Eminem
Ok, Sleepy and Fable, what you have to remember is that their is an overriding sense of wanting to continue you your line, your blood on. I think I made the whole thing to wide when I said as a species. Each person, male in particular wants to create offspring to continue the bloodline.
Perverteer Paladin
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I respectfully disagree. We're not discussing, here, having a single kid, or maybe two: we're talking about people having families *multiplying,* having six or ten kids. This isn't simple replication. It's an overwhelming onslaught of the planet which has resulted in, what, 10 billion people?Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>Ok, Sleepy and Fable, what you have to remember is that their is an overriding sense of wanting to continue you your line, your blood on. I think I made the whole thing to wide when I said as a species. Each person, male in particular wants to create offspring to continue the bloodline.</STRONG>
And I also disagree with that comment about the "male in particular." Actually, I've met more women who want to have children than men. The monthly reminder of a biological clock alone does this. But I also think the desire to have kids is *in part* a socially conditioned response.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I hope so, too, for any woman's sake. Carrying around all that clockwork inside you is terrible on the digestion, not to mention the scaffolding and concrete, as well.Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>I just hope I don't end up with a woman tha t has big ben in her...</STRONG>
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@Tom - This is a very long post and from your other posts I understand that you are busy with other stuff apart from posting on Gamebanshee (good for you ) so I wont be impatient for a reply although I do look forward to it.
Thank's for being understanding, Tom. As a matter of fact, I have a final psych exam this Monday which demands the bulk of my attention right now. Once I have get that over with (and graduate at long last!), I'll respond to your questions appropriately.
I gotta say, however, that I find your sig disturbing. If your conception of God is that of a merciless, vengeful, egotistical, and undignified Capitalist, I probably wouldn't believe in him either, much less call him my Father. I suggest you read (or re-read) the New Testament (esp. John's Gospel) to get a clearer understanding of his character.
Thank's for being understanding, Tom. As a matter of fact, I have a final psych exam this Monday which demands the bulk of my attention right now. Once I have get that over with (and graduate at long last!), I'll respond to your questions appropriately.
I gotta say, however, that I find your sig disturbing. If your conception of God is that of a merciless, vengeful, egotistical, and undignified Capitalist, I probably wouldn't believe in him either, much less call him my Father. I suggest you read (or re-read) the New Testament (esp. John's Gospel) to get a clearer understanding of his character.
Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I respectfully disagree. We're not discussing, here, having a single kid, or maybe two: we're talking about people having families *multiplying,* having six or ten kids. This isn't simple replication. It's an overwhelming onslaught of the planet which has resulted in, what, 10 billion people?
And I also disagree with that comment about the "male in particular." Actually, I've met more women who want to have children than men. The monthly reminder of a biological clock alone does this. But I also think the desire to have kids is *in part* a socially conditioned response.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]</STRONG>
Fable, I'm not talking about a social 'requirement' or 'expectancy', I'm referring to a natural 'need' to carry on your bloodline. Similar to animals in the jungle a human must carry on his bloodline or s/he will die out.
I think the easiest way for me to explain it is to say that there is still primitive nature in humans. Agression, jealousy and the need to procreate are examples.
Perverteer Paladin
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I know what you're saying, but I can only repeat that the need to produce offspring appears to be largely social rather than biological in the human species as it currently exists. I am not arguing about some dim urge for offspring that exists at an unconscious level, but that most people derive their notions about creating a family--whether to have one, how many to have, what sex, the respective level of autonomy, etc, between members, and their relationships--from the culture surrounding them.Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>
Fable, I'm not talking about a social 'requirement' or 'expectancy', I'm referring to a natural 'need' to carry on your bloodline. Similar to animals in the jungle a human must carry on his bloodline or s/he will die out.
I think the easiest way for me to explain it is to say that there is still primitive nature in humans. Agression, jealousy and the need to procreate are examples.</STRONG>
Concerning jealousy, I've never seen it in a so-called "animal" species. What I've seen is a simple, biologically based impulse to protect a given social unit. Jealousy is a human emotion that has nothing to do with protection, and is fueled by a series of complex human traits which a rat is unlikely to feel: betrayal, grief, fear, etc.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I agree with Fable to some degree, i think that as a species we are driven towards certain goals, i think that most of us have an urge to couple with someone sexually, but i do not think that urge transcends to the want/urge for a family.
I see your point and although it has merit i just choose to believe that one can not blame the population growth on a primal urge, it lies with every person to take responsibility, not blame it on some urge that they supposedly have little control over (IMO)
I see your point and although it has merit i just choose to believe that one can not blame the population growth on a primal urge, it lies with every person to take responsibility, not blame it on some urge that they supposedly have little control over (IMO)
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
This is a very good discussion and I am quite enjoying it. Please continue fable (and Sleepy).
I wholly understand your opinion fable and I truly agree with some of it, however I have to say that there is still some kind of primitive drive. For example, the Medula Oblongta (I believe controls jealousy?) controls the secretions of a liquid which drives said emotion. This IMHO is still considered to be primitive. We can't control the release of the fluid and so we are controlled by it. I know this goes past the whole issue of reproduction however I still think it is relevant.
I wholly understand your opinion fable and I truly agree with some of it, however I have to say that there is still some kind of primitive drive. For example, the Medula Oblongta (I believe controls jealousy?) controls the secretions of a liquid which drives said emotion. This IMHO is still considered to be primitive. We can't control the release of the fluid and so we are controlled by it. I know this goes past the whole issue of reproduction however I still think it is relevant.
Perverteer Paladin
@Nippy, one can control their body with drugs, if it comes down to it, look at modern society, most of the natural processes have been corrupted in some way by medicinal drugs, i am not saying there aren't any beneficial drugs (I am not that conceited) but a huge modicum of the drugs that are handed out like Amilitrypline (sp?) alter many of the natural processes that aid our sleep. Call in CE she knows a helluva lot more about this than i
I still think that one can control this process (to a degree).
So do you think that we are not accountable for our actions because of a chemical urge? (sorry for the banal question)
If we as a species are not accountable to anyone, then what is to stop us from commiting acts of perversion towards other people, whether religion is correct or not isn't really that important, i am always reminded of the ever seeing eye of helm, he sees all and you shall be judged (abridged) To feel like your every action is in someway judged would certainly stop you from commiting acts of depravity towards others, wouldn't it?
I think that although most of the teachings of major religions may not be correct they in theory should lead to a better quality of living, who cares if we are all slightly repressed in our feelings, it is better than amorallity, and having no concerns for others. This of course assumes no actual intervention from the guilt or conscience.
I know this does sort of agree with Eminem's POV and i know you all hate him, but i am not accusing a single person of any amorallity, i am just pointing out the worst case scenario (and maybe a little trolling )
Why do i get the strange feeling that my post is going to be ripped apart by some of our more learned friends
I still think that one can control this process (to a degree).
So do you think that we are not accountable for our actions because of a chemical urge? (sorry for the banal question)
If we as a species are not accountable to anyone, then what is to stop us from commiting acts of perversion towards other people, whether religion is correct or not isn't really that important, i am always reminded of the ever seeing eye of helm, he sees all and you shall be judged (abridged) To feel like your every action is in someway judged would certainly stop you from commiting acts of depravity towards others, wouldn't it?
I think that although most of the teachings of major religions may not be correct they in theory should lead to a better quality of living, who cares if we are all slightly repressed in our feelings, it is better than amorallity, and having no concerns for others. This of course assumes no actual intervention from the guilt or conscience.
I know this does sort of agree with Eminem's POV and i know you all hate him, but i am not accusing a single person of any amorallity, i am just pointing out the worst case scenario (and maybe a little trolling
)Why do i get the strange feeling that my post is going to be ripped apart by some of our more learned friends
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Lots of things has happened here I'm sorry I've been away for a while, my lab has reopened after a long shut down, so my work load increased dramatically for a while there. Now, I'm back and I'll try to address the topics in chronological order.
First off: Hitler, other dictators, and their worldviews:
About your arguments that Hitler was not a christian:
Hitler made many contradictive statements about his own belief, as well as other things. That's why I called him an opportunist, he claimed the views he felt suited the situation best. In his autobiography, "Mein Kampff" he firmly stated he was a catholic. In several recorded speaches, he also stated he performed the will of the lord, that the Jews killed Jesus and should therefore be punished, etc.
But my point was neither to reconstruct Hitler's different statements, nor prove that he was a christian or an atheist. Regardless of what he said himself or what historicans say, we will never know what Hitler's true believes was. Personally, I believe Hitler believed in a christian god, but since he was mad, he also viewed himself as godlike, as having the right to godly power over other people and nations. This take us closer to my point: A tyrant dictator like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Ayatollas or the Talibans would use any ideology, religion, philosophy or to justify and maintain their own power.
Hitler sometimes claimed to be christian, sometimes not. Stalin claimed to be an atheist, still as I mentioned in an earlier post, the KGB had the privilige of private churches. So, how could we know whos' killing is connected to fatih or not?
When you use the Stalin's Great Terror or Mao's Culture revolution in China as examples of atheist regimes who killed a lot of people, you forget there was no connection between all the killing and the atheism. We could as well argue that the colonisation of the Americas, Africa and Australia was executed by Christian regimes ? the Inquisition even in the name of the christian god! And most of the killings during WWI and WWII was done by Christian regimes like the US, the UK, France, Italy and of course Germany. (Also remember Russia was christian (orthodox) until the 1917 Revolution.) The US was a christian regime when they decided to drop two H-bombs at two Japanese cities full of innocent citizens.But the US did not do this because the Japanese were not chirstian, or in the name of god. In the same fashion, Stalin and Mao did not execute people because they themselves were atheists, in the name of atheism or because those people were christians. Most people executed by Stalin and were atheists themselves.
A cruel dictator (or any cruel regime) will use any mean to gain and reinforce power. He will use a propaganda apparatus to brainwash people, he will keep his people isolated from impulses and information about the world outside his empire, and he will punish all that he percieves as a threat to him, his power and his position. This is regardless whether the dictator calls himself and atheist, a christian, a muslim or something else.
I wish and hope to put an end to the "who killed most - christians or atheists" arguments. "Stalin was an atheist so atheism must be bad since Stalin was bad" is not a logical argument, nor is "Ignatius Loyola was a Catholic and he was a bad so Catholisism must be bad". Historically, it's a fact that christian regimes have been responsible for more deaths than atheist regimes, but this does not necessarily mean I think the christian moral as stated in the bible is inferior, it could also be that people, men, have misused christianity as a justification for their own goals.
My final point: I think we should accept the conclusion that so far, no moral system, philosophy or religion has offered a solution to or protection against genocide, war crimes and other atrocities performed by man. By accepting this fact, we also have to see the importance of and take the challenge of developing new, better moral system than includes equal rights and equal responsibilities to all human beings.
I'm sorry I've been away for a while, my lab has reopened after a long shut down, so my work load increased dramatically for a while there. Now, I'm back and I'll try to address the topics in chronological order. First off: Hitler, other dictators, and their worldviews:
</STRONG>Originally posted by Eminem:
<STRONG>
So much for Hitler being Christian, Catholic, or holding to a theistic worldview.
About your arguments that Hitler was not a christian:
Hitler made many contradictive statements about his own belief, as well as other things. That's why I called him an opportunist, he claimed the views he felt suited the situation best. In his autobiography, "Mein Kampff" he firmly stated he was a catholic. In several recorded speaches, he also stated he performed the will of the lord, that the Jews killed Jesus and should therefore be punished, etc.
But my point was neither to reconstruct Hitler's different statements, nor prove that he was a christian or an atheist. Regardless of what he said himself or what historicans say, we will never know what Hitler's true believes was. Personally, I believe Hitler believed in a christian god, but since he was mad, he also viewed himself as godlike, as having the right to godly power over other people and nations. This take us closer to my point: A tyrant dictator like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Ayatollas or the Talibans would use any ideology, religion, philosophy or to justify and maintain their own power.
Hitler sometimes claimed to be christian, sometimes not. Stalin claimed to be an atheist, still as I mentioned in an earlier post, the KGB had the privilige of private churches. So, how could we know whos' killing is connected to fatih or not?
When you use the Stalin's Great Terror or Mao's Culture revolution in China as examples of atheist regimes who killed a lot of people, you forget there was no connection between all the killing and the atheism. We could as well argue that the colonisation of the Americas, Africa and Australia was executed by Christian regimes ? the Inquisition even in the name of the christian god! And most of the killings during WWI and WWII was done by Christian regimes like the US, the UK, France, Italy and of course Germany. (Also remember Russia was christian (orthodox) until the 1917 Revolution.) The US was a christian regime when they decided to drop two H-bombs at two Japanese cities full of innocent citizens.But the US did not do this because the Japanese were not chirstian, or in the name of god. In the same fashion, Stalin and Mao did not execute people because they themselves were atheists, in the name of atheism or because those people were christians. Most people executed by Stalin and were atheists themselves.
A cruel dictator (or any cruel regime) will use any mean to gain and reinforce power. He will use a propaganda apparatus to brainwash people, he will keep his people isolated from impulses and information about the world outside his empire, and he will punish all that he percieves as a threat to him, his power and his position. This is regardless whether the dictator calls himself and atheist, a christian, a muslim or something else.
I wish and hope to put an end to the "who killed most - christians or atheists" arguments. "Stalin was an atheist so atheism must be bad since Stalin was bad" is not a logical argument, nor is "Ignatius Loyola was a Catholic and he was a bad so Catholisism must be bad". Historically, it's a fact that christian regimes have been responsible for more deaths than atheist regimes, but this does not necessarily mean I think the christian moral as stated in the bible is inferior, it could also be that people, men, have misused christianity as a justification for their own goals.
My final point: I think we should accept the conclusion that so far, no moral system, philosophy or religion has offered a solution to or protection against genocide, war crimes and other atrocities performed by man. By accepting this fact, we also have to see the importance of and take the challenge of developing new, better moral system than includes equal rights and equal responsibilities to all human beings.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Do you honestly think you will see this in our lifetime, unfortuantely most people strive for power, be it wealth or over another person. Look at the nation with the largest media coverage (ergo USA) the impression we get from them is that they are a culture who are trying to surpass each other at any cost (selling soul GvsEOriginally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> By accepting this fact, we also have to see the importance of and take the challenge of developing new, better moral system than includes equal rights and equal responsibilities to all human beings.</STRONG>
) Do you think that all of these two faced people would ever aquiesce to anything that would make them the same or lesser than others?[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
Ooooh oooh!!! *jumps up and down enthusiastically* Can I shoot him down? Oh please can I?!!Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>Hi CE how you doing?
(I am not arguing with any of your points, i know better than that
Cartoon Law III
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.
Consequence eh... hmm... participating in a serious discussion... ewwww... I'll passOriginally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>Go for it, bear in mind though....it has consequences......
Blast, I'll have to find some other way *thinks for a moment...*
Cartoon Law III
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.
It was difficult! I almost passed out due to lack of oxygenOriginally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>That must have been particularly difficult
So what are we discussing here? I don't feel right spamming serious discussions... even I have my limits
Cartoon Law III
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter. Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.