Instincts and Morality
darwinist
of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
(of various kinds).
Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
live.
M Purcell
> On the one hand people like security, peace and being an esteemed part
> of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
> (of various kinds).
Peace requires power, security requires wealth, and esteem requires
ability. Money can buy power but ability is a little harder to obtain.
> Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
Gotta maintain a balance.
> The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> live.
I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs and you might want to keep
local and federal laws in mind.
darwinist
> On Nov 29, 9:20 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On the one hand people like security, peace and being an esteemed part
> > of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
> > (of various kinds).
>
> Peace requires power, security requires wealth, and esteem requires
> ability. Money can buy power but ability is a little harder to obtain.
Yes those things can co-operate. However they don't necessarily. You
need some amount of power to pursue peace, or to do anything at all,
but people often pursue power beyond what is needed for those other
things. Sometimes people want power for its own sake, even if it poses
a danger to their peace or security. The same with wealth.
> > Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> > conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> > tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
>
> Gotta maintain a balance.
You do, and in some cases you can go beyond balance to co-operation.
For a trivial example: Balance would be spending less money on take-
away food so you can afford cooking classes. Co-operation would be
teaching yourself to cook, and having more money left over to spend on
takeaway when you want it.
> > The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> > each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> > effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> > is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> > live.
>
> I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs
The things we instinctively want are - thanks to natural selection -
closely related to our biological needs, but they are not the same
thing. We often want these things when we need them, but we also want
them when they will have an unknown or negligible or sometimes even
negative outcome. That is why consider "instinct" to be an appropriate
term.
> and you might want to keep local and federal laws in mind.
Of course, cultural and environmental factors such as these are
important to consider.
Michael Gordge
Its not possible to have any moral rules without first identifying /
defining the standard that the moral rules will be measured against.
MG
darwinist
The standard I was trying to suggest was:
"How well would it (a given rule) help to co-operate our different
instinctive pursuits?"
Michael Gordge
>
> The standard I was trying to suggest was:
>
> "How well would it (a given rule) help to co-operate our different
> instinctive pursuits?"
Man has no problem determining / identifying a sensory standard with
which to measure distance, speed, height, length, volume, weight,
light, energy, etc etc i.e. to measure all of the things that matter
in solving the problems of his existence / survival.
The man who identifies the sensory standard with which to determine /
measure his moral values, is the man who seeks to keep his survival
directly related to reality and NOT to his utterly mind dependent
whims wishes fears.
MG
ZerkonXXXX
> the reason we need moral rules.
The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must they
be imposed or learned?
I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is innate
if any one is willing to discuss this.
Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
having the quality of finality as morals.
ZerkonXXXX
> "How well would it (a given rule) help to co-operate our different
> instinctive pursuits?"
This is base to human nature.
M Purcell
> On Nov 30, 4:38 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 9:20 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On the one hand people like security, peace and being an esteemed part
> > > of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
> > > (of various kinds).
>
> > Peace requires power, security requires wealth, and esteem requires
> > ability. Money can buy power but ability is a little harder to obtain.
>
> Yes those things can co-operate. However they don't necessarily. You
> need some amount of power to pursue peace, or to do anything at all,
> but people often pursue power beyond what is needed for those other
> things. Sometimes people want power for its own sake, even if it poses
> a danger to their peace or security. The same with wealth.
That sounds judgmental, assuming you can determine another persons
motivations.
> > > Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> > > conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> > > tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
>
> > Gotta maintain a balance.
>
> You do, and in some cases you can go beyond balance to co-operation.
>
> For a trivial example: Balance would be spending less money on take-
> away food so you can afford cooking classes. Co-operation would be
> teaching yourself to cook, and having more money left over to spend on
> takeaway when you want it.
Bad example, how is that cooperation?.
> > > The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> > > each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> > > effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> > > is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> > > live.
>
> > I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs
>
> The things we instinctively want are - thanks to natural selection -
> closely related to our biological needs, but they are not the same
> thing. We often want these things when we need them, but we also want
> them when they will have an unknown or negligible or sometimes even
> negative outcome. That is why consider "instinct" to be an appropriate
> term.
So you wish to satisfy something that is unknown or possibly negative?
> > and you might want to keep local and federal laws in mind.
>
> Of course, cultural and environmental factors such as these are
> important to consider.
And other people.
M Purcell
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:20:00 -0800, darwinist wrote:
> > the reason we need moral rules.
>
> The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must they
> be imposed or learned?
>
> I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is innate
> if any one is willing to discuss this.
Sounds argumentative.
> Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
> needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
> having the quality of finality as morals.
The difference between moral rules and law is that laws are imposed
externally.
John Stafford
<f0d8e83f-d025-4195...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
> The difference between moral rules and law is that laws are imposed
> externally.
If morality is taught, rather than being instinct, then what is the
difference?
M Purcell
> In article
> <f0d8e83f-d025-4195-8a6c-45369440f...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The difference between moral rules and law is that laws are imposed
> > externally.
>
> If morality is taught, rather than being instinct, then what is the
> difference?
What is taught is sometimes considered instinctive such as combat
training. I assume an individual free will.
Kevin B. Murphy
rules' so that we can apply them... only to *you*. Instinct is the subject
of *logic*, not morality. Having confidence in one's own instincts being
logical defies the 'logic rules'... and therefore is logical.
--
Denial of Free Will makes the Knowledge of Order Absolute.
darwinist
> On Nov 29, 10:32 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 4:38 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 9:20 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On the one hand people like security, peace and being an esteemed part
> > > > of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
> > > > (of various kinds).
>
> > > Peace requires power, security requires wealth, and esteem requires
> > > ability. Money can buy power but ability is a little harder to obtain.
>
> > Yes those things can co-operate. However they don't necessarily. You
> > need some amount of power to pursue peace, or to do anything at all,
> > but people often pursue power beyond what is needed for those other
> > things. Sometimes people want power for its own sake, even if it poses
> > a danger to their peace or security. The same with wealth.
>
> That sounds judgmental, assuming you can determine another persons
> motivations.
It doesn't require midn-reading, one only needs to see people's
actions to see that humans will often pursue wealth or a position of
power, even when it's dangerous.
> > > > Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> > > > conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> > > > tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
>
> > > Gotta maintain a balance.
>
> > You do, and in some cases you can go beyond balance to co-operation.
>
> > For a trivial example: Balance would be spending less money on take-
> > away food so you can afford cooking classes. Co-operation would be
> > teaching yourself to cook, and having more money left over to spend on
> > takeaway when you want it.
>
> Bad example, how is that cooperation?.
Because the two different desires, having money to spend on good
takeaway food when you feel like it, and learning how to cook, are
both served by the same activity. This is instead of having to
moderate one (buying cheaper takeaway) in order to further the other
(paying for cooking classes). The latter is balance between the two
desires, the former is co-operation between the two.
> > > > The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> > > > each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> > > > effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> > > > is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> > > > live.
>
> > > I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs
>
> > The things we instinctively want are - thanks to natural selection -
> > closely related to our biological needs, but they are not the same
> > thing. We often want these things when we need them, but we also want
> > them when they will have an unknown or negligible or sometimes even
> > negative outcome. That is why consider "instinct" to be an appropriate
> > term.
>
> So you wish to satisfy something that is unknown or possibly negative?
In the sense that almost everything we do can have unknown and
possibly negative consequences, yes. But when I talk about instincts
I'm not talking about what I was specifically, but rather what humans
typically want species-wide.
> > > and you might want to keep local and federal laws in mind.
>
> > Of course, cultural and environmental factors such as these are
> > important to consider.
>
> And other people.
The need to consider other people fits under the original point. We
are driven instinctively to find and look after friends, allies, mates
and groups to belong to, and to look after our family. The need to
make these things work in harmony with our other, more personally
selfish instincts, is the reason we need moral rules.
Michael Gordge
> instinctive pursuits?"
Rules must have a standard, I am talking about the standard, the rules
follow, or rather the rules are a corollary of the standard.
MG
darwinist
Rules can be strategic as well. For example in a financial case, you
might follow a rule to "save 10% of your income in a rainy-day fund".
This amount could - in theory - be 5 or 50 percent. It depends on many
other considerations such as income, risks and other expenses. You
choose a rule based on the standard of "which rule will best fit
strategically with my various goals".
A similar standard can be applied to moral rules, such as how much
force to response with if your country is attacked. If a town in your
country came under attack and then the attackers left before you could
response, what would your eventual response be? Would you aim to
destroy a similar sized town from the attacking country, or target
their military bases, or just increase your defense forces in the
area, or try to utterly destroy the other country, or do nothing
directly and ask a more powerful country for help, or somewhere in
between these things? This is just a thought experiment but in real
life it would not be a trivial or technical question. Many lives,
domestic and foreign would be at stake. It would depend on your other
aims in that part of the world: humanitarian, diplomatic, economic, as
well as strategic factors.
The rules to follow depend on which ones co-operate your different
aims most harmoniously.
M Purcell
> On Dec 1, 1:14 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:32 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 4:38 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 29, 9:20 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On the one hand people like security, peace and being an esteemed part
> > > > > of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
> > > > > (of various kinds).
>
> > > > Peace requires power, security requires wealth, and esteem requires
> > > > ability. Money can buy power but ability is a little harder to obtain.
>
> > > Yes those things can co-operate. However they don't necessarily. You
> > > need some amount of power to pursue peace, or to do anything at all,
> > > but people often pursue power beyond what is needed for those other
> > > things. Sometimes people want power for its own sake, even if it poses
> > > a danger to their peace or security. The same with wealth.
>
> > That sounds judgmental, assuming you can determine another persons
> > motivations.
>
> It doesn't require midn-reading, one only needs to see people's
> actions to see that humans will often pursue wealth or a position of
> power, even when it's dangerous.
Dangerous to whom? The determination of necessity or goals is an
individual judgment.
> > > > > Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> > > > > conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> > > > > tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
>
> > > > Gotta maintain a balance.
>
> > > You do, and in some cases you can go beyond balance to co-operation.
>
> > > For a trivial example: Balance would be spending less money on take-
> > > away food so you can afford cooking classes. Co-operation would be
> > > teaching yourself to cook, and having more money left over to spend on
> > > takeaway when you want it.
>
> > Bad example, how is that cooperation?.
>
> Because the two different desires, having money to spend on good
> takeaway food when you feel like it, and learning how to cook, are
> both served by the same activity. This is instead of having to
> moderate one (buying cheaper takeaway) in order to further the other
> (paying for cooking classes). The latter is balance between the two
> desires, the former is co-operation between the two.
I think I would call that efficiency such as "killing two birds with
one stone".
> > > > > The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> > > > > each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> > > > > effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> > > > > is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> > > > > live.
>
> > > > I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs
>
> > > The things we instinctively want are - thanks to natural selection -
> > > closely related to our biological needs, but they are not the same
> > > thing. We often want these things when we need them, but we also want
> > > them when they will have an unknown or negligible or sometimes even
> > > negative outcome. That is why consider "instinct" to be an appropriate
> > > term.
>
> > So you wish to satisfy something that is unknown or possibly negative?
>
> In the sense that almost everything we do can have unknown and
> possibly negative consequences, yes. But when I talk about instincts
> I'm not talking about what I was specifically, but rather what humans
> typically want species-wide.
But not everything we do is instinctive. How would you determine what
the human race, with one exception, wants?
> > > > and you might want to keep local and federal laws in mind.
>
> > > Of course, cultural and environmental factors such as these are
> > > important to consider.
>
> > And other people.
>
> The need to consider other people fits under the original point. We
> are driven instinctively to find and look after friends, allies, mates
> and groups to belong to, and to look after our family. The need to
> make these things work in harmony with our other, more personally
> selfish instincts, is the reason we need moral rules.
I would simplify it to we need moral rules to live with other people.
darwinist
> On Nov 30, 2:30 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 1:14 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 10:32 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 4:38 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 9:20 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On the one hand people like security, peace and being an esteemed part
> > > > > > of a group. On the other hand they like winning and power and wealth
> > > > > > (of various kinds).
>
> > > > > Peace requires power, security requires wealth, and esteem requires
> > > > > ability. Money can buy power but ability is a little harder to obtain.
>
> > > > Yes those things can co-operate. However they don't necessarily. You
> > > > need some amount of power to pursue peace, or to do anything at all,
> > > > but people often pursue power beyond what is needed for those other
> > > > things. Sometimes people want power for its own sake, even if it poses
> > > > a danger to their peace or security. The same with wealth.
>
> > > That sounds judgmental, assuming you can determine another persons
> > > motivations.
>
> > It doesn't require midn-reading, one only needs to see people's
> > actions to see that humans will often pursue wealth or a position of
> > power, even when it's dangerous.
>
> Dangerous to whom? The determination of necessity or goals is an
> individual judgment.
>
Dangerous to their own health or lives, for example.
>
> > > > > > Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> > > > > > conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> > > > > > tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
>
> > > > > Gotta maintain a balance.
>
> > > > You do, and in some cases you can go beyond balance to co-operation.
>
> > > > For a trivial example: Balance would be spending less money on take-
> > > > away food so you can afford cooking classes. Co-operation would be
> > > > teaching yourself to cook, and having more money left over to spend on
> > > > takeaway when you want it.
>
> > > Bad example, how is that cooperation?.
>
> > Because the two different desires, having money to spend on good
> > takeaway food when you feel like it, and learning how to cook, are
> > both served by the same activity. This is instead of having to
> > moderate one (buying cheaper takeaway) in order to further the other
> > (paying for cooking classes). The latter is balance between the two
> > desires, the former is co-operation between the two.
>
> I think I would call that efficiency such as "killing two birds with
> one stone".
>
Yes, it is killing two birds with one stone. Efficiency is a broader
term that can encompass many different things, which is why I used the
more specific term of co-operation.
>
> > > > > > The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> > > > > > each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> > > > > > effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> > > > > > is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> > > > > > live.
>
> > > > > I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs
>
> > > > The things we instinctively want are - thanks to natural selection -
> > > > closely related to our biological needs, but they are not the same
> > > > thing. We often want these things when we need them, but we also want
> > > > them when they will have an unknown or negligible or sometimes even
> > > > negative outcome. That is why consider "instinct" to be an appropriate
> > > > term.
>
> > > So you wish to satisfy something that is unknown or possibly negative?
>
> > In the sense that almost everything we do can have unknown and
> > possibly negative consequences, yes. But when I talk about instincts
> > I'm not talking about what I was specifically, but rather what humans
> > typically want species-wide.
>
> But not everything we do is instinctive. How would you determine what
> the human race, with one exception, wants?
Firstly, I didn't mean to suggest that these aren't also things I
want. I meant that I'm not talking about merely personal,
idiosyncratic desires; but rather about desires virtually everybody
has and which are typical of our species.
As to how to determine what they are, we can ask which goals do people
of different cultures - today and throughout history - have in common.
To get the most detailed and accurate answers would require a lot of
research, but I think we can make some safe bets, such as food,
understanding, security, sex, power, structured communication,
membership of a group, welfare of one's family.
> > > > > and you might want to keep local and federal laws in mind.
>
> > > > Of course, cultural and environmental factors such as these are
> > > > important to consider.
>
> > > And other people.
>
> > The need to consider other people fits under the original point. We
> > are driven instinctively to find and look after friends, allies, mates
> > and groups to belong to, and to look after our family. The need to
> > make these things work in harmony with our other, more personally
> > selfish instincts, is the reason we need moral rules.
>
> I would simplify it to we need moral rules to live with other people.
That's definitely simpler, and more obvious. I was trying to explain
*why* we need moral rules to live with other people, or to put it
another: what problems arise when living with other people (as
virtually all of us do), which moral rules can address.
darwinist
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:20:00 -0800, darwinist wrote:
> > the reason we need moral rules.
>
> The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must they
> be imposed or learned?
The desire for rules or guidelines, to help us make decisions, is
probably instinctive. The specific rules - moral or otherwise - that
we choose, are a result of specific conditions and strategies, which
are not instinctive.
> I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is innate
> if any one is willing to discuss this.
>
> Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
> needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
> having the quality of finality as morals.
One could be quite mean to others without breaking any laws. I think
we also need our own personal laws which we enforce on ourselves. They
don't have to be final, but they should be at least tentatively worth
following and turning into habits.
darwinist
I don't know why I kept typing "response" where it should have been
"respond". Anyway, apologies.
M Purcell
Which is why those determinations should be left to the individual.
> > > > > > > Our strategies for pursuing these different goals can come into
> > > > > > > conflict with each other (e.g. our pursuit of wealth and power might
> > > > > > > tempt us to neglect our social responsibilities, or to start a war).
>
> > > > > > Gotta maintain a balance.
>
> > > > > You do, and in some cases you can go beyond balance to co-operation.
>
> > > > > For a trivial example: Balance would be spending less money on take-
> > > > > away food so you can afford cooking classes. Co-operation would be
> > > > > teaching yourself to cook, and having more money left over to spend on
> > > > > takeaway when you want it.
>
> > > > Bad example, how is that cooperation?.
>
> > > Because the two different desires, having money to spend on good
> > > takeaway food when you feel like it, and learning how to cook, are
> > > both served by the same activity. This is instead of having to
> > > moderate one (buying cheaper takeaway) in order to further the other
> > > (paying for cooking classes). The latter is balance between the two
> > > desires, the former is co-operation between the two.
>
> > I think I would call that efficiency such as "killing two birds with
> > one stone".
>
> Yes, it is killing two birds with one stone. Efficiency is a broader
> term that can encompass many different things, which is why I used the
> more specific term of co-operation.
I'm glad we got that straight.
> > > > > > > The need to fit these pursuits together - to make them co-operate with
> > > > > > > each other - so we can satisfy our different instincts more
> > > > > > > effectively, is the reason we need moral rules. Keeping this in mind
> > > > > > > is useful when developing your own moral rules and deciding how to
> > > > > > > live.
>
> > > > > > I wouldn't say instincts but rather needs
>
> > > > > The things we instinctively want are - thanks to natural selection -
> > > > > closely related to our biological needs, but they are not the same
> > > > > thing. We often want these things when we need them, but we also want
> > > > > them when they will have an unknown or negligible or sometimes even
> > > > > negative outcome. That is why consider "instinct" to be an appropriate
> > > > > term.
>
> > > > So you wish to satisfy something that is unknown or possibly negative?
>
> > > In the sense that almost everything we do can have unknown and
> > > possibly negative consequences, yes. But when I talk about instincts
> > > I'm not talking about what I was specifically, but rather what humans
> > > typically want species-wide.
>
> > But not everything we do is instinctive. How would you determine what
> > the human race, with one exception, wants?
>
> Firstly, I didn't mean to suggest that these aren't also things I
> want. I meant that I'm not talking about merely personal,
> idiosyncratic desires; but rather about desires virtually everybody
> has and which are typical of our species.
Wants and desires are individual determinations. You seem to be
projecting your values on everybody else.
> As to how to determine what they are, we can ask which goals do people
> of different cultures - today and throughout history - have in common.
> To get the most detailed and accurate answers would require a lot of
> research, but I think we can make some safe bets, such as food,
> understanding, security, sex, power, structured communication,
> membership of a group, welfare of one's family.
They are known needs (or means of survival) not unknown desires and
different people value them differently.
> > > > > > and you might want to keep local and federal laws in mind.
>
> > > > > Of course, cultural and environmental factors such as these are
> > > > > important to consider.
>
> > > > And other people.
>
> > > The need to consider other people fits under the original point. We
> > > are driven instinctively to find and look after friends, allies, mates
> > > and groups to belong to, and to look after our family. The need to
> > > make these things work in harmony with our other, more personally
> > > selfish instincts, is the reason we need moral rules.
>
> > I would simplify it to we need moral rules to live with other people.
>
> That's definitely simpler, and more obvious. I was trying to explain
> *why* we need moral rules to live with other people, or to put it
> another: what problems arise when living with other people (as
> virtually all of us do), which moral rules can address.
Good example.
darwinist
Of course. I'm not talking about what goals people *should* have, but
what goals they are likely to have.
Do you think any of values I listed below are not typical across the
whole species?
> > As to how to determine what they are, we can ask which goals do people
> > of different cultures - today and throughout history - have in common.
> > To get the most detailed and accurate answers would require a lot of
> > research, but I think we can make some safe bets, such as food,
> > understanding, security, sex, power, structured communication,
> > membership of a group, welfare of one's family.
>
> They are known needs (or means of survival) not unknown desires and
> different people value them differently.
>
People want many of these before they have any idea how they can aid
survival, and people often want them beyond what's needed to survive.
Need cannot explain why people seek these things. Innate human nature
can explain it, though.
M Purcell
> On Dec 1, 11:29 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 4:00 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As to how to determine what they are, we can ask which goals do people
> > > of different cultures - today and throughout history - have in common.
> > > To get the most detailed and accurate answers would require a lot of
> > > research, but I think we can make some safe bets, such as food,
> > > understanding, security, sex, power, structured communication,
> > > membership of a group, welfare of one's family.
>
> > They are known needs (or means of survival) not unknown desires and
> > different people value them differently.
>
> People want many of these before they have any idea how they can aid
> survival, and people often want them beyond what's needed to survive.
> Need cannot explain why people seek these things. Innate human nature
> can explain it, though.
People seek these things because they are needed for survival.
tg
Wouldn't "reflexive" apply more precisely than "instinctive" in such a
case? Then there is no implication of genetic determination.
>I assume an individual free will.
Even when one acts reflexively?
-tg
darwinist
If that is the case then why do people seek them when they don't know
they are needed for survival? For example babies want food and
companionship and soon enough they want to explore the world around
them. This is before they can have any understanding of mortality or
nutrition.
In other words, how can a need cause a want, when the need is not
known?
M Purcell
If you want, both result in subconscious behavior.
> >I assume an individual free will.
>
> Even when one acts reflexively?
What do you think?
M Purcell
Perhaps when you grow up and become responcible for satisfying your
own wants and needs you will recognize the difference
Michael Gordge
> Rules can be strategic as well.
Even strategic rules require a standard, preceeding rules with an
adjective (strategic) does not change the meaning of rules.
> For example in a financial case,
A financial case without a sensory standard, without a sensory goal,
has no meaning or purpose.
> A similar standard can be applied to moral rules, such as how much
> force to response with if your country is attacked.
Its simple, if the force you use is not equal too or better than the
opposing / threatening physical force, then at best you will stagnate
and at worst you will lose, bottom line? the force you must use /
threaten has a sensory standard, which is, your life.
> ........ This is just a thought experiment but in real
> life it would not be a trivial or technical question.
Keep all thoughts directly related to reality, sensory reality,
including especially the thoughts you have of what is the rational,
therefore the practical, therefore the correct moral standard for man
to determine / guide his interactons with other man, his own life.
MG
darwinist
You're barking up the wrong tree. I am already grown and responsible
for providing for my own needs and wants. A need is something required
to fulfill a condition (e.g. you need money to buy things, you need
food to live), a want is something you think would be pleasant (or
less unpleasant). You both need food and want it. Why we need food is
one thing, but why we *want* food, even before we understand that we
need it to stay alive, is a the question I'm putting to you.
darwinist
> On Dec 1, 8:18 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rules can be strategic as well.
>
> Even strategic rules require a standard, preceeding rules with an
> adjective (strategic) does not change the meaning of rules.
>
> > For example in a financial case,
>
> A financial case without a sensory standard, without a sensory goal,
> has no meaning or purpose.
>
> > A similar standard can be applied to moral rules, such as how much
> > force to response with if your country is attacked.
>
> Its simple, if the force you use is not equal too or better than the
> opposing / threatening physical force, then at best you will stagnate
> and at worst you will lose, bottom line? the force you must use /
> threaten has a sensory standard, which is, your life.
Given that the outcome is not going to be certain, but a question of
probabilities (how likely is this to work, how likely is it to make me
safe, how many people is it likely to kill), then it's far from
simple.
At the same time as trying to save your own life, you might want to
avoid killing other people, if at all possible. You might want to
maintain the relationships with other countries in the region, so
avoid too much collateral damage. Trying to satisfy these various aims
can be difficult, and requires you to consider more than simply
staying alive.
M Purcell
I do not minimize either inherited or learned behavior and questioning
it is a good idea since we are each responcible for our actions and
distinguishing needs from wants. Do you really fail to see that we can
want air without knowing we need oxygen and the associated processes
and that a rational apprasal of the situation stands a better chance
of success than innate human panic.
darwinist
Yes, I can see that we want things without knowing we need them, such
as oxygen. My question is what do you think causes us to want them, if
not the knowledge that we need them (since we might not have that
knowledge)? I say it's instinctive, ie innate to our species to want
certain things.
Simply saying that we seek something because we need it (even if we
don't know we need it) does it explain it. This is because it's
conceivable we can need something and not want it. This happens all
the time in fact, people might not know they need surgery, or to fix
something in their car that's about to break and cause an accident, or
a drug to treat a rare condition, etc.
If need is not sufficient to explain the common "wants" of our
species, what can explain them?
M Purcell
> On Dec 1, 3:30 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I do not minimize either inherited or learned behavior and questioning
> > it is a good idea since we are each responcible for our actions and
> > distinguishing needs from wants. Do you really fail to see that we can
> > want air without knowing we need oxygen and the associated processes
> > and that a rational apprasal of the situation stands a better chance
> > of success than innate human panic.
>
> Yes, I can see that we want things without knowing we need them, such
> as oxygen. My question is what do you think causes us to want them, if
> not the knowledge that we need them (since we might not have that
> knowledge)? I say it's instinctive, ie innate to our species to want
> certain things.
It's innate to any species that survived.
> Simply saying that we seek something because we need it (even if we
> don't know we need it) does it explain it. This is because it's
> conceivable we can need something and not want it. This happens all
> the time in fact, people might not know they need surgery, or to fix
> something in their car that's about to break and cause an accident, or
> a drug to treat a rare condition, etc.
Yes it is conceivable we might not know something.
> If need is not sufficient to explain the common "wants" of our
> species, what can explain them?
Choice.
darwinist
I don't this this can account for it. Are you saying that babies
choose to want food or security, that they choose to get hungry or
scared?
M Purcell
Those are instincts and I'm tired of going in circles.
darwinist
Good then we agree. I'm sorry if you feel it was a circular
discussion. If you ever cared to read through it again I think you
will find otherwise; the whole time I was just trying to demonstrate
this central point: that neither need nor choice can explain why
humans have some of their most common desires.
With food, as with many things, we might learn different ways of
securing it as we grow up, and we might modify our pursuit of it to
fit with other goals, but our instinctive desire that starts in
infancy remains a driving force throughout our life.
Michael Gordge
> Given that the outcome is not going to be certain, but a question of
> probabilities (how likely is this to work, how likely is it to make me
> safe, how many people is it likely to kill), then it's far from
> simple.
A very very simple fact of reality is, that a physical force can be
stopped when an equal and opposite force is applied, and there is
nothing uncertain or probable about it.
> At the same time as trying to save your own life, you might want to
> avoid killing other people, if at all possible.
Shrug, who ever initiates and or threatens to initiate physical force
is the evil one and has no choice but to expect and or accept any and
all consequences of their action.
> You might want to
> maintain the relationships with other countries in the region, so
> avoid too much collateral damage.
Why would you ever want to deal with evil, unless of course you also
have evil intent?
MG
Michael Gordge
> The desire for rules or guidelines, to help us make decisions, is
> probably instinctive.
Rules mean nothing without a standard, the check required, of the
stanard for rules, is the standard bogus (utterly mind dependent) e.g.
the nauseating nasal chant of the anti-human socialist, their "we our
brother's keeper" crap, or is it based upon non-contradictory
identification and integration of reality, sensory reality, e.g. you -
the human individual.
MG
tg
I think it depends on what your idea of "individual free will" is,
which is the point of my question. If you wish to have a
philosophical discussion, words and their meanings are important.
-tg
M Purcell
I do not agree and perhaps someday you will learn the difference
between wants and needs.
M Purcell
Really, I thought your question was rhetorical but you might need a
dictonary.
M Purcell
I doubt many people believe "we are our brother's keeper" (except
dedicated penal officers) and suspect even fewer would place a greater
importance on another person. And there's plenty of rhetorical
chanting from both sides.
ZerkonXXXX
> On Nov 30, 5:31 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:20:00 -0800, darwinist wrote:
>> > the reason we need moral rules.
>>
>> The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must
>> they be imposed or learned?
>>
>> I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is
>> innate if any one is willing to discuss this.
>
> Sounds argumentative.
Yes, it was intended not to sound so but to be obviously so.
>
>> Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
>> needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
>> having the quality of finality as morals.
>
> The difference between moral rules and law is that laws are imposed
> externally.
Or should be.
ZerkonXXXX
> On Dec 1, 12:31 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:20:00 -0800, darwinist wrote:
>> > the reason we need moral rules.
>>
>> The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must
>> they be imposed or learned?
>
> The desire for rules or guidelines, to help us make decisions, is
> probably instinctive. The specific rules - moral or otherwise - that we
> choose, are a result of specific conditions and strategies, which are
> not instinctive.
I do not think you start deep enough. Working 'backwards' from rules is
order which services predictability and a sense of control which
satisfies the base instinct of safety. Grouping instinctively serves this
also.
>> I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is
>> innate if any one is willing to discuss this.
>>
>> Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
>> needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
>> having the quality of finality as morals.
>
> One could be quite mean to others without breaking any laws.
One could be quite kind as well. Which is the more common?
> I think we also need our own personal laws which we enforce on
> ourselves. They don't have to be final, but they should be at least
> tentatively worth following and turning into habits.
Ok, sounds good. Are these laws a instinctual need?
M Purcell
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:19:09 -0800, M Purcell wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 5:31 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:20:00 -0800, darwinist wrote:
> >> > the reason we need moral rules.
>
> >> The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must
> >> they be imposed or learned?
>
> >> I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is
> >> innate if any one is willing to discuss this.
>
> > Sounds argumentative.
>
> Yes, it was intended not to sound so but to be obviously so.
Between you and darwinist I was trying to point out the moral extremes
of "is doesn't matter what other people believe" and "everybody should
believe what I do".
> >> Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
> >> needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
> >> having the quality of finality as morals.
>
> > The difference between moral rules and law is that laws are imposed
> > externally.
>
> Or should be.
Well that's the idea of laws, it isn't a perfect world and people do
not always agree. In any case I believe morality is a reasoned
personal attitude toward other people but innate empathy helps in the
decision making.
darwinist
Which part(s) do you disagree with, specifically? When I asked if you
think "babies choose to want food or security" you said "Those are
instincts", so I go the impression that you agree these "wants" are
instinctive?
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to this important distinction that
I'm missing between needs and wants, since I've already explained what
I think is the difference between them a few posts ago. To quote:
"A need is something required to fulfill a condition (e.g. you need
money to buy things, you need food to live), a want is something you
think would be pleasant (or less unpleasant). You both need food and
want it.[...]"
M Purcell
You just made my point.
darwinist
Which point is that? It would be helpful if you gave more detailed
answers.
M Purcell
You need more help than I can give you.
darwinist
> On Dec 1, 1:17 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given that the outcome is not going to be certain, but a question of
> > probabilities (how likely is this to work, how likely is it to make me
> > safe, how many people is it likely to kill), then it's far from
> > simple.
>
> A very very simple fact of reality is, that a physical force can be
> stopped when an equal and opposite force is applied, and there is
> nothing uncertain or probable about it.
This is simple for simple forces. Military engagements are nothing of
the kind. There's a question not only of number but of placement,
technology and timing. Furthermore, if if the attack is already made,
it's too late to stop that particular force, so the decision must be
how to retaliate.
> > At the same time as trying to save your own life, you might want to
> > avoid killing other people, if at all possible.
>
> Shrug, who ever initiates and or threatens to initiate physical force
> is the evil one and has no choice but to expect and or accept any and
> all consequences of their action.
In war there are many more people hurt than those who are engaged in
or even support the fighting. Should everyone in the proximity of
people who (unbeknown to them) are intending to initiate/threaten
force; also expect and accept the consequences?
> > You might want to
> > maintain the relationships with other countries in the region, so
> > avoid too much collateral damage.
>
> Why would you ever want to deal with evil, unless of course you also
> have evil intent?
What makes you think that other countries in the region will be evil?
> MG
darwinist
Well in that case there's no need to explain your position, or provide
any reasoning in support of it. How convenient for you.
M Purcell
Indeed, it would be a waste of time.
darwinist
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:17:21 -0800, darwinist wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 12:31 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:20:00 -0800, darwinist wrote:
> >> > the reason we need moral rules.
>
> >> The (or 'A') question is: are moral rules innate/instinctual or must
> >> they be imposed or learned?
>
> > The desire for rules or guidelines, to help us make decisions, is
> > probably instinctive. The specific rules - moral or otherwise - that we
> > choose, are a result of specific conditions and strategies, which are
> > not instinctive.
>
> I do not think you start deep enough. Working 'backwards' from rules is
> order which services predictability and a sense of control which
> satisfies the base instinct of safety. Grouping instinctively serves this
> also.
>
> >> I will hold the position mortality, or what is called morality, is
> >> innate if any one is willing to discuss this.
>
> >> Anyway, I do not think we need moral rules. If 'we', the most that is
> >> needed is a system of reasoned law which should never be considered as
> >> having the quality of finality as morals.
>
> > One could be quite mean to others without breaking any laws.
>
> One could be quite kind as well. Which is the more common?
Hard to say, but I think that giving serious time and attention to
refining ones moral rules (using the "co-operating instincts"
perspective I described), can help tip the balance.
> > I think we also need our own personal laws which we enforce on
> > ourselves. They don't have to be final, but they should be at least
> > tentatively worth following and turning into habits.
>
> Ok, sounds good. Are these laws a instinctual need?
Not these laws specifically. Looking for some kinds of guidelines is
instinctive, in my opinion. What's learned is how we view these
guidelines, how we go about making them, what we see as their nature
or purpose. Such learned things can greatly affect the kinds of rules
we come up with and how we go about implementing them.
Michael Gordge
Yes thats right, e.g. the man with a gun can be stopped by using
another gun, an even bigger one will help.
> Military engagements are nothing of
> the kind.
Check your premises.
> There's a question not only of number but of placement,
> technology and timing.
I've already explained that, a physical force / threat can only be
stopped by an equal and or better and opposite physical force.
> What makes you think that other countries in the region will be evil?
I dont, a country is only a geographical area, only human individuals
exist as entities capable of doing evil, answer the question - Why on
earth would you want to deal with an evil person, if not because you
also have evil intent?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> I doubt many people believe "we are our brother's keeper"
There isn't a socialist alive who doesn't believe that.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 2, 7:45 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > This is simple for simple forces.
>
> Yes thats right, e.g. the man with a gun can be stopped by using
> another gun, an even bigger one will help.
That won't necessarily stop him. It depends on who sees (or knows the
location of) whom first, what kind of cover each person has, etc.You
speak as if it's two people arm wrestling or playing tug of war, where
there are two comparable forces being applied to the same place at an
agreed upon time, but war is not so neatly predictable.
> > Military engagements are nothing of
> > the kind.
>
> Check your premises.
Which premises do you think need checking?
> > There's a question not only of number but of placement,
> > technology and timing.
>
> I've already explained that, a physical force / threat can only be
> stopped by an equal and or better and opposite physical force.
>
> > What makes you think that other countries in the region will be evil?
>
> I dont, a country is only a geographical area, only human individuals
> exist as entities capable of doing evil, answer the question - Why on
> earth would you want to deal with an evil person, if not because you
> also have evil intent?
So who are these evil people you're talking about? I said "you might
want to maintain relationships with other countries in the region". If
you think countries can't have relationships then we could say other
*people* in the region. In either case, what makes you think they
would be evil?
> MG
Michael Gordge
> I said "you might
> want to maintain relationships with other countries in the region".
And I said, a country is just a geographical location, only human
individuals exist as entities capable of doing being evil, the
question remains unanswered, Why would you want to deal with an evil
person?
MG
darwinist
Who are these evil people you are saying I want to deal with?
M Purcell
That would be very difficult to prove.
M Purcell
If you want to argue against socialism then refer to socialism, what
other people believe is something we are ignorant of. Sometimes people
don't know what they believe. And refering to socialists is an ad
hominem as well as an overgeneralization, I really would recommend the
study of logical fallacies.
Michael Gordge
> Who are these evil people you are saying I want to deal with?
The individuals who are in the region of evil people and do nothing
about it.
Evil can only exist where and or when good people fail to act, so stop
dealing with those individuals who are not acting against evil and the
message will soon get through.
Only individuals exist. Morals can only apply to human individuals,
the human individual, that's you, is the highest possible standard of
all your moral values.
You are the standard of all your moral values, if you are not in
command, if you are not the standard of your moral values then someone
else is.
MG
Michael Gordge
Taxation is based upon the idea of the individual passing his
responsiblity to take care of himself onto his brother.
MG
Michael Gordge
> If you want to argue against socialism then refer to socialism,
I do, I have, socialism is the anti-human "we are our brother's
keeper" ideology.
> what
> other people believe is something we are ignorant of.
Its not possible to be a nauseating nasal whining envy ridden
socialist (as they all are) without also believing that everyone else
owes you a living.
> Sometimes people
> don't know what they believe.
Crap, they could not survive without knowing what they believe,
dishonesty is the socialist's problem, the deliberate avoidence of the
endless contradictions in their beliefs.
> I really would recommend the
> study of logical fallacies.
Why would anyone but a retard want to study an oxymoron?
MG
M Purcell
OMG, you are a moron.
darwinist
> On Dec 2, 8:47 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who are these evil people you are saying I want to deal with?
>
> The individuals who are in the region of evil people and do nothing
> about it.
Who says they're doing nothing about it? They may be fail to stop it,
but that doesn't mean they did nothing. You're not saying that anyone
loses a war against an aggressor is evil simply because they lost are
you?
Surely we can't claim that anyone who doesn't prevent an attack
(whether or not they knew it was coming), or fails to stop a stronger,
more heavily armed aggressor in the region (even if they try) is evil.
darwinist
"Logical fallacies" is not an oxymoron, it doesn't mean fallacies
which are also logical, it means fallacies (things which are
incorrect) in the area of logic. In other words, mistakes or errors of
reasoning. There is a good list of them on wikipedia, and I can
recommend learning about them as they are both interesting and
instructive.
Michael Gordge
> OMG, you are a moron.
And ewe're a knuckle-dragging fucking useless pathetic commie
fuckwitted envy ridden Kantian retard, perhaps ewe can explain what
the fuck is logical about a fallacy.
Hint, if its a fallacy then its not logical.
Hint, logic means non-contradictory identification and integration,
there are no contradictions in reality, therefore logic is dealing
with, logic is a tool used, along with sensory data, to identify what
exists in reality, a fallacy is not reality.
Hint, preceeding fallacy with an adjective does NOT change the meaning
of fallacy, if its a fallacy then its a fallacy A is A.
MG
Michael Gordge
> "Logical fallacies" is not an oxymoron,
OMG, not another one.
Hint; fallacy does not need to be preceeded by and adjective for its
meaning.
whoooops silly you, I dont do the wikicrap.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Surely we can't claim that anyone who doesn't prevent an attack
> (whether or not they knew it was coming), or fails to stop a stronger,
> more heavily armed aggressor in the region (even if they try) is evil.
Its not that many years ago that South African politics treated all
black skinned human individuals as inferior to white skinned people,
millions of human individuals, albeit some via their own government
policy, eventually refused to deal / trade with South Africans trading
from South Africa, as a result of human individuals refusing to trade
with the human individuals who were "in the region" of evil people,
South Africa eventually changed its political ideology, it still has a
long way to go, my point is, refusing to trade with people in the
region of evil people can change. Words are better than bullets, South
Africa had no choice but to listen to the words, Hitler and Saddam
Hussien etal, of course didn't listen and have paid the price.
You raised the subject of moral rules, my point is, that for 'moral
rules' to have any link, or relationship to reality then they require
a standard, and that standard has to be sensory, and I am saying, the
human individual is the highest and the most nobble standard possible
for all moral values.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 8:10 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Surely we can't claim that anyone who doesn't prevent an attack
> > (whether or not they knew it was coming), or fails to stop a stronger,
> > more heavily armed aggressor in the region (even if they try) is evil.
>
> Its not that many years ago that South African politics treated all
> black skinned human individuals as inferior to white skinned people,
> millions of human individuals, albeit some via their own government
> policy, eventually refused to deal / trade with South Africans trading
> from South Africa, as a result of human individuals refusing to trade
> with the human individuals who were "in the region" of evil people,
> South Africa eventually changed its political ideology, it still has a
> long way to go, my point is, refusing to trade with people in the
> region of evil people can change.
It can in some cases, yes. But that's very different from saying all
the people in the region are evil themselves. And in other cases it
won't work, such as when the people in the region are in a different
country or have little to no political influence in their own country.
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 8:25 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Logical fallacies" is not an oxymoron,
>
> OMG, not another one.
>
> Hint; fallacy does not need to be preceeded by and adjective for its
> meaning.
Adjectives modify the meaning of a noun. That's the whole point of
adjectives.
"Logical fallacy" means a fault in ones (attempted) reasoning. The
term is not an oxymoron if you care to take a few seconds to learn
what it actually means.
> whoooops silly you, I dont do the wikicrap.
>
> MG
What about dictionaries? You might want to look up "adjective" and
"logical fallacy". Here's an online dictionary you can use.
http://dictionary.reference.com
Michael Gordge
>
> It can in some cases, yes. But that's very different from saying all
> the people in the region are evil themselves.
It was your idea not to cause a problem for people in the region of
evil people, thereby the evil continues (history is saddly riddled
with the evidence of that fact), whereas I am saying and have proven
that the exact opposite idea is rational, and therefore works in
practice.
> And in other cases it
> won't work, such as when the people in the region are in a different
> country or have little to no political influence in their own country.
I have just given you an example of where human individuals in one
geographical location can cause political events to change in other
geographical locations.
You seem to not want to grasp the simple fact that a country is only a
geographical location defined by man by drawing lines, where in
reality there are none. In reality only human individuals exist and
the accidental geographical (accidental by birth) location of those
individuals does not change the fact that they exist as human
individuals, with a god given (natural) right to exist for their own
sake.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 11:41 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It can in some cases, yes. But that's very different from saying all
> > the people in the region are evil themselves.
>
> It was your idea not to cause a problem for people in the region of
> evil people, thereby the evil continues (history is saddly riddled
> with the evidence of that fact), whereas I am saying and have proven
> that the exact opposite idea is rational, and therefore works in
> practice.
This was never my idea, since clearly any retaliation is going to
cause problems for (at least some) people in the area. The idea was to
minimise these problems as much as you can while still serving the
original purpose of retaliating effectively towards the people who
attacked you.
> > And in other cases it
> > won't work, such as when the people in the region are in a different
> > country or have little to no political influence in their own country.
>
> I have just given you an example of where human individuals in one
> geographical location can cause political events to change in other
> geographical locations.
Yes, and I agreed that it worked. The same approach fails in other
cases. For example if the people you refuse to trade with have little
or no influence on the people whose actions you're trying to change.
> You seem to not want to grasp the simple fact that a country is only a
> geographical location defined by man by drawing lines, where in
> reality there are none. In reality only human individuals exist and
> the accidental geographical (accidental by birth) location of those
> individuals does not change the fact that they exist as human
> individuals, with a god given (natural) right to exist for their own
> sake.
The accidental birth location does change which (if any) elections
they can vote in. The lines might be drawn by men but that doesn't
mean they don't have real implications for daily business and conduct.
> MG
Michael Gordge
> The accidental birth location does change which (if any) elections
> they can vote in.
The country of your birth is an accident of your birth, just as your
skin color is an accident of your birth, the fact that people before
you have forced obligations on to you, that were unchosen by you, is
no accident.
These scum, who have forced their moral values onto you, will use
'elections' - 'mobocracy' as their excuse.
> The lines might be drawn by men but that doesn't
> mean they don't have real implications for daily business and conduct.
e.g. the parasitcal scourge of unchosen obligations, e.g. socialism.
Problems arrise when people invent their moral standards.
MG
darwinist
The fact remains that which country you're born in affects your level
and sphere of political influence (such as through elections or lack
thereof). It's therefore relevant if you're trying to change someone's
actions with trade boycotts in the way you described.
> MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Adjectives modify the meaning of a noun. That's the whole point of
> adjectives.
The meaning of fallacy does not change just because it is preceeded
with the adjective logical.
> "Logical fallacy" means a fault in ones (attempted) reasoning.
Fallacy does that all by itself, without being preceeded by any silly
adjective.
When faced with a fallacy you check the premises, one or both are
wrong.
> The
> term is not an oxymoron if you care to take a few seconds to learn
> what it actually means.
A fallacy can never be defined as logical, either something is a fact
or its a fallacy, if it cant be 'poked with a stick' then its a
fallacy, e.g. 'the greater good' is a fallacy.
Reasoning is a two step process, non-contradictory identification and
integration of sensory data.
You only have matter and its nature to reason.
> What about dictionaries?
Older the better, preferably a dictionary that gives the origin of the
word.
> You might want to look up "adjective" and
> "logical fallacy".
There is no preceeding adjective that can change the meaning of
fallacy.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> The fact remains that which country you're born in affects your level
> and sphere of political influence (such as through elections or lack
> thereof).
A country is just a geographical location, it cant do or affect
anything, its an accident of your birth, just as your skin color is an
accident of your birth, the fact that you are forced to accept the
moral values / obligations of other human beings has nothing to do
with nature (the geography of your birth), in fact, its a blatant and
deliberate violation of your nature and rather than just accept that
they are morally ethically wrong, to force their moral values onto
you, they will instead blame the man made problems of elections -
mobocracy.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 11:50 am, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Adjectives modify the meaning of a noun. That's the whole point of
> > adjectives.
>
> The meaning of fallacy does not change just because it is preceeded
> with the adjective logical.
>
> > "Logical fallacy" means a fault in ones (attempted) reasoning.
>
> Fallacy does that all by itself, without being preceeded by any silly
> adjective.
>
> When faced with a fallacy you check the premises, one or both are
> wrong.
You can have true premises but still have a fallacy in your
conclusion. There are countless examples of this. Here is one
example.
1. If Tom had eaten the lobster he'd been looking at, then it wouldn't
be in the tank anymore.
2. The lobster isn't in the tank anymore
3. Therefore Tom has eaten the lobster he'd been looking at.
In this case the premises could both be true but the conclusion false,
due to an error of reasoning.
If you don't like wikipedia then I would suggest finding another
source to learn about logical fallacies. Here are a couple of good
ones:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
> > The
> > term is not an oxymoron if you care to take a few seconds to learn
> > what it actually means.
>
> A fallacy can never be defined as logical, either something is a fact
> or its a fallacy, if it cant be 'poked with a stick' then its a
> fallacy, e.g. 'the greater good' is a fallacy.
>
> Reasoning is a two step process, non-contradictory identification and
> integration of sensory data.
>
> You only have matter and its nature to reason.
>
> > What about dictionaries?
>
> Older the better, preferably a dictionary that gives the origin of the
> word.
>
> > You might want to look up "adjective" and
> > "logical fallacy".
>
> There is no preceeding adjective that can change the meaning of
> fallacy.
The adjective can modify the term by making it more specific. Just
like the terms "food", "fish food" and "dog food" mean different
things and can't be used interchangeably.
> MG
darwinist
Whether it's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that it happens
and is dependent on where you're born.
In the south african example you gave earlier, the economic pressure
which ended apartheid did so through elected officials who felt the
pressure form the electorate. So you can't claim it as a moral victory
for free trade if you think that elections are evil violation of
freedom.
> MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Whether it's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that it happens
> and is dependent on where you're born.
I dont need a lesson in what happens in the world of anti-human anti-
nature fucking retards, I am talking facts of reality, geographic
location is an accident of birth, how you are treated by other humans
is not.
> In the south african example you gave earlier, the economic pressure
> which ended apartheid did so through elected officials....
Garbage, there were people who had already chosen not to do any trade
with South African based traders long before any bloody government got
involved.
MG
Michael Gordge
> You can have true premises but still have a fallacy in your
> conclusion.
When faced with a fallacy / contradiction check your premises, because
at least one of them is wrong, there are no contradictions / fallacies
in reality.
> The adjective can modify the term by making it more specific.
Fallacy does not need any preceeding adjective and its meaning does
not change when one is used and neither does a fallacy become any more
specific when it is preceeded by one and you have failed each and
every time to demonstrate your argument as being valid.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 2:21 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Whether it's right or wrong doesn't change the fact that it happens
> > and is dependent on where you're born.
>
> I dont need a lesson in what happens in the world of anti-human anti-
> nature fucking retards, I am talking facts of reality, geographic
> location is an accident of birth, how you are treated by other humans
> is not.
No it's not an accident how other people treat you but it is dependent
on the country you were born in. You might wish it wasn't, or think it
shouldn't be, but it is, and has been for thousands of years. These
lines drawn by men make a difference.
> > In the south african example you gave earlier, the economic pressure
> > which ended apartheid did so through elected officials....
>
> Garbage, there were people who had already chosen not to do any trade
> with South African based traders long before any bloody government got
> involved.
No doubt there were, but it was elected officials who changed the
laws.
> MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 2:08 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You can have true premises but still have a fallacy in your
> > conclusion.
>
> When faced with a fallacy / contradiction check your premises, because
> at least one of them is wrong,
This is wrong, as shown by the example I gave (which you snipped).
> there are no contradictions / fallacies
> in reality.
But there can be fallacies in someone's reasoning, even if their
premises are true.
> > The adjective can modify the term by making it more specific.
>
> Fallacy does not need any preceeding adjective and its meaning does
> not change when one is used and neither does a fallacy become any more
> specific when it is preceeded by one and you have failed each and
> every time to demonstrate your argument as being valid.
>
> MG
There is a difference between a false premise (a factual fallacy) and
an error of reasoning (a logical fallacy). You can pretend that these
terms - or the use of adjectives in general - mean something other
than what they really mean, but anyone with access to a dictionary or
encyclopedia can easily verify that you are mistaken.
I invite you to do so instead of snipping all of my examples and just
repeating your incorrect statements.
Michael Gordge
> This is wrong, as shown by the example I gave (which you snipped).
Oh FFS, your example was stupid and meaningless, either he ate the
fucking lobster or he did not eat the fucking thing, both can not be
true, so which is it?
> But there can be fallacies in someone's reasoning, even if their
> premises are true.
Garbage, true means, corresponding to reality, a fallacy is a
contradiction of reality. Man can only reason reality, that which is
sensory. Reason requires BOTH sense data AND non-contradictory
identification, an entity can not share an identity, it is what it
is.
Two seperate entities can not both exist where each other exists at
the identical moment, they cant in sensory reality and sooo neither
can they in your ideas of and about reality.
Reason is man's only means to knowledge, knowledge is man's
understanding of reality, reality is what it is and it contains no
contradictions and you can not deny that without embracing it as your
standard of denial, in other words, you cant deny non-contradiction
without contradicting yourself.
> There is a difference between a false premise (a factual fallacy) and
> an error of reasoning (a logical fallacy).
Clue, a fact is a fact and a fallacy is a fallacy and in the middle
thay can not meet.
A is A
Clue, logical does not change the meaning of fallacy.
> You can pretend that these
> terms - or the use of adjectives in general - mean something other
> than what they really mean,
I am saying that preceeding a noun with an adjective does not change
ANYTHING in the meaning of the noun it preceeds.
MG
Michael Gordge
> No it's not an accident how other people treat you but it is dependent
> on the country you were born in.
Check your premises, a country is only a geographical area and it is
not an accident how you are treated.
Fact, there are leftist socialist scum out there who have the fucking
arrogance to force you conform to their values, values unchosen by
you, and guess what? their accident of birth does NOT excuse their
evil disgusting behaviour, even though you clearly wish it could or
does.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 3:11 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is wrong, as shown by the example I gave (which you snipped).
>
> Oh FFS, your example was stupid and meaningless, either he ate the
> fucking lobster or he did not eat the fucking thing, both can not be
> true, so which is it?
Maybe a simpler example will help you understand:
If someone were to say "It's cloudy outside, therefore it will rain
today", then their reasoning is fallacious, because it's not certain
that it will rain today if all you know is that it's cloudy outside.
You don't need to wait and see if it does rain or not. The reasoning
itself is fallacious immediately.
It changes the meaning of the whole phrase in the sentence, which
includes the adjective and the noun. For example the phrase "pine
tree" means something different from "gum tree". Same noun, different
phrases, which have different meanings.
> MG
darwinist
I said nothing about excusing it. It's just a fact that where you are
born affects what political power you have, because of the citizenship
you will be given.
Michael Gordge
> If someone were to say "It's cloudy outside, therefore it will rain
> today",
Which is just as stupid, because it is just as devoid of reason and
context as your first example, do you have another? Reasoning has not
been used in either example.
> It changes the meaning of the whole phrase in the sentence, which
> includes the adjective and the noun. For example the phrase "pine
> tree" means something different from "gum tree". Same noun, different
> phrases, which have different meanings.
Wrong, the meaning of tree does not change just because its preceeded
by an adjective, neither "pine" or "gum" have changed and nor are they
used to change the meaning of "tree" - just as logical doesn't change
the meaning of fallacy.
MG
Michael Gordge
Leftist scum forcing their values onto you has nothing to do with
geography, dont be silly.
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 6:47 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If someone were to say "It's cloudy outside, therefore it will rain
> > today",
>
> Which is just as stupid, because it is just as devoid of reason and
> context as your first example, do you have another? Reasoning has not
> been used in either example.
No but an incorrect attempt at reasoning is demonstrated in both
examples. The error that makes the attempt incorrect, is called the
fallacy. Because it's a fallacy of reasoning (logic) it's called a
logical fallacy.
> > It changes the meaning of the whole phrase in the sentence, which
> > includes the adjective and the noun. For example the phrase "pine
> > tree" means something different from "gum tree". Same noun, different
> > phrases, which have different meanings.
>
> Wrong, the meaning of tree does not change just because its preceeded
> by an adjective, neither "pine" or "gum" have changed and nor are they
> used to change the meaning of "tree" - just as logical doesn't change
> the meaning of fallacy.
>
> MG
I didn't say it changes the meaning of "tree", but rather the meaning
of the whole phrase, e.g. "pine tree". The phrase acts as a noun (e.g.
in a sentence such as "the pine tree is 100 years old"), hence it's
called a "noun-phrase". The meaning of the noun-phrase is modified by
the adjective. The same with "logical fallacy"
darwinist
If by "forcing their values onto you" you mean being allowed to vote,
then it is greatly affected by where you're born. People born in new
zealand are allowed to vote in new zealand elections once they grow
up, unless they renounce their citizenship of course. People born
elsewhere are not allowed to, unless they apply for and are granted
citizenship. Therefore it's affected by where you're born, therefore
affected by geography.
M Purcell
>
> I didn't say it changes the meaning of "tree", but rather the meaning
> of the whole phrase, e.g. "pine tree". The phrase acts as a noun (e.g.
> in a sentence such as "the pine tree is 100 years old"), hence it's
> called a "noun-phrase". The meaning of the noun-phrase is modified by
> the adjective. The same with "logical fallacy"
Nice try, but Gordge understands adjectives. And if you keep it up he
might get curious enough to look up his rules of logic. But do you
accept the fact that Gordge is free to believe something different
than you?
darwinist
Well of course. No one's forcing him to read or reply. If I think he's
made a mistake in his argument though I will try to point it out
clearly.
M Purcell
Suppose, just for an instant, that you have made the mistake.
Continually pointing out something another person is clearly not
interested in is not rational.
darwinist
That's possible, but if he's truly not interested then he doesn't have
to read or respond. Also I find it good practice in trying to explain
things so as to make them understandable. If I thought he was only
pretending not to understand I wouldn't bother, but if I think he
hasn't got the point then I will try again.
M Purcell
I suspect it's a waste of time.
darwinist
It's kind of like a game. The goal being to be clear and persuasive.
You might fail on one or both counts, but it's good practice and can
be fun to play.
Of course one could say a lot of games are a waste of time. I think
it's more a question of how much time you spend on them. Games can be
pretty useful for learning various skills and challenging your mental
faculties.
Too much time on games though and you might neglect to put those
skills to any use.
M Purcell
Sure, but not everybody considers it a game.
Michael Gordge
>
> If by "forcing their values onto you" you mean being allowed to vote,....
The government of the geographical accident of your birth does not
digest your food for you, does not breath your air for you and can not
and does not force you to think.
To think or not think is the only free will you have. To think means
to think independently.
It is YOUR thinking that controls your ideas, your values and your
resulting moral choices - which all result in your actions, only human
individuals exist.
Just because you can make a choice to vote and in some disgusting
political systems eg Australia - you are forced to vote, i.e. to join
or to form a bigger mob of human beings for no other reason than to
focce other peaceful human beings to conform to your values, has
nothing to do with the geographical accident of your birth, but rather
it has everything to do with you, the human individual.
You are looking to blame, explain and or excuse your evil and or good
ideas / actions on the geographical accident of your birth, rather
than blame and or take the credit yourself, why on earth would you
want to do that?
MG
darwinist
> On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, darwinist <darwin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If by "forcing their values onto you" you mean being allowed to vote,....
>
> The government of the geographical accident of your birth does not
> digest your food for you, does not breath your air for you and can not
> and does not force you to think.
>
> To think or not think is the only free will you have. To think means
> to think independently.
>
> It is YOUR thinking that controls your ideas, your values and your
> resulting moral choices - which all result in your actions, only human
> individuals exist.
When you say "only human individuals exists", do you mean "as moral
agents"? Or are you saying that organisations such as governments,
corporations, co-operatives, don't actually exist?
> Just because you can make a choice to vote and in some disgusting
> political systems eg Australia - you are forced to vote, i.e. to join
> or to form a bigger mob of human beings for no other reason than to
> focce other peaceful human beings to conform to your values, has
> nothing to do with the geographical accident of your birth, but rather
> it has everything to do with you, the human individual.
>
> You are looking to blame, explain and or excuse your evil and or good
> ideas / actions on the geographical accident of your birth, rather
> than blame and or take the credit yourself, why on earth would you
> want to do that?
I'm not trying to excuse my actions, but if someone born in country x
is allowed to vote in country x elections, and someone born in country
y can't, then it seems like your political power is affected by your
accident of birth. There are plenty of other things which affect it of
course.
> MG