Political views and ctb

[Jorvak]

27

 

[music]

26

 

[marios]

Here's my first idea for a forum game. Here are the rules and ideas as to how to play this game:

- we first start at 100
- if you are left wing, you reduce the current number by 1 and, if you are right wing, you add the current number by 1
- if you are in the middle, subtract 1 as well
- If the number reaches 0, the left wing win and, if the number reaches 200, the right wing win
- don't do any consecutive posting
- no political chat please. This isn't about opinions about issues.

That's all. I'll start it off with...

100

26

you should change the rules adding that you can play only one time because there is people that make more than one post and in this way we do not have a real view on this topic

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

26

you should change the rules adding that you can play only one time because there is people that make more than one post and in this way we do not have a real view on this topic

It's just a game. That's why it starts over when one wins. It's not meant to tally how many lefties vs righties there are. A poll would be better if that was the case.

You can post as much as you want, as long as it's not consecutively, i.e. back to back.
27

 

[Namelesa]

26

 

[ihatemyselfwanttodi]

25

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

26

 

[music]

25

 

[zardofan]

24

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

25

 

[Jorvak]

24

@SchrodingerIsDed oh no you dont!

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

24

@SchrodingerIsDed oh no you dont!

Aha, don't worry I have no hope in winning this game. I think I might actually be the only conservative on SaSu. xD

25

 

[Jorvak]

Aha, don't worry I have no hope in winning this game. I think I might actually be the only conservative on SaSu. xD

25

Conservative vs Communist grindset!

24, Victory to the working class forever more!

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Conservative vs Communist grindset!

24, Victory to the working class forever more!

Ahh yes, the gazelles finally take control from the lions! As nature intended. :P

25.

 

[Jorvak]

Ahh yes, the gazelles finally take control from the lions! As nature intended. :P

25.

24, ah yes nature, the ultimate arbiter for how society should be arranged. Time to bring out the jungle set bois!!

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

24, ah yes nature, the ultimate arbiter for how society should be arranged. Time to bring out the jungle set bois!!

Nature is everything. Evolution is evolution. Animals are animals. Hierarchy is hierarchy. Chimps are chimps. You can try to teach them, but there's a reason they don't care about wearing clothing to be modest. What should be is often not.

Except tuxedos. Man Chimps love tuxedos.

25.

 

[Jorvak]

Nature is everything. Evolution is evolution. Animals are animals. Hierarchy is hierarchy. Chimps are chimps. You can try to teach them, but there's a reason they don't care about wearing clothing to be modest. What should be is often not.

Except tuxedos. Man Chimps love tuxedos.

25.

Food for thought: Evolution is all about adaptation to different circumstances, and animals exist in their own niche for this reason. Chimps are chimps, but they are not humans. Humans evolved language so that we could plan beyond the limitations of a natural niche in social groups. As a result, humans can form social priorities. Eventually as social priorities evolve - adapting to changes in social arrangements and different material conditions, they form the foundation of various ethical, legal and theological systems. These are distinctly different from the limitations that animals have to live by in the wild. Humans have their own circumstances, animals have theirs. So we should use logical premises accurate to our material conditions to form social priorities that benefit humanity in general, rather than trying to mimick animal niches that exist in the wild.

Chimps do deserve those tuxedos for sure!

24

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Food for thought: Evolution is all about adaptation to different circumstances, and animals exist in their own niche for this reason. Chimps are chimps, but they are not humans. Humans evolved language so that we could plan beyond the limitations of a natural niche in social groups. As a result, humans can form social priorities. Eventually as social priorities evolve - adapting to changes in social arrangements and different material conditions, they form the foundation of various ethical, legal and theological systems. These are distinctly different from the limitations that animals have to live by in the wild. Humans have their own circumstances, animals have theirs. So we should use logical premises accurate to our material conditions to form social priorities that benefit humanity in general, rather than trying to mimick animal niches that exist in the wild.

24

We should. And yet, humans are also animals with instincts and desires. Those base instincts underlie logic system.. Thought is thought, it helps, but it's a superficial bandaid over the reality of nature. Survival of the fittest. This is a law that applies equally to all animals. You cannot change the laws of physics. And you cannot change the nature of animals.

What is the nature of a bonobo? What is the nature of a chimpazee? They are unique, but implaccable. Human nature is different, yes. But human history shows what the true reality is of human nature. Creating rules of conduct does not change that. It only changes how the instincts present themselves--around the rules.

25

 

[Jorvak]

We should. And yet, humans are also animals with instincts and desires. Those base instincts underlie logic system.. Thought is thought, it helps, but it's a superficial bandaid over the reality of nature. Survival of the fittest. This is a law that applies equally to all animals. You cannot change the laws of physics. And you cannot change the nature of animals.

25

Sure, Humans definitely have instincts, but unlike with wild animals, humans can temper their instincts with rational thought. And human instincts are not universal either. Even the "fight or flight" response is shaped very different from person to person. Instincts themselves are heavily shaped by a persons collective life experiences. The concept of "human nature" itself is very flawed for this reason and more. there is no "universal" human behavior, but instead a very wide range of human behaviors based on different experiences, such as the culture they exist in, the language they learn, their upbringing, economic and social status, The ideas and education they are exposed to, their position in society, and so much more. If there was a 'universal' human nature, human cultures should be nearly identical. As an example, the viking did not raid britain because they were "inherently violent", they did so because of poor farming and the norse faith teaching honor in battle. But as conditions changed, their society changed, and the people in Scandinavia don't raid like their ancestors did anymore. Human Behavior depends massively on a persons life experiences in the end. In the end, raw instincts can't be used to dictate the structure of society, but instead we should be teaching people not just how to temper their instincts appropriately when faced with various conditions, but also how to make decisions based on rational consideration. We should use the tools evolution has provided us, the ability to learn and to teach others, and advance humanity beyond raw instincts.


24

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Sure, Humans definitely have instincts, but unlike with wild animals, humans can temper their instincts with rational thought. And human instincts are not universal either. Even the "fight or flight" response is shaped very different from person to person. Instincts themselves are heavily shaped by a persons collective life experiences. The concept of "human nature" itself is very flawed for this reason and more. there is no "universal" human behavior, but instead a very wide range of human behaviors based on different experiences, such as the culture they exist in, the language they learn, their upbringing, economic and social status, The ideas and education they are exposed to, their position in society, and so much more. If there was a 'universal' human nature, human cultures should be nearly identical. As an example, the viking did not raid britain because they were "inherently violent", they did so because of poor farming and the norse faith teaching honor in battle. But as conditions changed, their society changed, and the people in Scandinavia don't raid like their ancestors did anymore. Human Behavior depends massively on a persons life experiences in the end. In the end, raw instincts can't be used to dictate the structure of society, but instead we should be teaching people not just how to temper their instincts appropriately when faced with various conditions, but also how to make decisions based on rational consideration. We should use the tools evolution has provided us, the ability to learn and to teach others, and advance humanity beyond raw instincts.


24

To what degree can they be tempered? If I let the faucet pour, it will simply pour freely. If I put a balloon over the faucet, what happens to the balloon eventually?

There is human history. Just as there is a very large range of bacteria in the body, expanding out to the macro view shows a singular whole that behaves in a predictable fashion, despite the unpredictability of the trillions of cells. Human history shows the whole's true, universal nature.

So what would happen if we taught all humans that it is wrong to have sex? Would it work?

25

 

[Jorvak]

To what degree can they be tempered? If I let the faucet pour, it will simply pour freely. If I put a balloon over the faucet, what happens to the balloon eventually?

There is human history. Just as there is a very large range of bacteria in the body, expanding out to the macro view shows a singular whole that behaves in a predictable fashion, despite the unpredictability of the trillions of cells. Human history shows the whole's true, universal nature.

So what would happen if we taught all humans that it is wrong to have sex? Would it work?

25

Since this is becoming a full on discussion, we should consider starting a conversation and expanding our discussion there. i do enjoy this conversation with you though! I'll setup a conversation environment for us.


Instincts are not innate, they are something that constantly evolve as people learn new things and have new experiences. Tempering instincts is not like releasing a pressure tank into a balloon. It means teaching people tools and knowledge to consider their experiences and the information they are exposed to more carefully. Uninformed instincts can be replaced by informed instincts. For example, when it comes to understanding reality, tools like Empiricism and the Scientific Method can be used in place of "feelings" about reality to try to learn how reality works. By learning and practicing these tools, you can foster superior intellectual instincts for figuring things out than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. It's not that hunter-gatherers were dumb, but they did not have the tools necessary to improve their knowledge on reality and hone their instincts in that way - they were constantly trying to survive after all.

When it comes to interpersonal behavior, People can be encouraged to learn how to respect other peoples and to treat people with dignity, fairness and compassion within a relative cultural context. Yes, emotion is involved in relationships, but varying rules for social engagement also exist at the same time to foster mutual respect between people. The more experiences a person learns for interacting with others, the more they can develop the emotional instincts necessary, and replace outdated ones. The more people become informed about how to properly behave, the more their instincts are informed for how relationships work and how to behave towards others. On the other hand, the more you use the tools of logic and science to understand specific aspects of reality, the more your investigative instincts develop, and outright replace uninformed ones.

Trying to use the totality of Human History to 'average out' some version of 'human nature' requires cutting out all of the nuance from history about cultural motivations for doing certain things. Human history is not one giant culture - they are not like a bunch of cells that make a singular body, but it involves a huge number of cultures interacting with each other throughout the ages. When it comes to history and specifically anthropology, you have to analyze different societies on a case by case basis. As an example, history is riddled with wars, but the way different cultures used and justified wars were starkly different from each other. Some cultures were bent on causing wars to grow empires, but there are plenty examples of cultures that tended to be more peaceful taking on a more defensive posture, and there were some that were virtually entirely peaceful until they were invaded, or have remained isolated from the world entirely. One can't just take the cultures that were much more warmongering and superimpose it on all other cultures that used war in a more defensive way or were entirely peaceful. Cultures that were once peaceful can become warmongering, and warmongering cultures can become peaceful, and this depends heavily on how conditions in their culture evolve. are the historical cultures that use war for defense really comparable to the cultures that used war for offense? I don't think so.

ultimately, You have to analyze how specific cultures justify doing certain things on a case by case basis. Lets take the Jomon people of Japan for example. For roughly 12 thousand years of Japanese history, the Jomon people experienced no strife between themselves. This only changed when the Yayoi People invaded japan roughly around 1000 BC. Because the Jomon had a peaceful culture, they had no need for weapons, and this made them vulnerable to the Yayoi. Modern Japanese people have most of their heritage from the Yaoi, but a significant chunk is the Jomon people as well. the Jomon did try to defend themselves, but is their defense really on the same level as a conquering force? that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

24

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Since this is becoming a full on discussion, we should consider starting a conversation and expanding our discussion there. i do enjoy this conversation with you though! I'll setup a conversation environment for us.


Instincts are not innate, they are something that constantly evolve as people learn new things and have new experiences. Tempering instincts is not like releasing a pressure tank into a balloon. It means teaching people tools and knowledge to consider their experiences and the information they are exposed to more carefully. Uninformed instincts can be replaced by informed instincts. For example, when it comes to understanding reality, tools like Empiricism and the Scientific Method can be used in place of "feelings" about reality to try to learn how reality works. By learning and practicing these tools, you can foster superior intellectual instincts for figuring things out than our hunter-gatherer ancestors. It's not that hunter-gatherers were dumb, but they did not have the tools necessary to improve their knowledge on reality and hone their instincts in that way - they were constantly trying to survive after all.

When it comes to interpersonal behavior, People can be encouraged to learn how to respect other peoples and to treat people with dignity, fairness and compassion within a relative cultural context. Yes, emotion is involved in relationships, but varying rules for social engagement also exist at the same time to foster mutual respect between people. The more experiences a person learns for interacting with others, the more they can develop the emotional instincts necessary, and replace outdated ones. The more people become informed about how to properly behave, the more their instincts are informed for how relationships work and how to behave towards others. On the other hand, the more you use the tools of logic and science to understand specific aspects of reality, the more your investigative instincts develop, and outright replace uninformed ones.

Trying to use the totality of Human History to 'average out' some version of 'human nature' requires cutting out all of the nuance from history about cultural motivations for doing certain things. Human history is not one giant culture - they are not like a bunch of cells that make a singular body, but it involves a huge number of cultures interacting with each other throughout the ages. When it comes to history and specifically anthropology, you have to analyze different societies on a case by case basis. As an example, history is riddled with wars, but the way different cultures used and justified wars were starkly different from each other. Some cultures were bent on causing wars to grow empires, but there are plenty examples of cultures that tended to be more peaceful taking on a more defensive posture, and there were some that were virtually entirely peaceful until they were invaded, or have remained isolated from the world entirely. One can't just take the cultures that were much more warmongering and superimpose it on all other cultures that used war in a more defensive way or were entirely peaceful. Cultures that were once peaceful can become warmongering, and warmongering cultures can become peaceful, and this depends heavily on how conditions in their culture evolve. are the historical cultures that use war for defense really comparable to the cultures that used war for offense? I don't think so.

ultimately, You have to analyze how specific cultures justify doing certain things on a case by case basis. Lets take the Jomon people of Japan for example. For roughly 12 thousand years of Japanese history, the Jomon people experienced no strife between themselves. This only changed when the Yayoi People invaded japan roughly around 1000 BC. Because the Jomon had a peaceful culture, they had no need for weapons, and this made them vulnerable to the Yayoi. Modern Japanese people have most of their heritage from the Yaoi, but a significant chunk is the Jomon people as well. the Jomon did try to defend themselves, but is their defense really on the same level as a conquering force? that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

24

25

 

[Jorvak]

24

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

25

Feel free to create the environment.

 

[Jorvak]

25

Feel free to create the environment.

24, i can't, you have your profile settings where no option to start a conversation with you shows up.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

24, i can't, you have your profile settings where no option to start a conversation with you shows up.

We can just start a thread so anyone can join in.

25

 

[Jorvak]

24

@Namelesa Quick he's distracted!

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

24

@Namelesa Quick he's distracted!

Haha! You won't get the drop on me that easily, Jorvak!
25!

 

[Namelesa]

24

 

[Jorvak]

23