|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted July 23, 2008 02:49 AM |
|
|
Quotes are becoming more ever present but no one has exceeded more than 1 quote (from the argument) per post.
Mvass used the word self-interest but so has The Death.
This word has been relevant so far and as such hasn't been detrimental to either argument.
Any further over-use of the word, in short, will be. Be careful 
Also an apparent failure to respond specifically to each argument has led to a recent flurry of repeat points (finally becoming the only point in an argument). Be careful about this also. Try to respond to all points, whether to disagree/agree or simply state your opinion, however brief.
The animal [analogy] has become the most prominent topic and as such the debate has drifted away from the main topic: the government.
(although it is not necessary to stay on the main topic as stated by the rules)
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 06:06 AM |
|
|
WHy not Stalin?
He had an excuse for killing his own people after a good portion had lost thier lives after WWII?
He was Diagnosed being a phobic anyways 
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 01:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
Ok I'll be more clear. We humans have something that animals don't, and it's what makes us "better". It's called intelligence. Now, with intelligence also comes that ability (to suppress our instincts for example).
Logical deduction: If an animal becomes more evolved as it receives the ability called intelligence, then the next step in evolution is to use that ability (since it's the reason for 'evolution') to grant something else (who knows what will come, perhaps wisdom or peace?). It's like a long chain.
By the way, I'm talking only about "mental" evolution, not necessarily biological (in a predator/defense style).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 02:45 PM |
|
|
Animals don't have intelligence??
hmmm.....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 02:47 PM |
|
|
Uh, you know what I meant
I mean, not to the point of understanding the difference between innocence and guilt
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 03:53 PM |
|
|
Intelligence allows us to suppress our instincts, that's true, but that's not the only thing that it allows us to do. It also allows us to act in our long-term self-interests, rather than just the short-term. Think of intelligence like a knife. You can use it to cook, or you can use it to stab people. You don't need a knife to cook, but it makes cooking a lot more versatile. On the other hand, you do need a knife to stab. Now tell me, should we use a knife to cook or to stab? See, you couldn't stab before knives were invented (let's ignore the existence of spears for a moment). But that doesn't mean that that's what the knife is for. Same with intelligence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 04:02 PM |
|
|
Yeah but it goes like this (let's say animals can't suppress their instincts):
Let's say, limbless animals can't "prey", they need to be 'fed', and they can't suppress their instincts
Animals with limbs can't either, but they have e.g: claws...
Humans can suppress their instincts. They are more evolved than animals (I hope you don't deny that)
But a human is different. He can choose a different path. Why is that path 'better'? Well, it's because animals can't do it. Just like e.g: sponges can't "prey", animals can't suppress their instincts, but we can do all of the above.
Limiting ourselves to only the above makes us not 'evolved'. Simply, we can lay down like a sponge, and not "prey" nor "suppress" our instincts. But at that level we are not only as worse as a sponge or an animal, but actually worse, since we can choose, they can't. It's like an animal that doesn't use it's claws, but even in that case it is not its fault since it only acts mostly on instincts.
We can continue to do what animals do (in a more efficient way, obviously, just as animals are more "efficient" than sponges), but when we have that ability to choose, we can be guilty of our decisions. But not only that, but ignoring an ability granted by something that makes us evolve (intelligence) will mark us lower in the chain... It's like getting telekinesis but not using it!
We can be guilty, they can't. If evolution grants us an ability and makes us understand that difference, why not use it? It is the logical deduction to get to the next "step".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 04:08 PM |
|
|
You completely ignored the knife analogy. Let me bold the critical parts for you:Quote:
Think of intelligence like a knife. You can use it to cook, or you can use it to stab people. You don't need a knife to cook, but it makes cooking a lot more versatile. On the other hand, you do need a knife to stab. Now tell me, should we use a knife to cook or to stab? See, you couldn't stab before knives were invented (let's ignore the existence of spears for a moment). But that doesn't mean that that's what the knife is for. Same with intelligence.
You see, there are two uses for a knife/intelligence. You can either use it to do the old thing more effectively (cook/pursue self-interest) or you can use it to do something new (stab/transcend self-interest). That doesn't mean that this new thing is a better use.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 04:11 PM |
|
|
Actually I got it pretty well summarized above. You see, animals have "claws" or whatever. We built knives to (for example) pursue the same thing. Cooking is something that animals actually don't do. One point where we are "better" with the knife. Originally, knives were substitutes for animal claws or teeth. Now, we found other uses. That's the "next step" (even though this is not about mentality, which is far more important).
The best reason still is that we are not innocent and we can be guilty for our choices, above animals
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 04:17 PM |
|
|
All right, a different but similar example. Think of intelligence like a broom. You can use it to sweep, or you can use it to bash people over the head with it. You don't need a broom to sweep (let's say that you could do it with your hands), but it makes sweeepiing a lot easier. On the other hand, you do need a broom to bash people over the head. Now tell me, should we use a broom to sweep or to bash? See, you couldn't bash before knives were invented (let's ignore the existence of rocks for a moment). But that doesn't mean that that's what the broom is for. Same with intelligence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 04:24 PM |
|
|
I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. I'm not talking about the original "purpose" of an object (which humans give the purpose anyway, so it's not that a strong argument). I'm talking about our abilities that animals don't have -- it's something that we are granted (again, mentally) but somehow you refuse to use it. That won't lead to the next step.
For example, suppose the following non-mental evolution scheme (remember: it's a bit off since I am talking about mental attributes, which are followed by guilt and innocence for example!):
Animal A doesn't have claws. Animal A hunts and has a hard time killing the prey (it does only with muscles).
Animal A evolves. Evolution grants it claws. Call it Animal B.
Animal B: should it be the same as animal A? Ignore what evolution granted it? (not that it can, since it's instinct, but anyway analogies FTW! )
Animal B evolves into Animal C. Evolution grants it the ability to suppress its instincts, thus be "different" than the previous animals, just as Animal B is "different" than Animal A (claw-hunting).
Should Animal C use what evolution granted it? I mean, if it doesn't, it will never evolve into Animal D... if it does, it simply follows "evolution"
Of course bear in mind I am talking about mental evolution, not biological evolution.
also can we use less analogies? I mean, that's why probably our point doesn't get across
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 05:37 PM |
|
|
Animal A is able to hunt poorly.
Animal B is able to hunt better.
Animal C is the most successful.
You see, there is not just one use for intelligence. An animal can, theoretically, use its claws to claw itself to death, but doesn't do so. We can use our intelligence to "transcend self-interest", or we can use it to further our own self-interests. You see, Animal B may be more evolved than Animal A, but it still does more or less the same thing. Why shouldn't Animal C?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
|
Why shouldn't Animal C?? Simple really, because evolution granted it something, and what you suggest is to ignore that "something"...
I know my previous analogy is not good enough, mainly because the two animals are not more evolved mentally (I bolded them precisely so you don't skip it, even though I must say, you did ).
Animal C shouldn't do it for two reasons:
1) I can stop from doing it -- thus, it is no longer innocent and is guilty!!
2) Because otherwise it ignores one of the abilities that it was gifted with
How can you take an evolution step by step when evolution shows you the next step, gives you the ability to use it, but you refuse to use it and stay in the same mentality as animal B or animal A 
Not to mention, again, that you can't be innocent anymore... i think this part is seriously overlooked.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 06:04 PM |
|
|
"Can't be innocent" implies that it's a bad thing, which it's not. Animal C refusing to use its intelligence would be like Animal B refusing to use its claws. Animal C could claw its prey to death, and Animal B could muscle it to death. But that wouldn't be using themselves to their full potential. You, on the other hand, suggest that we should avoid our full potential.
1) You may be able to stop from doing it, but that doesn't mean that you should.
2) It doesn't ignore your abilities, because you are using your intelligence. Just not in the way that you're suggesting.
You see, we would be fools to refuse to use our intelligence. We would be fools simply to muscle the animals to death. But what you suggest is not the "next step" - it's a leap backwards.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 06:37 PM |
|
|
Actually I don't think you have any point at all. Intelligence grants you the ability to suppress your instincts. That's what it does. Actually, you see for our self-interests, a different type of creature would suffice, a very powerful one, or one that lives in a virtual reality (or imagination, so to speak), where you can "have" whatever you want (remember that EVERYTHING is in the brain, every "interest" or pleasure).
And yes there is a bad thing for not being innocent. The origin of the word has absolutely nothing to do with "punishing" or anything like that (as you will in your 'society' model).
We have something more than animals, that is to suppress our instincts. Being more effective at it doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. It's about mentality. Nothing to do with "potential" or anything like that, because you see, you can change it (show me a philosophical animal), and you have examples everywhere. What you're suggesting is nothing more than primitive animals, actually even worse. Why do it the "old-fashioned" way, or "primitive" way, when we can do it different? To stay on the same evolved level?
This is the last time I repeat myself: your analogies are completely flawed because they are talking about a different "evolution", the potential biological one. As if I have not bolded this enough, I am talking about mental evolution. What you suggest is to have a mentality subjugated to instincts, thus animal mentality. And yes, we are guilty of it, because we can refuse to be that way.
You can't blame an animal for killing.
You can blame a human for killing.
You can blame an alien that has similar choices for killing as well.
You can't blame a child for killing.
How do you suggest we evolve and improve our MENTALITY (READ that again) if we don't follow what we have been gifted with? Simple logic: animal mentality < human mentality, unless we don't use our abilities to full capability (that is, to suppress our instincts). This is the full capability, because intelligence is only concerned with mentality.
I guess it's almost impossible to respect the rules since I repeated myself too many times. Consequently, arguing is pointless. If you don't have anything interesting than your "potential" analogies (which are off the point for mental evolution) I won't respond since I would be breaking the rules.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
A creature that lives in a virtual reality? You mean like hallucenogenic drugs? And intelligence allows us much more than to suppress our instincts.
And why is there a bad thing for not being innocent?
And I'm saying that we should use our intelligence for our self-interest. And we wouldn't be as "bad" (whatever that means) as primitive animals, since we can look after our long-term self-interests, not just short-term ones. And I'm not suggesting a mentality subjected to instincts, by any means. What I'm suggesting is the control and fulfillment of desires. After all, happiness comes from the fulfillment of a want, so the happiest man on Earth is the one who wants everything (not merely in the basic material sense) and can fulfill all of these wants. Intelligence, then, both gives us the ability to have more wants (when's the last time you saw a non-human animal looking for a philosophical discussion?) and more ability to fulfill them (the ability to construct things, for example, and to set marshmallows aside (see Economics thread)).
And you can blame an animal for killing. If a dog mauls someone, it is put down.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 08:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And why is there a bad thing for not being innocent?
I thought you would know by now... it's not inherently "bad" as it is when used in a specific term. Look, the idea is that we can be guilty for killing life, an animal can't.
Also in my previous posts I was using the "what intelligence grants us", not what we can use with it (what you're saying). Intelligence by itself doesn't grant us any object or anything like that, it only grants us specific "abilities". By reducing ourselves only to self-interest, it is clear that our mentality is not changed much from animals, so it would either have a hard time evolving it, or impossible. From animal mentality, where short-term self-interests are concerned, to human mentality where either:
1) long-term self-interests
2) suppress our instincts
The basic idea is, if we choose (1), what will come next? it's like no step at all in mentality, so small it is unnoticeable.
Quote:
And you can blame an animal for killing. If a dog mauls someone, it is put down.
It's not the dog's fault it was trained that way, or if its instinct "tell" him that way. Either way, it cannot choose (you know what I mean), so it can't be guilty of anything it does.
Let me give you yet another example (some kind of analogy, but different). Suppose some aliens come and see us, the humans, as worthless. They are completely different than us, and than animals on this planet. Are you saying that if they don't consider us "similar" to them (e.g: 'sentient', in your previous posts) they should just enslave or kill us for pleasure or for material gains or whatever?
(remember that killing animals for fun is also a self-interest goal, since pleasure = self-interest, so it's VERY similar to your other self-interests! sorry but that's the way it is  )
I mean, from their point of view, we are not 'sentient' (because they compare it to their form of sentience, remember they're completely different). This calls for... TheDeath, the superhero that suggests equality!
Point is: we ARE guilty of killing life. No one can deny that. An animal, by itself, isn't
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:15 PM |
|
|
Wrong. We can be guilty for killing other humans or other people's property (not just talking about laws), but not in general.
And if we choose 1, what will come next? What do you mean, "next"? Next people have children, die, and decompose, then their children take over, and so on. Unless you look into the very long-term, in which case if religious and primitivist nuts don't take over, we will genetically and technologically modify ourselves to the point of being as different from us as we are from other animals. But look at it this way: an animal wants whatever it wants now or very soon. Humans (if they use their intelligence) want whatever they want at some point in their lives, preferrably maximized, so they can put it off for a greater reward. As lifespan increases, so will our view of "long-term".
As for not blaming a dog, a dog that attacks humans should be put down, simply from the point of safety.
Quote:
Let me give you yet another example (some kind of analogy, but different). Suppose some aliens come and see us, the humans, as worthless. They are completely different than us, and than animals on this planet. Are you saying that if they don't consider us "similar" to them (e.g: 'sentient', in your previous posts) they should just enslave or kill us for pleasure or for material gains or whatever?
Yes, they can if they want to. But we can defend ourselves from them.
But killing animals for fun is not good. It is a mark of a psychopath, and that is harmful for society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
a dog that attacks humans should be put down, simply from the point of safety.
Yes, but you can't blame the poor dog for that
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2008 09:21 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
