East Texas... aka hell

[IgnoredOne]

That implies that there is something necessarily wrong with the notion that those with the best fit prevail; I feel that it is both unrealistic and foolish to treat life as something it is not. Idealism is wonderful, in small doses, but effective projection of power in its various forms ultimately brings more good and order into the world.

No one seeks a fight, but I'm sure you've also heard that the best defense is a good offense - and this is consistently true when appropriately applied as can be seen in everything from personal combat to ancient warfare. This is incredibly true, and appropriate implementation of this comprehension can demonstrate that sometimes 'starting a fight' is ultimately the best way to bring about greater calm. I've been in the military and have a somewhat checkered past; both have given me intimate familiarity with the ugliness that humanity can be. Sometimes, a cancer just needs to be cut away. Sometimes, that cancer is a human being.

Resources on the planet are limited; they are currently as effectively spread as the free market allows, with appropriate accounting for subsidies and various other forms of waste. Ultimately, though, you seem to believe there is some innate value to life. There isn't. A dog is a dog; a human is a human; both are biological organisms with chemical impulses.

Humans do indeed possess greater faculties of reasoning. This does not change the overall importance of centralization of power.

And my own are the people I care about. Some of them might be weak, but they all are valuable to me for one reason or another. That doesn't make me one of them - the sheepdog is not the sheep.

 

[tedgresham]

That implies that there is something necessarily wrong with the notion that those with the best fit prevail; I feel that it is both unrealistic and foolish to treat life as something it is not. Idealism is wonderful, in small doses, but effective projection of power in its various forms ultimately brings more good and order into the world.

No one seeks a fight, but I'm sure you've also heard that the best defense is a good offense - and this is consistently true when appropriately applied as can be seen in everything from personal combat to ancient warfare. This is incredibly true, and appropriate implementation of this comprehension can demonstrate that sometimes 'starting a fight' is ultimately the best way to bring about greater calm. I've been in the military and have a somewhat checkered past; both have given me intimate familiarity with the ugliness that humanity can be. Sometimes, a cancer just needs to be cut away. Sometimes, that cancer is a human being.

Resources on the planet are limited; they are currently as effectively spread as the free market allows, with appropriate accounting for subsidies and various other forms of waste. Ultimately, though, you seem to believe there is some innate value to life. There isn't. A dog is a dog; a human is a human; both are biological organisms with chemical impulses.

Humans do indeed possess greater faculties of reasoning. This does not change the overall importance of centralization of power.

And my own are the people I care about. Some of them might be weak, but they all are valuable to me for one reason or another. That doesn't make me one of them - the sheepdog is not the sheep.

It's pretty obvious that you and I are on opposite sides of the fence. I am a pacifist, if you have not figured that out. I disagree entirely with the notion of "projection of power." I do not believe military aggression ever brings good and certainly not order except when such order is enforced by force of arms.

I have not always felt this way. I have come to my views after a lot of years and a great deal of study and thought. I used to be about as militaristic as one can be. I am not a war veteran so of course I cannot have experienced the horrors of it first hand but I am exceptionally aware of the costs, all the costs, to all parties. And, of course, as you've probably assumed, I am and have from the first day been against every action this country has taken since 9/11.

I do believe there is something wrong with the notion of best fit prevail, absolutely, when applied to human affairs. Couched in other words all that says is bullies always win. I have been a victim and a witness of bullies since I was a kid. I rather detest bullies and their selfish and self-serving aggression. In my view nobody wins. Gaining what one wants at the expense of less powerful people belittles the human race. Such attitudes will be our destruction.

If violence is a cancer then it is a preventable one. There have been very few, virtually no, conflicts the US has been involved in that could not have been prevented at some point. I have studied politics and war in depth. I have a degree in history. That doesn't make me a know it all and I'm not trying to be a smart ass but I didn't just fall from a turnip truck, either. Someone, somewhere did something stupid and most often selfish (on a national scale) that led to wars. Some wars were unpreventable. Some were also extremely misguided. But still, there was a point they could have been prevented if we as a race were not so focused on ourselves rather than humanity.

As I said, I believe there are plenty of resources for all. I don't care anything for "free market" distribution, as if it has any meaning in third world countries, or here for that matter. Thousands of Texans go hungry while thousands more waste enough to feed them ten times over. Were there time I could relate personal stories of people I knew who have done without and will always do without under this so-called "free market" system.

I'm not what kind of life you've lived but I find it exceptionally sad that you have such respect for life, especially human life. All of life IS precious. Human life is exceptionally precious. It must be a cold world you live in, my friend. I would surrender my life not just for my children but for any human, if necessary.

If we are mere chemical processes, with no value, then what's the sense in risking your life in war or conflict for anyone else at all? Even if i were not a pacifist I certainly would not throw my life away for a collection of meat sacks I believed were of no more worth than dogs.

 

[IgnoredOne]

Bullies often /do/ win. The victors write the history, as they say. And in my opinion, there is little contention between self-interest and the best interests of humanity; competition that results in the survival and the thriving of the most fit of humanity will benefit the species as a whole.

Since you have a degree in history, then it could be seen how force is a fundamental characteristic of resolution. Indeed, it is one of the three universal descriptors of advanced civilization in antropology: trade, existence of specialists and warfare.

Historically, what is the great moral value of the murderous Aztec empire that ritually sacrificed tens of thousands of people? Was the Spanish invasion with its attendant slavery and rape an improvement? Ultimately, it was. Did it make the lives of millions of people any better? No. Was the American revolution justified? How is refusing to pay, in many ways, one's dues to a mother country that has sacrificed a great deal to protect you justified? Or vice versa, was there any real morality to the British empire's existence? The notion of a 'divine monarchy'?

I find morality ultimately so empty when I could argue any position. Ultimately, there is only one consistent truth: power prevails.

We're chemical processes of no particular value; but mine is more important than others because its mine, and those who I care about because they are of value to me. In a way, it is an illusion, but it is a useful one - especially for the purposes of the selfish gene. In the end, power prevails and if I care about anyone, I would rather see that I have the resources to protect and advance them.

I am a diagnosed sociopath, though A ridiculous little diagnosis. A disorder is not a 'disorder' when it does not get in the way of my functionality, and indeed, probably is to my advantage.

You seem rather, well, emotional about this.

 

[Nitramici]

If anything, evolution demonstrates that those who thrive tend to express a modicum of aggression and ambition.

Except it doesn't demonstrate that at all. I really don't get how you think this. Plenty of species that strive on this planet shows none of those two attributes. Humans also don't need either of these attributes to survive long enough to procreate, which is all evolution is about. Survival of the fittest stopped being relevant for humans a long time ago, because we live long enough now regardless of our genes. Most of the people in super poor countries also procreate at a much, much higher speed than the "rich" which you probably deem to be more fit, so from an evolutionnary standpoint, the poors have the edge; their genes are being passed on much more.

Now, if you're just saying America will just go and blast every poor countries' population out of existence, then yea, the fittest survived. I guess that'd fit in with the theory of evolution, in some sort of twisted way.

There's also enough food being produced to feed off everyone right now. Furthermore, there's no absolute reason to believe that, if everyone implemented all the sustainable development strategies and technologies we have (and are creating), we'd still run out of ressources in the foreseeable future.

I was also gonna ask why you seem to try to show off how you're part of the "dominant" ones in atleast 2/3 of your posts, on a forum for lonely people at that. But reading your last post, I get it now. It doesn't bother me, but it does look silly to me.

 

[IgnoredOne]

Except it doesn't demonstrate that at all. I really don't get how you think this. Plenty of species that strive on this planet shows none of those two attributes.

Selfish gene theory. Its not exactly that, but obviously individuals that can procreate more successfully are more likely to have their phenotypes continue to be expressed. An excellent example of how this is adapted to greater intelligence is the development of deception: apes begin to practice deception because its direct costs are lower than receptrocity so as long as the deception is not punished. It is theorized by some, indeed, that the presence of deceptive behavior and then counterdeceptive behavior is one of the fundamental drivers for developing a larger brain that eventually led to the homoid species.

The presence of dominant animals in pack mammals are characterized with some level of aggression, this is in fact, generally true of most vetebrates. Even something as simple as a virus, not even completely alive, is successful primarily because it is a pathogenic entity. Or the terraforming of earth by bluegreen cynobacteria which ultimately created a poisonous atmosphere to their anareobic competitors. The lists are endless. This isn't to say that there aren't "jack" salmon which compete effectively against "hook" salmon by using a sneakier and more indirect procreational method, but again, its ultimately a kind of ambition that successfully spreads its phenotype.

 

[tedgresham]

Bullies often /do/ win. The victors write the history, as they say. And in my opinion, there is little contention between self-interest and the best interests of humanity; competition that results in the survival and the thriving of the most fit of humanity will benefit the species as a whole.

Since you have a degree in history, then it could be seen how force is a fundamental characteristic of resolution. Indeed, it is one of the three universal descriptors of advanced civilization in antropology: trade, existence of specialists and warfare.

Historically, what is the great moral value of the murderous Aztec empire that ritually sacrificed tens of thousands of people? Was the Spanish invasion with its attendant slavery and rape an improvement? Ultimately, it was. Did it make the lives of millions of people any better? No. Was the American revolution justified? How is refusing to pay, in many ways, one's dues to a mother country that has sacrificed a great deal to protect you justified? Or vice versa, was there any real morality to the British empire's existence? The notion of a 'divine monarchy'?

I find morality ultimately so empty when I could argue any position. Ultimately, there is only one consistent truth: power prevails.

We're chemical processes of no particular value; but mine is more important than others because its mine, and those who I care about because they are of value to me. In a way, it is an illusion, but it is a useful one - especially for the purposes of the selfish gene. In the end, power prevails and if I care about anyone, I would rather see that I have the resources to protect and advance them.

I am a diagnosed sociopath, though A ridiculous little diagnosis. A disorder is not a 'disorder' when it does not get in the way of my functionality, and indeed, probably is to my advantage.

You seem rather, well, emotional about this.

There's not much of a way I can respond to that. Obviously I disagree with the points you have made. Morality assumes that life has value. If you do not value life the morality certainly has no meaning.

I had a daughter who was most likely diagnosable as a sociopath, though at her age and without being able to get her into a facility (long story) it never was diagnosed. She is long gone, ran off over a year ago, and will likely live a miserable life and abuse children she has as she was abused. I do, then, have some idea of that diagnosis.

Simply put, then, were I confronted by someone such as yourself in a conflict I would loose, and die. I am old and messed up and not much capable of fighting. I'm one of those "weak" people without much value. Should I manage to get the advantage I probably would not press it and would still loose in the end.

I am not as emotional as I might sound. I do care, more than I wish I did. That has always been my downfall. And though if your diagnosis is valid you won't even comprehend why I say it (my daughter never did) I even care about people like you, and you in particular. If you are who you are as a result of war then I see no greater evidence of its destructive force. If you are as you are as a result of something farther back in your childhood, I am sorry for that. That's why my former daughter is as she is. If your lack of empathy is genetic, well, I just hope we don't meet in a dark ally. Life sometimes sucks really bad but it is life and I hope to hold on to it quite as long as possible.

 

[IgnoredOne]

I find it interesting that I can bring up statements and support them with numerous examples, but you can only reply with generalities and idealism. I think rationality, too, is on my side. And for what it is worth, I'm not trying to "show off" anything; I really don't care. I try to demonstrate what I feel is an efficient and effective approach to life, that is all.

 

[Nitramici]

I get it, you're great.

But yea, I was partially wrong and understand the statement I originally quoted more now, thanks. However, it still goes to show that it's irrelevant to humanity at the moment. Those who thrive the most in our society tends to have substantially less than 2 kids. Evolution is gonna kick you dominant folks out soon. Nyahaha.

Bringing evolution to support your "strongest wins everything" theories stopped being cool a few decades ago, that's all.

 

[IgnoredOne]

I get it, you're great.

But yea, I was partially wrong and understand the statement I originally quoted more now, thanks. However, it still goes to show that it's irrelevant to humanity at the moment. Those who thrive the most in our society tends to have substantially less than 2 kids. Evolution is gonna kick you dominant folks out soon. Nyahaha.

Bringing evolution to support your "strongest wins everything" theories stopped being cool a few decades ago, that's all.

And indeed, most mammals have far less in the way of offspring in comparison to say, insects. Different descent rearing mechanisms; the wealthier tend to have fewer children who they can lavish more attention and money on. And well, I'm from a well-to-do family and I suspect my children will be as well.

Its not the 'strongest'; its a lot to do with attitude and efficiency, which of course in humans rarely involves physical musculature. My family has been impoverished in the past before, but ultimately, the willingness to get ahead no matter what(and yes, this sometimes involves "stepping on people") might be a combination of the sociological and the genetic.

 

[Nitramici]

Studies show people (in rich countries) on average stop being happier because of their money when they pass 75k$/year. If the ultimate goal is to be happy, you don't have to step on anyone's toes. Middle class is enough.

And I know mammals have fewer offsprings compared to OTHER species that aren't mammals. But those that have less offsprings are at a definite evolutionnary disadvantage to those that have more in their very own species. Really, "evolution" is a poor way to support your argument.

 

[Jilted John]

If nobody likes Texas,move!

 

[IgnoredOne]

Studies show people (in rich countries) on average stop being happier because of their money when they pass 75k$/year. If the ultimate goal is to be happy, you don't have to step on anyone's toes. Middle class is enough.

And I know mammals have fewer offsprings compared to OTHER species that aren't mamals. But those that have less offsprings are at a definite evolutionnary disadvantage to those that have more in their very own species. Really, "evolution" is a poor way to support your argument.

Well, yes, it depends a lot on objective and goal.

From the purely selfish gene perspective, the most successful methodology to maximize the phenotype in a population is to have the most surviving offspring of your phenotype that live to reproduce. You see that somewhat in mammals, too; but note that many mammals are notable for having fewer offspring with more parental care to increase the odds of survival. So your equation here is whether the energy invested in having more offspring gives you a better 'return' than putting the energy in for more parental care(parent investment) for a better 'return.'

I think for humans, a case can be made that the goal is some form of 'social esteem value' for most, which is often correlated with wealth. You can observe that historically, the poor always had many children because it was fundamentally valuable to them - every additional child is a potential worker to add to the farm. It was also a personal investment, as children could then be hoped for to provide for the parent when the parent was not capable of generating income. This has never been the case for the wealthier; indeed, having more children forces greater subdivision of wealth and is likely to further endanger the parent. Nobility tended to have much, much fewer legitimate children(and often actively slaughtered bastards before they could become a threat) for this reason; for the purposes of humans, having more children often doesn't increase the social esteem of the parent.

The result, then, was that the phenotypes that encouraged wealth generation, if any, are also those that encourage having fewer children. So yes, if you want to see it that way, the idiots win at maximizing their phenotype in the gene pool. The guy who gets girls drunk and fucks them without condoms is going to beat you at having more babies; a future population will express more people like him.

Evolution might be a poor word for it; I suppose that my ultimate point is that competitiveness, even aggressive competitiveness, is in my opinion ultimately a positive force. As for happiness, sufficient doses of any psychoactive is capable of providing that. If that is the goal of humanity, then it clearly its time to turn on, tune in, and drop out.

 

[tedgresham]

I find it interesting that I can bring up statements and support them with numerous examples, but you can only reply with generalities and idealism. I think rationality, too, is on my side. And for what it is worth, I'm not trying to "show off" anything; I really don't care. I try to demonstrate what I feel is an efficient and effective approach to life, that is all.

You are playing with me. You find me and my attitudes amusing. You really don't give a honeysuckle if I live or die and would probably prefer that the people who think as I do, who give a **** about the human race, were dead, and out of your way. I get that.

The sad and tragic fact is that there are few examples where cruelty and genocide has not won the day. I would be wasting my time, anyway because, as you said, you do not care. If you had begun our discussion by revealing your diagnosis I could have saved a good deal of effort writing. Again, I am not as emotional as I sound. I am merely stating facts. In your world there's only the vanquished and the victor and you will be the latter at all costs and, in the end, for no reason whatsoever besides the fact than you can be... until you are not, until you are old or run up against a power greater than yourself. And then you will fail and your end will come without you ever knowing love, joy, respect or any of the other emotions that make us human. Tragic, indeed.

Either that or you're just another internet schmuck who preys on the emotions of others for sport. Or both. Either way, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[IgnoredOne]

You are playing with me. You find me and my attitudes amusing. You really don't give a honeysuckle if I live or die and would probably prefer that the people who think as I do, who give a **** about the human race, were dead, and out of your way. I get that.

The sad and tragic fact is that there are few examples where cruelty and genocide has not won the day. I would be wasting my time, anyway because, as you said, you do not care.

Of course not. And cruelty and genocide in and of itself may not be all that efficient; more importantly, as for purposes of understanding overall trends, it is the overall statistical implications from the aggregate data that reveals more. Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer in /every/ individual, but overall, it has a strong positive correlation with cancer risk.

That overwhelming force has a strong positive correlation with success is my only real statement.

If you had begun our discussion by revealing your diagnosis I could have saved a good deal of effort writing. Again, I am not as emotional as I sound. I am merely stating facts. In your world there's only the vanquished and the victor and you will be the latter at all costs and, in the end, for no reason whatsoever besides the fact than you can be... until you are not, until you are old or run up against a power greater than yourself. And then you will fail and your end will come without you ever knowing love, joy, respect or any of the other emotions that make us human. Tragic, indeed.

We all lose someday. But I would have known that I have pushed every limit and made the most of myself. For me, that's my greatest victory.

The idea that somehow sociopaths can't 'feel' emotions always amuses me, though. I know that I love my girlfriend. I know that I feel joy at many things, including sometimes, yes, causing the downfall of those who deserve it. Its just that I don't feel it quite so, well, overwhelmingly, if there's the word for that.

Either that or you're just another internet schmuck who preys on the emotions of others for sport. Or both. Either way, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

As you wish.

 

[Nitramici]

So, a sort of "evolution"-like concept, where instead of passing down your genes, you pass down your wealth. I get you, but I don't think that's a positive thing. It actually makes it harder for people to compete, since the top dogs are NOT going down any time soon. The more centralized the wealth becomes, the more impossible it will be to get anywhere if you're not born in the right family. A really free market without any form of government control would be horrible.

Beside, I have my doubts that the people at the top of the executive ladder are the ones improving society. If competition only serves towards deciding who climbs up the most, it's not "helping" anyone but the person who succeeds. If that's your thing, cool.

I mean, you can put all your intellect to climbing as high as you can in the executive ladder. Or you can put all of your intellect in helping develop new technologies and/or improving societies in your own small way. You can argue that it's the guy on top that's throwing research money down to the workers, but he and his group are keeping a hell of a lot more to themselves. And if they ultimately fail, it doesn't matter much to them, their safety net is freakin huge. There has to be a more efficient way to do it than that.

And your example about the drunkie just supports my point that "evolution" was not helping your argument, but yea, we're dropping the term now anyway.

I'm not sure what the discussion is about any more. Probably time I drop it, hah. Either way, we have different goals in life, that much is clear. North American middle class is already a good 50-100 times richer than billions of people, that's enough for me. If I want competition, I'll play games/sports. No need to have to step on anyone, that way.

 

[nerdygirl]

"If you had begun our discussion by revealing your diagnosis I could have saved a good deal of effort writing."

<.<

This is rather like me saying that had I known you were ageist, I would have saved quite a bit of time writing. Just popping into the thread to urge you to open your mind a little. People aren't always who you think they are.

 

[tedgresham]

"If you had begun our discussion by revealing your diagnosis I could have saved a good deal of effort writing."

<.<

This is rather like me saying that had I known you were ageist, I would have saved quite a bit of time writing. Just popping into the thread to urge you to open your mind a little. People aren't always who you think they are.

How can we know who someone is until they reveal themselves? Online many people never do, they hide behind masks, user names and avatars. On this board they don't want to be alone but they refuse to reveal themselves. That makes no sense. They want to sit on the priests' side of a confessional and have people come to the penitent side to be friends.

I am who I am and make no attempt to hide or make excuses. I don't want anyone making assumptions. But this is not relevant to the quote you've made. A sociopath is not like being an atheist or having blue eyes or not liking spinach. It is a particular and exceptionally severe diagnosis that describes specific symptoms. I lived with a sociopath. I know from personal experience how absolutely impossible a conversation is with one, especially about love or compassion. The sociopath has no concept of them, no empathy, no sympathy. I said what I did about saving time writing because I knew when he revealed that little tidbit about himself he was and had been toying with me from the beginning. All I said, from caring about anyone to caring about him, was just a big joke. He doesn't get it and it's amusing for him to watch a weak little weenie squirm about speaking of love, etc.

I'm not being unkind in this description. IgnoredOne, whomever he is, chose to reveal his diagnosis. If he was being honest then it explained everything else he said and I knew immediately our conversation was a total waste of time. One cannot tell a blind man how to see. To try and describe or show compassion to a sociopath is about like pissing on a doberman pincer. He knows it and I know it and thus there was no misunderstanding or even rudeness.

Sorry, got long winded, as usual. Of course IgnoredOne could be like a few others on this board, perverted ******** hiding behind a fake persona and getting their kicks out of baiting people with real emotional problems. Who knows, right? Like you said, "people aren't always who you think you are."

 

[RJLJD]

i'm with nitramici on this one.