Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruachan
“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?
|
Why should I take a side? Even if I would, I would side with Wall Street; there is no clear right or wrong side in this conflict, only money to be made.
Besides, my entrance into this argument is to point out that chemical weapons do exist there, nothing more.
Quote:
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."
|
Two lines and I am going to conclude one thing : you are randomly chaining facts together. Ever heard of McNamara's fallacy?
Secondly, hunter, farmer, shephard classes have got negligible effect on selfish behaviour. In psychology, there is something known as Social Learning Behaviour, which effects on how people learn to adapt and deal with situations based on prior experience. Even if you are to bring in hormone production influencing behaviour into account (in which
oxytocin isn't always what it is), it still ends with a chicken-egg conclusion; correlation does not imply causation. Also, phrenology is considered pseudoscientific - so that is one strike-off under anthrophology if you want to use it as a theory, and stick to how skulls differ from one animal to another instead of how it differs from one human being to another.
Thirdly, defying personal nature to suit the dictated needs of society isn't freedom, it is swapping individuality for a cage - even if it is a gilded one, a cage is a cage. Equality does not mean justice, and justice is understood differently in every culture. So which is which?
Finally, as a note, I would like to tell you that, the world is not flat. People are different, they live in different places with different ideas, the only way can there be peace is when everyone accepts other people for who they are instead of trying to disprove their positive presence in society, whether through science, religion, or some lame cultist belief of a certain superiority. Moderation and tolerance go hand-in-hand, so do justice and equality. There is no bigger dystopia than an utopia - nothing being perfect allows for more opportunities in the various paths each person might take in life. As for your attempts to justify your ideas, it would be better if you use more reason instead of science as the latter contains disputed facts. Until the researchers have ironed it out, you might want to quote it as a "possibility" rather than an "absolute". Reliance on intuition without experience leads to more wrong facts because the underlying reason leads nowhere with just one factor.
And you might want to stop quoting sayings. In the scientific writing, it is often viewed as a sign of embellishment and ego-tripping.