View Single Post
Old 2014-08-11, 11:41   Link #1305
Cruachan
Junior Mint
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Western Hemisphere
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
“It is for others to decide whether to pursue this matter further to determine responsibility. We may all have our own thoughts on this, but I would simply say that this was a grave crime and those responsible must be brought to justice as soon as possible,”

I agree with him, but you have Assad pointing at rebels and the rebels pointing at Assad's regime, so who do you believe?

This guy:



Or these guys:




And as far as telling who has natural inclinations towards selfish and amoral behavior, there are basically two approaches and both must be integrated for maximum success.

The first, the traditional is anthropologically through things like life histories and skull structure. As a general rule, descendents of hunters and shepherds are opportunistic, as it benefited them historically to be tribalists, the precursor to racists (the more people who come into your territory, the less of your intrinsically limited resources you have). Compare that with farmers who viewed new recruits as assets and were cooperative, because the more hands you have, the more crops you can grow, the more mouths you can feed. That's a rough way that gives you the right directions to look.

The second is looking at the genetic structure itself, which needs more research to be completely viable. Most genetic researchers are preoccupied with finding cures for genetic diseases and links to negative behavior. One base pairing in particular that's responsible for oxytocin regulation can have three possible options: AA, AG, GG and people with a GG pairing have higher levels of oxytocin and as a result are more empathetic and trusting. That's one example, and both methods feed into eachother, like blood type for example can give hints to whether one is a farmer, shepherd or a hunter anthropologically speaking.

I'm not saying genetics are entirely responsible for an individual's behavior but it's foolish to deny the influence it has on one's inclinations and desires. It's up to the individual to use will to defy their nature, and in that way attain freedom. However, it would be better if people didn't have to actively fight their natures and it could instead work with them. "Blessed is the lion whom the man consumes and the lion will become man. Cursed is the man whom the lion consumes and the lion will become man."


Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveYouSaber View Post
In my opinion, that actually, while a very noble way of thinking and I honestly believe you mean good, has been the dreams and utopia of very smart and educated people, but has existed in various forms in real life/history, including communism and Nazism. There's too much of horribly failed examples in the past for these kind of grand schemes and projects.

I believe the idea that people can be and should be reformed to one value is actually one of the greatest dangers to liberty and is responsible for disastrous and atrocious acts like mass deportation or genocides. Besides, try to define what is selfish? Someone who fights for the best for their family? a further extension, for their neighbourhood? or even going further, for their community, city, state, nation? Someone who fights for the best for their nation can be said to be selfish in regard to the whole world!

With democracy and a constitution that protects liberal rights, the worst you get is a failing economy and inefficient government; for an authoritarian government, the best you can get are mighty empires, but however the worst you get is far worse than that which befalls democracies...
The Spartans did something similar, but I am not promoting eugenics. Eugenics aims to improve humanity's natural propensities by making them smarter, stronger, taller, etc. What I promote is actually disadvantageous to natural selection, by promoting universal compassion as the only trait being selected for.

The comparison you make is akin to Fascism, with society being an extended family of sorts and I find this just as selfish as caring only for one's self or one's family. You could even consider Secular Humanism to be in the same tribe as that, and I find that particularly insidious because it's hard for most people to detect the selfishness in such a philosophy, even if it's very clear to people like vegans and animal welfare activists. Universal compassion accompanied by righteous fury are the only unselfish attitudes. One must have the same love and acceptance that Jesus and Buddha had and also be willing to take up the sword against injustice like Sikhs, which is why I believe all citizens should be required to own a gun and know how to use it. It's every one's duty to end violence, and unfortunately this often requires the use of violence itself, but if you look at the word violence it does not just mean bloodshed, it's from the word to violate, like violating someone's consent. In a situation like this, one's loyalty is not to any individual, organization, nation, race, or species, but to Justice alone.

side note: The Chinese and Japanese word for "Martial" can be divided into two separate symbols meaning "ending" and "violence" and is known as retaliatory violence, and this is the same purpose the government has ideally.

I honestly believe a working democracy is worse than a dysfunctional democracy, because I do not trust the majority of people to make the right decisions. While it is useful in the short term during emergencies, on a large scale it's just really bad. The system itself inherently divides a nation into separate camps.

Last edited by Cruachan; 2014-08-11 at 12:06.
Cruachan is offline