|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted July 22, 2008 05:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I view it thus: what, exactly, is the purpose of rights? It is to protect individuals from harm brought upon by other individuals. But why would one do such a thing? Why would one harm other individuals? Well, obviously people, like all living things, naturally act in their own self-interest (discouraged word, but not banned). Unfortunately, in doing so, they may harm others. Without restrictions, instead of pursuing their own aims, people would have to worry about protecting themselves and their property all the time. This would actually impede general self-interest. So society (which is composed of individuals) agreed to limit each other. Though in the short run this was acting against people's self-interest, in the long run it was in favor of it.
You used self-interest three times... be careful not to overuse it
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
|
Ah, sorry. But it was necessary. I hope TA permits it.
----------------------------------------
Well, with the aliens, that is sort of a social contract already. I mean, since we haven't made contact with them, we can't bother them and they can't bother us. And as long as they don't bother us, such a deal exists, even if not explicitly agreed to.
As for the animals, if they can't respect our rights, why should we respect theirs? If an animal can't respect our rights, I don't see why we should respect its rights (if it has any). I mean, if a psycho criminal is walking around, you're going to lock him up, not let him wander around.
Actions are what matters. If someone aggresses against me, I'm going to defend myself. If someone runs me over, he'd better pay. The intent of the action is on a different level. The action itself (and its results) are what matters. If someone punches me, they deserve to be punched back.
You seem to think that going to the animals' level is somehow bad. But why is that so? We are animals, just more capable than most. It's worked for 3.6 billion years, and it's not going to make us any better off if we change it. If we make a conscious choice that hurts us, then we are simply fools, and are worse than animals. They may not be as intelligent as we are, but at least they know what matters: to survive and to thrive. We can either reject that and fall into oblivion, or we can accept that and do it better than them (since they can only look at their short-term self-interest, which can be harmful in the long term). And, in that respect, we are better than other animals.
You see, think about a fox loose in a henhouse. What does it do? It strangles all of them, eats as much as it can, and leaves the rest to rot. What does a human do? He takes some of their eggs. He breeds them. He eats a few of them. And he never kills all of them. So the human is certainly better at serving himself than the fox is, and the chickens are, looking from a certain perspective, better off too, since they're not all dead. Of course, I don't deny that the chickens would be even better off if no one ate them, but that's not how life works. And if they were capable of human-level thought, and they had to choose between a fox or a human, they'd choose the human.
Now, what you are saying about government and criminals makes sense, as long as it is applied properly. That is, people who do not hurt others should not be punished, even if the majority somehow thinks that the action is "wrong". And if a person disturbs balance, there should be penalties for it, of course. After all, he is damaging the same planet that everyone else is living on. And for life, too, that makes sense. But I wouldn't apply it to animals.
We can and should suppress our instincts if it is in our long-term interests to do so, and shouldn't if it's not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for the animals, if they can't respect our rights, why should we respect theirs?
Because we're intelligent and not savage like them
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 09:17 PM |
|
|
Are you Mvass or TheDeath? Then stop spamming this thread.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 09:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you Mvass or TheDeath? Then stop spamming this thread.
Wait, is this only between you two? I thought the fact that there are no quote wars is to encourage other people to join the discussion
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you Mvass or TheDeath? Then stop spamming this thread.
Geez man, I don't want to turn this into a mvass vs TheDeath chit-chat
Anyway, you missed my point. Take a child example. You say that if he punches you (because he saw people punch on street, and he thought it was a "salutation" way or something), he deserves to be punched back? You're very weird if you say so. You are supposed to forgive him because he is innocent, doesn't really make the difference at that age between what's ok and what's not ok (well for some things). Yet a child can learn, an animal can't, so an animal is even more inferior.
Now as I said, we have this thing called intelligence. What does it grant us? Well it makes it possible for us to be different than animals, and it's precisely what I wrote above. Look at me for a live example, if you want. See? I can be different than animals, you can be too, but you don't want (you know what I am talking about). The point is, that an animal cannot (not that it doesn't want). BIG DIFFERENCE.
A psycho criminal should not be locked up as other criminals that do it on purpose knowingly. A psycho criminal needs to be locked up in a crazy-people-hospital (whatever is the english term), not in prison, because they are "innocent" in the sense that they don't know what they're doing. If someone comes and casts Puppet Master on you, and then orders you to kill people, you are innocent because you can't truly "decide" not to in this situation. Therefore, I don't think locking you up and treating you like a normal conscious criminal is the way to go.
That is, when we can use something that animals can't, and we refuse (like you) to do it, then we are worse than an animal in mentality, because we know and we had a choice. They don't because they use only their instincts. Eye for an eye works only when the two classes are the same, not one inferior and the other superior. For example, an animal that is genetically modified to eat so many and puke and then eat some more (that is, to kill) is completely innocent because it is not its fault, and does only by instincts. We, the humans, can understand that (else you wouldn't read this paragraph), and thus we can decide to be "different", yet those like you prefer to subjugate to their instincts even thought you can suppress them and be better.
Again, you can't blame a child or a crazy person for what he/she has done the same as a "normal" person, because they don't know what they're doing, contrary to humans which are tyrants since they know what they're doing and can stop themselves, but they don't want.
And Asheera made a fine point. You see, it's not like we can't suppress our self-interest instincts, but those like you don't want. Intelligence grants you this ability (cause animals CANNOT and don't have that ability), and you refuse to use it. Worse than not being offered at all (animal style) and you can't be innocent anymore, since you had your choice.
We as evolved species, should be understandable for others' inferior situations.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Geez man, I don't want to turn this into a mvass vs TheDeath chit-chat
That was the original point, though.
Well, if a child punches someone as a salutation, that's one thing. You can tell him, "Hey, you don't say hello by punching people." and that'll be that. But if he thinks that it's okay to use violence on other people, that's an entirely different matter, and the child should be punished.
I understand that we have intelligence. I just don't see why you think it's better to use it to avoid self-interest rather than to pursue it. You see, the fact that we have human intelligence is what makes us different from other animals. Really, it's the only thing. We still want to pursue our own self-interests, as do they. But their pursuit of them is not as good as ours (like the fox in the henhouse). That is what our intelligence enables us to do. If we are stupid and choose not to use our intelligence (or misuse it as you suggest), then we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot. If we use it to puruse our goals, however, that's a good use. I simply don't understand why you think that your suggestion of how to use our intelligence is better than mine. I'm not suggesting that we refuse to use our intelligence. When you create a gun, does it make any sense to point it at yourself? Same with intelligence. Why hurt ourselves?
I agree that psycho criminals shouldn't be locked up into prison but into an insane asylum, but that is beside the point that I'm trying to make - the points I'm making are that I will defend myself against anyone who is aggressing against me, regardless of their reason (or lack thereof) for doing so, and that criminals, psycho or not, should have something done about them, even if they're not really responsible for their actions. Conscious criminals should be imprisoned, and psycho criminals should be treated. You shouldn't let either of those two groups just wander the streets, though.
And you're suggesting that if we use our intelligence in our self-interest, that makes us as "bad" as animals. For us to be as bad as animals, that would be suggesting that their pursuit of self-interest is bad in the first place. I obviously disagree there.
Again, I'm not saying that we should refuse to use our intelligence; I'm saying that we shouldn't misuse it. We are not some kind of super-being - we are simply another animal, just more successful and intelligent than the rest.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That was the original point, though.
Then what's the point of the quote-warred threads, hmm?
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That was the original point, though.
Then what's the point of the quote-warred threads, hmm?
The point is valid. We'll just sit back, eat popcorn. And who knows, maybe we'll actually start reading this thing...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wait, is this only between you two?
Yes. This is a contest, of sorts, between the two of us.
Quote:
Then what's the point of the quote-warred threads, hmm?
Well, here we're trying to stay away from that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:19 PM |
|
|
Well what if other people who post in the OSM want to post in here too? They should be allowed to since it could produce some very interesting responses. It could allow people to express new ideas without the same old stuff regarding God, religion etc.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I understand that we have intelligence. I just don't see why you think it's better to use it to avoid self-interest rather than to pursue it.
Intelligence allows us to suppress our instincts. This is a capability we are granted, and those like you don't use it. When we are given something, and make a choice, we are no longer innocent. If we use our intelligence to pursue our self-interest has nothing to do with being animal... The point is, if we have the choice to suppress our instincts or NOT, then we are no longer innocent (as we once were, as children). We use our intelligence when we use the capabilities it gives -- and that includes suppressing our instincts. Animals can't do it, we can. We have a choice, they don't. We refuse to use this ability granted by our intelligence, we are not innocent. They are. We are tyrants in that situation, they are neutral. Or else, we can be better and make the other choice, which they CANNOT.
I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself. For example, if aliens came from Mars to attack Earth (without knowing what they're doing, say) we should defend ourselves, but not retaliate back, because in this case they don't know what they're doing (as in animal examples)... Or even better, we could avoid the conflict somehow (for animals, we can not get into their territory). What bugs me is when people intentionally go and explore a bear's territory and then blame the bear for attacking them, for example. It's not like they are completely innocent either.
So basically what you're suggesting is that, given the choice we have, we should choose to act like animals, even though we CAN be different -- and this "can" comes from intelligence, since it's what we have above them. Thus, we are inferior and 'evil' when we can choose and choose their path. They are innocent as they do not know about it. Just like a child shouldn't get sentenced like an adult even if he murders someone.
With intelligence comes responsibility -- we are granted the opportunity to choose, and yet you choose the path that animals follow without their "will" so to speak (they are not given this opportunity).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:26 PM |
|
|
William:
Well, let's see what TheDeath thinks. Personally, I think that it might not be a bad idea, except that I'd want to do it in a somewhat organized fashion. That is, for a person who mostly agrees with TheDeath to enter the discussion, we would also need someone who mostly agrees with me to enter at the same time, so they'd have to wait until we have two people, one for each side. Of course, if a person has an opinion that is equally different from both of ours, then that person may enter.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:29 PM |
|
|
|
Actually I don't think it matters to be "equal" since you're not counting people, especially if said person has interesting arguments to add (to a given side, mine or yours).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
since you're not counting people
What do you mean, "not counting people"?
----------------------------------------------------------
I understand that intelligence allows us to suppress our instincts. And that's often, but not always, a good thing. But why should we use it to not pursue our own self-interest? You're still not answering my question: Why is using intelligence to not pursue our self-interests better than using it to pursue them?
Remember that just because we can be different doesn't mean that we should (in that respect). Remember that different is not always good. I don't see why our choosing their path makes us inferior and evil. I'd say that it makes us superior (compared to those who waste their intelligence and don't) and good.
And "can" does not mean "should".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean, "not counting people"?
As in counting the number of people (e.g: 1,2,3,....) 
----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I understand that intelligence allows us to suppress our instincts. And that's often, but not always, a good thing. But why should we use it to not pursue our own self-interest? You're still not answering my question: Why is using intelligence to not pursue our self-interests better than using it to pursue them?
Remember that just because we can be different doesn't mean that we should (in that respect). Remember that different is not always good. I don't see why our choosing their path makes us inferior and evil. I'd say that it makes us superior (compared to those who waste their intelligence and don't) and good.
And "can" does not mean "should".
We should because I said that we can't be considered innocent. Why should we kill them when we don't like to be killed? It's not based on any non-aggression principle, it's basic life. That is, animals, if knowing what they're doing, would be tyrants, at least for those on the top of the chain. But they don't, it's why we should not act to them as if they are. We don't kill mad children, even if they can't be "restored" normally (and thus will probably not be good for society). We don't because that way we are worse than them, since we know what we're doing, they don't.
That is, once we kill an animal, we are no longer innocent. Once an animal kills, nothing happens, it still remains innocent. See where I'm going? That's why we shouldn't, because we'll be tyrants
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 10:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As in counting the number of people (e.g: 1,2,3,....)
Why shouldn't we count them? After all, a majority of people on one side would be detrimental to the other.
---------------------------------------------
Why should we kill them when we don't like to be killed? That is simple. Because we are what we are. We can enter into a social contract with other humans, so we won't kill them, and in return they won't kill us. But since such a thing is impossible with an animal, there is no real point in respecting their so-called rights. If they are to use us as food, so shall we do to them. It doesn't matter if we wouldn't like to be killed - they should not be given rights, for the reasons I outlined earlier: that it will neither benefit us to do so, nor will it bring any detrimental effects to us for not doing so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 11:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If they are to use us as food, so shall we do to them.
Like I said:Quote:
That is, once we kill an animal, we are no longer innocent. Once an animal kills, nothing happens, it still remains innocent. See where I'm going? That's why we shouldn't, because we'll be tyrants
That is, even though eye for an eye seems plausible here for you, the result is different -- we'll be tyrants while they innocent, regardless that we both "kill" each other
that's because we can stop to listen to our instincts, and thus evolve. Why is that? Simple: animals cannot, we are a step ahead, and to go to the next step, that's what we should do. You can't blame an animal for killing and being evil, it can't stop itself and DOESN'T EVEN know why! We, on the other hand, know quite well (well at least this thread mentioned that, so you read it ).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2008 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Simple: animals cannot, we are a step ahead, and to go to the next step, that's what we should do.
Here's the key point: you're not telling me why this "next step" is better than where we are right now. The way I see it, it's not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 02:24 AM |
|
|
Why create a thread about you "dueling"?
You will never come to a conclusion anyway , you are not getting anywhere
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
