Gryphon Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 There are some things, as I'm sure you've all noticed, that tend to get people all revved up and ready to come out fighting. Sometimes their cause seems to be a good one, sometimes bad, often it seems to be totally incomprehensible to anyone except the one wanting to do the fighting. I've noticed, as I'm sure you all have, that this is not isolated, it's not a paltry few who exhibit these tendancies, this madness, or whatever you want to call it... On a micro-scale I had this happen to me the other day, when my neibour disagreed with me and suggested that if I caused him to disagree with me again he'd take the law violently into his own hands proving that I was wrong by pounding me into a pulp. On a macro-scale the world watches US politics, or religious exponents pounding each other - just bigger bullies making the whole world their playground. With these thoughts, came questions, more observations and in my case, a desire to post here and ask others opinions on the matter. Here's what I thought, I'd like your opinions if you're willing to give them to me and the rest of the world as represented by the members of our little community: Why is it that there is such a lot of general crazyness and conflict? Is the need, the desire to impose your view of the world on someone else so overwhelming, so intense that it cannot be ignored? Why is it that people get into rabid foam-at-the-mouth flame wars online when someone disagrees with their opinion on what politican should be (or shouldn't be) selected to lead a country? Why are there similar discussions on what religion's people choose to follow? Is it that we've not evolved? Why do you all think people cant just accept that maybe they should just let it go and be happy with their own choices rather than trying to impose those choices on others? Surely if you're right and they're wrong in the long run you should be able to just sit back and enjoy the ride because it's not going to be you that burns (figuratively speaking usually). I'm curious about what everyone thinks about this.
Gryphon Posted November 9, 2004 Author Report Posted November 9, 2004 I should mention that the reason I'm asking this question here is that we all do such a good job of being polite to one another that I'm not expecting this to errupt into a full scale war. I'd prefer a sharing of polite opinions.
The Big Pointy One Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 Quite simply, I think it comes down to good ole' human nature. It's always been like the guy with the biggest stick wins. Although we like to think we've evolved from our primitive past of who knows how long ago, but that kind of instinct is still alive deep within us. As much as I hate to say it, I know what it feels like to be the bully. One on hand, you know it's wrong to push people around, but on the other hand its easy to do sometimes, and that feels nice; knowing that you're stronger. Of course, that doesn't make it right or acceptable or anything. Another point is, I think most people don't like being wrong, not to mention when someone believes in something strongly, they tend to defend it the best way they know how. Unfortunately, for most people defending what they like doesn't always involve reacting in the smartest way possible.
Venefyxatu Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 The Big Pointy One made some good points there... explaining why I sometimes find the word "civilization" to have a bitter taste. I often have the idea that being civilized means using complex and technologically advanced weapons instead of sticks and stones to kill people (it's an extreme point of view, I know, and I'm glad it only surfaces every now and then instead of haunting me 24/7 ). As for the big scale (read : politicians) there is that and the fact that power corrupts. I'm getting more and more convinced that in the end everyone, bar the odd one-in-a-century exception, would be corrupted if they had governing power over others. In the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy I found, among all the hilarity, an interesting remark concerning that : the one who is least willing to rule is the best person to do it. Or : those who don't want to rule won't be corrupted by their power... until they start enjoying their leadership. Other than that, I would also say human nature is the best possible answer : nobody likes to be wrong, so if two persons have different opinions on something that means they are both "threatening" the other one's "being right". And that's where human nature kicks in and they start defending themselves... I hope that didn't sound too confused. I could always try making it more complicated if you like (j/k)
Gryphon Posted November 9, 2004 Author Report Posted November 9, 2004 This all makes sence in a most unfortunate way. It's just the need for people to convert others to their way of thinking that gets me. Surely it'd be just as easy to agree to disagree, but no - one person always seems to have to bash the other in the head with a rock (figuratively speaking - I hope). And I know I may just be jumping back into the discussion early without giving everyone a chance, but it occured to me that earlier I lumped my question with politics and religion in the same sentence as the two generate similar reactions in people. But maybe they're only similar - not the same. Can anyone include a guess at what's with the madness that seems to circulate around religion? I mean that in a non-inflamatory way, religion just seems to generate a natural disaster zone much like the recent US elections did. I realise I'm generalizing in a chronic way here, but as always, it's not the people who's philosophy is live and let live that get noticed, it's the ones who insist that everyone must agree with them and them only. I liken that kind of attitude to a tornado or something similarly dangerous if you're foolish enough to step into it's path. So yes, any additional thoughts? Do religion and politics fall under the same heading in this case? (Now I wonder why people don't go mad and threaten and beat others into their way of thinking on other topics... why not have a big fight over other things humans feel passionate about - a fight over love? A fight over friendship? or do these things happen too and I'm just not paying enough attention?)
Peredhil Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 Spiritually from my understanding of Judo-Christian based literature, it would be because "Satan" is the screwed up competative world as it is according to "common sense" and "being realistic". The reason as given according to my understanding is that God gave Adam the responsibility and authority (which translates to ownership and dominion) over the earth and its creatures. When Adam committed treason by his disobedience, he effectively gave that ownership to the devil. I believe that at one place, the devil is referred to as the 'god of this world' to indicate his ownership. That Jesus the anointed didn't just laugh at the devil when offered control of the powers and principalities and stuff, but instead answered it seriously with the word of God, would suggest this as well. I do like that when Jesus rejects Peter's entirely sensible (according to the priorities of the world's logic) suggestion, it is with "get behind me Satan" - dealing with the source of the suggestion. I also like that that was the end of it - no one freaked out and treated Peter like a leper just because he'd messed up. So that's one point of view. Of course, when using spiritual matters as an excuse to act on worldly desires, you get the very well documented results which appear in every human culture of which I'm aware. All human societies have some form of religion, and all of them of which I've read have a record of some abuse of that religion. Now, moving to a worldly five-senses view of the same issue... Genetically speaking, it only makes sense to kill those different from your genetic line, since they compete for resources. If someone is visibly different, the likelihood of shared genes is smaller, so it doesn't make genetic sense to share resources unless they are a female under your culture's control, so they can combine their genes with yours. Conservation of the Seed helps to explain why males will die for their genetic lines. Males are able to reproduce for a much longer period of time, and can impregnate many females. Therefore, they're more expendible genetically speaking. Men also have a need for confidence, status in the society, and resources capabilities to be genetically attractive. Consider "Joe Millionare", where females were willing to prostitute themselves with a stranger for the chance of a million dollars. Status confers ability to protect the spawn. etc. etc. If you think of it from the sperm and eggs points of view, most of this is pretty obvious deduction. Of course, if someone fixes your starting point, no matter how wrong, the arguments are much more likely to build their way...
reverie Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 (edited) My take on all this is Perspective and or Frame of Reference. I think philophers might also refer to it as a mythos... Anyway, my belief is that everyone has a unique take of view on things. Elements of which are defined and inspired by the culture and enviroment they grow up and thrive in. Everyone may share common elements that make up a person's viewpoint, but how an individual interprets all this i.e. the world for the most part uniquely his or her own. So, what i'm getting at, is everyone has a world outlook or view. Those that have a more rigidly defined perspective will become very defensive if one of the founding elements of their viewpoint is challenge. Examples of this could be the existance of God, the validity of evolution, the nature of the universe. or even the an uninformed belief that the science of the day is set in stone...(this runs contrary to nature of science which is constantly evolving under the microscope of investigation) Some Eastern religions may have it easier than western one's when challenged. Buddist and Taoist kinda just go with the flow... where certain branches of christanity and islam are dead set of converted everyone else to their viewpoint. Hmm, oh so my point is this: 1. People operate within a frame a reference/perspective that is uniquely their own. 2. People become defensive if a founding principle is challenge. 3. Defense can turn reactionary and irrational is core principles are shaken. Also i believe, that having your perspective challenge is a good thing. This happens all the time, most people will seek to rationalize this or attempt to assemulate a new view into their own. Compromises usually occur; life is give and take. Kids grown up and accept that there is no Santa Clause or Eastern Bunny. Hopefully they will grow from the challenges and literally expand their horizons. A danger though is people becoming jaded I guess... rev... Edited November 10, 2004 by reverie
Gryphon Posted November 10, 2004 Author Report Posted November 10, 2004 1. People operate within a frame a reference/perspective that is uniquely their own. 2. People become defensive if a founding principle is challenge. 3. Defense can turn reactionary and irrational is core principles are shaken. So basically, if I may paraphase and expand, hopefully not too incorrectly here: Most people drift along with their 'rose coloured' glasses on, assuming the world is all good and happy and everyone agrees with them and their perspective... Then someone comes along and says, "actually... you're wrong or at least not entirely right about... we can insert a section on politics or religion here" and suddenly the world is no longer a rosy friendly place making our happy person go all defensive thus possibly starting a shut down in their ability to think and discuss and turning on their ability to... turn nasty and possibly even violent in defense of their previous viewpoint, now being challenged. Instead of grasping the idea that someone might not actually agree with them and acknowledge that everyone has the right to their own opinion, they launch into a full out attack designed to intimidate, threaten and where ever possible convert the person who's disagreeing with them to their own point of view. This as a result often causes the first person to fight back, be it verbally or intellectually, starts a chain reaction of ignorance and stupidity. Which possibly explains why people react in a similar way in both political and religious discussion, and to harken back to a much earlier point also explains why my neibour was offering to beat me to a pulp because I dared point out that he was being inconsiderate towards the needs of others. Am I off the mark here? Anyone?
cryptomancer Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 Ok... look at it from the point of view of an argument. *presses play on 'the argument sketch' by monty python* M: I came here for a good argument! O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument! M: An argument isn't just contradiction. O: Well! it CAN be! M: No it can't! M: An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't! M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position! M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't". O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! O: Yes it is! M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. O: It is NOT! M: It is! O: Not at all! M: It is! For those that take contridiction to an extreme, you can punctuate each statement with a punch, kick , or other violent act. If you are going to argue with another on a subject, the point is not to convince them of you being right, the point it to show the logical progression of experence and learning that has brought you to the conclusion that you hold as your view. The attempt to 'convert' the other to your way of thinking meets resistance. Simply allowing them to understand your view is the improtant thing. Form the viewpoint of Christian evangelization, the evangelist is not the reason the convert changes his world view and joins the church, the evangelist sows the seed of insight, of knowledge of another path. The statement that a lot of protestant churches hold to in conversion, "You are saved by grace alone" shows this. the evangelist does not convert by the power of his argument, or testamony, the evangelist simply stands and point to another path to walk in life. The convert is then given the right of free will, a gift of human nature, the ability to choose. His choice is made from his own world view, being compared to the new. The power of the message for many that convert is accompanied by a insight into the spiritual nature of the new path, the so called faith experience. They convert based on their view, and the influence of a spiritual experence that causes what most self help books call a paradigm shift, the instant and total change of a world view of a person, by an experence, or other influencing factor. In short, without the 'influencing factor' or a complete understanding of the new point of view, any attempt to persuade, convince or change a persons views will be met with a stronger more agressive defense. Conflict becomes stronger and has more capacity for violence in the arena of politics and religion because the views of different groups are so different. Even among the denominations of Christianity for example the views and belief systems differ greatly, causing conflict. Yet if you look at it and accept the views and logic that the beliefs of the other factions are based on, you can grow to understand and accept them. Many Christian groups share the view that the morality and lifestyle held up by Hollywood and the American Media through TV and Advertising are contary to their belief system, yet those same groups find it so hard to believe that Islam sees America as evil because those same views are all that are shown to advertise the alternative to their way of life, offered by America. Just as Islam sees Christians tieing themselvs to a society that they find contary to the beliefs of Islam, and as a result see it [christianity] as evil too.
Gryphon Posted November 10, 2004 Author Report Posted November 10, 2004 I once read a book about a war starting because two different species couldn't understand one anothers language. The basic premise was that if you don't know for sure that the other guy isn't saying "I'm going to kill you now, ok?" then you better take steps to make sure that you're going to be the one left standing at the end of the 'conversation'. Perhaps this is a simplified repitition of what you're saying? (I hope I've not simplified it too far, I'm just trying to bounce the idea back in a different context to see if I'm getting it.) The major difference being that in that book the lack of understanding was limited largely to language. You're referring to having a lack of understanding of an entire belief system - be it religious or political. In that book the two species eventually learnt to communicate and when they did the first thing they asked each other was "Why did you start the war?" the second thing out of both their collective mouthes was "What do you mean us? It was you!" Here's what I'm wondering now. You mention the evangelist showing people that another path is available and leaving it up to their choice to take it or not. That would be the ideal way for people to typically conduct themselves, wouldn't it? Communicate, let the other person know the options in front of them and all the facts they want but presumably never your own opinion because if it's different to their own thats when the conflict and resistance starts. If they don't pick the path you've shown them, that's their call and good luck to them. That sounds like it would work in the political and religious arena. My question becomes this: Take someone who offers the options, the facts, sometimes their opinions on a new path, or a new set of options. Our convincer sees the person they were 'trying to convince' turn from the new path offered them and return to their old path and in response they switch to convert-by-violence mode. Are they following a corrupt version of the original ideal? Or have they got it totally wrong and they're just borrowing technique from the person who has it right? It occurs to me that most people would rather bash at someone than offer them choices and then live and let live with the decisions made.
Knight Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 Alright folks... There is no easy way to say this, but to say it. People are not born good- they are not born evil, either. They are a product of their rearing. Good and evil are qualitative things, and are subjective to individual viewpoints. The individual is a product of the nurture he has received, which is a product of the nature around him. Man kind is still growing and evolving from the hunter-gatherer society that preceeded what we have at this point, and it's taken us what? Tens of thousands of years of progression? And to be honest, people are still out killing each other over petty differences. Why? Why does man overcome his natural aversion to killing other men? (This is actually a scientific fact- provded in several studies.) It is because of his environment, which directly affects his upbringing. One must understand that, before one can understand why man acts the way he does. Now, there are exceptions to every rule- not everybody who was raised to be kind, just, and fair will turn out that way. There are multiple causes for this- and it's not something one can pin down regularly. So, we establish these things- and we realize that man, despite it all, despite his upbringing has the capacity for both good, and evil. You may wonder why I use good and evil throughout this statement- it is all qualitative. It is easier to understand these two items, which we as a collective seem to understand, and realize what they are about, than it is to understand the reasons than it is to understand the items in question. Why people force two opposite sets of views down one another, or whatnot- the polarity difference. If you look at it in more concrete terms - the ideas themselves being the good vs. evil, if you will (while not actually being so) - it becomes a bit easier to see. It's just the sad state of life that people will try to convert others to their views. Is it wrong? Most likely not. Is it fair? That depends. It all depends on how a person views things. And what it all boils down to is that people are still different- we aren't a collective, and we won't be. And we will be radically different from each other, while we may have a similiar systems of beliefs. I don't know if this makes sense, but this is what I've been trying to get at in my roundabout way, in this post. Sorry if I've confused anyone...
Tamaranis Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 I'm gonna take what Peredhil said about genetics way back third post or so and kinda run with it here. There is a certain instinct to destroy, isolate, etc, those who are different. I wouldn't chalk this up to a desire to be surrounded with genomes similar to your own, though, for two reasons. The first is that in people of the opposite gender a certain amount of difference from the norm is often desirable. We are attracted to things that are "exotic." The second reason is that more genetically diverse populations in general seem to have better survival odds. What I suggest instead is that people (of the same gender) are seen as a threat if they are different because they are attractive to the opposite gender and are therefore creating a lot of competition for mates. In our society now the gender walls to this sort of thinking break down a little because of social roles and all sorts of things more complicated for us than for randomly wandering groups of pack animals. Just a thought. On the note of might makes right... no one thinks that who doesn't have the might. Maybe some guy is bigger than you and the thinks that if he pounds you into the ground to make you agree with him then it's okay because he was able to do it. If he were trying to pound some one into the ground and that person were to suddenly begin stabbing or shooting him, he would most likely not think that because this other person has the power to do so that makes it okay. The "might makes right" attitude is really very hypocritical.
Gryphon Posted November 11, 2004 Author Report Posted November 11, 2004 I like the indication that might makes right - only as long as you're winning. That's an all to human sentiment. I'm thinking about these last few posts particularly in relation to Cryptomancer's post about showing the option of another path and letting the other person decide if they're going to take it. Add to that the fact that mankind is still evolving - obviously slowly - away from beating each other in the head with rocks as punctuation for proving their point and I had a new series of thoughts. Worrying ones. If we're still close enough to our roots that the old rock-to-the-skull method is most often used to convert someone else to your point of view. And if those who argue using a rock are more likely to walk away alive from the arguement ensuring by natural selection that the rock users are more likely to survive to breed. Does that indicate that instead of evolving - we as a race are going to devolve back to a state where using your brain doesn't matter so much as how big a rock you can swing? Fortunately, by and large, the rocks are proverbial. Unfortunately, they do get replaced by fists, feet or other weapons. I don't (for the record) believe that the rock swingers are going to inherit the earth, at least not straight away. More I'm wondering how you can encourage people to use their brain to think and to reason rather than to scratch themselves and pick up a rock. I know we encourage turning the brain on here, and making use of it, so in essence I'm 'preaching to' or at least asking the converted, but you must have all seen variants of internet rock swinging - flame wars - recently. Look at some of what errupted online with the US election and kerry vs bush. I guess to clarify the 'babble' I just indulged in down to a clear(ish) question: What is it that can be done - online if nowhere else - to encourage people to use their brain for thought and discussion rather than variants of the Monty Python argument so aptly shown by Cryptomancer? Are we doomed to wait until everyone else evolves, or at least until they learn to turn on their brains and join us?
Tamaranis Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 Evolution doesn't really work quite that way... There's no rule that it's got to go in any one particular direction... There's no such thing as de-evolution. What people think of as being "de-evolution" is actually regular evolution. Evolution is really just change in the genetic makeup of a species over time. The term doesn't actually imply the species is somehow getting better. Usually it means the species is becoming better adapted to survive its environment, but not always. What I'm saying here is that if evolution pushes humans to resort to violence more quickly than they do now this is not some sort of bizarre reverse, evolution, it's just evolution. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that people will necessarily become stupid, just less likely to use the thinking power they've got. Evolution is very slow to remove a trait that doesn't affect the survival rate in either direction. As for the rest of the world evolving to become more reasonable... I don't really see that there's any selective pressure for that. Hotheads kill cool-headed people as often as they get into trouble resulting in their own deaths, I think. Just like we're not about to get any smarter. It's not like dumb people don't have kids... We could conceivably diverge into an intelligent and an unintelligent form of human over a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years. I think both forms of human would probably be quite aggressive and hostile and the smarter ones would probably kill off the dumb ones. A series of such species divergences and extinctions could push us to be a little smarter, but as a single species we're not going to just start levitating stuff around the room one day... Of course the whole scenario is extremely unlikely because as I said before, diverse genomes tend to have the advantage and it's starting to look like if too many of the "smart" genes end up in one person it leads to a variety of mental disorders unless there's a few "dumb" ones along for the ride. I guess the point I'm really trying to make here is: Don't hold out for humanity to evolve into something better, because it's not going to happen any time soon. I tend to run off topic, sometimes...
Mynx Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I think in the end it simply comes down to human nature and the dislike for change. You spend your life being told one thing, to the point where you believe it so emphatically, and as soon as someone comes along, with the same upbringing but about another aspect of life or religion, trying to tell you that everything you have believed is wrong... For a so-called advanced race, we are surprisingly primitive in our reaction to change. To take a story from the Bible, look at when Moses freed the slaves from Egypt's control (Old Testament). The Pharoh had become so used to having his slaves around, that even when God plagued his land with curses, he still refused to give up the people. He believed the people were his slaves by right and refused to even consider letting them go because it would mean more work for him, as a result sending his entire army after the escaping slaves and losing their and his life by an act of God. Now I know not all here are Catholic and this isn't me shoving my religion down someone's throat, but considering that this was recorded to have happened well over 2000 years ago, don't you think it's kind of funny that nothing has really changed after all these years? I just put it down to the primative nature of humans. For all we have made advancements in, you'd think we could possibly take a look at our history and maybe learn from it, wouldn't you?
reverie Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 (edited) ...small note: Don't forgot some culture place more emphasis on logic and reason while other cultures or even subcultures place emphasis on emotion and passion. Reconciling these two are very difficult as an individual brought in either group will intepret events and facts in entire different ways... Knight: I don't think it's as simple as a people acting out of good or evil in qualitative terms or otherwise... I think using the terms confuses the issue. People take action in a way that best suit their needs. They act either in their best interest of themselves, their families, friends, allies, society in general or something they are loyal to... if nothing else then for just their own survival. Everything is relative to the situation at hand. rev... Edited November 11, 2004 by reverie
Vigil StarGazer Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I think one important point has be avoided so far in this argument. Sure enought the world has conflicts everywhere, but back in the 70's to the 80's and even the 90's people just don't care... the issues outside doesn't affect or touches the lives of people in other countries... that was before the avent of globalization. Now everyone is connected to one place, we get news and updates from around the world instantly. An event that happened from one side of the globe have repucsions around the world. That is why you are all suddenly aware, but the problem has and will also presist within human kind. Relatively speaking now the playground got smaller so every kid can see kids beating other kids up. Where ever there is people there's conflict, it just used to be behind the curtains now everything is open doors and world wide. Still there's the problem people becoming more stupid. The cause of the stupidization of the world is that we failed at raising our own children. I blame that on the failure of our education system and the popularization of TV in the 80's. TV basically tempers with our childhood developement and now video games made it worst. Another problem is the laxing of our education, and not just schooling but also in parental discipline. We used to be able to beat our kids up ... now psychologist are telling us that'll screw the kid up... but children never had also problems until those so call psychologist or child specialist intervene. In the good old days children has to learn to cook and clean and take care of themselves by the age of 14... they live outside once they hit 18 to earn their own keep... get married around age 20ish and there goes life... now it's just worst... people can be still stupid and ignorant even at 20... they don't know how to take care of themselves even when they became full adult. the combination of these three trends will be as follows: the intelligence of people are slowly decaying, they've grown soft because of this sheltered and virtual enviroment created by mass media with corrupted values and ideals. With the downgrade of intelligences conflicts will looked to be childish because most can't even generate an intellectual argument, less likely an intelligent solution. In short, mankind is doomed.
Peredhil Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 Side notes: If intelligence is genetic, and intelligent people realize that over-population is a problem and avoid breeding large families - does that mean stupidity will eventually out-breed the intelligent? A recent study of the effects of Television on children showed a startling 100% of children who watched 3+ hours of TV a day ended up testing positive for Attention Deficit Disorder. Glaring fatigue error: Children UNDER THE AGE OF TWO who watched 3+ hours etc Amazing how facts distort when you leave things out...
Cheyenne Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 To All~ Mankind is wonderful and magnificant in all its glory and shame. We, humans in general, are a gift, one the we all tend to take for granted from time to time. I feel no sense of responsibility to be nice or polite to anyone on these boards, and from time to time have made enemies. However I do strive to give respect as it is given and love to those in need as that is my nature. For the most part I have found most arguments or strife is due to miscommunication or a need to be heard. The need to be heard portion of the writers are usually wanting attention and bad attention is better than none at all...much like a 3 year old. Even in hot political or religious debates one can be adamant on their stance without being....well, an ass. It is all how the person themselves WANT to be taken and how you are going to react. Life is about attitude. Even when it sucks, if you can smile and still see and believe in the miracle of life, the world around you, then you are more than halfway there. Life is simply a series of small pictures. We all need to look less at the small picture of ourselves and the larger picture of mankind. my 2 cents anyway Cheye~
Cheyenne Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 ps...long time since I posted, what's this weenie thing?
Zadown Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 It shows you haven't posted in a long time, Cheyenne. Be thankful you are not a mollusc! PS. Welcome back!
Gryphon Posted November 11, 2004 Author Report Posted November 11, 2004 Peredhil: If intelligence is genetic, and intelligent people realize that over-population is a problem and avoid breeding large families - does that mean stupidity will eventually out-breed the intelligent? Yes quite possiby... assuming the premise that intelligence is genetic is true. The other possibility being that the intelligent will come up with a way to stop the 'stupid' from breeding. Vigil StarGazer: I think one important point has be avoided so far in this argument. I didn't want this to be an arguement. I wanted some ideas and discussions on thoughts I'd been having. I'm going to hope that the topic hasn't devolved (evolved Tamaranis?) into an arguement and thank you all for contributing. Now if I can ask something else. Does anyone else follow what I've been thinking about? Do you all, as a sample of a global community as well as a community here at the Pen that I've willingly become a part of understand where my thoughts have been wandering? To be fair I dont always follow the wandering of my own thoughts, so I'm not asking you to be able to get inside my mind, what I really want to know is how many others have seen things, read things etc that got you thinking something similar to what I've come up with in my individual posts in this thread.
Tamaranis Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 (edited) (evolved Tamaranis?)Yes Edited November 11, 2004 by Tamaranis
Cheyenne Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 It shows you haven't posted in a long time, Cheyenne. Be thankful you are not a mollusc! PS. Welcome back! watcha mean it shows?! Geez....you could have just answered my question! And since my dictionary is in my other pants...whats mollusc? Oh, and I am not back, I never left. I stopped in here from time to time just have not posted. Thanks all the same though.
reverie Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 chey... every few months or even annually? the pen has a roll call for all active members. If you miss the role call you are dubbed a weenie... until you post a an orginal work with the phrase: "Buying off the Weenie" somewhere in the title post. Happened to me last time too... no big deal see this thread for more details: http://www.patrickdurham.net/themightypen/index.php?showtopic=12317 rev...
Recommended Posts