YEAH BUT...BUT.... oh, okay.

Oh yea, I forgot to add; kindergardeners are less productive members of society too, so we should kill them all off also






(kidding, plz dont hurt me :flowers: )

You completely missed the point. Mother Teresa helped the homeless because (and listen very closely here) it FUNDAMENTALLY made HER feel better to offer her assistance. Ask yourself this: were her motives selfish? In answer to that question - absolutely - her actions made HER FEEL GOOD, and in that vein, the real question becomes, why do people do things? Because they LIKE or NEED to do them, that's why. She was fundamentally no different than a successful stockbroker; she did what she liked to do, and her payment (in lieu of money in this particular situation) was the emotional gratitude of the people she helped. It's human nature, but because she's been forever nailed to the proverbial cross for her "sacrifices", she's been touted as "truly selfless". Bullshit. She was no more selfless than you or I are; she did what made her feel good.

You're absolutely right in the dictionary sense prae; all acts are selfish to one degree or another - 'truely selfless' acts do not exist, but in SMW's defense, the common usage of the phrase 'selfless act' doesn't usually take into account what makes you feel good.

Just throwing that out there

ouch! :lolhit:


Hey, I'm not stating my opinions on what we should do; I'm stating opinions on how I view evolution and an 'evolved society'. I view evolution as the reproduction of the best specimens to create a better specimen; and that could be any race at all.

All that I'm saying is that a disadvantaged person is disadvantaged and that evolution does not work towards reproducing those people.

Didn't mean to be unkind. It's just that in my mind, evolution HAPPENS and is not something that's controllable by mankind. To believe it's anything greater than that is a rather pompous view of human beings' capabilities. To have an impact would take generations of people working toward the same end. Hell, we can't get 4 people in D.C. to agree on what's for lunch, much less find a consensus on what life's gonna look like a million years from now.

Maybe you can explain your theory a little more and I'll try to understand what you're saying?

:flowers:
SMW

Didn't mean to be unkind. It's just that in my mind, evolution HAPPENS and is not something that's controllable by mankind. To believe it's anything greater than that is a rather pompous view of human beings' capabilities.
I believe that it's possible to guide/control evolution. We do it with all sorts of animals, we breed racing dogs, we breed cows to produce more milk and we really do a number to improve viruses, albeit that's not what we want.

To have an impact would take generations of people working toward the same end. Hell, we can't get 4 people in D.C. to agree on what's for lunch, much less find a consensus on what life's gonna look like a million years from now.
I agree, we are at a state where any human-run entity cannot effectively control breeding.

Maybe you can explain your theory a little more and I'll try to understand what you're saying?

:flowers:
SMW
I was simply talking about evolution - that a faster evolving society would be the one that controlled breeding and prevented the less desirable specimens from breeding. However, the more civilized society would have more civil liberties (though that could be debated), which would impede upon control - especially control on breeding.

So, a more evolved society, or a faster evolving one would more likely not be a more compassionate society, would have less civil liberties and wouldn't give a rats ass about the homeless or the elderly (unless they still contributed to the society). More evolved does not neccessarily mean a better life for all.

Hope that helped a little :thumbs:

The better feeling for him outweighs the enjoyment of the game.
She was fundamentally no different than a successful stockbroker; she did what she liked to do, and her payment (in lieu of money in this particular situation) was the emotional gratitude of the people she helped....She was no more selfless than you or I are; she did what made her feel good.
Same can be said for Jeffrey Dahmer. It's a cop-out and a simplistic view. Human society is based on choices. Good people do the right thing, not the easy thing. They are rarely the same. Mother Theresa devoted her entire life to helping the poorest people on Earth; she aint no flippin' stockbroker.

[QUOTEMore evolved does not neccessarily mean a better life for all.

Hope that helped a little :thumbs:[/QUOTE]

Kinda like the movie Soylent Green, eh?

Sorry, that subject is way over my head. I have enough trouble dealing with the here and now.

:)
SMW

Same can be said for Jeffrey Dahmer. It's a cop-out and a simplistic view. Human society is based on choices. Good people do the right thing, not the easy thing. They are rarely the same. Mother Theresa devoted her entire life to helping the poorest people on Earth; she aint no flippin' stockbroker.

No she's not, but Prae is absolutely right when he said that there are no selfless acts. There was at least some reason that she did the actions that she chose to do. You could say, "She did those actions because they were the right thing to do," but doing the right thing made her feel good.

There are obviously acts that are more or less selfish, and her actions were very benevolent and kind acts, yet they were not selfless acts.

Kinda like the movie Soylent Green, eh?

Never saw it, is it any good?

Never saw it, is it any good?

It's a futuristic flick starring Charlton Heston. Just another theory on where evolution might lead us. Check it out!

Enjoyed the exchange here. I'm off for a long weekend and will try not to ponder too many deep issues until I return on Tuesday. (Don't want the ole brain to get overworked, ya know?)

:)
SMW

Kinda like the movie Soylent Green, eh?

Sorry, that subject is way over my head. I have enough trouble dealing with the here and now.

:)
SMW
============================================
It was a movie about the future, staring Charlton Heston.
Things were tough, crime was rampant and no one had enough to eat.
Two classes, rich and the terribly poor. No fruit, vegetables, meat for the poor. Rich lived in high security buildings. No contact with the poor.

The state had suicide available for anyone that wanted it.

Only Soyent Green was available for the poor to eat.
Turns out, late in the movie, that Soyent Green is made from the dead human bodies.

============================================
It was a movie about the future, staring Charlton Heston.
Things were tough, crime was rampant and no one had enough to eat.
Two classes, rich and the terribly poor. No fruit, vegetables, meat for the poor. Rich lived in high security buildings. No contact with the poor.

The state had suicide available for anyone that wanted it.

Only Soyent Green was available for the poor to eat.
Turns out, late in the movie, that Soyent Green is made from the dead human bodies.

ewww... Sick plot


I just looked up the movie, the police were wearing football helmets, lol

ewww... Sick plot


I just looked up the movie, the police were wearing football helmets, lolRent it. It's a must-see sci-fi classic. Edgar G. Robinson's last film -- and he gets a great death scene!

Bruce Dern in Silent Running would make a great double feature. Or The Omega Man also starring Charlton Heston.

Same can be said for Jeffrey Dahmer. It's a cop-out and a simplistic view. Human society is based on choices. Good people do the right thing, not the easy thing. They are rarely the same. Mother Theresa devoted her entire life to helping the poorest people on Earth; she aint no flippin' stockbroker.
Nicely said!

I believe that it's possible to guide/control evolution. We do it with all sorts of animals, we breed racing dogs, we breed cows to produce more milk and we really do a number to improve viruses, albeit that's not what we want.


I agree, we are at a state where any human-run entity cannot effectively control breeding.


I was simply talking about evolution - that a faster evolving society would be the one that controlled breeding and prevented the less desirable specimens from breeding. However, the more civilized society would have more civil liberties (though that could be debated), which would impede upon control - especially control on breeding.

So, a more evolved society, or a faster evolving one would more likely not be a more compassionate society, would have less civil liberties and wouldn't give a rats ass about the homeless or the elderly (unless they still contributed to the society). More evolved does not neccessarily mean a better life for all.

Hope that helped a little :thumbs:
Windwip, to me your view of an evolved society sounds more like the beginning of time or one which is devolving. As one evolves and finds better ways of feeding one's self the fear of merely trying to survive dissipates. Thus one can become more generous because there is surplus.

We are pack animals. We are not meant to be isolated and solely looking out for self.

Then again, it all comes back to what one has been taught to value and what feeds the ego. The people that I have found to be people that I most want to be with are those with wisdom, (which is hard earned through the knocks of life) acceptance of others and a willingness to share what they have.

I think people are scared of this point when they hear the word "selfish" thrown in because we don't use the word accurately. Selfish, in this case, only means that our decisions are made based on what results in a net positive feeling or us - the self.

For people with a generous spirit the net positive gain would be what is felt working at a soup kitchen rather than going to a baseball game. The better feeling for him outweighs the enjoyment of the game.
Certainly his fellow man benefits, but the bottom line is that he does also.
In general I would agree that all behaviour is self serving. Selfish is a misnomer in that it indicates the greater good goes to self and that may or may not be true. For example a firerescuer rushing into a burning building to retrieve another being should not be termed selfish.

Sedan may be a lot of things, but rest assured - he's NOT an idiot. Politically wrong minded? Definitely. An idiot??? Not on your life.Thanks, Prae. The sentiment is, of course, exactly mutual. However, it does not bother me in the least to be called an idiot by gmsisko1. For one thing, how can he tell? For another, I've called him worse so all's fair.

it does not bother me in the least to be called an idiot by gmsisko1. For one thing, how can he tell? Takes one to know one...I'm not saying he's right. I'm just saying how he might be able to tell...
:thumbs:

Why do I have to prove hat I was attacked? That is a personal thing for me.
(But is is true)The point is that when I ask you for a source you run away which is typical of your drive-by posting style. As you clearly have no idea why I asked you to prove something inane look here:

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=19599
I have a perment to carry a weapon, they ran away. It's that simple.Yes, we know about your 'perment'. You got yours personally from the FBI. :rolleyes:

I think we should have a corollary to Godwin's law -- we can call it Sisko's law. Anyone who says "It's that simple" in an internet debate automatically loses. Not fair to those who use it correctly but something needs to be done.As for you and your proof, I am still waiting to hear your source for the Fox News picture.

Until you can get me a source, I will regard it as a doctored photo, AND SLANDER.A few things here. I could not care less how you 'regard' anything. My respect for your opinion about anything at all is exactly zilch, zero, nada. You have shown yourself time and time again to be a nothing but a nonthinking regurgitator of whatever passes for political thought on talk radio or littlegreenfootballs or wherever else you get your pre-formed opinions.

Now, had any other member of allforums asked me to source those photos I would gladly have complied. Anyone but you. I'm fed up your demands of proof when you never prove anything. I'm fed up with you demanding a source when you won't provide one. I'm fed up more than anything else with the piercing shrillness of your posts. I swear, it hurts my ears to read you sometimes.

There. I feel better already. Sometime tonight I'll post the links you want in the Foley thread. In the meantime brush the cobwebs off your dictionary and look up the words 'slander' and 'libel'. It's plain that you don't know the difference.

Takes one to know one...I'm not saying he's right. I'm just saying how he might be able to tell...
:thumbs:That's very possible. But then, how would you know? :)

What ever man.

You're just a liberal ninnie any-way.

(You call me an idiot, I call you a liberal ninnie..............so there)


As for your link, once again, I provide a link to most of the things I post here. I must have accidently skipped over this one.

Please give me another example of when I run away when asked for proof.

As for the Fox News picture, I really don't think you have a credible source, if you did, you would have posted it. It is nothing but a doctored photo.

As for you calling me an idiot, I think I will go shoot myself with my glock .40 cal. ............................ good bye cruel world




The point is that when I ask you for a source you run away which is typical of your drive-by posting style. As you clearly have no idea why I asked you to prove something inane look here:

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=19599
Yes, we know about your 'perment'. You got yours personally from the FBI. :rolleyes:

I think we should have a corollary to Godwin's law -- we can call it Sisko's law. Anyone who says "It's that simple" in an internet debate automatically loses. Not fair to those who use it correctly but something needs to be done.A few things here. I could not care less how you 'regard' anything. My respect for your opinion about anything at all is exactly zilch, zero, nada. You have shown yourself time and time again to be a nothing but a nonthinking regurgitator of whatever passes for political thought on talk radio or littlegreenfootballs or wherever else you get your pre-formed opinions.

Now, had any other member of allforums asked me to source those photos I would gladly have complied. Anyone but you. I'm fed up your demands of proof when you never prove anything. I'm fed up with you demanding a source when you won't provide one. I'm fed up more than anything else with the piercing shrillness of your posts. I swear, it hurts my ears to read you sometimes.

There. I feel better already. Sometime tonight I'll post the links you want in the Foley thread. In the meantime brush the cobwebs off your dictionary and look up the words 'slander' and 'libel'. It's plain that you don't know the difference.

good bye cruel world

Bye!!!

In further review,

I have come to realize that killing my self over a liberal would be dumb.




Bye!!!

Windwip, to me your view of an evolved society sounds more like the beginning of time or one which is devolving. As one evolves and finds better ways of feeding one's self the fear of merely trying to survive dissipates. Thus one can become more generous because there is surplus.

We are pack animals. We are not meant to be isolated and solely looking out for self.

Good points - though I definitely disagree with the devolving. After a society learns to survive, and that no longer is an issue - the power of evolution's #1 tool (breeding) dissipates. People on all levels reproduce now. Evolution now proceeds by better specimens choosing better mates.

One can become more generous, though what are their incentives to do so, especially to someone who is not producing much (or anything) for society.

Then again, it all comes back to what one has been taught to value and what feeds the ego. The people that I have found to be people that I most want to be with are those with wisdom, (which is hard earned through the knocks of life) acceptance of others and a willingness to share what they have.
Wisdom (or bettering oneself) is a fine goal. Acceptance of others is a fine goal, to a point. It would not be very wise to be acceptive to everyone - say being accepting to a child-molester living nextdoor. Willingness to share is a fine goal also, to a point - sharing everything you have is not a good goal. It leaves you with nothing.

It's a cop-out and a simplistic view. Good people do the right thing, not the easy thing. They are rarely the same.Everyone will do what appeals to them the most. To the "good" people of the world, the gratification they get by being "good" to others outweighs the gratification they get by being good to themselves.
But everyone will do what makes them feel best.

Everyone will do what appeals to them the most. To the "good" people of the world, the gratification they get by being "good" to others outweighs the gratification they get by being good to themselves.
But everyone will do what makes them feel best.
That's exactly it.

I think this is easily explained by the expression "If I did that I couldn't live with myself".

Evolution now proceeds by better specimens choosing better mates..Just taking a gander around I would say people had better quickly learn what better means then... kiiiiiiidding...sort of.

One can become more generous, though what are their incentives to do so, especially to someone who is not producing much (or anything) for society. Well first of all, if we value human life just becasue it is human and living then that is the first incentive. Next would be compassion, with an eye towards practicality. I am not into supporting people who are perfectly capable mentally and physically who want to sit on their hands all day because they are lazy. But there are many circumstances which befall people where I would be in favour of giving them a very large “hand up” not a “hand out”.



Wisdom (or bettering oneself) is a fine goal. Acceptance of others is a fine goal, to a point. It would not be very wise to be acceptive to everyone - say being accepting to a child-molester living nextdoor. Willingness to share is a fine goal also, to a point - sharing everything you have is not a good goal. It leaves you with nothing.You can’t give everything away and leave yourself destitute. My point was rather that a generosity of spirit done in a balanced way benefits all and leads to a stronger society.