View Single Post
  #150  
Old 11-08-2013, 07:21 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,350
Default Part 3 of 3

[continued from above]

Re:
Quote:
"We harm or we kill for many reasons: to eat, to prove our strength, to claim territory, or just to survive, etc."
If by we you mean some of us, okay. Harm to eat? That sounds something more like a parasitic wasp would do to a spider. Kill to eat? Guilty as charged. Kill/harm to prove my strength? Not guilty. Kill/harm to claim territory? Been awhile since the United States has claimed new territory, but I participate in a country with a history of that kind of violence so you could call me an accomplice or at least a beneficiary of government violence. Kill to survive? Conceivable if I was hungry (or threatened) enough.

Re:
Quote:
"We either convince or we force others to mate with us to continue the survival of our genetic material ..."
  • I'm more of the "try to convince" type.
  • I'm snipped.
So again, who's this "we?" It can't be me and by extension it can't be all of us. Do some of us force others to "mate" with us? Sorry to say yes, but most of us know better.

Re:
Quote:
"We take what we can to survive ..."
Likely enough if I was sufficiently poor, cold, hungry, threatened, etc.

Re:
Quote:
"We may 'say things but do another or the opposite of what we said or indicated' as a strategy to accomplish our goals."
At first I thought "no way in hell," til I inconveniently remembered a certain handful of months a ways in the past. Technically not a lie in the verbal sense, but certainly an act/pattern of deception.

In addition, if this was WWII and the SS was pounding on my door demanding to know if I was hiding any Jews in my home, my answer would have to be "No" even if it was a lie. Yet another gray area by context.

Re: rape ... the only gray area I can see is statutory rape. Now, do soldiers rape women in children in defeated lands? I think some but not all. Regardless, it's an inexcusable thing for any human to do.

Re:
Quote:
"As in nature, these things are not crimes outside our 'societies,' and if we even live in one: We harm or we kill for many reasons: to eat, to prove our strength, to claim territory, or just to survive, etc.; we either convince or we force others to mate with us to continue the survival of our genetic material; we take what we can to survive; and we may 'say things but do another or the opposite of what we said or indicated' as a strategy to accomplish our goals."
If I can say "not *necessarily* crimes," clarify/qualify, and confine the definition of some "not-crimes" to such gray areas as mentioned above, then I can agree with the whole paragraph as quoted immediately above. But I don't think it's often when a human is in a special situation that permits those kinds of actions. It would be an exception, not the rule.

Even though humans are technically animals, I still hold humans accountable for things for which I wouldn't hold another species of animal accountable. As described in an earlier post, humans are a "changed kind of animal," with ethical principles to consider.

---

Re:
Quote:
"As always, no one is forcing you to stay in any society, you may move to another that more fits your way of life or you may not live in any society at all and do as you please."
Ull ... expatriating isn't as simple as it was in the good old days. I couldn't migrate to Canada or New Zealand for example and become a citizen of either country. Not qualified enough.

And even if it were simple, it would involve moving far away from friends and family. A good thing to some, perhaps, but probably not to most.

Re: live in no society at all? ... tough proposition at best. The entire globe (except Antarctica which has *kind of* been claimed and divvied up) has by now been claimed by one country or another. Unless there's some tiny undiscovered island somewhere ...

Re:
Quote:
"Or you can try to change the society you're in ..."
Much simpler. (Though it takes a long time, and concerted effort by many people.)

Re:
Quote:
"Many of us know that many societies change and do not stay the same forever ..."
Don't most of us know that?

Re:
Quote:
"Much of that change has come of people living within those societies disagreeing with the society they live in and so they worked towards changing it."
I think that's how most societal change occurs (slowly, as mentioned above).

Re:
Quote:
"Whether these 'changes' were for the 'most benefit of the majority of that society' or not and in what way are subjective."
Of course.

---

Re: the classic "trenchcoat flasher" ... sounds to me like you're suggesting that "nude with an erection" should be treated the same way as "nude without an erection" (assuming there's no sex going on). Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise, moving on.

Re: breastfeeding restricted at work ... nope, wasn't joking, but wasn't talking about *all* countries either, just the countries where businesses of whatever size restrict a mother's opportunities to breastfeed. That would include the United States.

Re: identifying a psychopath ... technically impossible. After all, even psychiatrists rely on the latest official literature to identify disorders. There was a time when the official psychiatric literature of the day labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder. Obviously the literature was mistaken and by extension, so were the professionals who relied on that literature.

Everything about psychology is subjective, and typically the deciding factors are, "Can this person function 'normally' in a 'normal' society?" Well, the definition of "normal" is educated guesswork at best. So in the end, I guess we have to make our individual judgments based on whatever little we know, and protect ourselves from harm if we perceive that it's necessary.

Re: brainwashing ... it's safe to say that virtually everyone is subject to it, at least to some extent. I don't know anyone who strikes me as "immune."

---

Re (from Post #143):
Quote:
"Animals in cold climates burrow and make nests to keep warm/isolated/protected. If they had opposable thumbs and technical know-how, would they make clothes, or portable nests of some type?"
I suppose so. But would they later migrate south with all that stuff? That's the question.

Re:
Quote:
"Re:
Quote:
'And maybe that's why, in accordance to my own personal beliefs, humans are both monogamous and polyamorous. One thing's for sure, whatever humans are, it isn't consistent.'
On the whole, I would agree, since it seems to be something of a spectrum. One individual, however, can be anywhere on that spectrum.
I'm just making the distinction since saying that as a species we are both is different from saying that every member of that species has a bit of 'poly' in them."
Oh oopsie -- bad communication on my part. When I said, "Humans are both monogamous and polyamorous," I meant: "Some humans are monogamous and some humans are polyamorous and heck, some humans are a little of each." In other words, I definitely *don't* agree that *all* humans have even a particle of polyamory anywhere "in their heart." Some humans are monogamous at heart and some are polyamorous at heart and that's how I should have said it.

Of course, I also agree with the spectrum you spoke of. Oh what the heck, check out one of my few self-started threads if you haven't already: Philosophical Semantics, Part I
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"

Last edited by kdt26417; 11-08-2013 at 07:23 AM.
Reply With Quote