>
> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz :)
>
I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 14:29:01 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> No prob. Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
>>
>> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz :)
>>
>
>I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P
Oh! But who gave the flu to the pigs?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> a sentient malevolent being.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> > a sentient malevolent being.
>
> You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
>
> But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
Besides, as Agent Smith well pointed out, our modus operandi is pretty much that
of a virus. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But it is held responsible
Not in the moral sense.
> and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
Only in the same sense as people building houses to keep the cold out,
or building walls to stop floods from destroying crops.
In human civilization punishment is a consequence of a crime, and a
warning to others about what will happen if they do the same. No such
thing makes sense with viruses.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that
> quickly.
Would we know?
Maybe one species of dinosaur actually was intelligent enough to make spears
and fished to extinction several species that were already scarce in the
fossil record. How would you know?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
> kinds of life, here.
On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, there's
no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If you're not
afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
Like the word "fair". People only talk about whether something is "fair"
when they're on the losing side of an arbitrary decision.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
> meteorite can't.
It can if you educate Men to go out and change it. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
So who is held morally responsible for the meteor?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>> kinds of life, here.
>
> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>
The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
is of course nonsense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2009 22:45, andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
> is of course nonsense.
modulo clerical errors
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
> is of course nonsense.
That's not what I was trying to say.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
>
> Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
> good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.
>
> Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
Prove that the behaviors you condemn are "contrary to nature."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
>
> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2009 0:29, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much
>>>> as possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but
>>>> of kinds of life, here.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>>
>> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
>> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form
>> it is of course nonsense.
>
> That's not what I was trying to say.
>
Ok, then I didn't understand what you were trying to say.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
>> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
Because it allows us to.
You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
the person is capable of understanding morals.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
