Eight teenagers invite girl over and beat her
- Thread starter Poonani Maker
- Start date
TheHumanist
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 12
Karma, what do you mean by dropping an AFC nuke?
KontrollerX, I just looked up sophist on wikipedia. Looking at it, I never realized sophist have a modern day definition of using illogical arguments to decieve. My use came from when I heard my professors used it in historical terms and from reading Plato, specially The Republic, where he tried to argue back from the Sophist (meaning philosophers who view the world of self-interest and moral relativism).
I apologize. I did not meant to lodge insults saying you have been using illogical and emotional arguments appealing to people emotions rather than reason.
However, I still disagree with your assessment on the view of good and bad. I agree that people are motivated by self-interest, it is the core of a person's action. However, just because we are motivated by out needs and wants, it doesn't mean there is a collective actions that we can follow standard as good and bad. You will be hard press to find it is in your best interest of eight girls surronding and beating up one girl.
To also note, I never use good and bad as "good" and "evil" in the religous sense. I use them as in ethics. My ideas on good and bad-evil is based on Aristolian philosophy which takes account of reason and logic of the end result of situations rather than the rule-based ethics and its connection to religion (to also note: it does that mean I am against many of the ethics religion put out, I found that while I'm not Catholic, Jesus is still person to follow by the example of his action in life, but I take account beyond following just a rule and without the religous application).
KontrollerX, I just looked up sophist on wikipedia. Looking at it, I never realized sophist have a modern day definition of using illogical arguments to decieve. My use came from when I heard my professors used it in historical terms and from reading Plato, specially The Republic, where he tried to argue back from the Sophist (meaning philosophers who view the world of self-interest and moral relativism).
I apologize. I did not meant to lodge insults saying you have been using illogical and emotional arguments appealing to people emotions rather than reason.
However, I still disagree with your assessment on the view of good and bad. I agree that people are motivated by self-interest, it is the core of a person's action. However, just because we are motivated by out needs and wants, it doesn't mean there is a collective actions that we can follow standard as good and bad. You will be hard press to find it is in your best interest of eight girls surronding and beating up one girl.
To also note, I never use good and bad as "good" and "evil" in the religous sense. I use them as in ethics. My ideas on good and bad-evil is based on Aristolian philosophy which takes account of reason and logic of the end result of situations rather than the rule-based ethics and its connection to religion (to also note: it does that mean I am against many of the ethics religion put out, I found that while I'm not Catholic, Jesus is still person to follow by the example of his action in life, but I take account beyond following just a rule and without the religous application).
penkitten
Master Don Juan
good! i hope their parents have a hellva time finding decent attorneys to take their cases.KarmaSutra said:
:cuss:
arms are for hugging not gang banging .
KontrollerX
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,479
- Reaction score
- 182
Apology accepted humanist.
I just looked up the term today and it said the insulting modern use of it and also the ancient meaning which to my reading was kind of muddled as what I found was that the sophists were kind of admired for a while in ancient times but then when they kept presenting ideas and new and opposing ideas the ruling class back then disagreed with they were hunted down and killed and I believe I read Aristotle or someone important only also renounced them to avoid himself getting killed also. The point that was made about the ancient sophists in what I read is that though they were brilliant with different ideas than the majority they would often appeal to the mob's irrationality and emotion in order to win arguments and in this way all the big time philosophy guys like Aristotle, Socrates and others disagreed with them for this but still admired them for the other more logical things that they did.
As for the rest of what you said I think if you read my post more carefully we agree.
"arms are for hugging not gang banging ."
*Laughs*
Someone needs to watch an Ashley Blue vid.
I just looked up the term today and it said the insulting modern use of it and also the ancient meaning which to my reading was kind of muddled as what I found was that the sophists were kind of admired for a while in ancient times but then when they kept presenting ideas and new and opposing ideas the ruling class back then disagreed with they were hunted down and killed and I believe I read Aristotle or someone important only also renounced them to avoid himself getting killed also. The point that was made about the ancient sophists in what I read is that though they were brilliant with different ideas than the majority they would often appeal to the mob's irrationality and emotion in order to win arguments and in this way all the big time philosophy guys like Aristotle, Socrates and others disagreed with them for this but still admired them for the other more logical things that they did.
As for the rest of what you said I think if you read my post more carefully we agree.
"arms are for hugging not gang banging ."
*Laughs*
Someone needs to watch an Ashley Blue vid.
KarmaSutra
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,821
- Reaction score
- 142
- Age
- 51
I can't tell who's the worst (best) sexual degenerate, Ashley Blue or Belladonna?KontrollerX said:
KontrollerX
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,479
- Reaction score
- 182
Its a tough call for sure Karma but if I had to choose it'd be Belladonna but not by much.
i didn't see the video but i'm not surprise. i go to a boxing gym and i tell me my mom i'm going there and if i don't come back drop by at the place and check me out. all these kids in the gym, i just don't trust. you gotta be smart. i used to go to the park to study and read to get good grades but even there i can't be too sure anymore. i can honestly say if you filter out all the good advice this site has to offer...idk..DJs we're the FUTURE of this world!~
Purple-Haze
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 12
There is nothing worse than being betrayed by those you trust.
These girls should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Sure there are various factors to consider, etc. but really, if this was not a hoax, they deserve to rot in a cold prison somewhere deep and dark.
I hope they get a taste of their own medicine once inside. Something tells me they will.
B1tches.
These girls should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Sure there are various factors to consider, etc. but really, if this was not a hoax, they deserve to rot in a cold prison somewhere deep and dark.
I hope they get a taste of their own medicine once inside. Something tells me they will.
B1tches.
Quiksilver
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,853
- Reaction score
- 55
Good explanation Kontroller
I see your argument evolving in a strange way. It seems to me that in your defense of the "people only act out of self-interest(good/bad outcome aside)" point, it is straying further and further away from humanity. To claim humans are strictly logical and reasoning is farcical, and if you try to back that up I'd label you a hypocrite on the spot. However for the sake of argument, humans are emotional creatures, and to make decisions purely founded in reason and logic is all but impossible and is even hard to find in most legal systems.
It's easy to act emotionless and purely reason/logic based on the internet, but the fact is: you wouldn't even be ON the internet, or sosuave for that matter, without emotional input.
I can't see any true and genuine decisions coming out of a strictly logical & reasoning perspective at all, because as I stated above, humans are emotional creatures whether you like it or not.
I don't want to bring the "people are good" argument in here, but I will still argue from personal experience that I can act upon the interests of another while leaving mine aside. Is it based out of, as you claim, "self-interest"?
That's where the gray area is. I don't think you or I are qualified to determine whether someones actions are strictly self-interest or compassionate toward the struggles of another human.
I've said before on this topic that digging much deeper than that serves no purpose and to say it does IS hypocritical because digging beyond that, right in to the heart of human nature with the INTENT of being purely logical and reasoning(ie. emotionless) is next to impossible because we are indeed emotional creatures, and to deny that is... You should know what I think about that denial.
--
The ball is in your court Kontroller
--
Making sure this is on topic, what I said above can relate to these 8 girls acting in pack mentality that showed a devolution of roughly 1 million years in human history.
--
Also, I don't know how religion crept into this discussion.
I'll play devils advocate here though.KontrollerX said:
I see your argument evolving in a strange way. It seems to me that in your defense of the "people only act out of self-interest(good/bad outcome aside)" point, it is straying further and further away from humanity. To claim humans are strictly logical and reasoning is farcical, and if you try to back that up I'd label you a hypocrite on the spot. However for the sake of argument, humans are emotional creatures, and to make decisions purely founded in reason and logic is all but impossible and is even hard to find in most legal systems.
It's easy to act emotionless and purely reason/logic based on the internet, but the fact is: you wouldn't even be ON the internet, or sosuave for that matter, without emotional input.
I can't see any true and genuine decisions coming out of a strictly logical & reasoning perspective at all, because as I stated above, humans are emotional creatures whether you like it or not.
I don't want to bring the "people are good" argument in here, but I will still argue from personal experience that I can act upon the interests of another while leaving mine aside. Is it based out of, as you claim, "self-interest"?
That's where the gray area is. I don't think you or I are qualified to determine whether someones actions are strictly self-interest or compassionate toward the struggles of another human.
I've said before on this topic that digging much deeper than that serves no purpose and to say it does IS hypocritical because digging beyond that, right in to the heart of human nature with the INTENT of being purely logical and reasoning(ie. emotionless) is next to impossible because we are indeed emotional creatures, and to deny that is... You should know what I think about that denial.
--
The ball is in your court Kontroller
--
Making sure this is on topic, what I said above can relate to these 8 girls acting in pack mentality that showed a devolution of roughly 1 million years in human history.
--
Also, I don't know how religion crept into this discussion.
KontrollerX
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,479
- Reaction score
- 182
"I'll play devils advocate here though.
I see your argument evolving in a strange way. It seems to me that in your defense of the "people only act out of self-interest(good/bad outcome aside)" point, it is straying further and further away from humanity. To claim humans are strictly logical and reasoning is farcical, and if you try to back that up I'd label you a hypocrite on the spot. However for the sake of argument, humans are emotional creatures, and to make decisions purely founded in reason and logic is all but impossible and is even hard to find in most legal systems.
It's easy to act emotionless and purely reason/logic based on the internet, but the fact is: you wouldn't even be ON the internet, or sosuave for that matter, without emotional input."
Well first of all my dear friend and colleague Quicksilver I never made the claim that humans are strictly logical and reasoning.
My point with saying a lot of the "people are good" side were using emotional arguments meant that their arguments had no logic or reasoning behind them ie in addition to passionate emotion that drives normal human beings like you and I.
In other words they did not understand the side of the argument Str8up, Luthor Rex and myself were on, it was over their head and because of this challenged their ego investments so they reacted to what they believed our side was by getting emotional and posting links and supposed proof that people are inherintly good to refute us.
What they believed we were saying is that humans are inherintly bad or evil or untrustworthy and we were not making that point.
The point we were making is that humanity as a whole is motivated by self interest.
Being self interested is to look for and welcome into our lives things that make us feel good and to carry out actions that make us feel good, it is also looking out for your best interests in a business deal or situation/scenario.
So now that I've established what self interest is I will explain to you further that self interest across the whole spectrum of humanity is different.
You have some people who get a good feeling out of murdering, raping or robbing others so for their self interest to be best served they would have to engage in activities and behaviours that would allow them to get away with their crimes as this is serving their best interests and their self interest.
On the flipside you have others who find pleasure and a good feeling in doing acts of philanthropy and kindness towards others. Their best interests are served by finding new and better ways to continue to help people.
In both cases both kinds of people are serving their self interest ie doing what feels good to them.
The people are good crowd bristles at what our side says about people not being good but instead motivated by self interest because they think we are insulting or scoffing at the idea of good in the world but we are not.
We are simply pointing out reality that the supposed good done in the world and the supposed bad done in the world all of it is motivated by self interest ie getting a good feeling out of performing the actions one is motivated to perform by getting a pleasurable feeling at their completion or during the act itself.
We are not sitting somewhere laughing cackling away in our castle at all the do gooders out there oh no we are simply saying human nature is motivated by self interest and that self interest can take many forms and when your self interest aligns with people be it a group or whatever you begin to form a community of like minded individuals and this becomes your version of good because it is beneficial to you and your survival ie your self interest.
It may not be beneficial to the begger down the road who is sleeping in the street because you and your group took all of their resources to build your community so you would then be seen as bad by that person but are you really bad?
No, you are merely self interested in your survival first.
And the man who would give up his wealth so that this same begger could be wealthy is only motivated by the self interest ie good feeling of seeing himself as a moral man that cannot stand idly by while someone like this suffers. It is self interest based on ego preservation as well as the good feeling.
"I can't see any true and genuine decisions coming out of a strictly logical & reasoning perspective at all, because as I stated above, humans are emotional creatures whether you like it or not."
Heh heh, some people are born sociopaths today known as the Anti Social Personality Disordered and they have been a part of humanity since it began Quicksilver and they have no emotions whatsoever.
One of them made the point to me or someone else once that they think they serve humanity by being a part of it since in really rough times they'll usually be the only ones left standing to continue to propogate our species since they can survive through many crisis that would mentally destroy a regular human.
Like they could lose their entire family, friends and spouse in a brutal and sudden natural disaster or war and not care at all about it.
They were only ever expendable commodities to the sociopath.
"I don't want to bring the "people are good" argument in here, but I will still argue from personal experience that I can act upon the interests of another while leaving mine aside. Is it based out of, as you claim, "self-interest"?"
Yes, if you get a good feeling out of it or would feel bad not to act you are acting out of self interest to preserve your ego's idea of who you are as a person.
"I've said before on this topic that digging much deeper than that serves no purpose and to say it does IS hypocritical because digging beyond that, right in to the heart of human nature with the INTENT of being purely logical and reasoning(ie. emotionless) is next to impossible because we are indeed emotional creatures, and to deny that is... You should know what I think about that denial."
Well I think I explained my position much better for you in the rest of my post but it again is worth it to say here that sociopaths are a part of humanity and they have no emotions hence not an emotional creature.
This of course is not the entirety of my argument but it is worth pointing out one more time for posterity's sake.
As for how religion crept into the discussion you might want to have a read over my last post again as I explain it pretty well I think.
And as for digging deep into human nature serving no purpose I can't disagree strongly enough.
Even though I'm no longer a Christian good ol JC was right...
"The truth will set you free".
And indeed it has, it has set me free from the mental enslavement of Christianity, the mental enslavement of the feminist created matrix and continued learning and searching has helped me tremendously to discover more and more truths that had been hidden from me or simply never told me because nobody else around me knew them either during my life.
Digging deep into human nature and other subjects can be benefical to a person for the reason I found and I'm sure a great many others.
I see your argument evolving in a strange way. It seems to me that in your defense of the "people only act out of self-interest(good/bad outcome aside)" point, it is straying further and further away from humanity. To claim humans are strictly logical and reasoning is farcical, and if you try to back that up I'd label you a hypocrite on the spot. However for the sake of argument, humans are emotional creatures, and to make decisions purely founded in reason and logic is all but impossible and is even hard to find in most legal systems.
It's easy to act emotionless and purely reason/logic based on the internet, but the fact is: you wouldn't even be ON the internet, or sosuave for that matter, without emotional input."
Well first of all my dear friend and colleague Quicksilver I never made the claim that humans are strictly logical and reasoning.
My point with saying a lot of the "people are good" side were using emotional arguments meant that their arguments had no logic or reasoning behind them ie in addition to passionate emotion that drives normal human beings like you and I.
In other words they did not understand the side of the argument Str8up, Luthor Rex and myself were on, it was over their head and because of this challenged their ego investments so they reacted to what they believed our side was by getting emotional and posting links and supposed proof that people are inherintly good to refute us.
What they believed we were saying is that humans are inherintly bad or evil or untrustworthy and we were not making that point.
The point we were making is that humanity as a whole is motivated by self interest.
Being self interested is to look for and welcome into our lives things that make us feel good and to carry out actions that make us feel good, it is also looking out for your best interests in a business deal or situation/scenario.
So now that I've established what self interest is I will explain to you further that self interest across the whole spectrum of humanity is different.
You have some people who get a good feeling out of murdering, raping or robbing others so for their self interest to be best served they would have to engage in activities and behaviours that would allow them to get away with their crimes as this is serving their best interests and their self interest.
On the flipside you have others who find pleasure and a good feeling in doing acts of philanthropy and kindness towards others. Their best interests are served by finding new and better ways to continue to help people.
In both cases both kinds of people are serving their self interest ie doing what feels good to them.
The people are good crowd bristles at what our side says about people not being good but instead motivated by self interest because they think we are insulting or scoffing at the idea of good in the world but we are not.
We are simply pointing out reality that the supposed good done in the world and the supposed bad done in the world all of it is motivated by self interest ie getting a good feeling out of performing the actions one is motivated to perform by getting a pleasurable feeling at their completion or during the act itself.
We are not sitting somewhere laughing cackling away in our castle at all the do gooders out there oh no we are simply saying human nature is motivated by self interest and that self interest can take many forms and when your self interest aligns with people be it a group or whatever you begin to form a community of like minded individuals and this becomes your version of good because it is beneficial to you and your survival ie your self interest.
It may not be beneficial to the begger down the road who is sleeping in the street because you and your group took all of their resources to build your community so you would then be seen as bad by that person but are you really bad?
No, you are merely self interested in your survival first.
And the man who would give up his wealth so that this same begger could be wealthy is only motivated by the self interest ie good feeling of seeing himself as a moral man that cannot stand idly by while someone like this suffers. It is self interest based on ego preservation as well as the good feeling.
"I can't see any true and genuine decisions coming out of a strictly logical & reasoning perspective at all, because as I stated above, humans are emotional creatures whether you like it or not."
Heh heh, some people are born sociopaths today known as the Anti Social Personality Disordered and they have been a part of humanity since it began Quicksilver and they have no emotions whatsoever.
One of them made the point to me or someone else once that they think they serve humanity by being a part of it since in really rough times they'll usually be the only ones left standing to continue to propogate our species since they can survive through many crisis that would mentally destroy a regular human.
Like they could lose their entire family, friends and spouse in a brutal and sudden natural disaster or war and not care at all about it.
They were only ever expendable commodities to the sociopath.
"I don't want to bring the "people are good" argument in here, but I will still argue from personal experience that I can act upon the interests of another while leaving mine aside. Is it based out of, as you claim, "self-interest"?"
Yes, if you get a good feeling out of it or would feel bad not to act you are acting out of self interest to preserve your ego's idea of who you are as a person.
"I've said before on this topic that digging much deeper than that serves no purpose and to say it does IS hypocritical because digging beyond that, right in to the heart of human nature with the INTENT of being purely logical and reasoning(ie. emotionless) is next to impossible because we are indeed emotional creatures, and to deny that is... You should know what I think about that denial."
Well I think I explained my position much better for you in the rest of my post but it again is worth it to say here that sociopaths are a part of humanity and they have no emotions hence not an emotional creature.
This of course is not the entirety of my argument but it is worth pointing out one more time for posterity's sake.
As for how religion crept into the discussion you might want to have a read over my last post again as I explain it pretty well I think.
And as for digging deep into human nature serving no purpose I can't disagree strongly enough.
Even though I'm no longer a Christian good ol JC was right...
"The truth will set you free".
And indeed it has, it has set me free from the mental enslavement of Christianity, the mental enslavement of the feminist created matrix and continued learning and searching has helped me tremendously to discover more and more truths that had been hidden from me or simply never told me because nobody else around me knew them either during my life.
Digging deep into human nature and other subjects can be benefical to a person for the reason I found and I'm sure a great many others.
TheHumanist
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 12
My short and quick response and critique as I should do my work right now is this. Let's assume self-interest is the truth of human nature and of good and bad.
All actions may be done out of self-interest and to one person it is bad and another it is good. I counter there is a general self-interest in all of us for certain actions which is for the benefit for all. It may be in the personal self-interest for the murder to kill as it is pleasurable, but for the self-interest of his survival, the murder would be better off not killing, or at least not having to face consequences. This what it means to me of what is good and bad. Viewing good and bad in the non-Judea-Christian sense, what is the self-interest for all is the good (I guess this means I have to put forward a claim of there is a universal self-interests, personally, I think that is rooted in Game Theory).
I disagree with the idea that people who help others only do it for the good feeling and protection of the ego. It does not account enough for empathy and compassion which is understanding other people. If we are to assume self-interest is the truth, I would take a page of Any Rand's idea of the extension of the self or Aristotle's another you.
Finally, I have to say I am getting tired of the "feminist-created matrix." In this current context, that line make it sound like belief in god (I'm agnostic btw), belief in the good of people, and belief of there is a good and bad is in the matrix, and by the feminist. People have different opinions, philosophers have been arguing this for thousands of years, believing in the good of people or even in the Judea-Christian sense of rule-based ethics doesn't mean they are in a matrix. At least I don't think so, I perfer not to believe of those who found religion as blind (well, the evangelical who born into and went fanatical, different story.)
All actions may be done out of self-interest and to one person it is bad and another it is good. I counter there is a general self-interest in all of us for certain actions which is for the benefit for all. It may be in the personal self-interest for the murder to kill as it is pleasurable, but for the self-interest of his survival, the murder would be better off not killing, or at least not having to face consequences. This what it means to me of what is good and bad. Viewing good and bad in the non-Judea-Christian sense, what is the self-interest for all is the good (I guess this means I have to put forward a claim of there is a universal self-interests, personally, I think that is rooted in Game Theory).
I disagree with the idea that people who help others only do it for the good feeling and protection of the ego. It does not account enough for empathy and compassion which is understanding other people. If we are to assume self-interest is the truth, I would take a page of Any Rand's idea of the extension of the self or Aristotle's another you.
Finally, I have to say I am getting tired of the "feminist-created matrix." In this current context, that line make it sound like belief in god (I'm agnostic btw), belief in the good of people, and belief of there is a good and bad is in the matrix, and by the feminist. People have different opinions, philosophers have been arguing this for thousands of years, believing in the good of people or even in the Judea-Christian sense of rule-based ethics doesn't mean they are in a matrix. At least I don't think so, I perfer not to believe of those who found religion as blind (well, the evangelical who born into and went fanatical, different story.)
KontrollerX
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,479
- Reaction score
- 182
I was making a point to counter Quicksilver about not wanting to dig too deep into things Humanist by posting my current views on Christianity and the feminist created matrix.
It was not intended to be in context with my main argument against Quicksilver's argument where he plays devil's advocate.
I was countering his point once again about saying there is no benefit to us digging too deeply into human nature.
I find his opinion in this way to be misguided and possibly even dangerous as I have gained great knowledge and insight into many things through digging deeply into them as have many others such as the great philosophers we both know and love.
The main point I was making in countering this opinion of his for myself is that if I didn't dig too deeply into things I would not of freed myself from many false and misguided views I had, had programmed into me throughout my life.
Had I remained close minded in order to shield myself from harsh reality my advancement would of been stifled and I believe the same is true for anyone out there who closes their mind to avoid facing or discovering uncomfortable truths.
I say uncomfortable truths because to some people too much truth is uncomfortable but to me it is freeing and fascinating.
"It may be in the personal self-interest for the murder to kill as it is pleasurable, but for the self-interest of his survival, the murder would be better off not killing, or at least not having to face consequences."
Psychopaths (the murderous type of ASPD) do not fear consequences.
"I disagree with the idea that people who help others only do it for the good feeling and protection of the ego. It does not account enough for empathy and compassion which is understanding other people. If we are to assume self-interest is the truth, I would take a page of Any Rand's idea of the extension of the self or Aristotle's another you.
"
Empathy and compassion factor in to my theory if a person naturally has both.
The person would then have to act in accordance with their natural empathy and compassion in their self interest to continue feeling good about themselves.
Its ego preservation and avoidance of emotional pain and guilt to do so ie a self interest based motivation.
If Quicksilver for example left a friend bleeding to death on the sidewalk after a nasty bicycle accident as the result of the friend not wearing a helmet...if Quicksilver were to ignore his empathy and compassion for this person and go on about his day leaving his friend there to die it would be against his best interests because not only would his empathy and compassion make him feel awful for not acting to save a life but he'd lose a good friend to death that was completely preventable had he only acted in accordance with his empathy and compassion and what he gets out of his friend's company.
It would not be in Quicksilver's best interests in many ways to let his friend die.
It was not intended to be in context with my main argument against Quicksilver's argument where he plays devil's advocate.
I was countering his point once again about saying there is no benefit to us digging too deeply into human nature.
I find his opinion in this way to be misguided and possibly even dangerous as I have gained great knowledge and insight into many things through digging deeply into them as have many others such as the great philosophers we both know and love.
The main point I was making in countering this opinion of his for myself is that if I didn't dig too deeply into things I would not of freed myself from many false and misguided views I had, had programmed into me throughout my life.
Had I remained close minded in order to shield myself from harsh reality my advancement would of been stifled and I believe the same is true for anyone out there who closes their mind to avoid facing or discovering uncomfortable truths.
I say uncomfortable truths because to some people too much truth is uncomfortable but to me it is freeing and fascinating.
"It may be in the personal self-interest for the murder to kill as it is pleasurable, but for the self-interest of his survival, the murder would be better off not killing, or at least not having to face consequences."
Psychopaths (the murderous type of ASPD) do not fear consequences.
"I disagree with the idea that people who help others only do it for the good feeling and protection of the ego. It does not account enough for empathy and compassion which is understanding other people. If we are to assume self-interest is the truth, I would take a page of Any Rand's idea of the extension of the self or Aristotle's another you.
"
Empathy and compassion factor in to my theory if a person naturally has both.
The person would then have to act in accordance with their natural empathy and compassion in their self interest to continue feeling good about themselves.
Its ego preservation and avoidance of emotional pain and guilt to do so ie a self interest based motivation.
If Quicksilver for example left a friend bleeding to death on the sidewalk after a nasty bicycle accident as the result of the friend not wearing a helmet...if Quicksilver were to ignore his empathy and compassion for this person and go on about his day leaving his friend there to die it would be against his best interests because not only would his empathy and compassion make him feel awful for not acting to save a life but he'd lose a good friend to death that was completely preventable had he only acted in accordance with his empathy and compassion and what he gets out of his friend's company.
It would not be in Quicksilver's best interests in many ways to let his friend die.
Quiksilver
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,853
- Reaction score
- 55
Interesting points bro.
I'll keep this response simple.
How does the truth that all humans act only in self-interest help you?
And, one more thing...
This "self-interest" perspective I believe holds true for animals and simple creatures, probably most humans for that matter, but can't you fathom that some people have moved beyond self-interest?
Here's an extreme case: Some kid is about to get struck by a fast-moving car. I see this and recognize that he's about to die. I run onto the road and push him out of the way. I get killed.
Am I still acting out of self-interest? Or can you fathom that I see somebody in unnecessary danger, and assist them?
Perhaps someone could act out of the interest of his community, and not his own interest.
I think I know now where you are coming from, but I have yet to be convinced that people ONLY act upon their own interests instead of the interests of a community or other person.
As I stated above, personally I have the ability to do something for another person(s) because simply it's the 'right' thing to do. Do I get pleasure out of it? Well to answer that question, would you get pleasure from cleaning a clogged toilet?
I believe that in a community, people have the ability to act for a cause greater than themselves; to do something that serves no emotional or physical benefit to them so others may benefit.
As I stated in my last response, I don't think you or I have the right to question an individuals motives. Can you make a decision for somebody, that they are strictly self-motivated, when you don't even know them? I'd like to see where or what you are getting your information from regarding the inherent strict self-interest behavior of humans.
I've yet to be convinced that people are ONLY interested in the preservation of ego, and survival.
--
I do understand what you mean about the truth setting you free, and in MOST cases I couldn't agree more, but in this instance... How does this supposed knowledge benefit your everyday life?
I'll keep this response simple.
How does the truth that all humans act only in self-interest help you?
And, one more thing...
This "self-interest" perspective I believe holds true for animals and simple creatures, probably most humans for that matter, but can't you fathom that some people have moved beyond self-interest?
Here's an extreme case: Some kid is about to get struck by a fast-moving car. I see this and recognize that he's about to die. I run onto the road and push him out of the way. I get killed.
Am I still acting out of self-interest? Or can you fathom that I see somebody in unnecessary danger, and assist them?
Can it not just be that I know(of have been taught) what is "right"? What if I do something because it's the 'right' think to do?
Perhaps someone could act out of the interest of his community, and not his own interest.
I think I know now where you are coming from, but I have yet to be convinced that people ONLY act upon their own interests instead of the interests of a community or other person.
As I stated above, personally I have the ability to do something for another person(s) because simply it's the 'right' thing to do. Do I get pleasure out of it? Well to answer that question, would you get pleasure from cleaning a clogged toilet?
I believe that in a community, people have the ability to act for a cause greater than themselves; to do something that serves no emotional or physical benefit to them so others may benefit.
As I stated in my last response, I don't think you or I have the right to question an individuals motives. Can you make a decision for somebody, that they are strictly self-motivated, when you don't even know them? I'd like to see where or what you are getting your information from regarding the inherent strict self-interest behavior of humans.
I've yet to be convinced that people are ONLY interested in the preservation of ego, and survival.
--
I do understand what you mean about the truth setting you free, and in MOST cases I couldn't agree more, but in this instance... How does this supposed knowledge benefit your everyday life?
Francisco d'Anconia
Master Don Juan
People today (especially the youth) are angry and frustrated and use mass media in order to be heard. All of this started when the girl they ganged up on posted derogatory things on her MySpace page about a couple of the girls. Instead of getting mad, the girls got even (they were more popular). So they plot to get even with her and cause her not just more pain but more humiliation by using mass media. Talk about desperate minds.Latinoman said:
The problem is that the Internet has become way too accessible to everyone. People who don't have a command over their own lives turn to it in order to give a voice to the things going on in their heads (scary stuff). Not surprising, a least a couple of the parents have said that they understand why it was necessary for the other girls to retaliate! Madness.
Just because a woman listens to you and acts interested in what you say doesn't mean she really is. She might just be acting polite, while silently wishing that the date would hurry up and end, or that you would go away... and never come back.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Francisco d'Anconia
Master Don Juan
Well I'm pleasantly surprised. Now since we're on a roll, time to go after these hooligans.Latinoman said:
http://www.news4jax.com/video/15765578/index.html
Knife, Handcuffs Traced To 3rd Graders' Plot
Purple-Haze
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 12
If these kids did actually intend to cause harm, it makes you wonder about their home situation.Francisco d'Anconia said:
What kind of scum raises children like this?
Why do scum breed? Ugh.
SmoothTalker
Master Don Juan
The trend of posting your life on Youtube really is a bit worrying.
But here's my question, aside from vicious, violent, and cruel, how ****ING STUPID are these people?? Even if the girl didn't go to the police, they were planning to post it online for the world to see, and no doubt direct friends and school mates to the link.
How could you possibly expect not to get in ****? Might as well have beat her up inside a police station.
But here's my question, aside from vicious, violent, and cruel, how ****ING STUPID are these people?? Even if the girl didn't go to the police, they were planning to post it online for the world to see, and no doubt direct friends and school mates to the link.
How could you possibly expect not to get in ****? Might as well have beat her up inside a police station.
Francisco d'Anconia
Master Don Juan
There's hardly any active parenting usually. Parents don't get involved until after their loving "kids will be kids" son or daughter is caught up in something big. If it's a situation as ridiculously shocking as this, some parents respond with something even more ridiculous in an attempt to normalize the situation. The kids see this and continue to believe that their actions are typical. Sometimes breeding is the only thing that some people can do successfully.Purple-Haze said:
