Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:02 pm

vincentpa wrote:To answer slow's post fundamentally, the only thing that poll demonstrates is human hubris and conceit. Scientists below they know far more than they do. The overestimation of their own capabilities and knowledge to truly understand the physical world gives them a false sense of their own intelligence. It identically parallel to Keynesian economics. THey ignore the unknowns and believe they can control or understand the infinitely complex. All science breaks down at the singularity. Relativity and quantum do not even agree at the point of the singularity. Yet, many scientists purport they know definitively there is no supreme being or God. Hogwash. Their belief is just that, belief. By definition, the singularity is the unkonwn. Utter morons. Their conclusion does nothing but further demonstrate their hopeless conceit and foolish arrogance.

Engineers on the other hand have to live and function in the real world. There is no place for conceit. Conservatism is the order even with innovative design. An engineer must recognize and accept the unknown. The unknown breeds a healthy respect for our ignorance as a species. Without caution in the face of the unknown, there is failure, usually catastrophic.

Very well said Vinny! :beer:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:10 am

Vinnie seems pretty insecure about his position on the totem pole.

:lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:28 am

slowshooter wrote:Vinnie seems pretty insecure about his position on the totem pole.

:lol3:

You do love to troll and bait people...I'll give you that. But it is getting extremely old.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby WTN10 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:59 am

Slow,

You appear to be justifying morality as an eventual construct that arises as a species evolves. As I read, once cooperation becomes favorable for survival, then that mandate to survive justifies creating these moral practices to foster that cooperation.

Your position fundamentally misunderstands its own premise though. Survival itself is not a mandate from nature. It's not necessary. Approaching the universe from a humanist worldview, the universe existed for billions of years, devoid of all life. Nothing survived. Life, survival, was not and is not necessary to its function.

Nor does life appear to be a goal of the universe. The idea of a goal itself contemplates some Thing mandating it, but ignoring that inconsistency, if the universe is said to have a purpose or goal, life and survival do not appear to be it. At every turn, the universe is trying to kill us and all other life on this planet, and it does so with amazing efficiency. At some point in the distant future, this planet will most certainly be completely destroyed, if not by some foreign body hurdling toward it, then by the Sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the planet after boiling away the water and atmosphere.

Your worldview though hoists survival up as the reason why morality exists. Survival is necessary, cooperation enhances survival, morality fosters cooperation, therefore survival begat morality.

This is not true, though. Survival isn't necessary. What drives us is the want or desire to survive. We don't have to survive. We want to survive. It is want or desire that your worldview is based upon.

When we strip away the fluff and self-serving language, your theory of morality is reduced to this: morality exists and is defined by what we want. Under your theory, the "want" which shapes morality is the "want" to survive.

But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.

And that's what your worldview is left with: want. Strip away the superfluous, feel-good language meant to make it more palatable, and all you're left with is a selfishness that you've restyled in a benevolent manner so you can type it without your own fingers cringing.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby assateague » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:26 am

Or he could continue with his present position, and endorse eugenics, the swift execution of miscreants, and bashing in the heads of newborn infants who are born "defective". Hey, survival of the species and all.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:34 am

WTN10 wrote:But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.


Like Islam for example...their sole focus is life in the after death and gaining entrance into paradise. they could care less about morality on earth.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:58 pm

WTN10 wrote:Slow,

You appear to be justifying morality as an eventual construct that arises as a species evolves. As I read, once cooperation becomes favorable for survival, then that mandate to survive justifies creating these moral practices to foster that cooperation.

Your position fundamentally misunderstands its own premise though. Survival itself is not a mandate from nature. It's not necessary. Approaching the universe from a humanist worldview, the universe existed for billions of years, devoid of all life. Nothing survived. Life, survival, was not and is not necessary to its function.

Nor does life appear to be a goal of the universe. The idea of a goal itself contemplates some Thing mandating it, but ignoring that inconsistency, if the universe is said to have a purpose or goal, life and survival do not appear to be it. At every turn, the universe is trying to kill us and all other life on this planet, and it does so with amazing efficiency. At some point in the distant future, this planet will most certainly be completely destroyed, if not by some foreign body hurdling toward it, then by the Sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the planet after boiling away the water and atmosphere.

Your worldview though hoists survival up as the reason why morality exists. Survival is necessary, cooperation enhances survival, morality fosters cooperation, therefore survival begat morality.

This is not true, though. Survival isn't necessary. What drives us is the want or desire to survive. We don't have to survive. We want to survive. It is want or desire that your worldview is based upon.

When we strip away the fluff and self-serving language, your theory of morality is reduced to this: morality exists and is defined by what we want. Under your theory, the "want" which shapes morality is the "want" to survive.

But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.

And that's what your worldview is left with: want. Strip away the superfluous, feel-good language meant to make it more palatable, and all you're left with is a selfishness that you've restyled in a benevolent manner so you can type it without your own fingers cringing.

Absolutely the most unfounded, convoluted justification of anything I've ever wasted minutes reading. Is there a point hidden in there?
Feel-good language.........like "salvation"......"reward"....."forgiveness"....."holiness"...."sainthood"....."Christianity"....."Holy Spirit"......"God"....."Holy Trinity"...."Scripture".....blah, blah, blah until the hypocrisy and requests for tithes come in. Feel-good language makes my stomache nauseous...
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:59 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:Slow,

You appear to be justifying morality as an eventual construct that arises as a species evolves. As I read, once cooperation becomes favorable for survival, then that mandate to survive justifies creating these moral practices to foster that cooperation.

Your position fundamentally misunderstands its own premise though. Survival itself is not a mandate from nature. It's not necessary. Approaching the universe from a humanist worldview, the universe existed for billions of years, devoid of all life. Nothing survived. Life, survival, was not and is not necessary to its function.

Nor does life appear to be a goal of the universe. The idea of a goal itself contemplates some Thing mandating it, but ignoring that inconsistency, if the universe is said to have a purpose or goal, life and survival do not appear to be it. At every turn, the universe is trying to kill us and all other life on this planet, and it does so with amazing efficiency. At some point in the distant future, this planet will most certainly be completely destroyed, if not by some foreign body hurdling toward it, then by the Sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the planet after boiling away the water and atmosphere.

Your worldview though hoists survival up as the reason why morality exists. Survival is necessary, cooperation enhances survival, morality fosters cooperation, therefore survival begat morality.

This is not true, though. Survival isn't necessary. What drives us is the want or desire to survive. We don't have to survive. We want to survive. It is want or desire that your worldview is based upon.

When we strip away the fluff and self-serving language, your theory of morality is reduced to this: morality exists and is defined by what we want. Under your theory, the "want" which shapes morality is the "want" to survive.

But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.

And that's what your worldview is left with: want. Strip away the superfluous, feel-good language meant to make it more palatable, and all you're left with is a selfishness that you've restyled in a benevolent manner so you can type it without your own fingers cringing.

Absolutely the most unfounded, convoluted justification of anything I've ever wasted minutes reading. Is there a point hidden in there?
Feel-good language.........like "salvation"......"reward"....."forgiveness"....."holiness"...."sainthood"....."Christianity"....."Holy Spirit"......"God"....."Holy Trinity"...."Scripture".....blah, blah, blah until the hypocrisy and requests for tithes come in. Feel-good language makes my stomache nauseous...

Not surprising it went over your head.
Let me break it down real simple for ya...do the Chinese value human life as much as we do? Think hard on it...How about a Muslim cleric that believes it is the will of Allah if someone dies from drinking water contaminated with cholera?
What is their motivation to think that way???
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:01 am

Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:Slow,

You appear to be justifying morality as an eventual construct that arises as a species evolves. As I read, once cooperation becomes favorable for survival, then that mandate to survive justifies creating these moral practices to foster that cooperation.

Your position fundamentally misunderstands its own premise though. Survival itself is not a mandate from nature. It's not necessary. Approaching the universe from a humanist worldview, the universe existed for billions of years, devoid of all life. Nothing survived. Life, survival, was not and is not necessary to its function.

Nor does life appear to be a goal of the universe. The idea of a goal itself contemplates some Thing mandating it, but ignoring that inconsistency, if the universe is said to have a purpose or goal, life and survival do not appear to be it. At every turn, the universe is trying to kill us and all other life on this planet, and it does so with amazing efficiency. At some point in the distant future, this planet will most certainly be completely destroyed, if not by some foreign body hurdling toward it, then by the Sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the planet after boiling away the water and atmosphere.

Your worldview though hoists survival up as the reason why morality exists. Survival is necessary, cooperation enhances survival, morality fosters cooperation, therefore survival begat morality.

This is not true, though. Survival isn't necessary. What drives us is the want or desire to survive. We don't have to survive. We want to survive. It is want or desire that your worldview is based upon.

When we strip away the fluff and self-serving language, your theory of morality is reduced to this: morality exists and is defined by what we want. Under your theory, the "want" which shapes morality is the "want" to survive.

But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.

And that's what your worldview is left with: want. Strip away the superfluous, feel-good language meant to make it more palatable, and all you're left with is a selfishness that you've restyled in a benevolent manner so you can type it without your own fingers cringing.

Absolutely the most unfounded, convoluted justification of anything I've ever wasted minutes reading. Is there a point hidden in there?
Feel-good language.........like "salvation"......"reward"....."forgiveness"....."holiness"...."sainthood"....."Christianity"....."Holy Spirit"......"God"....."Holy Trinity"...."Scripture".....blah, blah, blah until the hypocrisy and requests for tithes come in. Feel-good language makes my stomache nauseous...

Not surprising it went over your head.
Let me break it down real simple for ya...do the Chinese value human life as much as we do? Think hard on it...How about a Muslim cleric that believes it is the will of Allah if a if someone dies from drinking water contaminated with cholera?
What is their motivation to think that way???

You're right Inda. It's not surprising it went over my head. I am dim. Of course WTN is the singularly most inexperienced person in life's vagaries, by his own admission, of any person I have ever encountered. Anyone that would profess an awareness of life's truths and questions with such a limited perspective is a cloistered from birth nun in my opinion. Raised in a cave.....the shadows are the truth....or perhaps the interpretations of the shadows are the only rationale you have in life. We talk of binary systems here. Base twelve systems are much more efficient. That's why the US struggles with the metric system. And why I struggle with those of limited life experience that extol their superiority due to a fear of experiencing life on a level of lack of the security of home sweet home.
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:04 am

Or the Nazi's...did they value human life the same way we do? what was their motivation to massacre the jews and gypsies? Was it wrong? Why?





There is your answer....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:26 am

Indaswamp wrote:Or the Nazi's...did they value human life the same way we do? what was their motivation to massacre the jews and gypsies? Was it wrong? Why?





There is your answer....

C'mon, Inda. Don't over simplify to the point of absurdity. If you want to get into the German mentality of the day I would be interested in discussing it. To say they just didn't value life as we "enlightened" persons do is naive.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:27 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Or the Nazi's...did they value human life the same way we do? what was their motivation to massacre the jews and gypsies? Was it wrong? Why?





There is your answer....

C'mon, Inda. Don't over simplify to the point of absurdity. If you want to get into the German mentality of the day I would be interested in discussing it. To say they just didn't value life as we "enlightened" persons do is naive.

smh...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:33 am

Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Or the Nazi's...did they value human life the same way we do? what was their motivation to massacre the jews and gypsies? Was it wrong? Why?





There is your answer....

C'mon, Inda. Don't over simplify to the point of absurdity. If you want to get into the German mentality of the day I would be interested in discussing it. To say they just didn't value life as we "enlightened" persons do is naive.

smh...

Not familiar with that acronym
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:38 am

slap my head...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:55 am

Indaswamp wrote:slap my head...

Oh...okay....I can understand why you feel you need to do that! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby WTN10 » Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:57 am

What was I justifying, Jim? What I wrote was a criticism, not a justification. I'm not really surprised you responded without understanding.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby ohioboy » Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:21 am

Indaswamp wrote:slap my head...


Shake my head is the more commonly accepted I believe. And I am not pushing your leg. :clapping: Darn Cajuns...
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby slowshooter » Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:37 am

Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Slow, have they ever made a poll of which direction engineers lean? I wonder why, :huh:

I would say 85-90% engineers are conservative, even gubment ones.

You can tell the conservative ones by their pocket protectors! :lol3:

I don't think I have ever seen anyone wear a pocket protector. Grandpa, it's the 21st century, they went out before the 8 track, another thing I don't believe I have ever seen used.

my uncle wore them religiously before he retired....


I'm the only person I know that still has a functioning slide rule.

Nerd out.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby slowshooter » Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:39 am

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Vinnie seems pretty insecure about his position on the totem pole.

:lol3:

You do love to troll and bait people...I'll give you that. But it is getting extremely old.


Hey, if an engineer diminishes science to pump up people's opinion of engineers? I don't call that emotional security. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby slowshooter » Sat Jun 22, 2013 2:20 am

WTN10 wrote:Slow,
You appear to be justifying morality as an eventual construct that arises as a species evolves.


Nope, there is no justification for what we call morality. It's just what we call the behaviors that have allowed us to cooperate.

As I read, once cooperation becomes favorable for survival, then that mandate to survive justifies creating these moral practices to foster that cooperation.


Pretty easy high school anthro and I hated that class.

Your position fundamentally misunderstands its own premise though. Survival itself is not a mandate from nature. It's not necessary. Approaching the universe from a humanist worldview, the universe existed for billions of years, devoid of all life. Nothing survived. Life, survival, was not and is not necessary to its function.


The question was and has never been what the universe wants as an uber scold. Primarily because the universe could give a chit squirt what we do on this dirt ball. What life does is spread. It follows its design as we follow our small part. While the universe could care less, life has imperative and that's why we have imperative. That the universe doesn't need life is unknown. We don't know if what sparked the bang was an intentional thermodynamic created by a race half our size. We don't know if the universe was seeded from the beginning or life chanced together on its own three minutes after the giant bang. And for the most part I don't care.

Nor does life appear to be a goal of the universe. The idea of a goal itself contemplates some Thing mandating it, but ignoring that inconsistency, if the universe is said to have a purpose or goal, life and survival do not appear to be it. At every turn, the universe is trying to kill us and all other life on this planet, and it does so with amazing efficiency. At some point in the distant future, this planet will most certainly be completely destroyed, if not by some foreign body hurdling toward it, then by the Sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the planet after boiling away the water and atmosphere.


So what? We have a moment and then we are gone. We can try to flee to other stars but we won't, we can't. Cooperation keeps us here because we like our tidy homes and 600 thread count sheets. Are we supposed to do more than we do? Who cares? For all either of us know life is just rust on a stellar scale. Perhaps the long game for life is to escape this universe and move on to the next one or back to the last. We can't know. Overlaying the belief that because things die, means life doesn't matter, is presuming a great deal. Even if our small segment matters very little.

Your worldview though hoists survival up as the reason why morality exists. Survival is necessary, cooperation enhances survival, morality fosters cooperation, therefore survival begat morality.


The problem is that you see morality and survival as different things. I don't. The path is not linear. It's nested.
That's why when I see Maslows Hierarchy of Need I always crack up. There isn't a more humanistic idea cobbled together ever.
You don't arrive at cooperation or morality and stay. You survive or not. Nothing and no one cares along the way.

This is not true, though. Survival isn't necessary. What drives us is the want or desire to survive. We don't have to survive. We want to survive. It is want or desire that your worldview is based upon.


Who says survival is a requirement? Not me. Natural selection killed all the people that didn't have fear. They all jumped off a high cliff because they wanted see what it was like. It also killed the folks that wanted to try cooperation over survival. They were eaten. It even killed the Shakers. If you want to lead a moral life and your morality doesn't allow you to make babies.... Your community dies pretty quick. Each of the above wanted something, but they didn't survive. Life goes on.

When we strip away the fluff and self-serving language, your theory of morality is reduced to this: morality exists and is defined by what we want. Under your theory, the "want" which shapes morality is the "want" to survive.


Nope. My theory is much simpler. Morality is a mental construct that is as temporary and fleeting as our species is on this planet. What we want doesn't matter. How we are built by natural selection doesn't matter. We can build morals to fit the day, fulfill our biological imperative or just survive and dispense with the niceties. Either way the imperative is answered. The former allows us to be opportunistic within a community. The latter can be that or much much less.

But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.


Because folks don't desire the same things doesn't mean that they aren't all the same. They are all the same because they all desire.

IMO who cares what people want or think they need? I don't, primarily because all people are tuned to react to the situation they are in. You live in Sudan and see a guy with a gun? You run away. Hungry? You eat. Thirsty? Drink. Everything else? People will react to the situation they are in and not one iota differently. It doesn't matter because over the long haul because as a species we don't matter. As you said the universe doesn't care. If the universe doesn't, why should I?

And that's what your worldview is left with: want. Strip away the superfluous, feel-good language meant to make it more palatable, and all you're left with is a selfishness that you've restyled in a benevolent manner so you can type it without your own fingers cringing.


Long run, short slide. Want isn't anything more than another manifestation of survival.

The issue that you are having is that you think that I'm actually positing that we're here for a reason that somehow it means something. Well, it might somewhere in some cosmic or alien log book. But on the ground we're still grubbing for food and water. We're animals that think we are more. That's why Maslow is so wrong. We believe we want while we can, but every desire and temporary feeling of fulfillment is channelled survival instinct delivered to us by natural selection. We just can't outrun our past.

As to being selfish? Just like everyone else I'm looking for the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:39 pm

slowshooter wrote:
WTN10 wrote:Slow,
You appear to be justifying morality as an eventual construct that arises as a species evolves.


Nope, there is no justification for what we call morality. It's just what we call the behaviors that have allowed us to cooperate.

As I read, once cooperation becomes favorable for survival, then that mandate to survive justifies creating these moral practices to foster that cooperation.


Pretty easy high school anthro and I hated that class.

Your position fundamentally misunderstands its own premise though. Survival itself is not a mandate from nature. It's not necessary. Approaching the universe from a humanist worldview, the universe existed for billions of years, devoid of all life. Nothing survived. Life, survival, was not and is not necessary to its function.


The question was and has never been what the universe wants as an uber scold. Primarily because the universe could give a chit squirt what we do on this dirt ball. What life does is spread. It follows its design as we follow our small part. While the universe could care less, life has imperative and that's why we have imperative. That the universe doesn't need life is unknown. We don't know if what sparked the bang was an intentional thermodynamic created by a race half our size. We don't know if the universe was seeded from the beginning or life chanced together on its own three minutes after the giant bang. And for the most part I don't care.

Nor does life appear to be a goal of the universe. The idea of a goal itself contemplates some Thing mandating it, but ignoring that inconsistency, if the universe is said to have a purpose or goal, life and survival do not appear to be it. At every turn, the universe is trying to kill us and all other life on this planet, and it does so with amazing efficiency. At some point in the distant future, this planet will most certainly be completely destroyed, if not by some foreign body hurdling toward it, then by the Sun turning into a red giant and engulfing the planet after boiling away the water and atmosphere.


So what? We have a moment and then we are gone. We can try to flee to other stars but we won't, we can't. Cooperation keeps us here because we like our tidy homes and 600 thread count sheets. Are we supposed to do more than we do? Who cares? For all either of us know life is just rust on a stellar scale. Perhaps the long game for life is to escape this universe and move on to the next one or back to the last. We can't know. Overlaying the belief that because things die, means life doesn't matter, is presuming a great deal. Even if our small segment matters very little.

Your worldview though hoists survival up as the reason why morality exists. Survival is necessary, cooperation enhances survival, morality fosters cooperation, therefore survival begat morality.


The problem is that you see morality and survival as different things. I don't. The path is not linear. It's nested.
That's why when I see Maslows Hierarchy of Need I always crack up. There isn't a more humanistic idea cobbled together ever.
You don't arrive at cooperation or morality and stay. You survive or not. Nothing and no one cares along the way.

This is not true, though. Survival isn't necessary. What drives us is the want or desire to survive. We don't have to survive. We want to survive. It is want or desire that your worldview is based upon.


Who says survival is a requirement? Not me. Natural selection killed all the people that didn't have fear. They all jumped off a high cliff because they wanted see what it was like. It also killed the folks that wanted to try cooperation over survival. They were eaten. It even killed the Shakers. If you want to lead a moral life and your morality doesn't allow you to make babies.... Your community dies pretty quick. Each of the above wanted something, but they didn't survive. Life goes on.

When we strip away the fluff and self-serving language, your theory of morality is reduced to this: morality exists and is defined by what we want. Under your theory, the "want" which shapes morality is the "want" to survive.


Nope. My theory is much simpler. Morality is a mental construct that is as temporary and fleeting as our species is on this planet. What we want doesn't matter. How we are built by natural selection doesn't matter. We can build morals to fit the day, fulfill our biological imperative or just survive and dispense with the niceties. Either way the imperative is answered. The former allows us to be opportunistic within a community. The latter can be that or much much less.

But this desire isn't universal. People want different things, and they don't necessarily want to survive. Or, they may want to survive, but also fulfill some other wants like sex, revenge, and wealth which they can fulfill through rape, murder, and theft.


Because folks don't desire the same things doesn't mean that they aren't all the same. They are all the same because they all desire.

IMO who cares what people want or think they need? I don't, primarily because all people are tuned to react to the situation they are in. You live in Sudan and see a guy with a gun? You run away. Hungry? You eat. Thirsty? Drink. Everything else? People will react to the situation they are in and not one iota differently. It doesn't matter because over the long haul because as a species we don't matter. As you said the universe doesn't care. If the universe doesn't, why should I?

And that's what your worldview is left with: want. Strip away the superfluous, feel-good language meant to make it more palatable, and all you're left with is a selfishness that you've restyled in a benevolent manner so you can type it without your own fingers cringing.


Long run, short slide. Want isn't anything more than another manifestation of survival.

The issue that you are having is that you think that I'm actually positing that we're here for a reason that somehow it means something. Well, it might somewhere in some cosmic or alien log book. But on the ground we're still grubbing for food and water. We're animals that think we are more. That's why Maslow is so wrong. We believe we want while we can, but every desire and temporary feeling of fulfillment is channelled survival instinct delivered to us by natural selection. We just can't outrun our past.

As to being selfish? Just like everyone else I'm looking for the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.

All very well constructed, slow. That's pretty much the same argument I've had here before. It's not revolutionary, nor is it sacriligeous, it's simply another take on morals and the progression of mankind. It never gets debated. The ones of religious persuasion always simply post their opinion and consider it an a priori, without question, truth. In my opinion it is simply a reluctance, or fear, to open a door that has kept the inclement weather from their hearth and home for a long time. And if that is the level to which they aspire, comfort, then more power to them if it enables them to achieve that aspiration. If it dictates their actions in a manner more conducive to the betterment of their fellow man, then it is a positive. I guess I was just never that sure of why a person needs to be tutored away from evil. I certainly don't feel myself as an exceptionally moral person, yet I simply don't have the desire to better myself at the expense of others. Perhaps I have been lucky my entire life and never had to fight tooth and nail for survival. I would construe that as "blessed" somehow, if it were true, yet why should I be one blessed by a higher power when I don't consider a higher power in judgment of me?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby slowshooter » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:10 pm

Gracias Señor.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:19 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Slow, have they ever made a poll of which direction engineers lean? I wonder why, :huh:

I would say 85-90% engineers are conservative, even gubment ones.

You can tell the conservative ones by their pocket protectors! :lol3:

I don't think I have ever seen anyone wear a pocket protector. Grandpa, it's the 21st century, they went out before the 8 track, another thing I don't believe I have ever seen used.

my uncle wore them religiously before he retired....


I'm the only person I know that still has a functioning slide rule.

Nerd out.

I own two. both still work. and not many still know how to use them...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby slowshooter » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:35 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Slow, have they ever made a poll of which direction engineers lean? I wonder why, :huh:

I would say 85-90% engineers are conservative, even gubment ones.

You can tell the conservative ones by their pocket protectors! :lol3:

I don't think I have ever seen anyone wear a pocket protector. Grandpa, it's the 21st century, they went out before the 8 track, another thing I don't believe I have ever seen used.

my uncle wore them religiously before he retired....


I'm the only person I know that still has a functioning slide rule.

Nerd out.

I own two. both still work. and not many still know how to use them...


I use mine to smash the odd spider when the cats don't do their job. Recycling pays off.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Looks bad for Republicans that own hardware stores

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:53 pm

slowshooter wrote:Gracias Señor.

My burrito con taco my compadre!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cartervj and 3 guests