Author Topic: Official Off-Topic Thread  (Read 267782 times)

Offline Ben2theEdge

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 503
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • I'ma drink mah coffee!
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #350 on: January 27, 2009, 02:04:22 PM »
Helm I can't at the moment respond to everything you wrote, but the foundation of your understanding people like me is flawed.
You begin by assuming that I invented God out of some kind of need I had. I didn't invent God at all. You have to prove I did because many of your beliefs are founded on that assumption. But as long as you do that, I won't make any sense to you.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 02:12:23 PM by Ben2theEdge »
I mild from suffer dislexia.

Offline Panda

  • Administrator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1015
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • 威風堂々
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #351 on: January 27, 2009, 02:27:55 PM »
Color me interested in your reply to Helm's post.

Assuming you didn't receive your religious beliefs through family or location, what kind of experiences or situations made you realize the existence of a god?
And then, if you indeed realized that there is a deity over us, what made you choose a religion over the others, or at all?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 05:18:05 PM by Panda »

Offline SolidIdea

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #352 on: January 27, 2009, 02:52:14 PM »
Helm I can't at the moment respond to everything you wrote, but the foundation of your understanding people like me is flawed.
You begin by assuming that I invented God out of some kind of need I had. I didn't invent God at all. You have to prove I did because many of your beliefs are founded on that assumption. But as long as you do that, I won't make any sense to you.

That's kinda where I was trying to get at. But...
You did not invent God, that's true. There was something inside you (and all of us for the matter), maybe since you gave your first steps, that would answer your questions, and question your answers. A "self" not tangible even by the ultimate grasps of conscience which makes even stranger to us that it's called a self.
This imbroglio can evolve into many things such as faith, the relation of your self with the self of others, which may be very true the God inside of all.
I guess what Helm is trying to, is to get an answer (the need he believes you had) that determines the turning point or realization of the presence/existence of a God.
That's a valid and fair questioning even though something like that is hard to pinpoint since most of the time is a road of events (life, difficulties faced in, problems, joys, questions answered or not). That's why I said he isn't trying to understand, it takes a lot more than the 2 to substitute x in 1 + 1 = x.

EDIT:
Just so it doesn't see like I went over Helm's reply:
The risky questions as exemplified are as complicated as it gets. It's like question "how did we get here?" and hoping for an answer that suits.
A scientist can go as far as the creation of the cosmo, but before that there wasn't?
I see you are genuinely interested in seeing a reasoning behind his faith, but first you should be aware that this goes far beyond if god is thermodinamically (sp?) possible or not.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 03:29:34 PM by SolidIdea »

Offline Helm

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Beyond the unborn, pillars of penance and lore
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #353 on: January 27, 2009, 04:05:30 PM »
Ben take your time, if you ever have it, to paint me a picture. I sincerily can't see how an idea of a God as strictly defined as that of the christian faith can occur to you naturally, I can only see it being socially impressed on you (which is what the 'invention' I'm talking about is). If I'm wrong I'd really like to see the alter apars more clearly.

Offline The B.O.B.

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 691
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • currently losering it up...
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #354 on: January 27, 2009, 05:42:55 PM »
   In this case, I always feel that discussing the battle between  Science and Religion is masturbatory. Everybody knows that the opposing sides go no where with it, and it's an endless battle. Conversing over it, I guess, just seems like something to do when you're bored, and never truly serves an endpoint, other than "we'll never agree with each other, but lets just keep on debating till we die." Just more questions, doubt in the other side, and in the worst case scenario(but a small percentage), anger and hostility. Granted, anger and hostility comes from religious FANATICS majority of the time, but it's never right to assume all religious people would do the same.
   To me, the basis of Science and Religion is really a challenge between knowledge and faith: ie, "I have faith that you will do this", will always combat " I KNOW that you will do this." Knowing something will happen, always seems to have a neutral connotation to it. Bad things can come of it, and so can good things come of it, but the point is, it was known to happen anyway. The brain is wired this way, we can't help it. It's kind of the same reasoning as something hitting you in the gut: if the hit is known prior, the brain will try to prepare itself chemically and mentally, before hand. If it isn't known, and the hit comes out of no where, the brain doesn't have time to prepare, and pain sensors sometime go into overload. Where as faith comes into play, it's a matter of wanting to believe that something will happen. That something is expected without so much factual evidence. Could be possible that what ever it is, it's happened before, you've seen it with your own eyes, but you EXPECT it to happen again, rather than KNOW. And this is the problem.
   Now I know religion, in terms of definition, is NOT the same thing as faith, more so partners in crime with each other. However, don't these debates seem to always end up against a brick wall at this point, when knowledge is challenged against faith? Both parties are equally intelligent enough to at least know that the 2 word's definitions are not one in the same, yet one or the other keeps asking why? Seriously an endless circle jerk of people who aren't seeing the greater picture here...and I mean the fanatics of BOTH sides, not just one.
   For the time being, however, it's much easier to pick on religion, as it's outdated, and has far less firmware upgrades than that of Science. Science isn't totally perfect, however. It just has a better way of answering it's previous flaws and wrong answers by calling it's current statements "theories." It's kind of like saying "this is the answer for now, until proven wrong later on. If someone challenges us, we'll just tell them it was a theory, and that it wasn't concrete to begin with, and prone to change with future updates."...Science has built itself fairly well on this concept and it works fine, to be quite honest. We've gotten modern medicine, technology, and healthier because of it. But again, it's not perfect either. After all, we once thought the world was flat, and look what happened there(I know, I know, it's an easy target...but I had to ...).
   I guess to put it simply, I will agree with others in that Religion is flawed in many ways. It's also very hard to defend against a "science" man's perspective. But if there really is a true God out there, I'm sure our simple scientific theories will still NEVER fully understand it's entity and well being, or how it came into effect, probably because this God-like entity has been around for so long, that it's at a much higher intelligible level than we are. Also, I'm sure it moved on many billion years ago to other side projects, rather than dealing with a couple of living beings who debate over trite things such as this. I'm sure there are other living beings, possibly more advanced than us, that also have this same conversation, and also get no where with it. So I guess if it ever came down to it, and I were to meet this God, any question I would first ask him would probably have an answer something close to " Uhmmm, which Universe are you from again?"

*heh, such an abrupt sentence to end a long series of masturbatory paragraphs, that derive too far from the main subject. Oh the irony...*

my back hurts...

Offline Conceit

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1251
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Camus
    • View Profile
    • Conceit
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #355 on: January 27, 2009, 05:58:50 PM »
http://www.konjak.org/index.htm

Well done konjak, a ton of fun to play :)
QFT! very very good. I would eat up in an instant anything like that he released....too bad this kind of one man-treasure type thing never gets noticed on a wide scale in the web. Maybe he should make one where the hero is science and the bad guy is religion. That way he'd get all the fucking attention in the world.

Offline Rydin

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 840
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ...zzzt...
    • View Profile
    • wvo8ovw
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #356 on: January 27, 2009, 08:31:51 PM »
I sincerily can't see how an idea of a God as strictly defined as that of the christian faith can occur to you naturally, I can only see it being socially impressed on you (which is what the 'invention' I'm talking about is).

Yes, and all feral children are literate and know modus ponens?  Some thing being socially impressed on you doesn't make it wrong does it?

I agree that most religion is unnecessarily intricate, though. 

If there is a biblical god, his creation of humanity shows that he knows a little bit about genetics; his living in the heavens shows that he knows something about space travel; his punishment of humanity and "thou shalt have no other gods" deal shows that he is power hungry and full of himself; nothing really too frightening or worship-worthy to me.  He's a dick--don't get me wrong, his vast knowledge of science is admirable--but I suppose there are dicks littered all about the universe. 

Modern science knows that everything is vibrating energy in one way or another. Lots of religions refer to this spiritually.  Maybe some other dude made all this vibrating energy, but its being multidimensional and mysterious and everything makes it very hard to even begin to comprehend. Something so incomprehensible is worth my attention.

There's two cents for y'all.
-upsdn-

Offline SolidIdea

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #357 on: January 27, 2009, 09:21:55 PM »
Not trying to deviate from the subject but...
Does anyone know any good books about watercolor and it's techniques?

Offline Emtch

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #358 on: January 27, 2009, 10:08:21 PM »
All this fuzz about a little comic. It's the same with every forum I've ever been on, as soon as someone makes a religion joke people go batshit.

SO WHAT IF SOMEONE INSULTS YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND?
Stop taking shit and decide for yourself whether or not to believe.

If people want to believe in an almighty being that creates it's own enemies and contradicts itself, the fine.
But don't get mad at us realists for believing in the suff that actually makes sense and that has proof it's correct.

Offline SolidIdea

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #359 on: January 27, 2009, 10:45:03 PM »
All this fuzz about a little comic. It's the same with every forum I've ever been on, as soon as someone makes a religion joke people go batshit.

SO WHAT IF SOMEONE INSULTS YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND?
Stop taking shit and decide for yourself whether or not to believe.

If people want to believe in an almighty being that creates it's own enemies and contradicts itself, the fine.
But don't get mad at us realists for believing in the suff that actually makes sense and that has proof it's correct.

I hate being rude but, shut up.
You clearly didn't read through the discussion and you are being the main offender here. Worst than going batshit over something, is going batshit over nothing which is clearly your case right here.

Offline Emtch

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #360 on: January 27, 2009, 11:41:16 PM »
All this fuzz about a little comic. It's the same with every forum I've ever been on, as soon as someone makes a religion joke people go batshit.

SO WHAT IF SOMEONE INSULTS YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND?
Stop taking shit and decide for yourself whether or not to believe.

If people want to believe in an almighty being that creates it's own enemies and contradicts itself, the fine.
But don't get mad at us realists for believing in the suff that actually makes sense and that has proof it's correct.

I hate being rude but, shut up.
You clearly didn't read through the discussion and you are being the main offender here. Worst than going batshit over something, is going batshit over nothing which is clearly your case right here.

I'm completely calm. And yes I did read the discussion.
Worse than goin batshit over something, is jumping conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing here. Ignorance at it's worst.

Offline Helm

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Beyond the unborn, pillars of penance and lore
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #361 on: January 28, 2009, 12:06:30 AM »
Please no name calling and please also, don't tell people to shut up. The conversation's been civil up to now and I see no reason for this ugliness.

Offline Larwick

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #362 on: January 28, 2009, 12:46:29 AM »
Perhaps it's time to give this discussion its own topic? This is the off-topic thread after all.
Very interesting to read btw guys.

Science is all about trying to find answers, as far as i understand or hope. If you don't know something for sure (or as sure as to be the logical choice), why go with an option such as a god to understand the reason for your existance or those unanswered questions - something which is only backable by belief?

Also i personally find it very sad when someone fears what would happen after death so much that they would believe in, worship or follow the moral rules of something just incase.
One thing that really shook me off from religion was afterlife. The whole idea of a bad afterlife and a good aftelife really frustrate me. You cannot control where or when in the world you were born, or as a result who teaches you as you grow up or the experiences you eventually come across that shape your personality and life. If you are a bad person, it's not necissarily your fault, in the same way that every child is born innocent. And the vision of a infinite good afterlife, or heaven, i find extremely worrying. It would make that life worthless, having endless time and goodness and equality. There would be no point in it.
Also if you are reincarnated, surely there would be no sense of you in that new reincarnation - how can you possibly know, or act upon the fact you are a reincarnation. Even if at the end you can look upon your experiences, why not just look at the experiences of any group of animals or people? What is the difference? What is the point?

I constantly spell religion, religeon! Goddammit lol.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 01:26:59 AM by Larwick »

Offline ptoing

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 2735
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • View Profile
    • PPPP
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #363 on: January 28, 2009, 01:04:18 AM »
How about no? Religion is off topic when it comes to pixelling, so there wont be an extra thread for this or any other thing not somehow related to pixelling.
    I gots Twitter!
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline Larwick

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #364 on: January 28, 2009, 01:39:10 AM »
How about no? Religion is off topic when it comes to pixelling, so there wont be an extra thread for this or any other thing not somehow related to pixelling.

Ah yeah sorry, forgot this was [Pixel Art] General Discussion.  :-[

Offline Willows

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #365 on: January 28, 2009, 01:43:50 AM »
Cool. tons of things to read, not enough time to read 'em all and make any kind of cohesive response.

I do, however, disagree on the "Religion, It's something you choose!" statement made much earlier.

I was born(?) and raised a christian, taught christian fundamentals and ideals and told that there only is christianity, and all other options are some voodoo nonsense... grossly exaggerated of course, but the idea is there. Christianity is the "only way" and anything else I learned about in school came with a "This isn't true" disclaimer.

Christianity wasn't a choice for me 'till I was 18, and even now I run on a bastardized, personalized version of christianity because nothing else has ever presented itself as a reasonable alternative to believing in an omnipresent deity. I theoretically have a choice in the matter, but the most choice I have is to get the tattoo I have removed and get another one elsewhere; there will always be traces of the original.

Offline ptoing

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 2735
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • View Profile
    • PPPP
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #366 on: January 28, 2009, 01:49:28 AM »
That sounds like an extreme case scenario there tho. Of course the amount of indoctrination at an early age will have an effect on your believes, though I know people who were raised quite religious and they think religion is bogus, and mean it. Just because for you youe upbringing left a deeper religious indent in your superego does not mean this is the same for everyone.
    I gots Twitter!
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline skw

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 386
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Stuck in the Nineties.
    • View Profile
    • Johnny Theodore Customs
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #367 on: January 28, 2009, 02:50:38 AM »
The vast majority of people (+90%) living in a country I was born and raised in declare themselves as Christian Catholics.  I do not.

Quote from: Gautama Buddha
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
Quote
Even a common man by obtaining knowledge becomes a Buddha.
sexual content, click at your own risk! https://www.facebook.com/szumprodukcje /also known as skurwy

Offline .TakaM

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1175
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • .II
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #368 on: January 28, 2009, 03:09:23 AM »
Cool. tons of things to read, not enough time to read 'em all and make any kind of cohesive response.

I do, however, disagree on the "Religion, It's something you choose!" statement made much earlier.

I was born(?) and raised a christian, taught christian fundamentals and ideals and told that there only is christianity, and all other options are some voodoo nonsense... grossly exaggerated of course, but the idea is there. Christianity is the "only way" and anything else I learned about in school came with a "This isn't true" disclaimer.

Christianity wasn't a choice for me 'till I was 18, and even now I run on a bastardized, personalized version of christianity because nothing else has ever presented itself as a reasonable alternative to believing in an omnipresent deity. I theoretically have a choice in the matter, but the most choice I have is to get the tattoo I have removed and get another one elsewhere; there will always be traces of the original.
How do you disagree on the "decision" statement?

I was also born and raised a christian, going to church every sunday etc, always felt terrible for even thinking about considering other possibilities, but it took catholic highschool to make me realize how much I hated that mind control.
To be perfectly blunt, I find less and less to respect about religion as I grow, there are still values worth admiring, but I believe they aren't exclusive to religion in the first place.

I'm still comforted by the idea of a God, but I view that as a personal shortcoming.
No offense to anyone implied, I'm not a very philosophical person and I don't have much more to say about the matter.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 03:13:17 AM by .TakaM »
Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Offline Shrike

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Yub Yub!
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #369 on: January 28, 2009, 04:09:33 AM »
   In this case, I always feel that discussing the battle between  Science and Religion is masturbatory. Everybody knows that the opposing sides go no where with it, and it's an endless battle. Conversing over it, I guess, just seems like something to do when you're bored, and never truly serves an endpoint, other than "we'll never agree with each other, but lets just keep on debating till we die." Just more questions, doubt in the other side, and in the worst case scenario(but a small percentage), anger and hostility. Granted, anger and hostility comes from religious FANATICS majority of the time, but it's never right to assume all religious people would do the same.
   To me, the basis of Science and Religion is really a challenge between knowledge and faith: ie, "I have faith that you will do this", will always combat " I KNOW that you will do this." Knowing something will happen, always seems to have a neutral connotation to it. Bad things can come of it, and so can good things come of it, but the point is, it was known to happen anyway. The brain is wired this way, we can't help it. It's kind of the same reasoning as something hitting you in the gut: if the hit is known prior, the brain will try to prepare itself chemically and mentally, before hand. If it isn't known, and the hit comes out of no where, the brain doesn't have time to prepare, and pain sensors sometime go into overload. Where as faith comes into play, it's a matter of wanting to believe that something will happen. That something is expected without so much factual evidence. Could be possible that what ever it is, it's happened before, you've seen it with your own eyes, but you EXPECT it to happen again, rather than KNOW. And this is the problem.
   Now I know religion, in terms of definition, is NOT the same thing as faith, more so partners in crime with each other. However, don't these debates seem to always end up against a brick wall at this point, when knowledge is challenged against faith? Both parties are equally intelligent enough to at least know that the 2 word's definitions are not one in the same, yet one or the other keeps asking why? Seriously an endless circle jerk of people who aren't seeing the greater picture here...and I mean the fanatics of BOTH sides, not just one.
   For the time being, however, it's much easier to pick on religion, as it's outdated, and has far less firmware upgrades than that of Science. Science isn't totally perfect, however. It just has a better way of answering it's previous flaws and wrong answers by calling it's current statements "theories." It's kind of like saying "this is the answer for now, until proven wrong later on. If someone challenges us, we'll just tell them it was a theory, and that it wasn't concrete to begin with, and prone to change with future updates."...Science has built itself fairly well on this concept and it works fine, to be quite honest. We've gotten modern medicine, technology, and healthier because of it. But again, it's not perfect either. After all, we once thought the world was flat, and look what happened there(I know, I know, it's an easy target...but I had to ...).
   I guess to put it simply, I will agree with others in that Religion is flawed in many ways. It's also very hard to defend against a "science" man's perspective. But if there really is a true God out there, I'm sure our simple scientific theories will still NEVER fully understand it's entity and well being, or how it came into effect, probably because this God-like entity has been around for so long, that it's at a much higher intelligible level than we are. Also, I'm sure it moved on many billion years ago to other side projects, rather than dealing with a couple of living beings who debate over trite things such as this. I'm sure there are other living beings, possibly more advanced than us, that also have this same conversation, and also get no where with it. So I guess if it ever came down to it, and I were to meet this God, any question I would first ask him would probably have an answer something close to " Uhmmm, which Universe are you from again?"

*heh, such an abrupt sentence to end a long series of masturbatory paragraphs, that derive too far from the main subject. Oh the irony...*



You say that the Science and Religion Battle is pointless and will go on forever without conclusion, if I'm understanding you right (Tell me if I'm not).

I don't prescribe to any specific, predefined religion, per se, but through my own experience (of 13 years, not much but enough for me, now) I've come about with my own beliefs about life.
(I really like
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. )
I agree with you, Bob, but I don't think it's pointless.  Whenever I'm able to have a civilized discussion with someone over it, both of us know it will be to know end and neither of us is trying to convince the other.  That makes for a deeply satisfying discussion, and since I've made my own beliefs about life it helps me to really critically think about what I believe, and sooth out the kinks in logic, and both of us think it's good, deep, fun, and useful.

I am honestly sorry I don't have more to contribute, there are a lot of posts, and also I believe that whatever anyone thinks or believes, is true to them, and if it's true to them and they're satisfied then great.  So long as they're not trying to convince anyone to go with them, and even if they do I'm not going to try and change it, but it goes against my own beliefs.  Anyway, reading what I could of this is good, and even though it's a touchy subject I'm glad it's gotten this far without too many unpleasantries.

Toodles!
Shrike
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 04:12:42 AM by Shrike »
Now, you can feel your tongue in your mouth.

Offline The B.O.B.

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 691
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • currently losering it up...
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #370 on: January 28, 2009, 05:38:29 AM »
You say that the Science and Religion Battle is pointless and will go on forever without conclusion, if I'm understanding you right (Tell me if I'm not).

I agree with you, Bob, but I don't think it's pointless.  Whenever I'm able to have a civilized discussion with someone over it, both of us know it will be to know end and neither of us is trying to convince the other.  That makes for a deeply satisfying discussion, and since I've made my own beliefs about life it helps me to really critically think about what I believe, and sooth out the kinks in logic, and both of us think it's good, deep, fun, and useful.

Errm...exactly where did I say it was "pointless"? Your reply pretty much echoes my first paragraph; ie, just speaking about it for the sake of a conversation:

   In this case, I always feel that discussing the battle between  Science and Religion is masturbatory. Everybody knows that the opposing sides go no where with it, and it's an endless battle. Conversing over it, I guess, just seems like something to do when you're bored, and never truly serves an endpoint, other than "we'll never agree with each other, but lets just keep on debating till we die." Just more questions, doubt in the other side, and in the worst case scenario(but a small percentage), anger and hostility. Granted, anger and hostility comes from religious FANATICS majority of the time, but it's never right to assume all religious people would do the same.

   In any case, it seems most of us are heavily set in our ways right now, so I don't expect opinions to change. I'm just wondering what state the world will be in, when our generation begins to take over companies, economy, and countries. Will we still be in the same place we are today, arguing over deities we've never seen, conversing over theories that will never come to light in our age, combating opinions over things that human eyes will most likely NEVER see until our species has completely died out? Hard to say right now, though, as I'm speaking in terms of a U.S. citizen, where as other children of the world in lesser developed countries are brought up so strictly in their ways(education, religion) that I can't speak for the majority, in that our generation is any better than the previous. But I can HOPE. And I have FAITH that we can come to the conclusion to politely disagree, and go about our business smiling, even though it may never happen. And Having hope and faith is a concrete enough idea for me to put 100% into, which is good enough for me, without the security blanket of another human's supposed theory.

But seriously, after all this heated debate, I think it's time that we all just put our differences aside, and have some good ole' fashion angry sex... :P
my back hurts...

Offline Rydin

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 840
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ...zzzt...
    • View Profile
    • wvo8ovw
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #371 on: January 28, 2009, 05:58:00 AM »
*zip*
-upsdn-

Offline SolidIdea

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #372 on: January 28, 2009, 07:09:41 AM »
Always use protection :)

I stumbled with this pretty news that left me dumbfounded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4357829/Immortal-jellyfish-swarming-across-the-world.html

Who would have thunk that there would be a animal that goes against the system live / breed / die.
Smarty pants this jellyfish.

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1085
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #373 on: January 28, 2009, 07:35:42 AM »
Weren't they saying the same thing about the Red Devil Squid?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 07:37:24 AM by Dusty »

Offline huZba

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • smupship
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #374 on: January 28, 2009, 04:31:01 PM »
...religious indent in your superego...
If you think about god as a personification of the superego(which is a law and order giving presence), then a lot of religious claims and accusations make a whole lot of sense, kinda.
Like how someone might think that an atheist could not have morals, which seemed completely absurd to me. But if you replace the big-G with the over-I in the accusation, it seems more valid.
Maybe that's also why some feel so strongly about the god person. Some danger exists in a cascading effect if/when god doesn't oppose the ID and leaves the jolly ego out of the loop. It's not exclusive to religion though, anything that resembles an authority can shape your morals, even to extremes like demonstrated by the milgram experiment. Pixelation too has some strong influence on people by having it's authority enforce certain ideas which stick to peoples thinking and continue to spill over to other places.

What i would like to know is if you can have morals if there is nothing that imposes them on you, like your parents, society or whatever. How does the over-I function in a feral child? Makes you get along with the social regulations of the animals around you? What if you raised a human in a sensory deprivation room with only controlled information fed into it?
I just have to dig into more literature on the subject..... too much stagnation these days cause i just work, play videogames and sleep.

BUT on the case of jellyfish! Those wonderful varied creatures. Some have survived unchanged like forever, some can clone themselves, some have multiple neural clusters in a single body with a set of primitive eyes and now we have one that's immortal!

Offline NaCl

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • When it rains it pours
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #375 on: January 28, 2009, 06:27:56 PM »
Quote
What i would like to know is if you can have morals if there is nothing that imposes them on you, like your parents, society or whatever.

I don't believe so. If you look at Genie, she has no morals or anything like that. If you also look at children of violent parents, the fact that they are often violent too when they get older is a good indication that morals only exist as they are passed on through demonstration to a child. There are also almost definitely genetic factors, but to fulfill them you still need socializing. A feral child will be without morals (or even the ability to empathize, which is key to morals), no matter what their genes say.

An interesting case to look at for your question would be a child raised normally, except never punished for doing something we consider morally wrong, and never rewarded for doing something we consider right (and never observing others getting rewarded/punished). Obviously it's not possible to test this, though. My guess is that if you do that, you have someone who could commit horrible acts with no remorse, like a sociopath. Perhaps looking into famous sociopaths childhood would be interesting.

Offline Emtch

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #376 on: January 28, 2009, 06:29:10 PM »
BUT on the case of jellyfish! Those wonderful varied creatures. Some have survived unchanged like forever, some can clone themselves, some have multiple neural clusters in a single body with a set of primitive eyes and now we have one that's immortal!

The creatures of the ocean are weird, wonderful monsters. Why do people want to search for life in space when they haven't even explored their own planet first? Many of the underwater lifeforms look like aliens from movies. The life on terra firma is very uniform and boring in comparison.

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #377 on: January 28, 2009, 06:51:44 PM »
I don't believe so. If you look at Genie, she has no morals or anything like that.

But she was raised under an influence from parents, teaching her distorted and violent morals (raising your voice leads to being punished physically).

Animals have something resembling morals too. Many of them look after their offspring, which is pre-programmed on their DNA, but which then extrapolates from that and leads to building up ones set of morals. Cats or dogs that have been separated from their mom too early are often much more easily freaked out and are much less sociable that kittens or puppies that have had a secure upbringing close to their parents. So the nurturing instinct is programmed in the DNA, and nurturing generally leads to a more balanced behaviour later on (although there's surely more to morals than that as well, but it's a start). But as always there are of course exceptions to the rule.

If you were raised in a vacuum, in a white room, then since there'd be nothing to reflect your preprogrammed behaviour on.. you wouldn't have anything to build the morals on either. It's a process. But then again that sort of situation IS unnatural, so it wouldn't tell much more about the issue of morals beyond that, since after all the default situation is that everyone lives in a holistic world.

Offline NaCl

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • When it rains it pours
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #378 on: January 28, 2009, 07:03:29 PM »
Quote
Cats or dogs that have been separated from their mom too early are often much more easily freaked out and are much less sociable that kittens or puppies that have had a secure upbringing close to their parents. So the nurturing instinct is programmed in the DNA

I don't see how you made that conclusion from that statement. The statement seems to suggest the opposite of your conclusion.

Not that I disagree with the conclusion, I think a lot more then we realize is in our genes. Studies of separated identical twins shows this to be oddly true. However, my point with Genie was the same as you said, there is nothing to build the morals on. The morals only exist when you can empathize, and that comes from being socialized. Then, as part of the socialization, you learn morals. Genie had some amount of influence from her father, but very very little, the littlest of any person almost, so she is probably the best place to look on these subjects.

Offline huZba

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • smupship
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #379 on: January 28, 2009, 07:07:46 PM »
Quote
Cats or dogs that have been separated from their mom too early are often much more easily freaked out and are much less sociable that kittens or puppies that have had a secure upbringing close to their parents. So the nurturing instinct is programmed in the DNA

I don't see how you made that conclusion from that statement. The statement seems to suggest the opposite of your conclusion.
As in the bare minimum of the instinct that is required to start the snowball rolling.

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #380 on: January 28, 2009, 07:45:29 PM »
As in the bare minimum of the instinct that is required to start the snowball rolling.

Indeed. That's where it starts. There's obviously more to the development of morals... a lot that we probably don't even know yet. (This might easily lead to discussing consciousness, free will, memes and what have you but I for one am quite reluctant to go there.)

Offline Helm

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Beyond the unborn, pillars of penance and lore
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #381 on: January 28, 2009, 07:50:14 PM »
I posit God comes from morality, not morality from God. A set of values that are enforced in a community are useful to balance the desires of that community against the internal frictions, so as many genes as possible survive. We can see that in pack animals too. However humans, as they are self-aware suffer from existential concerns and they need to devise higher reasons than that to justify their morality. Regardless however of whether a man believes their source of goodness to be a God or anything else (and there are many other value systems) the point of their morality is to ensure adjusted behaviour in a whole. Because a pack of humans is more protected and resourceful than a single one.

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #382 on: January 28, 2009, 08:20:00 PM »
A set of values that are enforced in a community are useful to balance the desires of that community against the internal frictions, so as many genes as possible survive.

You're not talking about genes passed on through group selection though are you? A single gene doesn't care about other genes in the same gene pool, it only seeks to survive for its own sake, but in order to do that it needs to have characteristics that allow it to get along with the whole gene pool of say Homo Sapiens.

the point of their morality is to ensure adjusted behaviour in a whole.

..by an individual (randomly mutating) gene ensuring its survival and reproducing by adjusting its behaviour (through natural selection) as a part of the whole.

Offline Helm

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Beyond the unborn, pillars of penance and lore
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #383 on: January 28, 2009, 09:11:31 PM »
My understanding is that genes might compel their hosts (us fleshy humans) to not only not destroy each other senselessly because of the risk involved (in how you might be the one getting destroyed in the process) but also to help, because in helping a close-knit commune it is very possible you're helping copies of genes you already have in other hosts. Morality, as it developed is pertinent because it works. Through community the human animal has become much more safer than it would be solitary.

To your second statement I have no comment but agreement.

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #384 on: January 28, 2009, 09:37:47 PM »
...because in helping a close-knit commune it is very possible you're helping copies of genes you already have in other hosts.

I think in the 60's some biologists were proposing that the process of natural selection might try to preserve larger gene pools in that manner but so far there's been no actual evidence of such a thing. Richard Dawkings proposed the single gene -view in his 70's book The Selfish Gene that has as one of its main thesis that you must always look at evolution from the point of view of a single gene, which became the standard view and has stood up to challenges so far.

I'm quoting a summary of the book here taken from another site:

"Natural selection acts on the individual's genes or rather, on the phenotypic effects of an individual's genes - not on the group as a whole. Genes build 'survival machines' or individual organisms. Genes are selfish in that they build survival machines to increase the number of copies of themselves, thus survival machines tend to be inherently selfish. Individuals that form groups do so for the benefit of their selfish genes (e.g. there is safety in numbers; safety for genes). An individual may act altruistically, but does so for its own gene preservation -- not group preservation."

« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 09:41:18 PM by JJ Naas »

Offline Helm

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Beyond the unborn, pillars of penance and lore
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #385 on: January 28, 2009, 09:46:46 PM »
I have read this book and I do not think my statement contradicts Dawkins.

Quote
Individuals that form groups do so for the benefit of their selfish genes (e.g. there is safety in numbers; safety for genes)

This statement was what I was expounding upon.

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #386 on: January 28, 2009, 09:54:03 PM »
Fair enough. Semantics..

Offline Jakten

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The Bionic Vapor Boy
    • View Profile
    • Levitating Rocksquatch
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #387 on: January 29, 2009, 01:31:07 AM »
http://www.passion-paris.com/flash.html#myreel=v799&page=d118

This whole site has some pretty neat videos but I thought some might enjoy the "what to do in the event of an earthquake"

Offline Atnas

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • !
    • View Profile
    • lolipopsicle
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #388 on: February 01, 2009, 01:31:25 PM »
too off topic for the thread

When I cross my eyes while focusing on the space between the two animations, they stack, which is really neat. http://ptoing.net/edit/12framerun.gif

Offline Reo

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • It's a...trap(I guess?)
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #389 on: February 01, 2009, 06:12:15 PM »
Woah!thats quite awesome! :)
It's a non-stop disco

Offline .TakaM

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1175
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • .II
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #390 on: February 02, 2009, 02:19:06 AM »
Now that the religious discussion has died down, I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself
http://www.konjak.org/index.htm

Well done konjak, a ton of fun to play :)
Really is a nice game with some fantastic art in case any of you missed it.


And unrelated, I've been loving this for the last few months
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cA06uWV_-c
Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Offline crab2selout.png

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 649
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • lost my left-most pixel in the war
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #391 on: February 02, 2009, 03:53:04 AM »
Nice megaman link Taka. Very enjoyable. Have you heard Chris Stewart's megaman remixes? I heard them years back and still like them bunches. Here's a link to his music folder.

http://leaflock.net/web/music/megaman/

Offline Atnas

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • !
    • View Profile
    • lolipopsicle
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #392 on: February 03, 2009, 09:39:02 PM »
The audio recording made me laugh, it's a bit long though.

http://www.xkcd.com/verizon/

Offline Doppleganger

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Fall!
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #393 on: February 04, 2009, 02:17:21 AM »

An interesting case to look at for your question would be a child raised normally, except never punished for doing something we consider morally wrong, and never rewarded for doing something we consider right (and never observing others getting rewarded/punished). Obviously it's not possible to test this, though. My guess is that if you do that, you have someone who could commit horrible acts with no remorse, like a sociopath. Perhaps looking into famous sociopaths childhood would be interesting.

There is an Indifferent-Uninvolved model of parenting that fits some of the criterion you're supposing. In this model of parenting, as one could presume, the overarching theme is one where the parent acts in such a way that the child could not be considered an inconvenience. This is primarily accomplished through meeting a child's demand immediately, so as to terminate the child's demand, and by being emotionally unavailable to the child. Because child rearing begins at birth, the effects of such are immediate and consistent through a child's life, and outside sources of reward/punishment do not occur often enough to make a significant impact at earlier ages one could assume that this model of parenting loosely fits your inquisition. The documented results from such models of parenting happen to paint a picture remotely similar to the one you have. A truncated synopsis would imply that children coming from these households tend to be disobedient, impulsive, psychologically defunct (to some degree), and aggressive. This does not necessarily connotate to a sociopath, but it does share some of the same characteristics.

Interestingly enough, there is another model of parenting -which is widely lauded by mainstream child rearing manuals- that also fits the criterion you've proposed. This is called the harmonious model, and it contrasts sharply with what you seemingly believe to be the proper way to instill morals and direction in a child. The supposition that reward and punisment are integral qualifiers to instilling morality is thrown out of the window in this model. They are viewed as dated, archaic, and of relating to a hierarchy that is slowly but surely being debased. In this model, a parent will clearly outline expectations for a child, but will not necessarily enforce those expecations with punishment. Instead, this model focuses on creating a dialect between the parent and the child so that there can be a mutual understanding of why something is right or wrong. It also treats the child as an equal and does not generally profer superiority over a child when handling any given situation. The results of such child rearing are very telling of the misconceptions of reward and punishment in our society; a child raised under this upbringing will become self-confident, socially responsible, able to control emotions, and will generally have high self-esteem. The fact that this sort of parenting is seen as mollycoddling by believers in the strict reward/punishment model, indeed, says something about the actual validity of the reward/punishment model.

While neither of these exactly answer the question you have set forth, I believe that they can both give insight into the questions you have asked.

Quote
I think in the 60's some biologists were proposing that the process of natural selection might try to preserve larger gene pools in that manner but so far there's been no actual evidence of such a thing. Richard Dawkings proposed the single gene -view in his 70's book The Selfish Gene that has as one of its main thesis that you must always look at evolution from the point of view of a single gene, which became the standard view and has stood up to challenges so far.

This is a continuation of the conversation leading up to that quote, although what I am going to say is merely an insight of relevance to what has been said.

There is a certain type of organism (either an algae or a culture, I don't remember) that behaves in two distinct ways. This organism survives by floating on the top of water where it is capable of receiving nutrients and oxygen. It works together as a colony, but some organisms will self-replicate more hastily than others. The result of this, is that the entire organism will eventually grow too dense and sink, therefore drowning the entire colony.

This is a glimpse into how communal organisms may work for themselves as individuals (selfishly), while others work for the whole of the community. It is interesting because it brings to light the inherent dangers that can come from selfish behavior in a community, and it contradicts the statement that individuals form groups for the benefit of their selfish genes. Which, in this case, happens to be one of rapid self-replication.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 02:22:08 AM by Doppleganger »

Offline NaCl

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • When it rains it pours
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #394 on: February 04, 2009, 02:40:26 AM »
Hey Doppleganger,

Interesting look at that type of parenting. I can see some parallels to what I was suggesting. On the subject of reward/punishment, I was trying to say that in the experiment, the child would receive no moral guidance, through lack of punishment/reward, or lack of any model at all. I didn't consider other forms of raising a child, so thanks for elaborating. It's interesting.

Offline Ai

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 521
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • finti
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #395 on: February 04, 2009, 03:25:34 AM »
Interestingly enough, there is another model of parenting -which is widely lauded by mainstream child rearing manuals- that also fits the criterion you've proposed. This is called the harmonious model, and it contrasts sharply with what you seemingly believe to be the proper way to instill morals and direction in a child. The supposition that reward and punisment are integral qualifiers to instilling morality is thrown out of the window in this model. They are viewed as dated, archaic, and of relating to a hierarchy that is slowly but surely being debased. In this model, a parent will clearly outline expectations for a child, but will not necessarily enforce those expecations with punishment. Instead, this model focuses on creating a dialect between the parent and the child so that there can be a mutual understanding of why something is right or wrong. It also treats the child as an equal and does not generally profer superiority over a child when handling any given situation. The results of such child rearing are very telling of the misconceptions of reward and punishment in our society; a child raised under this upbringing will become self-confident, socially responsible, able to control emotions, and will generally have high self-esteem. The fact that this sort of parenting is seen as mollycoddling by believers in the strict reward/punishment model, indeed, says something about the actual validity of the reward/punishment model.
Yes. I think the reward/punishment model is completely unrelated to morality, because, AFAIK, what it instills is mindless, unreasoning fear or mindless, unreasoning confidence -- ie. habits. Whereas morality, as far as I understand it, is contextual - no matter how horrible an action or choice seems to you, there are situations where that choice is the best available and therefore the most moral choice, so strong reasoning skills are crucial. Your habits can help you behave morally but you cannot rely on them.

Quote
Quote
I think in the 60's some biologists were proposing that the process of natural selection might try to preserve larger gene pools in that manner but so far there's been no actual evidence of such a thing. Richard Dawkings proposed the single gene -view in his 70's book The Selfish Gene that has as one of its main thesis that you must always look at evolution from the point of view of a single gene, which became the standard view and has stood up to challenges so far.

This is a continuation of the conversation leading up to that quote, although what I am going to say is merely an insight of relevance to what has been said.

There is a certain type of organism (either an algae or a culture, I don't remember) that behaves in two distinct ways. This organism survives by floating on the top of water where it is capable of receiving nutrients and oxygen. It works together as a colony, but some organisms will self-replicate more hastily than others. The result of this, is that the entire organism will eventually grow too dense and sink, therefore drowning the entire colony.

This is a glimpse into how communal organisms may work for themselves as individuals (selfishly), while others work for the whole of the community. It is interesting because it brings to light the inherent dangers that can come from selfish behavior in a community, and it contradicts the statement that individuals form groups for the benefit of their selfish genes.
Careful! I'm pretty sure it doesn't contradict that statement.
Communal organisms are not individuals (whether taken as a whole or parts), by definition, so their behaviour cannot reasonably inform our knowledge of individual organisms.
However, of course that's dependent on how you mean 'communal': eg. I would classify humans as individuals who like to participate communally, whereas you may actually class them as communal organisms. In this case, there would be nothing incorrect about your statement, I would just find it confusing because of the difference in our terminology.

* It's alright to believe things, so long as you don't start believing that you believe them.
* If you want to ACTUALLY BE right, it helps enormously to take every single opportunity to prove yourself wrong.

Offline Doppleganger

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Fall!
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #396 on: February 04, 2009, 07:01:18 AM »
Quote
Yes. I think the reward/punishment model is completely unrelated to morality, because, AFAIK, what it instills is mindless, unreasoning fear or mindless, unreasoning confidence -- ie. habits. Whereas morality, as far as I understand it, is contextual - no matter how horrible an action or choice seems to you, there are situations where that choice is the best available and therefore the most moral choice, so strong reasoning skills are crucial. Your habits can help you behave morally but you cannot rely on them.

Exactly. It is for those exact reasons why somebody can repeatedly commit the same offense but in a different context without truly realizing why it is unacceptable. It is why a child must be disciplined from birth to adulthood (they never truly learn to reason right from wrong), and also why a criminal tends to repeatedly commit similar crimes. Of course, those are not the sole reasons, but I believe they hold common ground in most cases. Another reason is that with reward and punishment, one is forced to weigh the pros and cons of any action, which has been instilled in them as their main source of reason. When one is presented with an "immoral" situation where the reward outweighs the punishment, the likelihood of punishment detracting the individual from committing that "immoral" act is not that great. The fact that punishment to some could be neutral or even a reward to others further muddles the prospect of reward and punishment. In almost all societies the judicial system is meant to be set up in such a way that the punishment fits the crime, so that reward vs punishment reasoning becomes "balanced" and whatever decision a person makes becomes a reflection of their character and nothing more. However, this can not always be the case, and indeed it is not.

In America, the lower class tends to fit the mold of anything but privileged white male ideals. Part of this is because they do not desire to fit this mold, but the greater part is because they are prevented from fitting this mold in the first place. These ideals are are sacred ground, and are not meant to be tread upon by just anybody. The evidence of this can be seen through every movement the United States has had (women's rights, immigrant's rights, colored people's rights, and currently going on now is the rights of gays and lesbians). Eventually the rights of atheists will come into play, but the only point to make with that now is that these privileged white male ideals stem from the ideals of christianity-- which are still firmly rooted in the upper echelons of power in our society. The central point to be made here is that when one is persecuted, they are forced into less than desirable situations, and being in these situations throws the judicial "balance" off-kilter. This is why crime is more prevalent in lower class neighborhoods, why the crimes seem to relate to means of survival (robbery, drug dealing), and why the focus in a lower class community tends not to be one of meeting privileged white male ideals, but of survival. Our legal system believes it is fairly balanced, and that any crime committed is due to bad character and not any other reason, and the sentences related to inner-city crime tend to be harsher than those of white-collar crime because of it. This is because those from the inner-city are judged as having bad character by default. Not meeting the expectations of priviliged white male ideals is looked down upon by our society, and this is greatly reflected in how we punish those who do not meet them.

I kind of deviated from the initial point I was making, but I think that's okay. It's important to note, however, that a lot of what I wrote seems to be stated as fact, but a lot of it is simply conjecture stated in an affirmative way.

Quote
Careful! I'm pretty sure it doesn't contradict that statement.
Communal organisms are not individuals (whether taken as a whole or parts), by definition, so their behaviour cannot reasonably inform our knowledge of individual organisms.
However, of course that's dependent on how you mean 'communal': eg. I would classify humans as individuals who like to participate communally, whereas you may actually class them as communal organisms. In this case, there would be nothing incorrect about your statement, I would just find it confusing because of the difference in our terminology.

You're right in saying that it doesn't really contradict that statement. However, when a community of the afore-mentioned organisms is dominated by those who carry the selfish gene of expedited self-replication, that community will inevitably kill itself. I guess the problem in my argument is that the community can still be seen as a single entity (and is indeed classified as one), so instances of selfish organisms can be seen as a blight to the organism moreso than a selfish organism looking to capitalize on the benefits of communal living. I still don't doubt the significance such an organism holds when dealing with selfish genes and their implications toward our current biological thinking. If I could remember where exactly it was that I read that article, perhaps I could draw more pertinent information for the point I was actually trying to make. But alas, I have a heaping pile of Scientific American and Discover magazines in addition to the vast vast internet, and so I wouldn't even know where to begin to look.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 07:04:42 AM by Doppleganger »

Offline NaCl

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • When it rains it pours
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #397 on: February 04, 2009, 07:13:15 AM »
The selfish gene that regulates self replication rates would not just maximize itself, it would reach the equilibrium that allowed the most algae to exist, and still not drown. That is the gene maximizing itself, not just going as hard and fast as it can.

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1085
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #398 on: February 04, 2009, 07:16:25 AM »
So FF3 update and no bilinear switch off. That makes me sad :(

Offline Helm

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Beyond the unborn, pillars of penance and lore
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
Re: Official Off-Topic Thread
« Reply #399 on: February 04, 2009, 12:32:55 PM »
Doppleganger some interesting thoughts on justice and the class system. Thanks.