When do children/young adults gain full rights of privacy? by pizmobeach

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... technically at one end of your morality "good" ..."

MY morality?????! MY MORALITY ??? REALLY???

Point out to me where I have made MORAL statements.

I think I have been pretty clear that I PREFER a humane society (frankly it's more enjoyable FOR ME), but that evolution doesn't care. It's a point I have repeated in every post. Morality isn't the basis of any of my postings.

As for your view of human nature, it's stupid. Look around at the world. Are those H. sapiens animals who are behaving that way NOT humans? EVERYTHING PEOPLE DO IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HUMAN NATURE. Even the brutal cruel things. By definition.

"Either you're not understanding my argument ..."
Dude - you haven't made one. You say - it's not this. It's not that. It's not ...

Tell us all, in a brief statement, what it is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Uhh...I was simply quoting the US Declaration of Independence to Signy, who I understand is a fellow American. Just making sure I understand right that she thinks one of our nation's political sacred cows is hogwash. Not that one can't disagree with the DOI. It is just unusual, and I wanted to double check.

(The quotation from our Declaration of Independence goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")

Yes, I think the DOI is full of hogwash. There are no unalienable rights endowed by a creator. If those rights were so unalienable, so self-evident, they would be as constant and observable as gravity. What we see instead throughout history are constantly shifting patterns of rights (and responsibilities)... in Sparta, if you were strong enough, and male, you had the right to be a full citizen and own slaves. If you were a slave... oh, well.

So whatever "rights" we enjoy are endowed by our society, based on the ethos of the day. (In the days of the FF, it was The Enlightenment)

I like the DOI as statement of purpose or intent, but as a statement of fact it kinda sucks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well,as I scroll up the thread I see that I am mostly repeating Magon, who has said much more eloquently what I would have said.

So rather than just posting "Yeah, me too" let's see what I can add to the discussion.

What can we learn from history?

First of all, I think there is a large gap between individual behavior and individual drives, and social behavior and social drives.

Tackling individuals first, people DO have hardwired responses. (I would not elevate that to "instinct".) We respond in varying degrees to pain and pleasure and fear and learning and inclusion (driven, at a fundamental level by serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin etc and mediated by our neural structures). However, not all children respond in equal measures and in equal ways to the same stimulus. Although autistic children crave safety and inclusion, they find direct human interaction unbearably stimulating. Although the flash of AHA! is remarkably rewarding, some cannot process thought far enough to reach understanding. Schizophrenics are probably high on dopamine. Some have little capacity for empathy. And I think I'm once again repeating Magon, but you get the point.

We also (mostly) have the one tool in our toolkit that makes us VERY different from animals, and that is the ability to learn a complex language, and to react to its constructs AS IF they were real: electrons, gravity, god, dragons, money, rights, vacuum. Language is society's brain. It is society's memory, and society's shaping force.

So, getting back to history... what can we learn from it?

We can learn that people are a social species. That humans have always existed in groups. That larger groups tend be more technologically advanced, and provide higher standard of living. That all societies have a shared language. That societies define who belongs and who doesn't. That all societies have roles for their members. That all societies define "right" and "wrong".

Furthermore, we can learn that the human drive for inclusion is so strong that it will override anything that WE may think of as natural or innate. The sanitary trenches near Roman brothels were filled with the skeletons of fetuses and newborns.

Humans have varied responses, but the one overwhelming drive seems to be to belong to a group, almost no matter how destructive that group is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 7:18 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

As I think about it, I also think our technology provides the excess resources that make up for our inherently non-survivable hierarchy. Without being able to suck up resources into the bottom, the bottom couldn't survive.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 7:26 AM

Quote:
You are correct that people generally want safety and security, that they wants friends, and families, that they love their children and prefer harmony to strife. That is because we are social creatures, evolved to live in groups. We need to be able to get along with one another in order to survive. This is true of other social primates as well. We also have aggressive tendancies, and will fight one another. That is also a social trait. Conflict, often armed and in groups,has been a constant feature of our history. That is also true of other social primates. And in fact, aggression has played a key part of our survival. We may not like that part of humanity, but it has been a constant part of our species. It is what it is.

I can agree with this. It is important to understand that the presence of a tendency does not mean that contradictory tendencies do not exist, and that all of these tendencies are universal and human.

The human tendency to fight for survival and resources and the human tendency to be stunned/shocked/horrified/grieve if something happens to their mother, siblings, or kin group in general both are essential components of our survival that we have evolved. It is no more ethical to deny someone the chance to perhaps live or struggle to live (to fight for survival) than it is to murder them, because of the reactions and pain of those who are impacted by that denial.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd of course go with the pragnatic evolutionary line, whether you wish to call that amoral is up to you.

How about I put it this way?

Explanation #1: Humans evolved to survive independently of morality. Morality is entirely a fictional/social construct. (Amoral view)

Explanation #2: Humans evolved to survive using innate sense of morality. Morality is both a social construct and a neurological reality. (Moral view)

So, both are pragmatic and evolutionary. The question is, is innate morality a result of our evolution or not?

Byte and I say yes, and you, as I understand it, say no.

BTW, I don't have a problem with evolution. So the above wording was rephrased to make evolution a non-issue, cause you seem to be hung up on the idea that innate morality is somehow inconsistent with evolution.

Quote:
You are correct that people generally want safety and security, that they wants friends, and families, that they love their children and prefer harmony to strife. That is because we are social creatures, evolved to live in groups. We need to be able to get along with one another in order to survive. This is true of other social primates as well. We also have aggressive tendancies, and will fight one another. That is also a social trait. Conflict, often armed and in groups,has been a constant feature of our history. That is also true of other social primates. And in fact, aggression has played a key part of our survival. We may not like that part of humanity, but it has been a constant part of our species. It is what it is.

I do not disagree with any of this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Humans have varied responses, but the one overwhelming drive seems to be to belong to a group, almost no matter how destructive that group is.

Yes, this very strong pack instinct appears to be universal and innate as well.

It takes a huge amount of courage to override it and swim upstream, as it were. But throughout history, enough people have done it that I believe all people have an innate sense of right and wrong independent of societal norms, and some people find the courage to act on their innate sense instead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
enough people have done it that I believe all people have an innate sense of right and wrong independent of societal norms

I could just as easily say that enough ppl are sociopaths to make me think that we are innately sociopathic, and that some ppl have the courage to act on their innate drive despite societal norms.

In other words, your argument doesn't work from a logical perspective. And, you wind up having to toss out 90% of the data in order to prove your point.

I think, more than anything, the drive towards greater and greater inclusion is economic: larger societies allow for more finely divided labor, more specialization, greater technological advances and a more comfortable life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
enough people have done it that I believe all people have an innate sense of right and wrong independent of societal norms
I could just as easily say that enough ppl are sociopaths to make me think that we are innately sociopathic, and that some ppl have the courage to act on their innate drive despite societal norms.

But Signy,

You *don't* think that. You *wouldn't* think that. And that's what gives CTS's argument credibility while your facile reversal is nonsense. Folks like CTS and Byte and I are trying to acknowledge that little elephant in the room. You are a moral person, Signy. Sorry to be the bearer of good news.

For all the talk in this thread about how violent and cruel and warlike human beings are, none of us here (that I know of) conform to that model. Even Raptor talks a good game, but he's as comfortably removed from the battle field as any of us. It's this fact that quietly supports CTS's argument and makes you sound schizoid--you're a thoroughly decent person somehow convinced that humans are naturally violent and cruel.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I was hoping to try and introduce some balance. It's never 100% in any direction.
The child in not TOTALLY 100% FREE of intrusion. (If so, they would never get fed, cuddled, cleaned, laid down to sleep at the parents' initiative.) The parent is never 100% TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE.

Hey kiki,

Sorry to be so tardy in my response. One of the great things about this board is how freakin’ active it is! Who'd a thunk, 10 years after the demise of our reason for being here, we'd still be hashing things out? The downside is that it's easy to fall behind in a popular thread.

Anyway, I'm kinda ruminating on your ALL CAPS here. "The child is not TOTALLY 100% FREE of intrusion." "The parent is never 100% TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE." Hrm. These comments seem pretty over the top and logically directed at no one as far as I can see. Nobody made such claims. I’d agree, someone who earnestly believed these things would be a child--or a lunatic. But no one even implied them. I suppose if you took CTS's "There are no bad kids, only bad parents" entirely out context and imposed the most hostile interpretation onto it, you could, syntactically, get to the absolutism you decry. It looks like you're strawmanning, but I think you actually believe that people are making these arguments and that it falls to you to deny and refute their absurd claims.

It's one of the weird things that happens again and again when people so much as suggest that there might be an alternative to controlling and dominating children; that a parent could actually respect her child's privacy and all hell would not be let loose upon the world. The "pro-control" folk will project all kinds of nonsensical beliefs and theories onto folks like me and it all just looks really sad from where I sit.

Quote:
It struck me that people who were putting parents 100% on the hook couldn't be doing that unless they were assuming the parents were 100% in control - and they simply aren't. And that that assumption - parents are 100% in control - is the outlook of a very young child.

That's some spurious logic and crowded with these emphatic "100%’s" again and again. If you’re trapped on a desert island with a child, you are 100% responsible to see to that child’s needs. Are you 100% in control? Of anything? Of course not. If the child ends up dying of pneumonia, are you 100% to blame? Of course not. But, were you responsible? Yes.

But no one on this side of the argument is talking about 100% of anything, y’know, ‘cause parents don’t live on desert islands with their dependent children. It’s one of the weird things about controlling parents: they tend to argue and think as if they do indeed live on a desert island with their kids, or should as far as any bystander “telling them how to raise their own children” is concerned.

I think you'll find (have found?) that none of the child advocates hereabout believe parents are 100% in control of much of anything, let alone the children in our midst. What I read upthread is some control-happy parents making some seriously odious statements as if they were self-evident and perfectly sensible. So folks like me have said so, and passionately.

Strikes me, that in striving for "parental control" folks wreak a lot of havoc. I think you'll find that Canttakesky and Fremdfirma and the rest of us would never say that parents are or should be in control, unless it were to suggest that parents practice some modicum of self-control.

What I'm saying is that you and I are talking across a cultural divide. And no brief explanation or mission statement from any of us on this side will do in that case. We gotta talk a lot about definitions and context. But you're very impatient and quick to belittle your opposition. As a speaker for dominator culture, (whether that is your intention or not, it's how you come across) you naturally presume that your understanding of the terms of this discussion is the only right/logical/significant/rational one out there and therefore all us over here must be merely whimsical or, worse, the sad victims of religious dogma.

See, I think it's a control-freak's reasoning that demands 100% of anything when it comes to human interactions. Or an internet gladiator that demands 100% logical consistency from her would-be opponents, rather than working to understand them.

There are certainly grey areas, and I'm confident that no one who opposes parental spying here in this thread would dispute that. On the contrary, I have found that those parents who WANT to spy on their kids, rifle through their things, etc. (for the good of the children, of course), it's those parents who want to be told where exactly folks like me would draw the line.

Y’see, fans of dominator culture like “drawing lines.” They like to know when and where they can take the gloves off and get down to some good ol’ fashioned dominating. They can’t wait. And twist every discussion of childcare into some legalistic contract so they can hunt down and secure any loopholes for use when they need to rationalize their actions.

People of my way of thinking don't need to know where the line is, because we have no interest in crossing it. If a kid wants privacy, you give it to 'em. What's more, if a kid only looks like they might want some privacy, you make sure to give it to 'em then, too. Kids need a lot of privacy in this crazy, overcrowded, adult-ridden world we live in. You can balk and throw up a lot of what-if's, but I'm not here to make a 100% airtight argument for respecting children.

Quote:
In terms of evolution, I think logic does kind of dictate certain outcomes. One is that if the young are dependent, and if they live in a group, then the group has a vested evolutionary interest in their behavior. Behavior on the part of the young that puts the group at risk is not survivable. Therefore, the group has input into the infants' behaviors.

Who disputes this? This seems way out of context for a discussion about privacy and spying on one's children via satellite. When does a child's need for privacy endanger the group in any way that *the group* needs to take decisive action?

I mean, seriously, what are we even talking about, really? Where are all these dangerous teenagers going to go that we must resort to spying on them for their own good? Are they doing drugs with friends? Having sex at an undisclosed location? Do these actions in themselves "endanger the group" and therefore need to be forbidden? If you're gonna point at evolution, then both practices are entirely in line. Both practices have been going on for as long as drugs and sex have been available. And, geez, the sex part is what evolution is all about. Why can't we address such occurrences on a case by case basis, instead of making sweeping statements guaranteeing a parent's right to violate her child's privacy?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
But Signy,

You *don't* think that. You *wouldn't* think that. And that's what gives CTS's argument credibility while your facile reversal is nonsense. Folks like CTS and Byte and I are trying to acknowledge that little elephant in the room. You are a moral person, Signy. Sorry to be the bearer of good news.

For all the talk in this thread about how violent and cruel and warlike human beings are, none of us here (that I know of) conform to that model. Even Raptor talks a good game, but he's as comfortably removed from the battle field as any of us. It's this fact that quietly supports CTS's argument and makes you sound schizoid--you're a thoroughly decent person somehow convinced that humans are naturally violent and cruel.

If you think the discussion has been about how violent and cruel and warlike humans are, you have missed the point of argument you are trying to dispute. If you have actually read any of the posts, its clear you haven't understood them.

CTS, yes I think morality is a contruct. That is why I talk about values rather than morals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:09 PM

Was talking to Signy, Mag.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In other words, your argument doesn't work from a logical perspective.

Correct. It was not meant to be an argument of logic. It was meant to simply explain how I arrived at my position. I am not citing animal studies or evolutionary principles. My philosophical beliefs about innate morality comes from personal life experiences, observations, and a "faith," if you will, I have learned to have in humanity.

Also, I want to make it clear that just because I believe X, and you don't, doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, yes I think morality is a contruct. That is why I talk about values rather than morals.

Values, morals. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If morals are constructs, then values are too.

We can use the word "values" instead of "morals" if you prefer, though. The underlying arguments don't really change.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Was talking to Signy, Mag.

And I've read all of Signy's argument. She and I say pretty similar things on this issue. I believe you have missed the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, yes I think morality is a contruct. That is why I talk about values rather than morals.
Values, morals. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If morals are constructs, then values are too.

We can use the word "values" instead of "morals" if you prefer, though. The underlying arguments don't really change.

Yeah, I do prefer. 'Morals' imply an inherent sense of right and wrong, and has kind of a religious judgemental tone to it. Values imply a set of beliefs that may vary. At least as far as I can determine. I am playing semantics, and I don't really mind which term you choose to use. I understand your argument, and the terminolgy does not change where we are different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Was talking to Signy, Mag.

And I've read all of Signy's argument. She and I say pretty similar things on this issue. I believe you have missed the point.

Um. Is this your way of starting a conversation with me?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:22 PM

Do we need a formal introduction?

Seriously, I was responding to your comment "For all the talk in this thread about how violent and cruel and warlike human beings are, none of us here (that I know of) conform to that model. Even Raptor talks a good game, but he's as comfortably removed from the battle field as any of us. It's this fact that quietly supports CTS's argument and makes you sound schizoid--you're a thoroughly decent person somehow convinced that humans are naturally violent and cruel."

Since signy has made a couple of posts on this thread, and I have made heaps, and the two of us have basically being saying the same thing, I thought I might respond.

I wasn't aware of some thread posting protocol that says - only respond to posts addressed directly to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:08 PM

Holy crap, Mags. No. There is no protocol, but you're being rude. Continually. Your first comment to me in this thread is, "If you think the discussion has been about how violent and cruel and warlike humans are, you have missed the point of argument you are trying to dispute. If you have actually read any of the posts, its clear you haven't understood them." That strikes me as pretty damn rude for an opener. Forgive me if I don't want to get into it with someone who's already insulting me before we've exchanged word one.

And you missed my point as well, because I didn't say that "the discussion has been about how violent and cruel and warlike humans are." That would be a gross oversimplification of 150+ post thread. I said that there was a lot of talk of it, in this thread--not a slight distinction to my mind.

I don't think it's been discussed so much as alluded to *as a given* to disprove the existence of a moral sense in human beings. Human beings can't even agree that rape and murder are bad things, right? The whole anti-moral argument is predicated on this kind of "evidence" that there can't be a moral awareness.

This is what gets trotted out every time the idea that people might be naturally aware of right and wrong gets brought up--"well, if that were true then why is history so depraved? There can't be an innate moral awareness if humans have aggressive tendencies. Oh, and did I mention, I think you must be a religious fanatic?" It gets old.

So, okay, if indeed you do want to talk to me, please, could ya just state your point, so that I might get it? When I don't think someone's gotten my point, and I wish to engage with them, I usually start with explaining myself. That's not protocol, just common sense.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:34 PM

I think I've stated the same point a lot. I've said it in different ways. I've explained my thinking the best way I can and I don't think I have the capacity to be any clearer at all. I think you misrepresent what has been said. I have agreed that some posters have different views on the issue and I'm okay with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:23 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

HKC

I see arguments that parents should just - well - let their kids be. If there are limits to those statements, I don't find them. In that regard THOSE arguments seem pretty 100% to me.

To me the argument isn't if parents should always control on their kids, or should let them be totally free. As far as I can see, historically, logically, practically, some parental control is inescapable but total parental control is insane. The argument is more about when do they control. How much. To what ends. And that there are limits to either end of the argument. I'm about that place in the middle, a place I haven't really have seen argued for.

I'm not now - and if you read my posts - have not ever argued parents SHOULD spy on their kids. I thought I answered that when you asked "Are you using these casual observations of animal behavior to justify human parents spying on their children through their cellphones?" and I said "no".

"But you're very impatient and quick to belittle your opposition."

Are you referring to my use of the word 'childish'? I meant 'childish' - having the perspective of a child.

Or are you talking about when I posted that Frem's view of 'human nature' was 'stupid' b/c he seemed to think that what we are all doing on this planet is somehow not done by 'humans' acting out their 'nature'? I admit, I got irritated being told my posts were about 'morality'.

What I find weird - completely totally weird - is how I get characterized as being about 'morality' when I've been posting about evolution, how I get told I'm about 100% absolutes when I've been posting it's never 100% to either extreme but that everything happening somewhere in the middle (a point I've made explicitly).

"If a kid wants privacy, you give it to 'em. What's more, if a kid only looks like they might want some privacy, you make sure to give it to 'em then, too."

Now this I DO find to be an absolutist statement - a 100% er. An inviolate RULE. Do you see that? Furthermore, I can not only imagine situations where that can't happen, I've seen it. One very young autistic girl wanted her 'privacy', locked herself in her room, and was discovered to be totally naked in the presence of a much older male. Should she have had her 'privacy'? Or was it a better idea to violate her privacy to make sure she wasn't being sexually abused by an older, predatory male? As I said, I CAN imagine exceptions.

I'm all about that place in the middle.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:22 PM

WISHIMAY

I'm sorry some people here had really paranoid parents, who have made their children run to the other freaking end of the spectrum.

Truth is, most parents are paranoid because they CARE. Some do take it too far. If you are whole and breathing, maybe you should give your parents a break. Soon, they will be dead and nothing they did to you as a child will really matter.

I don't have time to read all these posts, because I'm busy being a wife and MOTHER. Been babysitting since I was 12. My kid's teacher recently said my kid is one of the funniest sweetest well manored kids she's ever met. We have a great relationship and yes, I DO know where she is and an idea of what she is doing AT ALL TIMES, mostly in my case because a lot of adults are scum. Anybody that even glances at the news should be able to grasp this.

Most children NEED the security of a parent that cares enough to know what they're up to. Try asking a neglected child about that.

BTW, I never said the child had to overtly KNOW you check on them. As with all things, TACT, MODERATION, BALANCE.

Good night, all!

Sweet Dreams!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 4:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't think humans are about "right" and "wrong". If that were the case, there really wouldn't BE so much "wrong" in the world.

As far as such a thing as "human nature", can we agree that- while most humans are mostly similar, there are some that are not like? That every behavioral trait has exceptions, and that some people really ARE "born that way"?

So.

What I think MOST people are "like".

MOST people want to belong. Most people want some predictability in their lives. Most people want to be safe. Most people have the capacity to be empathetic. Most people have a sense of fair. Most people are not violent.

So with most people being mostly all-around cooperative- or at least reasonable- how do societies get so fucked up? How is it that exploitative societies rise, creating lords and emperors, priests and investors, parasites who feast off the work of others? Even more puzzling, how do exploitative societies persist, when the parasites are such a small minority?

I think that's because in a complex society most people do not react to reality, they respond to what their language and society TELL them is "real": God is in the thunder. The more complex the society, the more abstract and distant the interactions: Money has value. Poverty creates progress. People have rights.

You can't impose your will by might on a whole society. If you try, production suffers: for every ten workers, you need an overseer with a whip.

Sociopaths, unlike most people, seem to have an unerring nose for influence and power. As a sociopath bent on using people, you will insert yourself into whatever it is that gets people to be mostly moving in the same direction whether it is religion, money, trade, communication, or force. The very forces that bind people together are hijacked by sociopathy. And because progress... integration... whatever you want to call it... are associated with the sociopaths, people come to think that the sociopaths CAUSE progress. This is no doubt helped along by the mythology that sociopaths themselves encourage: Human sacrifice brings the rain. The emperor is the conduit to the gods. Toyota builds cars. (People build cars)

Bad societies have, I think,very little to do with child-rearing. You can have a great society of very nice people who will be totally unarmed when the sociopath DOES arise. And since, in a complex society, it is possible to exploit people at a distance, or in very subtle ways, creating a working society is not about confronting the nasty man (or woman) personally, it is figuring out HOW you keep sociopaths from hijacking our cooperative nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:18 PM

Quote:
For all the talk in this thread about how violent and cruel and warlike human beings are, none of us here (that I know of) conform to that model.

I've had to force myself to ignore my more paranoid suspicions about all the members on this board, and I'm pretty sure I trust most of you now. And heck, I even think I might be a sociopath, and I had to construct my own ethical code, understanding of people, and some approximation of empathy from scratch, and much of my arguments are stemming from what I've come to understand how most normal people are different from ME. But even I'm not VERY violent.

Unfortunately, this might get into the pitfalls represented by personal bias and subjectivity. But I don't think I'm violent, without knowing for sure if I really am or not. I haven't killed anyone? Beyond the guilt we all carry simply for paying taxes that go into military endeavors anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 8:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

You seem real bent on misconstruing my input here, Kiki...

How bout you go back and read what I said, instead of what you have been pretending I said ?

I think your strawman needs a couple torches.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 10:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"And I'll hear not one fucking word in support of this kind of conduct from ANYONE here who has ever even once protested government wiretapping and warrantless searches without calling hypocrisy ..."

"... I strongly, even bitterly, disagree with that assessment, and leave it at that."

"Human beings are naturally cooperative, social, empathic critters ..."

"If you allow them to grow and flourish according to natures design, you wind up with a human being, obviously ..."

You express a pretty strong bent towards a 'born good' idea of human nature - for at least the vast majority of humans. You seem to propose mostly that parents get out of the way of their children just being who they are, b/c if parents did that then their kids would be stellar. So what I read is a series of DON'Ts - don't lie to your kids, don't mistrust them, don't try to bring them under your control, don't escalate, don't ... whatever. What I don't see are the DOs.

I look on the human history I've read and think that humans are whatever we tell ourselves we should be, with it all completely within the purview of 'human nature'. Furthermore, I can't think of a single group-living species with dependent offspring that doesn't raise its young to meet a standard of group behavior.

Where we agree is that we want a better society than the one we have.

You seem to think it'll happen by indeterminate transformation - if we just changed how we raised our kids by letting them freely grow then they will be humane and naturally resistant to --- whatever we think we dislike in society now. And while you don't make the evolution argument, others do, and you seem to assume it as the basis for your idea of human nature.

I think it'll take a deliberate restructuring of society, as humans don't seem to be that resistant to creating and living by unhappy rules, going by our history. I also see that based on the lack of selection AGAINST abusive cultures, evolution doesn't seem to have had a hand in making naturally moral human societies.

Anyway, maybe we'll pick this up tomorrow.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I see arguments that parents should just - well - let their kids be. If there are limits to those statements, I don't find them. In that regard THOSE arguments seem pretty 100% to me.

So you hear, "Let kids be" and you interpret "Let's neglect our kids 100%"? If we don't spell out the limits to that statement in fine print, you automatically assume we don't have any?

For the record, "let kids be" means:

1. Don't override their individuality with your own dreams and agenda. Let kids be themselves. Let them be gay, pursue their own educational and professional interests, marry whoever they fell in love with--even if you don't agree. You know, that kind of thing.

2. Don't overwhelm them with rules that don't make sense to them. It doesn't mean there should be no rules or boundaries at all. It doesn't mean 100% unsupervised freedom, 0% rules.

3. Foster/mentor the development of their own judgments and trust them. For example, my kids are always asking, "Can/may I do X?" This is natural when they are very young. But as they grow older, I tell them to answer the question themselves. I ask them to think about the consequences of X. Would it hurt anyone? Would it inconvenience anyone or make someone uncomfortable? Is it considerate? So now they are transitioning to "I am going to do X. Do you have any objections?" Eventually, they will transition to "I am going to do X. Whether you like it or not." As they should.

I think it would be nice if you could assume that no one here is advocating child neglect as an acceptable parenting style.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If you think the discussion has been about how violent and cruel and warlike humans are, you have missed the point of argument you are trying to dispute.

While violence and cruelty hasn't been the MAIN point of this discussion (which is privacy), violence and cruelty has been advanced as a major supporting argument of how there is no innate value system. By you, no less.

Remember that whole discussion about eating fat kids every midwinter? And how that kind of violent and cruel behavior is simply human nature because of the evolutionary need to survive? How if that society values such violent and cruel behavior, then all its members learn to value it too, making violence and cruelty completely subjective and relative to the culture?

If HK will pardon my speaking for him, all I hear HK saying is that, if YOU, Magon, were in that society, you wouldn't eat the fat kid. For all that talk about how you'd simply learn that eating fat kids is ok, he doesn't believe anyone on this board would actually support killing and eating fat kids.

And I agree with him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If you think the discussion has been about how violent and cruel and warlike humans are, you have missed the point of argument you are trying to dispute.
While violence and cruelty hasn't been the MAIN point of this discussion (which is privacy), violence and cruelty has been advanced as a major supporting argument of how there is no innate value system. By you, no less.

Remember that whole discussion about eating fat kids every midwinter? And how that kind of violent and cruel behavior is simply human nature because of the evolutionary need to survive? How if that society values such violent and cruel behavior, then all its members learn to value it too, making violence and cruelty completely subjective and relative to the culture?

If HK will pardon my speaking for him, all I hear HK saying is that, if YOU, Magon, were in that society, you wouldn't eat the fat kid. For all that talk about how you'd simply learn that eating fat kids is ok, he doesn't believe anyone on this board would actually support killing and eating fat kids.

And I agree with him.

I used an example of behaviour that we find abhorent. I did say it was a silly example.

I've never said we were a predominantly violent and cruel species. I've said that we are social creatures who have empathy and form strong bonds with one another. I've also said we can be aggressive. I've also said that values vary from society to society, but that some things we hold in common with one another. I've used examples throughout history of behaviours in certain societies that I and everyone here find personally abhorrent but were considered normal in their time and place. There are other examples I could use of different value systems - arranging marriages, marriages between siblings (I did mention this), mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and cross dressing, sexes living totally separate, children raised by people other than their parents, attitudes to wearing or not wearing clothes, no individual ownership of property, taboos around food, abhorrence of killing animals etc etc etc

AS for whether you or I would eat the fat kid, there is no way that we could possibly know what we would do if we had been raised in a different time and culture. While I'm not sure that any culture has actually done what I suggest, there has been plenty of cannabilism and child sacrifice. Would any of us object if we had been brought up with that as part of our culture, if we had never experienced anything different? History tells us that it did happen and it was accepted, so who knows. All I know is that we wouldn't be 'we'.

I think Kiki has summed it up in a number of posts, it is preferably to have a humane society, that is what I would prefer, but it isn't necessary to be humane to survive as a species.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've used examples throughout history of behaviours in certain societies that I and everyone here find personally abhorrent but were considered normal in their time and place. .... arranging marriages, marriages between siblings (I did mention this), mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and cross dressing,

None of those examples are relevant to the discussion between you and Byte. The thrust of Byte's argument is that aversion to certain types of murder and rape are universally abhorrent. The fat kid example was your counter-argument, that no, even something like cannibalism would not be universally abhorrent if it were the norm in that society. It wasn't a silly example. It was completely on track.

No one is saying that there aren't cultural lifestyle differences most people in that culture find perfectly acceptable and most people in other cultures find abhorrent. Of course there are.

What some of us are saying is when cultural lifestyle differences *involve murder and rape*, most people (99%) in EVERY culture find those practices abhorrent, including the culture in which the murder and rape are practiced (because of some innate value system).

Quote:
Would any of us object if we had been brought up with that as part of our culture, if we had never experienced anything different?

You're saying probably not, because we are ultimately animals with no morals. Some of us are saying, yes, we would object even if we had never experienced anything different. Not only that, but based on what we know of you as a caring person, we think YOU would object too.

Quote:
History tells us that it did happen and it was accepted, so who knows.

History tells us that it was accepted by people in power and some members of society. It doesn't tell us it was accepted by the majority of the population.

But why look that far back in history? Why not look at what's going on now?

The US govt is engaged in some violent and cruel behavior overseas as we speak. How many of us here on this board object? With the exception of Rap and a couple of others, most of us. Yet we continue paying taxes. Now history may look back and say we "accepted" this violence. But we only "accept" it because most of us are too weenie to go to prison for our objections. We, unfortunately, tolerate huge amounts of abhorrent injustice because we don't want to suffer for our abhorrence. But we don't "accept" it.

The truth is, in studying history, all we know is what was accepted by those in power. We have no idea what 99% of the population thought of child sacrifices. You can assume that the 99% didn't mind, and I can assume the 99% did, but in the end, all we both have are assumptions.

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, with the exception of the Aztecs and Incans, child sacrifices may not have been as prevalent in some cultures as previously thought.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Child_sacrifice

As far as child cannibalism goes, apparent calling your enemies "baby eaters" was the ancient equivalent of "terrorists."

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Child_cannibalism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:08 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Interesting list of cultures that practiced human sacrifice, even sacrifice of infants and children. Human sacrifice was pretty widespread and in some cases breathtakingly extensive. And while acknowledging that ancient reports of mass child sacrifice might be inaccurate "In a single child cemetery called the Tophet by archaeologists, an estimated 20,000 urns were deposited.".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
AS for whether you or I would eat the fat kid, there is no way that we could possibly know what we would do if we had been raised in a different time and culture.

Actually, I might become a fat-kid eater.

Frem seems to think that ALL kids are innately rebellious and anti-authority, but from the get-go I was quiet, observant, passive and compliant.

Quote:
aversion to certain types of murder and rape are universally abhorrent

Absolutely not true. If it were truly innately and universally abhorrent, it wouldn't happen so very, very often. And it does happen very often; rape and genocide are tools of war; and rape is a common crime.

People manage to rape and murder by simply redefining the victims as "not human" or "lesser humans"... they are enemies, or criminals, or terrorists, or property, or vermin, some other category which makes it permissible. But that is what I meant when I said that people don't respond to reality, they react to what they are TOLD is reality. So despite the fact that the victim has a head, two eyes, a nose and a mouth and speaks a language (and may even be pleading for life) the aggressor literally sees something else instead- an object of fear, or loathing, or disgust.

Furthermore, in this complex society it is possible to kill indirectly or at a distance, which weakens whatever prohibitions even further.

Which makes me come back to the idea that we can create a better society by raising our kids "better" (however that "better" is defined). I find that a somewhat simplistic approach. Societies are more than the sum or average behavior of individuals; and our interactions with each other extend well beyond the monkey-sphere. MOST people are rather nice, and yet our economies and our societies are thoroughly screwed up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
aversion to certain types of murder and rape are universally abhorrent
Absolutely not true. If it were truly innately and universally abhorrent, it wouldn't happen so very, very often. And it does happen very often; rape and genocide are tools of war; and rape is a common crime.

Sorry. I forgot to put *nearly* universally abhorrent. I try to qualify that whenever I can, but sometimes it slips by.

Also, to note, keywords are *certain types* of murder and rape. Some types are more universally abhorrent than other types. And some types of murder and rape are not universally abhorrent at all.

Some types of murder and rape cause more conflicted feelings; they seen as abhorrent (gut reaction), but somehow necessary (social norms). War behavior often falls into this conflicted area.

Look at burning 120,000+ people alive instantly. Most people would say, abhorrent. But during a war, well, Hiroshima was a necessary evil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And yet, the 500,000+ genocide of Rwanda was committed with machetes. That's pretty up-close and personal, especially when you are killing your neighbors and their children. Kosovo is another example. Some human sacrifice was done with obsidian blades, in view of thousands. And rape is, of course, always personal. So.... back to the idea that humans are capable of violence, even group violence, and that universal and innate barrier (if it exists) seems to be pretty porous and easily overcome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

What some of us are saying is when cultural lifestyle differences *involve murder and rape*, most people (99%) in EVERY culture find those practices abhorrent, including the culture in which the murder and rape are practiced (because of some innate value system).

How do you measure this 99%? This would seem to be nonsense as if 99% objected, such cultural practises would never have taken place.

Quote:

But why look that far back in history? Why not look at what's going on now?

I choose to use examples from history because that is where the most apparent difference in values occurs. The cultural differences on this planet are now less extreme than they once were, as we all interact with one another pretty much and are exposed to others values systems via the media. As we speak the American value system is the most predominant. There are differences, but it not as great as if we look at history.

Quote:
The US govt is engaged in some violent and cruel behavior overseas as we speak. How many of us here on this board object? With the exception of Rap and a couple of others, most of us. Yet we continue paying taxes. Now history may look back and say we "accepted" this violence. But we only "accept" it because most of us are too weenie to go to prison for our objections. We, unfortunately, tolerate huge amounts of abhorrent injustice because we don't want to suffer for our abhorrence. But we don't "accept" it.

Because we share similar values. We were all raised - I think everyone was - in developed, western nations with a christian basis for our morality. But even within us, there are differences. There are those who accept torture may be a useful tool and those who think it is abhorrent, there are those believe that abortion is a woman's right, and those that think it tarnishes the sanctity of human life, there are fors and against execution as a method of punishment.

Come to think of it, there are wide differences on issues around life and death because even within our somewhat monoculture there are different value systems.

Quote:
The truth is, in studying history, all we know is what was accepted by those in power. We have no idea what 99% of the population thought of child sacrifices. You can assume that the 99% didn't mind, and I can assume the 99% did, but in the end, all we both have are assumptions.

You are assuming all cultures have rigid power structures - naughty, naughty - that kind of underpins your argument about 'innate morals'.

Quote:
Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, with the exception of the Aztecs and Incans, child sacrifices may not have been as prevalent in some cultures as previously thought.

I never claimed it was a prevalent practice and I've said several times that the child eating example was used to demonstrate a point and not about a real practice. Once again, I was demonstrating or - trying to and obviously failing - how humans lived in communities where common behaviours would be considered abhorrent or immoral or just downright perplexing to us today.

It appears you like to think that regardless of where and when you found yourself in existence, you'd be waiving the flag for equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find that nonsensical. These were ideals that slowly developed over a millenium in western culture. Even at the time they were written, they didn't even apply to all people, the idea that they should be universal for all humanity is only decades old - or at least in practice.

If you went back to ancient egypt and found a soap box and began to preach, they would have as much idea of what you were on about as if you began to discuss quantum physics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Actually, I might become a fat-kid eater."

I suspect I would have been one of those about which nature goes - oooops. NEXT!

We have to realize that the biosphere we live in is fragile and cannot be treated like a battered wife because the surface of the planet itself is not fragile. It will simply adjust probably eliminating us in the process. The core of the planet is beyond our ability to affect and can deal up some pretty horrific to us events. The space around the planet is hostile beyond our comprehension. And there are no exits.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I SAID, they have impulses - these hard wired drives, that EXIST - I never put a moral attribution to them, in fact I mocked the very notion as absurd, while pointing out that those impulses serve in a general sort of sense to cause the prosperity and propogation of the species.

Now, yes, I *DID* point out that it's scientifically proven fact that if you act specifically to crush those impulses it causes provable damage, thus if you commit those "don'ts", as you called them, it hinders their development - which is, and oughta be, bloody obvious.

I didn't say born good, I didn't say born bad, I said WHAT I SAID.
Not what you wish I said, or would rather I have said, or choose to believe I might have said.

And really, what is it that REQUIRES a binary all or nothing answer here ?
Factually you CAN'T give one, there *IS* no one-size-fits-all solution for all human beings, they're different, they're individual, they are HUMAN - what may work in one case might be exactly the wrong thing to do in another, isn't it enough to start with a baseline of what is actually harmful as a bottom line ?

Are we to assume parents in general are so bloody stupid they can't possibly figure out their own children with at least that much foreknowledge - that the very hard-wired natural instincts (which are present in parenting too, mind you) are ineffective even when not ignored ?

No.

I think what this game happens to be, is a little goalpost-moving, I use words like "guide" and "nurture" and I mean certain things - I said them, indeed I did, and those words don't involve the total non-interference you're strawmanning...
And then you use words like "intrusion" using your labels to bend the meaning of the words in a direction that favors your argument, hoping perhaps to justify conduct I will never help justify, hoping perhaps to extract something which can be construed or misconstrued as agreement or even tacit acknowledgement of practices of childrearing which I abhor, and then playing slippery slope rhetoric, and I'll have none of it.

More importantly, this:
Not everything in this world comes with a convenient binary answer, and if you absolutely require one from something too complex for that to be possible, you got more problems than I could ever help you with.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:15 PM

Quote:
aversion to certain types of murder and rape are universally abhorrent

Absolutely not true. If it were truly innately and universally abhorrent, it wouldn't happen so very, very often. And it does happen very often; rape and genocide are tools of war; and rape is a common crime.

Sorry. I forgot to put *nearly* universally abhorrent.

I wouldn't even say that. People who might be fine if rape or murder happens to certain other people might be VERY upset if it happened to OTHER certain other people.

So I'm able to conclude that it is abhorrent to everyone. It's not about whether they always think so, humans are notoriously inconsistent. It's enough for me that, assuming neurotypicalness, everyone CAN think so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:46 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Frem

Whatever.

Obviously you can't have a calm discussion when someone so much as dares disagree with you.

If you consider yourself the salesman, promoter, explainer of all that is good and right with humans, you just aimed square at your remaining foot.

Have a nice life.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"you just aimed square at your remaining foot."

Hello,

At his remaining foot?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:17 PM

Well, either she's saying that Frem has metaphorically twice shot himself in the foot this conversation, or she's being clever about his having only one organic foot left to shoot.

>_> I think I'm being obvious again, aren't I? ._.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Yes, I'd like to hear exactly what she meant.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm able to conclude that it is abhorrent to everyone

Everyone?

I guarantee that there will always be exceptions to any general statement about human behavior. Humans are on a bell curve.... there will always be those who are three, or four, or five (or more!) standard deviations from the norm. You might be able to point to a thousand people for whom rape or murder of at least SOME ppl is abhorrent, but there will be that one other person for whom it is fun.

Just a caution not to make sweeping statements about... well, anything... but most especially about "human nature".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
that universal and innate barrier (if it exists) seems to be pretty porous and easily overcome.

Good point. Yes, I believe it is easily overcome / repressed in most people. My "let's pull this number out of my ass" guess would be about 2/3rds of those who have innate morals learn to repress those morals. The remainder won't/can't ignore those morals.

Remember in The Train Job when the Sheriff says, "Then they got a choice." And Mal says, "I don't believe they do." That situation reflects the minority of the folks I believe can't ignore their innate morals, no matter what it costs them.

(About 65% of the subjects in Milgram's obedience experiment obeyed despite great conflict. Not saying that proves any point I am making, but that influenced the numbers I pulled out of my ass.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
How do you measure this 99%?

99% stuck in my mind because of Occupy. I used it metaphorically for "overwhelming majority."

Quote:
This would seem to be nonsense as if 99% objected, such cultural practises would never have taken place.

"99%" of Holocaust concentration camps residents objected to being murdered, but yet they were. It's called "weapons" or more generally, "force."

Quote:
You are assuming all cultures have rigid power structures - naughty, naughty - that kind of underpins your argument about 'innate morals'.

Never said we had innate morals against rigid power structures.

Quote:
It appears you like to think that regardless of where and when you found yourself in existence, you'd be waiving the flag for equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No, I don't think that at all. I already said that I myself haven't had Western values all my life. I think I was in college before I realized women were equal to men.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Yes, I'd like to hear exactly what she meant.

Anthony, you are so sweet I could pass you out on Halloween.

The rest of us bitches know well that Kiki was taking a jab at the fact that Frem has an amputated leg.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just a caution not to make sweeping statements about... well, anything... but most especially about "human nature".

I am talking philosophy and faith, where sweeping statements are too fun to resist.

Again, just because I believe these sweeping statements doesn't make them true. Just saying what I believe.

Hub McGrath in Secondhand Lions says it best for me:

Quote:
Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil. And I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's enough for me that, assuming neurotypicalness, everyone CAN think so.

Interesting point. I'll have to chew on that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 31, 2011 3:30 AM