Electoral Compass

HH, you doing ok lately?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment. [/quote]
Who fights to the death for enjoyment?

[quote] Only man inflicts suffering on others for pleasure. …
[/quote]
My cat does that.

War and conflict is a natural state. For man and animal.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment. Only man inflicts suffering on others for pleasure. These things should be obvious.

So, we have a problem: we could obliterate ourselves while persuing our pleasure. Maybe we need God to come and stop us, as in Arthur Clarke’s 2001…

Are you serious about this, or just making a point for the sake of discussion?

I see this turning into a “is man intrinsically good?” debate.
[/quote]

Certainly I’m serious. Man is very violent and has intellect, so his scale of violence is higher. One doesn’t invent IEDs, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons as a hobby.

Morality, religion, and government were invented to try and suppress the desire to kill, rape, and plunder. The natural sate of Man is similar to life in ghettos, where the influence of all those things is minimal. That’s why we avoid those places, unless your name is Mr Kersey (Charles Bronson in Death Wish) and you are hunting.

Back to class…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment.
Who fights to the death for enjoyment?

[/quote]

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

I’m beginning to understand what Nietzsche meant, in his work ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Morality is a social convention, usually invented either by the weaker members as a defensive weapon against the stronger or by the stronger members to prevent the weaker from rebelling.

Where morality and ethics comes from is a topic of interest to me.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment.
Who fights to the death for enjoyment?

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

I’m beginning to understand what Nietzsche meant, in his work ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Morality is a social convention, usually invented either by the weaker members as a defensive weapon against the stronger or by the stronger members to prevent the weaker from rebelling.

Where morality and ethics comes from is a topic of interest to me.

[/quote]

That is killing for enjoyment and riches and is part of nature.

Fighting to the death for enjoyment sounds more like a two men enter one mane leaves cage match and is a bizarre behavior.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
HH, you doing ok lately?[/quote]

I’ve been reading Nietzsche (one of my degrees is in Philosophy). He has piqued my interest (again) in the origins of mores and ethics. He also makes one think about God and our conception of God — was God invented to simply help enforce ethics (from fear of divine retribution)?

It may lend one to nihilism but I disagree with that.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Only man fights to the death, for his own enjoyment.
Who fights to the death for enjoyment?

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

I’m beginning to understand what Nietzsche meant, in his work ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Morality is a social convention, usually invented either by the weaker members as a defensive weapon against the stronger or by the stronger members to prevent the weaker from rebelling.

Where morality and ethics comes from is a topic of interest to me.

[/quote]

It’s of interest to me too.In my mind,at present,I have been thinking that out of all the many factors that contribute to morality and ethics,the most basic is empathy.
Would be glad to hear all the varied views on the subject…
Apologies for the hijack.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We don’t have predators, so Nature, being eminently logical, has us prey upon ourselves. Otherwise, the world would be overpopulated.

Violence is perfectly natural. It is only fear of greater violence (like from the police) that prevents me from shooting someone who cuts me off in traffic, for ex. It is perfectly natural for the strong to prey upon the weak, whenever possible. Plunder is easier than hard work.
[/quote]
If war were natural we would not need to train soldiers because they would come out of the womb naturally knowing military tactics.

By definition a natural act occurs spontaneously in nature without prior knowledge. Violence is learned therefore it is not natural.

Children do not naturally know how to fight or even that hitting someone is a necessary action. They learn from watching others. They also learn that the fear of pain can be used to coerce other’s actions.

Breathing, eating, sleeping, sex…those are natural acts that require no prior knowledge.

People confuse natural action with action that seems like it would be natural simply because we are capable of learning it. For example, if I was hungry and I wanted to eat there are a number of ways I could get food.

  1. I could hunt or gather it;
  2. steal it (by force or otherwise);
  3. or trade for it.

Eating is a natural action but feeding ones self must be learned.

We have multiple choices when it comes to obtaining things required for our survival. It just so happens that the concept of violence is easier understood than voluntary exchange that it is perceived as natural.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If war were natural we would not need to train soldiers because they would come out of the womb naturally knowing military tactics.

By definition a natural act occurs spontaneously in nature without prior knowledge. Violence is learned therefore it is not natural.

…[/quote]

Do you mean to say any learned behavior is automatically not natural? I would say by your definition most behaviors necessary to survival for animals larger than amoeba are unnatural.

Seriously, violence is learned therefore not natural? Is my cat killing a mouse unnatural? Is a bobcat killing a hare unnatural? Is a hyena stealing a kill unnatural? Is a pack of wolves pulling down an elk unnatural?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If war were natural we would not need to train soldiers because they would come out of the womb naturally knowing military tactics.[/quote]

Absurd logic, as usual. A natural propensity for violence and war (which is group versus group violence) does not have as a natural prerequisite knowledge of “military tactics”. If one group decides to go bash in the skulls of another group for whatever reason, that’s war.

Knowledge of military tactics just makes you better at war - it is neither a necessary nor sufficient ingredient of it.

Wrong - someone takes your coconut, you get mad, and you lash out physically against them. Occurs in nature all the time - always has, “professor”.

Wrong again - what is your score up to now? A child need not know “how to fight” to want to visit violence and pain on someone who has made them angry. In fact, it is one of the most natural things a child does - something that we have to teach them not to do.

Your idealism - already silly - has been easily overtaken by your ignorance.

Getting angry and wacking someone is just as natural. Violence is natural, even as we don’t like it.

False choice - voluntary exchange is natural, so is violence.

You kept making this error over and over when you were a communist and tried to defend communism - you presented false, simplistic choices in explaining human behavior. You were wrong then, and wrong now.

Violence is natural - doesn’t mean it is good. Not all natural things are good. We can’t “cure” humanity of its natural propensity for violence, we can only hope to mitigate it the best way we can. But categorizing violence as artificial is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Your ultimate answer is that “violence is learned”. From who? And who did they learn it from? According to your idea, someone had to have committed violence as an original act, and the rest of humanity has learned it from that person over and over.

Well then, why did that Original Violent Person act violently? Who did he learn it from? No one, by logical extension - learning requires a source. Your theory explodes itself, because the Original Violent Person had to have a reason to act naturally to do it the first time - it couldn’t have been learned.

Take a vacation from the faculty lounge - plenty of valuable and logical information outside your usual favorite groupthink, if you try.

Closet to Ron Paul(what a shock!), furthest from Obama.

I think what is being argued is natural vs. normal.

The idea of natural vs. normal is indeed difficult to grasp. All matter is “natural” as everything must occur in nature. All actions occurs in nature…where else could they occur? However, we call something unnatural when is is synthesized. The idea of normalcy is very abstract.

Breathing, eating, sleeping, sex – That is all that can be considered natural action. There is no reason to believe that any other action could be considered natural or occurring spontaneously in nature unless it is synthesized.

All life respires, in-takes nutrients, restores, and reproduces.

Just because we can deviate from those does not mean our actions are natural because they occur in nature. Everything occurs in nature.

Exchange is not natural.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think what is being argued is natural vs. normal.

The idea of natural vs. normal is indeed difficult to grasp. All matter is “natural” as everything must occur in nature. All actions occurs in nature…where else could they occur? However, we call something unnatural when is is synthesized. The idea of normalcy is very abstract.

Breathing, eating, sleeping, sex – That is all that can be considered natural action. There is no reason to believe that any other action could be considered natural or occurring spontaneously in nature unless it is synthesized.

All life respires, in-takes nutrients, restores, and reproduces.

Just because we can deviate from those does not mean our actions are natural because they occur in nature. Everything occurs in nature.

Exchange is not natural.[/quote]

Confusion seems to be your natural state.

The current crop of candidates is very telling, with regard to our nature.

We want a government that robs someone else and gives benefits to me. We want ‘free’ healthcare, retirement, education, you name it. So, we hire thugs who speak eloquently to do our plundering for us. There are, of course, those of us who can restrain our desire to rob and plunder; we want limited government and to basically to be left alone to live our lives.

Unfortunately, the majority of voters have spoken and they want Hillary, Barack, or John — all people who promise to rob and plunder the productive members of society for the benefit of those who are too cowardly to do their own plundering and thievery.

So, its time to accept that we are violent and savage animals, incapable of having a decent and honest society/government. We deserve just exactly what we are going to get.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Confusion seems to be your natural state.[/quote]

Actually, I am more of a Taoist:
[i]
Why are people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving.

Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious.

Why do people think so little of death?
Because the rulers demand too much of life.
Therefore the people take life lightly.

Having to live on, one knows better than to value life too much.[/i]

-Lao Tzu

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Actually, I am more of a Taoist.[/quote]

This week, at least.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Actually, I am more of a Taoist.

This week, at least.

[/quote]

Oh thunder, you know how I like it…

Learning is a wonderful thing isn’t it?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Learning is a wonderful thing isn’t it?[/quote]

It certainly is, one of life’s great pleasures.

By all means, you should try it sometime.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Learning is a wonderful thing isn’t it?

It certainly is, one of life’s great pleasures.

By all means, you should try it sometime.

[/quote]
But then you might accuse me of changing my mind about what I believe…which is it going to be?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

But then you might accuse me of changing my mind about what I believe…which is it going to be?[/quote]

Any intellectual diet needs variety, but like any good diet, it must avoid junk food.

So open was his open mind,
Above, below, in front, behind,
That every thought, perception, too,
Would, on arriving, rush right through.

You are a sucker for intellectual junk food. Your softness and impressionability is not the sign of learning, but of evidence that you aren’t learning much at all.

Buckley:

The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do - you’ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think.