Toadfish Monastery

The last five years I lived in Chile. There fruits & veggies used to be of high quality at affordable prices. Then the government signed up trade agreements and the best produces went out of the country, leaving locals to feast on rejects at higher prices...
Politicians and rich growers call it 'progress', because it benefits them, not the larger community.
Now I understand why people protest at all G7 meetings, for it only  serves the rich getting richer and visa versa. It's all of that proverbial New World Order. It's the ambition of a powerful, sordid elite to control our world with one string only!

The "socialist" countries did the same. The GDR for example exported decent beer and used all the available hop for that. For domestic consumption they used ox bile instead (no joke).

Irony of free trade and globalization: Since the poorer countries are suffering, you'd expect the rich ones to benefit. Wrong! Americans, for instance, from individual workers to entire businesses, are being driven out of work because they can't compete with the cheap goods being imported from places like, say, Chile.

...blame immigration!

Hey 'Paca....  did you meet our new emoticon 'Little Irony' yet?  :irony:

That is amazing. I had seen him around, but I hadn't grasped his name.

:irony: :irony: :irony:

Quote from: jjj on August 06, 2007, 11:10:00 AM
Politicians and rich growers call it 'progress', because it benefits them, not the larger community.
Now I understand why people protest at all G7 meetings, for it only  serves the rich getting richer and visa versa. It's all of that proverbial New World Order. It's the ambition of a powerful, sordid elite to control our world with one string only!

You're just looking at one side of the problem. You forget the benefits of globalization and capitalism. As far as I'm concerned, those may be evil at the first view, but benefits are there. Thanks to it, you are able to buy cheap sneakers for example.

The G7 has its purpose and it is actually trying to figure something out about the improvements for third-world countries. What people must understand is that the results won't come in a few months, it will take years for third world countries to come out of the position they are in now. People only see short-term results and do not consider the long-term.

Of course, it all has its flaws. Nothing is perfect. All those countries in the G7 (or rather G8 now) have also their own interest to take in regard, there's nothing wrong with that. They don't want their countries to lose their "riches", that isn't a crime.

Concerning your claims about the rich getting richer; yes it is true. The rich people are getting richer. But we all benefit from that as well... You should read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", particularly the part about the "invisible hand", it's quite interesting, maybe it will show you a little different idea:

    But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

(IV.ii.6-9, page 456 of the 1776 Glasgow Edition of Smith's works; vol. IV, ch. 2, p. 477 of 1776 U. of Chicago Edition.)

This statement can be interpreted very simply: if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and where to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how (or where) to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial for every individual member of the community, and so the community as an entity. Greed will drive all the actors of the trade to beneficial behaviour. It's also very nice put in wikipedia:

It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply. Capitalists can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. But since they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price. And since the new producers will also become consumers, local businesses will have to hire more people in order to provide for them the things that they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices will eventually rise to the point at which there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism will cause the local economy to function on its own.

Quote from: jjj on August 06, 2007, 11:10:00 AM
The last five years I lived in Chile. There fruits & veggies used to be of high quality at affordable prices. Then the government signed up trade agreements and the best produces went out of the country, leaving locals to feast on rejects at higher prices...

As a consumer it -proverbially- sucks, but the question in my head goes more to this: are more farmers employed because of the new trade agreements, and are they being payed better, the same or worse than before?

I certainly couldn't care less about rich guys making more money, but I do care about regular folks having a job, a place, etc, etc.

To me the whole demonization of free trade is just a smoke screen rather than criticize the way of it and who profits from it. Globalization is -in my eyes- unavoidable unless we suddenly fall into the stone age and all forms of communication and transport fall apart. Better look if trade is done fairy (rarely  :-\ ) and if it is benefiting the society at large or just the top 5%, or -most likely- in which percentage is benefiting everyone.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on August 06, 2007, 09:58:34 PM
It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply. Capitalists can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. But since they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price. And since the new producers will also become consumers, local businesses will have to hire more people in order to provide for them the things that they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices will eventually rise to the point at which there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism will cause the local economy to function on its own.

Now, the other side of the coin (as expressed above) has some truths to it but it usually ignores the time frame in which those balancing changes take place and the immediate consequences to the people involved. To the ones on top there are fewer consequences than for those in the bottom that depend on the industries affected. Also it is very 'convenient' that a lot is advocated in favor of free trade* but free movement is not considered in the equation (which should be advocated more forcefully by the laissez faire crowd but is rarely heard).

*Free trade isn't usually so, most agreements have protectionist clauses that usually benefit the stronger partner. As a point of reference a trade agreement was signed by GWB and Colombia's president Uribe. The treaty is far more damaging for Colombia than for the US but the Dems are blocking it on principle.
:irony:

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 06, 2007, 10:22:03 PM*Free trade isn't usually so, most agreements have protectionist clauses that usually benefit the stronger partner. As a point of reference a trade agreement was signed by GWB and Colombia's president Uribe. The treaty is far more damaging for Colombia than for the US but the Dems are blocking it on principle.

I am stuck in the *&^$ flatlands due to the fall-through of 'free trade' wrt the softwood industry.  It's going against the agreements, but there's little power to enforce compliance.

 The rich people are getting richer. But we all benefit from that as well... 
True. What bothers me is the selfishness of capitalists. They virtually strive on the incentive to engage themselves only if they can exploit the miserable living conditions of the poor. Why are they not contented with less for themselves and offering the poor a chance to make it at the same time? This would be true progress or 'commonwealth' for a change.
Lately sprung up a few of those altruistic entrepreneurs. I heard of a Bangladesh banker lending money at law interest rates. In some instances the boss of a business allowed his workers to part own the business and so, benefit from gains/ suffer the losses.
Another example from Chile is VTR (USA's communication giant for all South America). Instead of offering Chileans a better deal than local TV-cable, telephone & internet companies, they merely adapted to horribly greedy, local conditions. Almost daily I received calls from carriers offering 'lower' rates, such as almost $ 2/pm to Australia. Next time
I tell them: thanks, I'm fine with 15cents/pm Skype calls. Until now, I told the young lady on the phone: 'Un momentito, por favor, tengo algun al la puerta. Es mi polola! , Senorita, le digo la verda que prefiero ser con ella en cama que con Ud.al telefono'... ('Hold on please, there's someone at the door. It's my girl friend and sorry... to prefer to be with her in bed than with you on the phone!')
Want more witty fun? The same tictac/ tactic I apply with pious canvassers. Once, I opened the door and was confronted with the question: 'Do you know why there are so many bad people in the world?' and I answered: It's, because now even the clergy indulges in pedophilia! God save our children! Thanks God I'm an agnostic!  (That fixed her!)

Quote from: jjj on August 07, 2007, 01:44:27 AM
I told the young lady on the phone: 'Un momentito, por favor, tengo algun al la puerta. Es mi polola! , Senorita, le digo la verda que prefiero ser con ella en cama que con Ud.al telefono'... ('Hold on please, there's someone at the door. It's my girl friend and sorry... to prefer to be with her in bed than with you on the phone!')

:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

On a more serious note, what you describe is nonsensical capitalism (as opposed to the -practically extinct- common sense variety). If capitalism had real long term goals they would care about their customers, not rob, extort, cheat, lie, poison, etc their own source of income, and despite all that, they cry for deregulation! ::) >:(

As a recipient of a bit of what is apparently Chile's finest, (raspberries, mostly. We grow everything else locally, pretty much) let me tell you it does not ship well. Moldy raspberries are NOT appetizing. They may well do better to keep fruits that ship poorly at home.

Zono: Capitalism is supposed to have real long term goals, but the stupid way it is being practiced is the problem.

The rich are getting richer and "we all" benefit from that??

Speak for yourselves.

Down here where the disabled, the elderly, the folks at the bottom of the food chain live...no we don't.

Prices go up, but low end wages don't. Disability doesn't. And the NAFTA crap has cost so many jobs in the US that the Very Poor are the fastest growing demographic in former manufacturing states.

Those Wal-Mart 22 hour a week jobs are just what former factory/assembly line workers need!! You can certainly feed a family on that!! You just can't shelter them, clothe them or provide them medical care, school supplies or even a cheap pair of shoes on it.

And don't even get me started on "disability Social Security" in the US.

But hey, as long as the top 3% of the world's people control the top 50% of the world's money, 'those poor people' will do just fine. ::)

Quote from: Kanaloa the Squidly on August 07, 2007, 04:01:29 AM
Zono: Capitalism is supposed to have real long term goals, but the stupid way it is being practiced is the problem.

You tell me! Now I notice the generalization in my post, my point is that capitalism as it is practiced nowadays lacks common sense, and is mostly devoid of long term goals (apart from total domination and/or a practical monopoly).

My main gripe with capitalism as is understood now, is that there is a disconnect between ethical behavior and the goals of many businesses. The point of a for profit endeavor is, well, to profit, and while I don't think that making money is necessarily evil, there seems to be a very large (and very dark) 'gray' area in which a company can auto-justify immoral behaviors on the basis of profits.

One of the things that makes us human is our ability to take advantage of the circumstances (very useful for survival) and without a moral compass the result is a general 'unpleasantness' that goes from a few bucks stolen in a transaction to poverty, hunger and/or death in huge sectors the population.

Given that, I don't believe that deregulation can help. The day that all businesses prove that they can behave ethically without the fear of immediate punishment I'll reconsider that position.

One of the problems I see with capitalism as it's practiced in the west is that it's often a matter of straight business tactics - there's no connection between product and management.  There seems to be a view that capitalism involves a person or closely-involved persons starting up a business and working to develop a better mousetrap, so to speak.  This isn't a 'family business' system any more, and hasn't been for decades, maybe even a century.  Heck, even in the East the mega-conglomerates (chaebol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol) are what I have in mind here) are to some degree family-based and plausibly maintain some personal pride in their products (not that they aren't just as politically corrupt and dirty as any other mega-corps). 

I'm more and more convinced that American-style capitalism creates the problems it does to a large part simply because ethical considerations have no currency amongst the top players.  With limited emotional investment in products, working conditions, the state of the world's poor, it's just a numbers game to those at the top, and I'm convinced that competitive pressure and status/power is a larger driver than simple monetary gain.  IOW, they are not seeing the moral consequences because they are barely even seeing the business... just buy/sell opportunities and systematic methods of showing profits (am reading A Random Walk Down Wall Street at the moment, and the earlier bits of the book provides some background history on the many, many ways business has screwed over investors - for hundreds of years; if capitalism is willing to do this to it's true believers and supporters, there's NO hope for the rest of the world).

The goal of any publicly-traded business is to show constantly increasing growth rates (exponential growth), which is fundamentally flat-out impossible to sustain. Flat profits are anathema to capitalism - let me repeat that, although I'm sure everyone knows this already - a publicly-traded business that made the same amount of money this year as it did last year is considered to be 'failing' at its job and will probably suffer a hit to stock prices and investor confidence. 

All economists and business students should be bloody beat over the head with an ecology text book to learn 'em on what this type of growth does to any (eco)system. There's small wonder that our environment is in trouble. ::)

Seems to me there are several different strands here, with a tendency to push the blame for human failings on to the economic model.
Yes capitalism is flawed, but the greed etc that's been identified is also a failure (more spectacularly so) in the other systems that have been tried from time to time, and the other systems generally fail to deliver the goods (literally).

Yes, free trade will move production to the cheapest places. All the time the Industrial Revolution made sure those places were Europe and the USA we were fine with that; now it's India and China we've gone off the idea.  The EU and USA use trade agreements to deliberately limit the rate at which global wealth distribution to the poorest can occur. None too successfully judging by the size of China's foreign exchange reserves.

I reckon the ecological point is very valid. Capitalism is so good at supplying what we want rather than just what we need that there is a big ecological hit, and a constant drive to persuade people they need more to be happy.
However we're talking major slump and huge unemployment if we strip down to essentials any time soon.

On the original post about exporting the best products there's nothing new to that. After World War II in Britain all the best produced stuff was exported to generate income to cover the war debt. My parents' generation could only buy chipped cups, flimsy furniture or seconds clothes for quite a long period after the end of the war. The point is that provided the country in question has reasonably sound government it is only a temporary phase until the place is elevated into the first world of ecological over-consumers.

My sophisticated ;) economic theory is that there are 2 types of societies: envy-driven and greed-driven.
The latter is based on "more for me", the former on "the others should not have more than I have".

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 07, 2007, 05:04:57 AM
The rich are getting richer and "we all" benefit from that??

Speak for yourselves.

Down here where the disabled, the elderly, the folks at the bottom of the food chain live...no we don't.

Prices go up, but low end wages don't. Disability doesn't. And the NAFTA crap has cost so many jobs in the US that the Very Poor are the fastest growing demographic in former manufacturing states.

I'm sorry, I might have been a little too generalizing in my post... I was just more or less quoting Adam Smith and his approach, I never ment to say that the poor should be forgotten, or that everybody is benefitting.

Capitalism isn't perfect, no system is... But at the moment, it's the beste we got...

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on August 07, 2007, 09:56:59 PM
Capitalism isn't perfect, no system is... But at the moment, it's the beste we got...

I don't question the fact stated but its common use as an excuse (I'm not implying that is the case in this discussion though).

My opinion is that capitalism alone will not solve the problems of inequality. Swato's post is actually quite on target: it would seem that we are supposed to choose between greed and envy, as if no other alternatives were possible. I don't foresee the demise of capitalism (unless we go back to small nomad tribes where survival is much more important than property), but I would welcome ways to get around its most obvious flaws, and/or at least provide universal nutrition, shelter, healthcare and access to education. That would seem like an impossibility but technology can provide answers to those problems if there is a real interest to solve them (ie: the world produces more food than it is needed to sustain its current population but it is so unevenly distributed that an obscene amount of people suffers from hunger).

I think that the fundamental problem we are struggling with is the inability of "free-market everything" and "socialized everything" to coexist. In America, at least, I see our government as having to balance a capitalist economy and an attempt at a welfare state. We run into trouble where the two seem to conflict. For instance, we're having so much conflict about the state of Medicare and Medicaid right now because those are two healthcare services provided by the government for its people, but the healthcare industry itself is, well, an industry, and people wanna turn a profit. Hence, the socialized healthcare the government is attempting to provide crashes into cutthroat competition.

I think that in order to achieve a balance, we need to define what it is exactly that the government should provide for its citizens. Having determined this, the government should provide it - payed for by tax dollars, executed by civil servants, not subcontractors. Corporations and capitalists ought to play no part in these services. Then, once the government can provide its people with what they need, the rest can be left open to the capitalists and completely deregulated.

This plan, of course, is an idealization, and is, I believe, impractical. The problem is that our world is incredibly interconnected! You can say that the government needs to build the roads, but does that mean the government also needs to operate the machinery? Make the cement? Mine the ore for the structural supports? Make the mining equipment? It's impossible, in the end, to "draw the line." But what we can do, I think, is to write laws that would give government (and hence its people) and corporate America no incentive to compete against each other.

Chile is far more advanced than Africa, yet N.-Americans doing little to help Sth.-America's development. Instead they continue exploiting them the 'modern/ human right's way', by setting up huge shopping complexes and soliciting high prices (...those 'customer lifters'!).
For instance, in Chile is only one USA company distributing food supplements: GNC !! Their prices are about three to four times that I pay online from USA (swansonvitamins).
It's, because most Chileans are poor, unable to understand English and have no computers... so, GNC robs them!!! There's just no excuse for it! This goes through the whole economy... The Spaniards do the same!

To really advance an underdeveloped country one needs to offer incentive to the public in form of an affordable small business loan, enabling the greater majority to partake in the development of the economy... and most-importantly, stop exploiting them!!!
No wonder Chavest & Castro call Bush 'the devil' and desperately tries to come up with a socialist formula to improve living standard of S.-Americans. If they succeed Bush sends them weapons... as happened in Chile.

Quote from: jjjNo wonder Chavest & Castro call Bush 'the devil' and desperately tries to come up with a socialist formula to improve living standard of S.-Americans.

From personal experience I can say that socialistic economical systems (everything is in the hand of the community) is no solution. I've lived in the Czech Republic and Yugoslavia during the communist regimes, lived through the transition in the Czech Republic and saw the economical boom after a (rather problematic - but that's not the issue right now) privatisation. I have close bonds to Serbia (former Yugoslavia) and I'm seeing the economical progress over there as well.

Yes, of course, many people don't like the transition process that has been taking place in these two countries, because, "thanks" to the socialist agenda, everbody had a job. Even though the job was not necessary, because for example the factory wasn't profiting and the people were paid from money that wasn't there, and after the fall of the socialis regime, many people stayed unemployed. In a short-term, the people are unhappy, they were secure, they had something. Now they don't have anything, until the exonomy is revitalized. Now the Czech Republic has one of the lowest unemployment rate in the EU, and making great economical progress.

Socialism isn't the solution for the problems that are taking place in South America. That's my opinion.

Being from South America, I have some different perception of things.

On one hand I do not like, endorse or promote any form of authoritarian regime be it from the left or from the right (and we have had them both). The communist approach used in Cuba and in Nicaragua for a while while trying to solve the problems of the bottom part of the society, showed themselves as authoritarian, reaching unacceptable levels (in Cuba particularly at the beginning of the revolution) and sadly Chavez' regime is moving in the same direction. That is not ignoring that a large portion of the population that had been ignored and abused for centuries got something out of it (check the statistics on literacy and health on Cuba and compare them to its values previous to the revolution).

On the other hand, right wing (and I should say fascist because it can hardly be anything else) dictatorships, killed thousands of people across the continent, and created a regime of terror that even today stirs the affected sectors of the population.

Is it and ideological problem? I am very cynic on that point because I no longer believe that any politician out there really cares about his country or the well being of its people. They just want the power for themselves and will say anything to get it, be it left or right, and because the extremes are more appealing to the masses they will likely go in that way.

I like social democracies in which there is a balance between individual and business interests, but some conditions are required to achieve that balance. A functional justice system tends to be key. A critical mass of educated population seems to be the other.

I have a very close friend who is a Communist, or at least calls himself one.

He's not a politician. He means his beliefs in the most sincere, noble way. I agree with his principles wholeheartedly. His ultimate vision would be a world without countries, without government, functioning in perfect harmony by the individual motivation of every individual person doing what he or she an do best to help society.

It's a nice vision, and I'd love it. I disagree with it completely, though, and with the notion of Communism in general. I'm too cynical. I don't think that all people in the world can put aside self-interest and work for the benefit of all around them (not to mention the logistical nightmare!). I think it's against our nature as creatures that have successfully evolved to arguable dominance over the ecosystem.

My parents grew up in Communist Poland. They say, with ironic smiles, that the only thing wrong with Communism is people.

My friend disagrees. He says that the reason it failed in the East was Stalin. It failed in Cuba because of Castro.

QED, I think.

Quote from: Alpaca on August 11, 2007, 12:15:39 AMMy parents grew up in Communist Poland. They say, with ironic smiles, that the only thing wrong with Communism is people.

I think that's a pretty correct assessment, actually.  There's far too many people in most nations for it to work.  By my best estimate, anything over 100 is probably too much.

Quote from: ZonoI like social democracies in which there is a balance between individual and business interests, but some conditions are required to achieve that balance.

I have no problem with social democracies. I have a problem with socialist regimes that tend to destry the economy by enforcing a (rather utopian) idea. The majority of European countries are social democracies and one of the few problems I've noticed in this is, that people tend to abuse the social part of it (for example a big problem now in Europe is that many people don't work, because the state provides for them, so no necessity to work).

Anyway IMO, the idea Karl Marx had, about a socialistic regime etc, wasn't bad as an idea. But it was abused by communist regimes throughout the world. With a little elaboration, the system could have worked, but (as stated above), people destroyed it...

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on August 11, 2007, 01:56:24 AM
Anyway IMO, the idea Karl Marx had, about a socialistic regime etc, wasn't bad as an idea. But it was abused by communist regimes throughout the world. With a little elaboration, the system could have worked, but (as stated above), people destroyed it...

Heh, this is kind of how I feel about capitalism.  ;)

I think what I would like is communist-capitalism; workers owning 'private' businesses, with caps on maximum ownership (capped by dollar earnings or percentage, whichever is greater) on each corporate entity.  In other words, small business can be totally private to a certain profit level; after that point, workers must be given easy opportunities to buy in.  Each 'work commune' is small enough to manage, workers control the majority vote in larger firms, but commerce is overall run privately.   Let's see a company outsource labour when the bulk of the shares are owned by the labourers... 


Of course, politics and greed would kill it, same as anything else. ::)

QuoteSocialism isn't the solution for the problems that are taking place in South America. That's my opinion.

I totally agree, because I'm born in East Germany and we past through these very changes. Yet, out of desperation many S-Americans believe only solidarity can improve their appalling living conditions.

I

Quotes it and ideological problem? I am very cynic on that point because I no longer believe that any politician out there really cares about his country or the well being of its people.

Few Chileans politicians. Whenever I meet young people, I try to get to them the idea to form a party, progressive ideas and so, outvote the government of old, sordid politicians enjoying a stranglehold on power.

Communism is

Quote...a nice vision!

And so is the vision of 'paradise', yet society is unable to realize it.

QuoteHeh, this is kind of how I feel about capitalism.  Wink

Capitalism is undoubtedly the better of the two devils! The good thing about capitalism is that it is amendable and hopefully this won't be abused.

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 04:07:59 AM

QuoteHeh, this is kind of how I feel about capitalism.  Wink

Capitalism is undoubtedly the better of the two devils! The good thing about capitalism is that it is amendable and hopefully this won't be abused.

Unfortunately, that's where my agreement with what you're saying becomes vitiated. :(

I don't think a government can ever be quite perfect. Humans are competitive, Darwin-style. It's how we got to where we are. We put our trust in government, and hope that the government will function as a single entity, not as a group of human beings who still have their own motives. As long as people in government aren't completely selfless, that is, inhuman, government will have flaws.

I don't think that any human construct can be perfect. There will always be the problem of theory vs practice. In theory the government has the people's best interests at heart, in practice it may become a tool of profit for those in power and/or those who help place those in power. In theory private enterprises have long term profits as its main goal, in practice quick profits without care for long term consequences are far more common. In my eyes there is a difference: a government is supposed to have a moral compass; it is possible for a business to sustain profits without moral considerations.

In any case checks and balances are required.

   

QuoteI don't think a government can ever be quite perfect.   

It's, because its politicians and voters are unwilling to dismantle their inherited/ acquired, negative traits. They prefer to foster them, instead!

QuoteI don't think that any human construct can be perfect.

Same thing! Think again... isn't it merely a matter of willingness to systematically dismantle  our inherited/ acquired, negative traits and stop fostering them?  I am willing to do it and if you can do it too, we are already two!

Quote from: jjjIt's, because its politicians and voters are unwilling to dismantle their inherited/ acquired, negative traits. They prefer to foster them, instead!

Quote from: jjjSame thing! Think again... isn't it merely a matter of willingness to systematically dismantle  our inherited/ acquired, negative traits and stop fostering them?  I am willing to do it and if you can do it too, we are already two!

What can appear like a negative trait for you, may appear like a positive trait for others. That could be one of the reasons why people foster their "negative traits". And we should not forget the fact that some people would be willing to "dismantle" these traits, but can't, because the society doesn't want them to.

==============================================

This world is basically a "dog-eat-dog" world. IMO, politicians, businessmen, ordinary people, they all have one basic need (there are many others, but this could be seen as the most important) - to provide for themselves and for their family. Everyone tries to do so in the best way they can, some by "stealing", some by working hard...

(a very interesting thing, to understand what I am trying to say here, would be reading about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, here's a basic concept of Maslow:)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)

"negative traits"

True... to some people aggression, even criminal actions are positive traits.
Yet, to most descent people they are negative traits.

The hope for a better world looks really bleak if the majority of people are unable to define good traits from bad ones. Then may as well we give up all hopes and just selfishly seek to live our lives in the hope to die peacefully of old age. i like to think that there's more hope than that.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on August 14, 2007, 02:23:13 PM

Quote from: jjjIt's, because its politicians and voters are unwilling to dismantle their inherited/ acquired, negative traits. They prefer to foster them, instead!

Quote from: jjjSame thing! Think again... isn't it merely a matter of willingness to systematically dismantle  our inherited/ acquired, negative traits and stop fostering them?  I am willing to do it and if you can do it too, we are already two!

What can appear like a negative trait for you, may appear like a positive trait for others. That could be one of the reasons why people foster their "negative traits". And we should not forget the fact that some people would be willing to "dismantle" these traits, but can't, because the society doesn't want them to.

==============================================

This world is basically a "dog-eat-dog" world. IMO, politicians, businessmen, ordinary people, they all have one basic need (there are many others, but this could be seen as the most important) - to provide for themselves and for their family. Everyone tries to do so in the best way they can, some by "stealing", some by working hard...

(a very interesting thing, to understand what I am trying to say here, would be reading about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, here's a basic concept of Maslow:)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)

Wow- I just had a flashback to freshman psychology there.

I agree, society/ cultural norms-- are very strong and it is eat or be eaten. Often we are aware of our negative traits (or traits we have that we ourselves feel to be negative, like you said, negative to one might not seem negative to another) but can not or will not "change"- it is when we understand this about each other that we can increase the dialogue and "play nicely".

Quote from: jjj on August 14, 2007, 04:34:51 PM
True... to some people aggression, even criminal actions are positive traits.
Yet, to most descent people they are negative traits.

What about competitiveness? Biologically speaking, it should be called a "good trait," since it's what allowed us to survive, evolve, and rise to control over our ecosystem.

Yet it can lead to things like, well, as you mentioned, aggression.

Even if everybody agreed in defining traits, I think "positive" and "negative" are too black-and-white to encompass the benefits and drawbacks each of our traits can provide.

Hhm! That thar pyramid's a useful little mental model, I'm thinking...
One of the ways in which it struck me as useful, is that in some of our recent discussions, we were operating (it seems to me) out of both of the top two levels, and that may be why we were experiencing cognitive dissonance with each other. (a statement at one level ought to be discussed and resolved at the same level, it's very confusing to cross levels in mid discussion).

Quote from: jjjTrue... to some people aggression, even criminal actions are positive traits.
Yet, to most descent people they are negative traits.

I wasn't actually talking exclusively about criminal action, but more about what Alpaca said:

Quote from: AlpacaWhat about competitiveness? Biologically speaking, it should be called a "good trait," since it's what allowed us to survive, evolve, and rise to control over our ecosystem.

Anyway, even "criminal activity" has two sides of the coin. Let's see it on example of former (or even current) communist regimes. Basically, those regimes see acting against the government (even by cticising it orally) as a "criminal activity" and people go to jail just for speaking out loud about it. Although they are oficially criminals, in the eyes of the regime, the democratic part of the world see, that those are actually positive traits they are expressing.

Quote from: AlpacaI think "positive" and "negative" are too black-and-white to encompass the benefits and drawbacks each of our traits can provide.

Exactly what I was trying to say...

QuoteYet it can lead to things like, well, as you mentioned, aggression.

Correct observation! And that's where we have to learn/ find ways and means to control the negative devil within! Good and bad or the opposite polarities are amazingly close, aren't they? A little wrong move and already we are in the negative path. So, nature offers us the choice to decide for one or the other.
Yet, it's not too hard to understand the true meaning/ reason of nature's justice system... by simply considering the consequences of our actions.

Alright, jjj. I agree with that.

Now, since we've been using competitiveness as an example, I'll sick with it.

You mention, or at least if I understood correctly, that government would work fine if we all learned to weed out our negative traits.

So, since competitiveness has both positive and negative manifestations, is it a positive trait or a negative trait? That is, in the end, when I'm looking over my list of traits before entering the perfect society, and I get to competitiveness, should I keep it, or weed it out?

 

QuoteSo, since competitiveness has both positive and negative manifestations, is it a positive trait or a negative trait? That is, in the end, when I'm looking over my list of traits before entering the perfect society, and I get to competitiveness, should I keep it, or weed it out?

Competitiveness is supposed to benefit customers not to undermine good capitalist rules. Thus, all depends whether it's applied pos/negatively. Applied to capitalist ideology, the best thing I can think of is to apply competitiveness as transparent and uncorrupted as possible. I.e. no price fixing, no monopolization, proper costs accounting and price setting (stop 'customerlifting') etc.
In fact I'm for a far better ideology available to which our society is not ready yet: An ideology in which we all offer our good will and services free of charge to each other. There's no money involved, there's little or no need for police, courts, jails... Yes, it's almost paradise on Earth. Yet, it's possible... if only we manage to rid ourselves of inherited/ acquired evil (i.e. negative traits)!  Yet, for some horrible reasons most of unwittingly prefer to compete and rip each other off! What a shame! No wonder any nobler creatures living on other planets/ solar systems stay away from us sordid monsters!   :'(

How about individual competitiveness? It can be positive ("I have to practice/study more to play better than him") or negative ("if he hurts his hands he won't be able to play in the competition"). It even becomes murkier if we think about it from the perspective of survival ("not enough resources hence its him or me") which can be translated to less dire but no less stressful situations ("the winner of the competition gets a scholarship to that school I cannot afford to pay").

How about individual competitiveness? It can be positive ("I have to practice/study more to play better than him") or negative ("if he hurts his hands he won't be able to play in the competition"). It even becomes murkier if we think about it from the perspective of survival ("not enough resources hence its him or me") which can be translated to less dire but no less stressful situations ("the winner of the competition gets a scholarship to that school I cannot afford to pay").

   
All these artificial 'cramps' are caused by our mean social structure/ ideology, whereby money is the incentive to competiveness and power.  Thus, under this present conditions it's almost impossible to ward off negative temptations and actions. Eat or be eaten: kill or be killed! Schrecklich! Luis Armsrong should have sung: What a horrible world!

Quote from: jjjIn fact I'm for a far better ideology available to which our society is not ready yet: An ideology in which we all offer our good will and services free of charge to each other. There's no money involved, there's little or no need for police, courts, jails... Yes, it's almost paradise on Earth.

That sounds awfully like anarchism. As far as I know, this is quite an interesting thing, but it has been proven that it's almost impossible to work in a long term.

Quote from: jjjAll these artificial 'cramps' are caused by our mean social structure/ ideology, whereby money is the incentive to competiveness and power.  Thus, under this present conditions it's almost impossible to ward off negative temptations and actions

I wouldn't really call them "artificial cramps". Those "cramps" are coming from the nature, competitivness has been in our genes since the time we were jumping around in trees. Animals fight each other in order to get the best position in the herd, to get the best piece of meat etc. Now replace meat with money, better position in the herd with social status and you'll see, that we're just acting like "animals". ;)

Human beings are "Homo economicus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus) and this won't probably change any time soon...

 

QuoteThat sounds awfully like anarchism. As far as I know, this is quite an interesting thing, but it has been proven that it's almost impossible to work in a long term.

It would be a wonderful thing. Albeit it's feasible and lasting 'forever' (or longer :) ) ...if only we would be able to uphold such virtues ideology! We are just not ready for it. Our negative traits require guns, police, court & jails! Listo! (That's it!)
It's about time we leave the hunter & gatherer mentality behind... and turn civilized, don't you reckon? We have to start one day; why not at least start planing now?
I like to conduct a test case study on an isolated island with say, two couples having children there and live off the land (with regular shipments of basic, needed supplies) and no contact with other cultures, no radio, no Internet, not TV. If they teach their children how to reject their inherited, negative traits... they stand a good chance to gradually weed them out.
More science fiction? >>> Scientific advances may soon enable us to recode/ cleanse our genetic code and so, accelerate this process! So, we better start planing, before they recode us to be even more competitive than we already are!  :o

One of my good friends is a Communist-Anarchist. His theories are extremely similar to yours.

I think that the vision of society you have would be wonderful. I think it would also be implementable on a small scale. Getting two, or ten, or even a hundred people to live harmoniously is feasible.

Here's the problem I have with it: how do you get over six billion people to live in perfect harmony? And doesn't one unharmonious, unscrupulous person have the potential to ruin everything?

Quote...how do you get over six billion people to live in perfect harmony? And doesn't one unharmonious, unscrupulous person have the potential to ruin everything?

Of course to change humankind for such an extent would require hundreds of years mass reformation and re-education. Now we are besieged by ambitions of evil and worked damn hard to entrench it.
It's as bad as an addiction.
Even if we manage it after 8oo years or so, we still would need to safeguard infringements with conventional security precautions, such as police and jails. But, eventually we would be able to weed out all evil, because it would become 'unpopular', like dictatorship & communism.

In time to come many philosophical fora are going to think of how to progress human living conditions and that about it what they'll dream up. Unless of course, as mentioned, scientific progress enables us tailor humankind. It will be hard for mighty power brokers to relinguish their grip. They are going plan how to procrastinate the process...

I really, really don't think we can weed out all evil in mankind. The desire to do something for our own gain at he expense of others (as I would suppose we've defined evil) is part of what we are--otherwise, I rather doubt it would have started ever if it wasn't.

I also agree with 'Paca. On a small scale, your idea (and various others, such as pure democracy) is possible, but the larger the group, the more complex and unwieldy it would get. Therefore making it less and less functional and feasible.

Quote from: jjj on August 15, 2007, 03:40:09 PM
Unless of course, as mentioned, scientific progress enables us tailor humankind.

Before I formulate any opinion on that statement, may I ask a clarifying question about it?

Are you merely listing that as a method of changing people, or are you outright advocating eugenics?

Quote...really, really don't think we can weed out all evil in mankind.

Theoretically it's and stays feasible; it's rather than our addiction to negative actions is so deep ingrained that we just are unwilling and so, unable to decide on changing for the better. That's all there's to it! How come that I can am willing to do it and really mean it? Not meaning to 'un-humble myself... but my dearest aunt 'Tante Mieze', who mothered me the first 9 years of my life in Czechoslovakia, told me that I have not to thank her for anything, because I was sooo easily to raise and didn't cause problems at all! (i.e.,if I inherited devilish traits, she wouldn't have said the same). Thus, we all received divers amounts of pos/neg traits and therefore we all would require diverse levels of reformation of the sub conscience. Of course as things stand at the moment, I have no alternative that to join the mutual rip-off game.

QuoteEugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] The goals of various groups advocating eugenics have been to create healthier, more intelligent people, to save society's resources, and lessen human suffering.

If it is in that sense, I guess we have no option than to go for it, but please don't drag Hitler into it... won't you?  :). This sick man was a bad philosopher of the past! That's why I don't want to read/ learn a thing from him; except how to avoid these sorts of philosophical monsters.

Alright, so while I would agree with you that a case can be made for general self-improvement, what do you think of the specific methods advocated by supporters of eugenics?

For instance, would you support "forcing" natural selection by eliminating those who can't shed their "negative traits" from the gene pool? Would you support genetic modification to "improve" people?

Hey, natural selection makes us more stupid because -it's now proven- smarter people have less children (or none at all).  ;)

Instead of eugenics we could allow polygamy/polyandry for those with higher IQs (or tax incentives... ;) ).
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Yeah, well, the Russians are trying something like that... (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003836726_russbabies15.html)

:o

Quote from: jjjI like to conduct a test case study on an isolated island with say, two couples having children there and live off the land (with regular shipments of basic, needed supplies) and no contact with other cultures, no radio, no Internet, not TV. If they teach their children how to reject their inherited, negative traits... they stand a good chance to gradually weed them out.

There's already something similiar on TV - it's called Big Brother... ;) ;D

Just kidding. Anyway, I don't think this "project" could work. For several reasons:

1. Inbreeding - basically, due to the fact that there are only two couples there, it could (and probably would) come to inbreeding eventually and genetic malformations during the years.

2. Isolation - this particular isolation may lead to "weeding-out" of some negative traits. But in case of a success, you'd probably want to "plant" these "pure" individuals back into society, you don't want a human being with no negative traits beeing isolated. Now imagine what a shock it would be to bring such an individual back into the social "jungle"... (ever saw the movie "Twins" with Schwarzenegger? ;) You would probably get a similiar result, but without the happy end. It's enough to think about the girl, who has been raised by the wolfes, a reintegration into the society was impossible.)

3. "Regular shipment of basic, needed supplies" - how do you want to "weed-out" the negative traits, if you don't let the individuals make their own way through. If you give them everything they need to survive, they wouldn't be able to "earn" their living by themselves. You would spoil them. And I think that being spoiled could be seen as a negative trait.

4. Genetics - you throw around the term genetics a lot. By that I mean inherited traits. The parents must have some negative traits, won't their children inherit them?

5. Isolation II - "No contact to other cultures" - IMO, thanks to an interaction between different cultures, people are able to form opinions, become individuals and maybe even "weed-out" some of their negative traits. Every culture has its positive and negative sides. If you live in only one culture, without contact to different people than those thinking like you, you lose the possibility of improving yourself. You'll just have the opinion your parents "planted" in your head, no chance of self-improvement, no chance of loosing your "negative traits."

6. Boredom - The two couples and their children would eventually get bored or start getting on their nerves, as it's oftenly the case when you get a small group of people isolated. Think about the negative traits they would develop in that case. IMO, they would eventually start "killing" each other, both physically and mentally.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 16, 2007, 02:01:15 AM
Hey, natural selection makes us more stupid because -it's now proven- smarter people have less children (or none at all).  ;)

You saw the movie "Idiocracy", haven't you? :P

QuoteFor instance, would you support "forcing" natural selection by eliminating those who can't shed their "negative traits" from the gene pool? Would you support genetic modification to "improve" people?

Although this would huge moral implication, I would endorse most necessary steps to get the best result for humankind. Now that scientists know the genetic code it's only a matter of time until they start manipulating it to heal people. One day it might it will become possible to cure a person with inherited criminal (or homosexual) traits. Since every trait has its markers, they are then identified and deactivated: just like a computer program.

Quote...an isolated island with say, two couples

Yes, I agree this 'fairytale' is too complicated. Also it would take several generations to effectively weed out all negative traits; even with the best reformation program, because our evil traits are too deep ingrained. It took millennia to perfect their negativity. I give up! Yet, I still insist that I am willing and able to dismantle them... right now! Sadly, in the present (nasty) ideological climate I still need to apply them as defense weapon or I'll be 'processed' by sordid capitalist monsters and the 40 robbers!   :'(

I guess for now there's little hope to cleanse masses of people The only feasible way would be to get a sizable amount of people to do it. They still would need to live on an island in a neutral environment (as described) for several generation. They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline. Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule. (Punishment?) Yes, we are already all sizzling in capitalist hell!!
In German we used to say: 'Wie man sich bettet so schlaeft man!' (One sleeps as one makes/ prepares one's bed!)

Quote from: jjjOne day it might it will become possible to cure a person with inherited criminal (or homosexual) traits

Are you trying to say that it's equal to be homosexual and a criminal??!!

Homosexuality isn't an illness, it's not something we would cure!!! At this moment, you sounded like a "religious" nutjob. I hope it's just a misunderstanding......

____________________________________________________________

On a sidenote, I'm still a little confused about the use of words like "reforming, "re-educating" and especially "cleansing" humankind. But I slowly start to understand what you mean.

I'm a slightly in conflict with the idea of bringing people under isolation to "improve" them. I gave you the reasons why above. Now, there's one more reason, why I think it couldn't work:

Quote from: jjjThey would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline.

We've seen things like that happening before, with various sects, religious groups, serious nutjobs, etc. How do you want to make sure that the one offering "philosophical guidance" does not get corrupted by the power? Even the most philosophically and psychologically "pure" people can get corrupted, when they realise they have power over people.

QuoteAre you trying to say that it's equal to be homosexual and a criminal??!!

No, one is the one and the other is of course the other, yet they all can be identified in the genetic code.

QuoteHomosexuality isn't an illness, 

You are entitled to your opinion. Nature's laws allow us to interpret their implied meaning on almost anything and so, we are free to enjoy our interpretations. It's not for me to decide/ argue whose interpretation is more/ less logically correct (without the need to take moral/religious consideration into account). The fact that the truth is independent of public opinion, allows us to air our opinions, without the need to enter into competition on who is right/wrong and just stay 'cool brothers' and forget all about 'warm brother's ambitions  :)).

QuoteWe've seen things like that happening before, with various sects, religious groups, serious nutjobs, etc.

I have seen it, too. The difference here is that it's not to do with religion, sects etc, but neutral philosophical aspirations to rid humankind of inherited/ acquired negative traits and foster the positive ones.

QuoteHow do you want to make sure that the one offering "philosophical guidance" does not get corrupted by the power? Even the most philosophically and psychologically "pure" people can get corrupted, when they realise they have power over people.

By supervising the process democratically; i.e. by a group of dedicated, philosophically qualified individuals (l.e. not by one person or a dictator).
The very fact that we overly concerned with corruption and other threats unwittingly discloses our deep-rooted association with negative traits. Once we get rid of our negative consideration we will be free to only worry about the positive ones and its benefits!

Quote from: jjjI have seen it, too. The difference here is that it's not to do with religion, sects etc, but neutral philosophical aspirations to rid humankind of inherited/ acquired negative traits and foster the positive ones.

How can a philosophy be neutral? IMO, every philosophy is based on some personal experience, thus it is impossible to make it objective and neutral. Even you must admit, that even your philosophy is your personal view of things, thus not neutral at all.

And btw, every religion is a philosophy in it's own way, and every group can say that their philosophy is the right/best for humankind.

Quote from: jjjBy supervising the process democratically; i.e. by a group of dedicated, philosophically qualified individuals (l.e. not by one person or a dictator).

Once again the question arises, how will you make sure thos people remain dedicated and democratic all the way through the "experiment".  Who will we control them not to make a little chess game out of the whole thing? (I know I might be pedant on this all thing, but that's because I'm very sceptic about it working in reality.)

And how do you want to find philosophically qualified personell, if you personally are not familiar with other philosophies than your own? If they would be philosophically qualified in your eyes, wouldn't that mean that they would imply only the philosophy you give them? Which would bring to a "dictatorship of thought", with only one idea floating around, and no possible forming of personal opinion (also connected to the isolation).


All in all, this whole idea of your "experiment" makes me think of a "big brother watching you" system. It almost makes it feel like you would like to make a little ant farm, just replacing the ants with humans.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 12:29:47 PM

QuoteHomosexuality isn't an illness, 

You are entitled to your opinion.

Your stepping over the line here jjj!  While you may be entitled to your "opinion" no matter how wrong it is, homophobia is your problem.  If you would like to discuss you homophobia problem please do so at another forum.  Consider this a warning.

Also, your "genetic superiority" reeks of Hitler and Eugenics no matter how many times you say it doesn't.  It's diversity that makes humans great.  As great as we are no one is smart enough to be able to say what traits are "superior" and what traits are "inferior."  To even discuss it make me cringe!   >:(

 

QuoteEven you must admit, that even your philosophy is your personal view of things, thus not neutral at all.

Well, the moment we 'democratically' agree that this view is logically correct, it then can be viewed as 'the nearest to the truth'... until we are able to amend it. In that sense I consider it to be 'neutral' or pure truth.

QuoteAnd btw, every religion is a philosophy in its own way, and every group can say that their philosophy is the right/best for humankind.

Sure, there are countless misinterpretations of nature's laws, but somewhere we have drew the line and start to believe that our insight is correct and for it's when my insight works; i.e. delivers the desired (positive) benefit/ result!

Quote...how will you make sure those people remain dedicated and democratic all the way through the "experiment". And how do you want to find philosophically qualified personell, if you personally are not familiar with other philosophies than your own? If they would be philosophically qualified in your eyes, wouldn't that mean that they would imply only the philosophy you give them? Which would bring to a "dictatorship of thought", with only one idea floating around, and no possible forming of personal opinion (also connected to the isolation).

That comes with philosophical maturity. Established/ hard-gained principles of insight remain fairly stable and so, one is able to rely on them. If this group has been co-operating for years and so, established a number of such (mutually acknowledged) philosophical guidelines, then reliable co-operation can be secured.
I wished I draw a caricature of people carrying various sized sacks ( with neg traits) on their backs... Because, we all possess divers levels of neg traits. Ideally this group of dedicated, supervising body should possess the will and ability to rid themselves of their inherited/ acquired neg traits. Most-likely this will be people with lesser neg traits, I think.

Quote from: jjjThat comes with philosophical maturity.

How do you obtain philosophical maturity with only one particular philosophy (democratically decided to be the real thing, but some might not consider it as such) being available? You can't form your opinion, thus there's no way to talk about maturity, IMO.

Quote from: jjj'the nearest to the truth'

Do you really think there's such thing as the (absolute) "truth"? Purely hypothetically: you claim one thing, the majority of people agree on that thing. Fine, you call that the truth. You plant this truth into this society. But, you'll have thousands, even millions of people disagreeing with this opinion. You have to "repress" them in order not to destroy the whole "pureness" of your society, you have built thanks to your "truth".  Now, this repression is a negative trait.
So is, IMO, trying to bring one single philosophy to a number of people, isolating them and thus not allowing them to consider other truths.


I was also wondering (a question I've put several times, but you haven't answered it at all), how will you in your little artificial perfect society cope with isolation and genetic malformations?


EDIT: I almost missed this :mrgreen:

Quote from: MB996As great as we are no one is smart enough to be able to say what traits are "superior" and what traits are "inferior."

I fully agree on this....

 

QuoteYour stepping over the line here jjj!  While you may be entitled to your "opinion" no matter how wrong it is, homophobia is your problem.  If you would like to discuss you homophobia problem please do so at another forum.

I don't get it. Is it that:
1) I must continue to discuss contentious subjects or I am homophobic?  or 2) not allowed to mentioned that homosexuality can be identified in our genetic code? Beside: I haven't got homophobia problem; I even have homosexual relative and my non-homophobic opinion on top of that! We tolerate each other, because our genetic make-up says so. What's there to be homophobic and be warned about?

QuoteConsider this a warning.

Objection: How many warnings am I allowed?

QuoteAlso, your "genetic superiority" reeks of Hitler and Eugenics no matter how many times you say it doesn't.

Hitler was a mass murderer! hoSorry, I cannot see how my benevolent philosophical thinking has something to do with concentration camps, torture, killings & war. I like to think that getting rid of our inherited/ acquired neg traits is good thing?
Eugenics was suggested...  and I found it helpful (in the way I defined and meant it).

QuoteIt's diversity that makes humans great.

Well, if that includes fostering our neg traits, than then the topic is 'discussed' and dead.

QuoteAs great as we are no one is smart enough to be able to say what traits are "superior" and what traits are "inferior."  To even discuss it make me cringe!   

However, the fact remains that some of us inherited/ acquired (for instance) more possessive, more selfish, more aggressive etc. than others. Or do you think we all possess equal amounts of pos & neg traits?  You know... pondering airs it all.
========================
H

Quoteow do you obtain philosophical maturity with only one particular philosophy (democratically decided to be the real thing, but some might not consider it as such) being available? You can't form your opinion, thus there's no way to talk about maturity, IMO.

Example: After years of co-operating in a forum one gets to know each other's thinking and insight. Every member contributes with all his/ her knowledge and wisdom and in this way gradually a number of universal guidelines for what is supposed to be logically correct/ incorrect are formed and democratically acknowledged.

QuoteDo you really think there's such thing as the (absolute) "truth"?

Well, the full truth is only known to nature and it's laws. Our task is to observe and interpret nature's laws as logically correct as possible. Not easy, but with lots of practice you'll be able to make the truth work for you! That's all one can expect and that's good enough, because from than on you can improve on that by steadily amending the gained insight. Also, then it becomes irrelevant what other people say; unless the same insight doesn't work for them. In that case this particular insight works only to your benefit. Apart from this process, we are free to discuss alternative methods to get nearer the truth.

QuoteI was also wondering (a question I've put several times, but you haven't answered it at all), how will you in your little artificial perfect society cope with isolation and genetic malformations?

I didn't continue on this idea, because I abandoned it and instead wrote:
...an isolated island with say, two couples
Yes, I agree this 'fairytale' is too complicated. Also it would take several generations to effectively weed out all negative traits; even with the best reformation program, because our evil traits are too deep ingrained. It took millennia to perfect their negativity. I give up! Yet, I still insist that I am willing and able to dismantle them... right now! Sadly, in the present (nasty) ideological climate I still need to apply them as defense weapon or I'll be 'processed' by sordid capitalist monsters and the 40 robbers!   

I guess for now there's little hope to cleanse masses of people The only feasible way would be to get a sizable amount of people to do it. They still would need to live on an island in a neutral environment (as described) for several generations. They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline. Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule. (Punishment?) Yes, we are already all sizzling in capitalist hell!!

I am growing increasing disturbed, as discussion begins to clarify and elucidate your ideas, jjj.
You seem to me to embrace several obvious fallacies, some of which i regard as extremely dangerous.
1. For example, you seem to me to believe that 'what is natural is good'.
2. You seem to think that logic is a guide to morality (rather than a semantic/semiotic mechanism invented by man to test reasoning).
3. You seem to think that 'right-thinking people'  should agree. (Which therefore implies that if some-one disagrees with you, they are not 'right thinking' and, if not persuadable to your point of view, can be disregarded as 'wrong'.
4. You seem to believe that 'man is perfectable', and furthermore should be perfected. (Aside from the whole discussion of what would be perfection and who would decide it [(see 3.], all such attempts that have been made recently [Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin et al., China under Mao Zedong, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the former Yugoslavia etc.] have universally been totalitarian, repressive, and inhuman.)
5. You also seem, and this is perhaps most disturbing to me, to be 'spin doctoring' with considerable skill (not that many here fall for any spin doctoring at all  :) ).

I've said, this is how it seems to me. Please explain if and where I'm wrong in my understanding of what you're saying...

OK jjj, there are some things that I wish you to consider about your earlier post (I apologise to the siblings about my method of handling the quotes here, but I want to do this point by point):

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 01:29:40 PM

QuoteEven you must admit, that even your philosophy is your personal view of things, thus not neutral at all.

Well, the moment we 'democratically' agree that this view is logically correct, it then can be viewed as 'the nearest to the truth'... until we are able to amend it. In that sense I consider it to be 'neutral' or pure truth.

This statement assumes that there is one "truth".  But humans are very diverse and your view seems not to value diversity at all.  I find this interesting given that what you have indicated of your background would imply that you have personally experienced a considerable amount of different cultures in your life.  Are you saying that you can choose some sort of "best" out of all that?  How to you prevent that choice being anything other than arbitrary?

Personally I revel in the diversity I find around me, I have friends from many different cultures and I really enjoy exploring their different way of looking at things.  None of us are better than the other, I am afraid that you seem to be putting ideas that seem to me to be very close to the border of what even Toadfish are prepared to tolerate, and that takes some doing.  I guess the thing that sticks in my craw is that you seem so sure of yourself, that you seem to need to be right.  Why is that?

Quote from: jjj

QuoteAnd btw, every religion is a philosophy in its own way, and every group can say that their philosophy is the right/best for humankind.

Sure, there are countless misinterpretations of nature's laws, but somewhere we have drew the line and start to believe that our insight is correct and for it's when my insight works; i.e. delivers the desired (positive) benefit/ result!

How can you be so sure that your interpretations are not the misinterpretations?  What are "nature's laws" anyway?  And why do we have to draw any such line at all.  I contend the exact opposite.  We should always assume that our views may well be incorrect and always try to find flaws in them so that we may improve our understanding in the process.  As I said elsewhere, one we think we "have the answer" we have lost it.  

Quote from: jjj

Quote...how will you make sure those people remain dedicated and democratic all the way through the "experiment". And how do you want to find philosophically qualified personell, if you personally are not familiar with other philosophies than your own? If they would be philosophically qualified in your eyes, wouldn't that mean that they would imply only the philosophy you give them? Which would bring to a "dictatorship of thought", with only one idea floating around, and no possible forming of personal opinion (also connected to the isolation).

That comes with philosophical maturity. Established/ hard-gained principles of insight remain fairly stable and so, one is able to rely on them.

Oh really, established by who?  Philosophical maturity IMHO comes with a very liberal dose of recognition that by its very nature Philosophy is an inexact science with many pitfalls and false paths and at best should be treated as a set of guidelines, definitely not rigid rules as it seems you are implying.

QuoteIf this group has been co-operating for years and so, established a number of such (mutually acknowledged) philosophical guidelines, then reliable co-operation can be secured.
I wished I draw a caricature of people carrying various sized sacks ( with neg traits) on their backs... Because, we all possess divers levels of neg traits. Ideally this group of dedicated, supervising body should possess the will and ability to rid themselves of their inherited/ acquired neg traits. Most-likely this will be people with lesser neg traits, I think.

One negative trait that this place actively seeks to reduce is the one of hubris.

The Toadfish Monastery has much to offer the seeker of self knowledge.  We do not have THE TRUTH, but we offer a way to find you own truths and the contentment that comes from stimulating intellectual discourse with others.  We Toadfish are a very tolerant lot, but do not make the mistake  of thinking that we are weak, just looking for someone to show us the way.  Also remember that our tolerance is not unlimited.  If you really are interested in the ways of the Toadfish, I suggest you re read the aims of the Monastery that are displayed on our home page.  These ideals are not something nice to have above the front door and can be treated with contempt once past the threshold.  They are instead deeply held principles by which we seek to improve ourselves, to be an example to others.  If you genuinely wish to continue here, then please try to show some understanding of our ways.

Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on August 16, 2007, 03:34:08 PM
1. For example, you seem to me to believe that 'what is natural is good'.

which further implies the rather bizarre notion that anything that happens isnt natural. Human activity is perfectly natural. ai may be abnormal, unusual, destructive, etc but is natural none the less.

Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on August 16, 2007, 03:34:08 PM
2. You seem to think that logic is a guide to morality (rather than a semantic/semiotic mechanism invented by man to test reasoning).

couldn't agree more. If logic can dictate or define ethics then the implication is clearly there that morality is objective. personally i find the idea of objective morality rather bizarre as i am certain my understansing of ethics difdfers from everybody elses (and lions, cormorants etc)

Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on August 16, 2007, 03:34:08 PM
4. You seem to believe that 'man is perfectable', and furthermore should be perfected.

now that would be unnatural!  ;D

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
I don't get it. Is it that:
1) I must continue to discuss contentious subjects or I am homophobic?  or 2) not allowed to mentioned that homosexuality can be identified in our genetic code?

Your homophobia disgust me and offends others.  There may be people here that are homosexual and your contention that they are ill is quite offensive and unwelcome.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
Objection: How many warnings am I allowed?

Overruled: Depends on the severity of the offense and the contrition of the offender.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
Hitler was a mass murderer! Sorry, I cannot see how my benevolent philosophical thinking has something to do with concentration camps, torture, killings & war. I like to think that getting rid of our inherited/ acquired neg traits is good thing?
Eugenics was suggested...  and I found it helpful (in the way I defined and meant it).

Hitler believed he could make a master race with Eugenics the same as you.  I am sure Hitler's program started out as "innocently" as yours.  You're just a step away from "Genetic Purity."

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
Well, if that includes fostering our neg traits, than then the topic is 'discussed' and dead.

You're exactly right.

I have a box of donuts.  The donuts are diverse.  I notice however that one chocolate sprinkled donut is only half sprinkled therefore "inferior."  I happen to like plain chocolate donuts. In the box there are other donuts.  I notice there are sprinkled donuts also. Those donuts have all their sprinkles and are therefore "superior".  I also like the the sprinkled donuts however.  Suddenly I realize that the half-sprinkled and half-plain donut is the best of both worlds and becomes superior!  What a tasty donut it was.  The "fully" sprinkled donuts and the "fully" plain donuts are over-specialized and have become just a footnote in the history of donuts. 

The same has happened over and over to species in history and the same will happen to us with your "Genetic Cleansing Program."

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
However, the fact remains that some of us inherited/ acquired (for instance) more possessive, more selfish, more aggressive etc. than others. Or do you think we all possess equal amounts of pos & neg traits?  You know... pondering airs it all.

I think Hitler's desire for "Genetic Purity" was a negative trait as I do yours!

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
I guess for now there's little hope to cleanse masses of people The only feasible way would be to get a sizable amount of people to do it. They still would need to live on an island in a neutral environment (as described) for several generations. They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline. Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule. (Punishment?) Yes, we are already all sizzling in capitalist hell!!

I can hear the sound of the "cleansed masses" goose-stepping in the background!  LOL!

Hi Bluenose... (thx for coming in)
At the same time, I elaborate on how I meant it.

QuoteWell, the moment we 'democratically' agree that this view is logically correct, it then can be viewed as 'the nearest to the truth'... until we are able to amend it. In that sense I consider it to be 'neutral' or pure truth.

I meant to say that...after having considered all possible options... we arrive at the best solution, which I consider 'nearest to the truth'. As usual, there are 'many roads to Rome, but basically the seemingly most correct solution is the one (or several, if you insist. Yet, basically any working solution has to be near the truth or it won't work.

QuoteI guess the thing that sticks in my craw is that you seem so sure of yourself, that you seem to need to be right.  Why is that?

A: Because, I struggled for decades to solve personal problems, such as personal development, materialistic security, partner relationship all on my own and... got there by my homemade philosophical concept. That's why I trust this method so much. I must have done something right, because this method worked!

QuoteWhat are "nature's laws" anyway?

Call nature's laws 'common sense' if you prefer...
I consider nature and its laws like God; divine! Examples: 1) Nature law says, that when you walk into a puddle you get wet feet. 2) Nature compels us to act positively (or logically correct) as to avoid suffering. 3) If you drive your car against a tree due to speeding... nature tells you to drive slowly! So, every move & action on Earth and in the Universe is controlled by laws of nature. Thus, it's only natural to make nature and its laws your best friend! That's what I did and still do. For decades I pondered about how I can find inner peace and discovered that... contentment (not happiness) was what I was after. More peace exists only when we are dead. 

QuotePhilosophical maturity IMHO comes with a very liberal dose of recognition that by its very nature Philosophy is an inexact science with many pitfalls and false paths and at best should be treated as a set of guidelines, definitely not rigid rules as it seems you are implying.

True, there are no rigid rules. To solve a problem one starts out pretty lost. Yet, after pondering the misty bits start to gradually clear up and with lots more patience and pondering one gains a kind of panoramic view of the problem, by seeing all possible avenues at the same time and that enables one to choose the best solution (or two). The confirmation of how correct one's reasoning is comes...with eating the proverbial pudding!  There's so much more to it, but that's roughly how I go about to get reasoning to work for me.

QuoteIf you genuinely wish to continue here, then please try to show some understanding of our ways.

I come to realize that my real problem is less to do with hubris, humbleness, homophobia, Hitler and what have you, but rather with the fact that I have been 'philosophically on my own' for too long  and that's why it's now so hard for me to adapt to different ways of data processing. Simple as that! What to do?  Resolution: Best will be I just read your wonderful contribution (as a silent sibling/ partner) and continue to do my own pondering. This way I neither offend nor upset anyone, enjoy some philosophical stimulation... and thus, we are all contented!
================================

QuoteYour homophobia disgust me and offends others.  There may be people here that are homosexual and your contention that they are ill is quite offensive and unwelcome.

As mention in my reply to you private message, my statement wasn't meant to offend and I have no qualms to beg your pardon if it did.

Homophobia? Albeit I have homosexual relatives, we tolerate our differences, because it's a fact and nothing can be done about it, yet that doesn't make neither of us homophobic. So, in other words, there's not even a chance to discuss one's thoughts in order to modify or amend them? Thus, there might be many more such 'don't mention' subjects lurking, which might trap me any time. Risky business, because I can't afford too many warnings...
In turn mixing Hitler's horrible philosophy with mine dignified, homemade one is pretty insulting stuff, but as mentioned, I'm not easily offended as you are, because I enjoy philosophical stimulation, even then when it's off the rails... or 'bananas' as we say down under. Kind Regards, jjj

jjj,

I would like to address two points:

QuoteThus, there might be many more such 'don't mention' subjects lurking, which might trap me any time. Risky business, because I can't afford too many warnings.

There are no unmentionable subjects. You mentioned it, and it's been discussed for the past page or so. An administrator may have disagreed strongly with your views on that subject, but the subject is nevertheless not taboo and has continued to be discussed. Please do not imply that censorship (or unmentionability, or whatever you want to call it) is happening to you, because it isn't.

The second point I'd like to address is your tone toward homosexuality. You have insisted that you are tolerant of homosexuality and not homophobic - and I will interpret those statements as being intended in the most genuine, good-spirited, and sincere way possible. Nevertheless, the tone you take when discussing homosexuality seems rather pejorative. In order to make sure that the language barrier isn't getting in our way again, I wonder if you'd answer the following questions:

1. Do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, "negative trait," or otherwise a defect in a human being?

2. Given the opportunity and the ability, would you alter a homosexual human being to make him or her heterosexual, even if that human being did not wish to be altered so?

jj...What are you up to in here young man ! :exclaim:!

Have you already forgotten our e-mails ?

Granted I wrote "" suggest" you avoid certain topics..." and yes I also give you that I did not point out homosexuality specifically , and yes we do know you a bit better and again the answer is yes an enormous communication barrier was breached in an extraordinary fashion ....

But I am still wagging a finger at you while scowling , I turn my back on you for one day and its happening again !
A thread evolved and you were largely responsible for it , it concerns humility , I notice you haven't put in your two cents , or how about the other monastery virtues which brings me to my point .

I also asked you for patience !

Now I'm switching to my index finger and it is wagging at you now ! You realize what fingers are left now jj .

I see you there and I am amused that once again you are using shoe laces as dental floss , however other siblings don't smoke at all or have a pirate sense of humour .

Now jj , please...as a GREAT PERSONAL FAVOR TO ME ....start up a thread in human spirituality perhaps or maybe find a thread that interests you there . You needn't handle all the tough ones just yet . The siblings still need time to understand you .

Allow me to mention to you once again that I have read over hundreds if not a thousand of your posts so I do understand you and can certainly be of assistance ...but not right now ...I have a lot to do and sleep to catch . I didn't say you could not go out and play with your new friends ....... i am delighted that you are generating interesting discussions and  paying closer attention to the siblings suggestions .

Just find A safer room...PLEASE *sigh*.

jjj

Tolerance.

. put up with something or somebody unpleasant;
. recognize and respect
. have a tolerance for a poison or strong drug or pathogen
. allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting
. the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve
. able to put up with

Which form of tolerance do you apply to homosexuals? The only one I believe could be valid is recognise and respect. And I got no sense from your wrting that it was this form of tolerance you meant.

Personally I would never use the phrase tolerant of homosexuals. If you have to say that, then for me, the saying of it actually indicates the opposite.

You may say this is a language problem. I am finding that more difficult to believe as time goes on because the language "difficulties" always seem to involve the same basic misunderstanding. The words that trigger people's sensibilities here all seem to come out of one camp, pardon the pun. The appearance of the word cleanse for example, fits perfectly with previous trigger words. Now, I understand that your ideas may be benevolent, but it is odd to me that the type of english that you use includes many occurences of words that are commonly seen as malevolent. Not knowing how you acquired your english, what sorts of books you read in english, makes it hard to understand why these sorts of words keep cropping up. It is easy to jump to conclusions that as you have gone about your learning, your development of your philosophy, the underlying beliefs and interests that have been drivers in your learning have been ones which challenge the purpose of this Monastery.

We are hopefully avoiding falling into the trap of jumping to conclusions.I believe you didn't mean to offend. That you do, and are not aware that it will offend, is a problem we keep trying to work around.

If you just read and ponder, you may eventually pinpoint things Toadfish tend to think similarly on. But the Monastery is not about having the "right" beliefs. It's about openess to each other.

Negative traits seems very dodgy ground to me in ways other than those already mentioned, with which I agree.

The same traits that make someone good at creating security systems, for example, make others excellent security threats. In IT hackers are caught by other hackers. Black hatters and White hatters. It is the application of the trait that may be seen by society as negative or positive, not the trait itself.

Dear Bruder Cuzzen... Your humor is irresistible! Do you realize I already kissed everybody good bye! Yet, you force me to continue and it will be your fault if things get out of hand and I'll be sacked!
Now Bruder Alpaca forces me to answer 2 key questions:

Before all, I need to disclaim, that my answers are not intended to offend or insult worshipers of brown love. It's purely my own thinking... No homophobia involved.

Quote1. Do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, "negative trait," or otherwise a defect in a human being?

From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring. Obviously, in this regard there's something amiss in homosexuality; not to say too much. To my humble brain it indicates that the genetic coding is to blame, not the homosexual. Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else. I respect any person, whatever race or shape. (Here I tried hard to give a polite answer...) In short you could say: It's a genetic handicap and I respect handicapped persons. 'Sickness' is the wrong term, because they don't suffer directly from it.


2. Given the opportunity and the ability, would you alter a homosexual human being to make him or her heterosexual, even if that human being did not wish to be altered so?
Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Mao etc. dictators do such things... not jjj !!!   
My intentions are throughout positive. IMHO

Now Brother Griffin is next:

Thank you for you understanding. I learnt my English from using a lousy little dictionary and now MS Word's thesaurus.
Of course I just select a word according to what I think is OK. If I would read lots of books I would learn to use them correctly. Now I have got too many things to do and no time for reading books.

QuoteIt's about openess to each other.

Yes, but than I'll be told that my openness offends! Catch 69

Emphasis mine:

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 07:44:16 PM

Quote1. Do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, "negative trait," or otherwise a defect in a human being?

From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring. Obviously, in this regard there's something amiss in homosexuality; not to say too much. To my humble brain it indicates that the genetic coding is to blame, not the homosexual. Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else. I respect any person, whatever race or shape. (Here I tried hard to give a polite answer...) In short you could say: It's a genetic handicap and I respect handicapped persons. 'Sickness' is the wrong term, because they don't suffer directly from it.

Unless it's your position that what we call nature was put in place or is guided by some sort of conscious intelligence like a personal god or "Mother Nature", I don't see how you can claim that nature "intended" anything at all.

And if that is your position, fine, but hopefully you now recognize it as a personal belief that is not (and shouldn't necessarily be) shared by everyone else.

I am adding this just for the record.

According to different studies made in the past decades there seem to be a number of different aspects that correlate with homosexuality. Some basic elements seem to be involved, namely genetic and environmental (both in the womb and in a lesser degree emotionally).

On the genetic, there is a correlation between it occurring and a homosexual in the family suggesting an inherited trait. On the environmental, different factors in the womb seem to have some effect, among the most interesting I heard lately, the fact that when the same mother has more male children, there is an increased likelihood of homosexuality in the younger; it is hypothesized that the mother's immune system starts targeting certain hormones/compounds that are related, more successfully with each pregnancy. Lastly some critical periods both at 7y/o and the teen years seem to determine the outcome in some cases.

From the data gathered until now it would seem that certain conditions can augment the potential for homosexuality but none has been found to be absolute, IOW you can have two individuals with the same genetic traits with one being homosexual and the other not. More factors seem to be at play in different configurations with different outcomes.

Lastly, regarding nature some little details. What could be cataloged as homosexual behavior has been observed in different species, and tends to be far more prevalent than one would guess regarding the percentage of individuals of the species. Apparently the circumstance doesn't seem to impede the well being of the species in question. Other interesting nugget is that the mechanism may be a remainder of the time when species (as some fish and frogs do now) change sex as adults because environmental pressures like too few members of one gender in a population.

It is my view that the suggestion of homosexuality as an illness or 'handicap' is an oversimplification of a complex subject and at the same time a way to pass (negative) judgment over the circumstance it self.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 07:44:16 PM
Yes, but than I'll be told that my openness offends! Catch 69

I Googled "Catch 69" out of interest. Apparently it's a lesbian erotic film from the 70s.  One for the cinema on the island, I think. Assuming we can sneak it past the philosophers.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 07:44:16 PM
Before all, I need to disclaim, that my answers are not intended to offend or insult worshipers of brown love. It's purely my own thinking... No homophobia involved.

jjj, I know you mentioned that your first language is German.  I'm not sure if you're from Germany or not, but hopefully you can realize that something like this would be reasonably considered to be offensive:

"I don't want to offend the Germans.  I have no problem with goose-stepping sauerkraut-eaters."

In exactly the same manner, your statement can be reasonably considered to be offensive as well.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 07:44:16 PM


From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring. Obviously, in this regard there's something amiss in homosexuality; not to say too much. To my humble brain it indicates that the genetic coding is to blame, not the homosexual. Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else. I respect any person, whatever race or shape. (Here I tried hard to give a polite answer...)

as a hetrosexual who does not wish to create offspring i rather object to the idea that my genetic coding is wrong. in most species it is not expected that all animals will create offspring. when thay do you get rampant overpopulation and extinction events (sound familiar people?). So perhaps the social idea that we should all have a hetrosexual drive and a procreation drive is nothing but that. a societal construct that in no way reflects nature.

Natural things are, by definition, the things that are out there in nature. If you try to change them as 'unnatural' you clearly do not understand the terms in which you are dealing. (although i suppose your natural state may be that of ramant eugenecist!)

In addition to the points that siblings Lambicus and Zono made regarding "nature's intentions," I'll offer a simple question (been doing quite a few of these lately!):

If nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Quote from: jjjFrom what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring.

Humans are not the only beings that are involved in homosexuality. There have been cases of homosexual turtles, and other animals. Nature likes diversity, homosexuality is one of it. I don't think it's correct saying that nature intended something, when there are so many exceptions.

Quote from: jjjI didn't continue on this idea, because I abandoned it and instead wrote:
...an isolated island with say, two couples

And yet again you abandon the answer... I was curious about your insight of the situation, but once again you throw away my question...

Quote from: jjjYes, I agree this 'fairytale' is too complicated.

Now you say it's a fairytale. Earlier you have put it like it has been a serious idea of yours, an experiment that would work if put into action. So what is it, a "fairytale" or a "serious project"?

Quote from: jjjright now! Sadly, in the present (nasty) ideological climate I still need to apply them as defense weapon or I'll be 'processed' by sordid capitalist monsters and the 40 robbers!

I'm curious. Who is that "capitalist monster and the 40 robbers"?

Quote from: jjjSince there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else.

And that is the only reason to respect them? Just because they are "handicapped"? Why not see them as normal human beings??????

Quote from: jjjgot there by my homemade philosophical concept. That's why I trust this method so much. I must have done something right, because this method worked!

Your philosophy worked for you. Great. But what makes you so sure it would work for everyone? Why push it so much, if other people prefer other ways?

Quote from: jjjAnyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule.

You're different so you get excluded out of the society? That doesn't really sound like an accaptable agreement for me. I prefer how I live now...

Kiyo, in jjj's defence, I believe his switch to describing the vision as a "fairytale" was his way of acknowledging that the points you and others made in challenging it are correct, and that you have changed his mind on the subject.

Pardon me, jjj, if I am grossly misinterpreting that.

I came to that conclusion too, but it took me a while thinking about it.

Quote...how you can claim that nature "intended" anything at all.

It's, because I observed that all of our actions have consequences and they are carried out by 'some power'. To me it's logic (or nature), which works according to certain laws and principles. To other people this power might be God or non-existing. Like it or not, our actions are being 'filmed' and dealt with! That' why I aim to play by its rules, because I experienced the consequences and prefer the pos to neg ones.

Quote... if that is your position, fine, but hopefully you now recognize it as a personal belief that is not (and shouldn't necessarily be) shared by everyone else.

I never had a problem with recognizing, that we all are free to earn our insight the hard way.Yet, personally I preferred to learn the easier way (from others); don't you, too? Of course it has to 'work' or I have (had) to keep searching to find what's working for me.   

Quote...the suggestion of homosexuality as an illness or 'handicap' is an oversimplification of a complex subject and at the same time a way to pass (negative) judgment over the circumstance it self.

Admittedly, I'm not an authority on this matter and merely expressed my personal insight. Its that what appears obvious. Or could it be that nature intends to curb population growth in that way?  It's often complicated to read nature... I do my best, invite your opinion and enrich mine; all depends.

QuoteI have no problem with goose-stepping sauerkraut-eaters."

I love it, please give me more of it! Also, I do enjoy fresh sauerkraut. It got lots Vit C...300mg in 100g fresh Sauerkraut. I also can tell you how to do it, but it won't make you speak like Hitler; rather like a 'Churchill-Hitler'! It helps me to define Germany's international image logically correct ...even though I'm over 35 years not German anymore. Please, don't feel offended by 'adding entertaining twists' to this other wise 'dry' discussion. Unless it gets in the way to differentiate the fun from the serious bits, I don't consider it offensive. I'm by nature a fun loving person and thus, the last one to get upset. That's why my looks cheat my age. IMHO In other words, being happy tells our bodies 'to live' and visa versa! So, may I suggest to join the fun and stick around longer on Earth, unless you have alternative/ macabre plans...

QuoteIf nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Observing nature, many things seem imperfect. Also it could be sequences brought on by neg (or illogical) action by members of previous generations. It could be induced by chemical interference etc. All we can do is to compare the state of the majority to off-norms and draw conclusions from there to amend them.

QuoteAnd yet again you abandon the answer... I was curious about your insight of the situation, but once again you throw away my question... Now you say it's a fairytale. Earlier you have put it like it has been a serious idea of yours, an experiment that would work if put into action.

Don't you get 'quick ideas', which soon are proven unworkable? Well, that's one of them! No point to stir it up... since it has got the mentioned disadvantages. If you still insist in having some of these weird question answered, please rephrase them in another context.

QuoteKiyo, in jjj's defence, I believe his switch to describing the vision as a "fairytale" was his way of acknowledging that the points you and others made in challenging it are correct, and that you have changed his mind on the subject.

Thx. Alpaca... that it! You see, I don't stubbornly insist in unworkable theories. That's why we discuss and sort them out. Also we should  take no offense on personal views, but rather help each other to amend them for the better. Instead some of you prefer to judge and my expressed opinions and merely decry them as 'offensive'... This tactic ('tictac') isn't helpful; i.e. it doesn't help me changing opinion for the better. Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!

QuoteWho is that "capitalist monster and the 40 robbers"?'

It's our sordid, mean capitalist politicians and their ideology! Like communism, both are devils. Yet, if I have to choose, I still prefer to put up with the latter... until something better pops up!

QuoteJust because they are "handicapped"?

I view/ respect all people equally; what-/however they are, unless they prove themselves to be otherwise, such evil is able to create. ((Achtung: Please don't construct from that... that homosexuals are evil people!) I learnt a lesson, didn't I... Sauerkraut?

QuoteYour philosophy worked for you. Great.

I feel obliged to thank you... IMHO, IMHO
But what makes you so sure it would work for everyone?

QuoteBecause it consists of universally transferable

patterns...IMHO

QuoteWhy push it so much, if other people prefer other ways?

There's no pushing going on...down the throat, unless you refer back to...?  :) I just state my case and it's up to each of us to show interest or reject (take or leave) it. Considering the alternatives we are advised to establish some kinds of handy reasoning tools and criteria.

Quote...prefer how I live now.

Yes, life in Africa iis worse, I heard... Yet, for the moment capitalism is still the best ideology there is, but we can/ should improve on that. Let's at least steadily amend our capitalist thing in an effort to improve it. The trouble is our highly evolved, neg traits hinder/ imped progress. Evil seems to gain the upper hand. We need more weapons, police, courts and jails to curb our growing, neg traits.
Thus, forget about getting rid of our beloved neg traits. Instead we just learn to tolerate and live with them!  How about that?
...See, I'm very adaptable, because this way we learn the hard way to recognize what should be done to curb our social problems. Beside, the truth is that I hate dictator or being dictated. That's why I would make a useless, ridiculous Hitler! Heil!  :)

Quote from: jjjDon't you get 'quick ideas', which soon are proven unworkable? Well, that's one of them! No point to stir it up... since it has got the mentioned disadvantages. If you still insist in having some of these weird question answered, please rephrase them in another context.

OK, sorry. I may have overreacted a little and didn't see wht you were trying to say.
And I don't think my question were weird, I was just trying to understand your "project" better...

QuoteOK, sorry. I may have overreacted a little and didn't see wht you were trying to say.
And I don't think my question were weird, I was just trying to understand your "project" better...

OK, sorry. I may have overreacted a little by calling you questions 'weird'... :-*

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 07:07:35 AM

QuoteIf nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Observing nature, many things seem imperfect. Also it could be sequences brought on by neg (or illogical) action by members of previous generations. It could be induced by chemical interference etc. All we can do is to compare the state of the majority to off-norms and draw conclusions from there to amend them.

leaving aside the generally outrageous notion that you are the arbiter of what is perfect in nature.. 

Your argument here is about as illogical as it is possible to get. You are defining 'nature' in terms of what "seems@ imperfect/illogical to you. That is simply not what nature is. "imperfection" is a necessary part of the thoroughly logical proccesses of nature. It is the driving force of evoluntion. In a constantly changing natural environment seems perfect or usual now may be utterly inappropriate in future environmental or societal conditions. When the first mudskipper hopped onto the land it was not the norm, it was genetically "imperfect" in your definition but it was as natural as they get and look where it led.

You are so short of necessary scientific information that your whole argument boils down to a rather ill informed set of opinions. If homosexuality is genetic (and this is a hotly contested issue) and arose through one off "imperfect" mutation (rather than the longer process of natural selection - evidently as this tends to rely on procreation) then is quite astoundingly common. We dont see 1 in 10 people walking round with ANY other one off non hereditary mutation so why you would assume that homosexuality is different?

Opinions are all well and good but when you start to substitute them into an argument as facts I start to get rather annoyed....

... and you dont want the resident Big Billy Goat Gruff mistaking you for a troll  ;D

 

Quote...aside the generally outrageous notion that you are the

Quotearbiter of what is perfect in nature.. 

Sorry, wrong notion... for I'm just trying to interpret natures creation, just like you.

QuoteYour argument here is about as illogical as it is possible to get. 
"imperfection" is a necessary part of the thoroughly logical proccesses of nature. It is the driving force of evoluntion.

So, you reckon, people born with crippled limbs or mental handicap are part of the necessary driving force of evolution?  This is even harder to understand and believe... than my troll. IMHO
You are so short of necessary scientific information that your whole argument boils down to a rather ill informed set of opinions.

Yes, that's how I would describe scientists, too. They know everything and nothing. Thus, I just settle for what is accessible to me: observation of nature and trial & error and when it works I'm quite happy. What more I want? Waiting for scientific advice kills 10 000 cancer and AIDS ridden patients, daily.

QuoteWe dont see 1 in 10 people walking round with ANY other one off non hereditary mutation so why you would assume that homosexuality is different?

Yes, 10 % is right, but I don't understand the rest you are on about... Please rephrase .

QuoteOpinions are all well and good but when you start to substitute them into an argument as facts I start to get rather annoyed...

Please don't brother scientist, because we are here to learn... from misconceptions. Example: Try to upset me; you won't succeed!  ;D
.

Quote.. and you dont want the resident Big Billy Goat Gruff mistaking you for a troll

Hey... don't forget I'm supposed to resurrect Hitler... Heil!     :mrgreen:

Well said Goat. 

Perfection in nature simply doesn't exist.  Perfect copies of "perfect" genes would lead to a lack of diversity and stagnation.  Perfection in nature is just perfectly illogical.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 11:01:11 AM

QuoteWe dont see 1 in 10 people walking round with ANY other one off non hereditary mutation so why you would assume that homosexuality is different?

Yes, 10 % is right, but I don't understand the rest you are on about... Please rephrase .

you have asserted that homosexuality is genetic.
If it is genetic it is one of two things:
a) a genetic mutation or
b) a hereditary genetic trait

if it is a heredity genetic trait then it is completely natural and must confer some advantage (leaving aside the principle that it is hard to see how a genetic trait that actively discourages procreation could have become so prevalent.

If it is a genetic mutation that it is still a natural process but an incredibly unusual one as there are no other mutations i can think of where the same mutation occurs spontaniously in 10% of the population in every generation and is also found in everything from birds to beetles, sheep to fruit bats, dolphins to orangutans.

Yes I do belive that whatever people are born with be it a handicap or a sexual orientation then thay are part of the natural cycle of things. Because i dont distinguish some things as perfect and some as imperfect and i dont accept that there is a 'natural' state which would bring about overall happiness. The trials and diversity of life are what makes it interesting, extraordinary and fun. Your philosophy seems to me to desire the creation of a rather stagnant and moribund world and I cant imagine myself being content to live in it!

 genetic it is one of two things: a) a genetic mutation or b) a hereditary genetic trait
Aren't genes consistently mutating? Why then the need to subdivide them into these two categories?  Or do you mean genetically related specie?
...i dont accept that there is a 'natural' state which would bring about overall happiness. The trials and diversity of life are what makes it interesting, extraordinary and fun. Your philosophy seems to me to desire the creation of a rather stagnant and moribund world and I cant imagine myself being content to live in it!
That's not  quite, how my idea of contentment (not happiness!) is founded.
I reiterate: It rather depends on the discovery of all our mental, emotional, physical true needs, unique abilities, talents (its development) and the fulfillment of the lot then lands us in highest possible, lasting contentment. (See contentment string) Of course this also includes diversity. Yet, again, (Hitler!  ;D) neg traits aren't welcome here, unless we confuse the gratifications derived from aggressive, selfish, addictive etc. action to produce 'contentment'. Hence, I suppose your idea of diversity is mixing neg & pos traits and that explains why it fails to work with contetment.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 11:47:03 AM
Aren't genes consistently mutating? Why then the need to subdivide them into these two categories?  Or do you mean genetically related specie?

I am simply saying that there are two ways a genetic trait can be introduced. one is by a one off mutation. the other by a process of natural selection through heredity. Neither seems to fit your argument.

Either way the process of both mutation at a genetic level and inherited genetic traits are natural proccesses. The only way you can argue that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is to posit something outside of nature, some supernatural power (the devil perhaps) who is out there interfering in the natural way of things and making all those 'poor' homosexuals. This to my mind is nothing but a patent nonsense.

When people start inventing supernatural interventions or postulating objective ethics I see it as little more than attempting to excuse their own underlying hang ups and prejudices. 

As mention, the only means I have to interpret nature's implications is by way of observation and comparison to the nature's rule/ norms. Example: The majority of us have two legs and two arms.  Thus, if I observe that 1 in 10 has a limb missing, I assume that the norm is 2 legs and 2 arms. I wouldn't go thus far as to call this kind of conclusion 'patent nonsense'.

But the problem is that it is patent nonsense.

What Goat tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to you is that you don't get a 10% of a population with a trait if that trait is a handicap (and I am using the word here with its strict meaning) to the species in question, otherwise it wouldn't be as prevalent (ie: the members of the species that have the trait would die out).

IMHO it would do you good to study some basic evolutionary biology before using terms like 'genetic trait' in such a broad and grossly inaccurate way.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 07:07:35 AM

Quote...how you can claim that nature "intended" anything at all.

It's, because I observed that all of our actions have consequences and they are carried out by 'some power'. To me it's logic (or nature), which works according to certain laws and principles. To other people this power might be God or non-existing. Like it or not, our actions are being 'filmed' and dealt with! That' why I aim to play by its rules, because I experienced the consequences and prefer the pos to neg ones.

If nature does have "intent", then (and I think I read it somewhere once) "by its fruits you shall know it."  Homosexuality exists; if this was not intended by nature, God, or whatever other intelligent mechanism you have in mind, then the fact that a deity/supernatural force/whatever can't get nature to be what he/she/it/they want it to be like raises major theological questions all by itself.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 07:07:35 AM

Quote... if that is your position, fine, but hopefully you now recognize it as a personal belief that is not (and shouldn't necessarily be) shared by everyone else.

I never had a problem with recognizing, that we all are free to earn our insight the hard way.Yet, personally I preferred to learn the easier way (from others); don't you, too? Of course it has to 'work' or I have (had) to keep searching to find what's working for me.   

But what works for you, however much thought you put into it or however much personal struggle it required, is still what works for you.  Where you have ended up is not necessarily where everyone else should end up.

You may be at the summit of your own peak, but there can very well be other mountains in the range.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 07:07:35 AM[

QuoteIf nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Observing nature, many things seem imperfect. Also it could be sequences brought on by neg (or illogical) action by members of previous generations. It could be induced by chemical interference etc. All we can do is to compare the state of the majority to off-norms and draw conclusions from there to amend them.

It seems like you've made the assumption that "off-norm" = "deficient", and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 07:07:35 AM

QuoteWho is that "capitalist monster and the 40 robbers"?'

It's our sordid, mean capitalist politicians and their ideology! Like communism, both are devils. Yet, if I have to choose, I still prefer to put up with the latter... until something better pops up!

Communism?  Really?

Wait... hang on.  From the other stuff you wrote, it sounds like you're in favour of capitalism, right?

I recall a quote I heard a while back: "democracy is the worst system of government ever, except for ever other system ever tried."

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 12:25:46 PM
As mention, the only means I have to interpret nature's implications is by way of observation and comparison to the nature's rule/ norms. Example: The majority of us have two legs and two arms.  Thus, if I observe that 1 in 10 has a limb missing, I assume that the norm is 2 legs and 2 arms. I wouldn't go thus far as to call this kind of conclusion 'patent nonsense'.

If we based our decisions of what is "good" and "bad" by population norms, then I'd expect that all of my hobbies would suddenly be unavailable to me.

But if we're going by "norms" as a measure of what's best, apparently I'm deficient, since I'm not a woman, don't live in Asia, and survived past infancy.   ;)

 

Quotethe members of the species that have the trait would die out

I don't think there exist conclusive scientific evidence of the exact genetic inheritance. All I know that it somehow happens; just as a person is born with a handicap.
Well, if the term 'handicap' is wrong than call it an 'abnormality', because the norm is heterosexuality. Another observation is that the human body is designed for heterosexual activities. Any other use/ abuse leads to bleeding and muscle destruction.
 

QuoteHomosexuality exists; if this was not intended by nature.

Yet, still there's a logical explanation for why it happened, which we still don't know to explain.

QuoteWhere you have ended up is not necessarily where everyone else should end up.

I never insisted in that, but chances are there quite a few transferable patterns.
I

Quotet seems like you've made the assumption that "off-norm" = "deficient", and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

As mentioned, by observing, comparison, pondering, reasoning etc. I had decades of practice in it and it really works for me. It's how I solve most problem for my friends and myself. How do you solve your problems?

Quote...a quote I heard a while back: "democracy is the worst system of government ever, except for ever other system ever tried."

It's definitely not my quote.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 12:25:46 PM
As mention, the only means I have to interpret nature's implications is by way of observation and comparison to the nature's rule/ norms. Example: The majority of us have two legs and two arms.  Thus, if I observe that 1 in 10 has a limb missing, I assume that the norm is 2 legs and 2 arms. I wouldn't go thus far as to call this kind of conclusion 'patent nonsense'.

equally we could take the total number of people, divide them by the total number of legs and find that the 'norm' is for people to have 1.998 legs each. We could then start removing peoples toes to make them fit the norm.

which would be stupid.

if you look for and promote the 'normal' state on the basis of the majority condition then you are essentially drifting into fascist waters. Life is not about one 'normal' state it is about a bell curve of diversity. Some abnormalities hinder the individual, some help them, all should be accepted.

Your philosophy is about lowest common denominators and is inherently flawed as it simply does not recognise or value the real way in which nature operates - preffering to advocate rather unpleasant 'utopian' views.

The 'norm' in the world is for people to be asian. lets aim for a world where everybody is asian!  

 
S

Quoteome abnormalities hinder the individual, some help them, all should be accepted. Your philosophy is about lowest common denominators and is inherently flawed as it simply does not recognise or value the real way in which nature operates - preffering to advocate rather unpleasant 'utopian' views. The 'norm' in the world is for people to be asian. lets aim for a world where everybody is asian! 

Nothing of the sorts! Far better than that! >>>My method of observing nature and reasoning is quite adaptable/ flexible and takes into account diverse factors, depending on the matter to be investigated. In some cases it's the norm, which is crucial, in other cases it the shape, size, weight, frequency, color, intensity etc.

QuoteYour philosophy is ...

It's not my philosophy... it's rather my method by which I probe the truth.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 03:24:37 PM
Your philosophy is ...
It's not my philosophy... it's rather my mythology by which I probe the truth.

So your "myth" is your "truth?"  :ROFL:

Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on August 17, 2007, 02:20:23 PM
But if we're going by "norms" as a measure of what's best, apparently I'm deficient, since I'm not a woman, don't live in Asia, and survived past infancy.   ;)

:ROFL:
This quote should be immortal!
:ROFL:

QuoteYour philosophy is ...

It's not my philosophy... it's rather my method by which I probe the truth.

QuoteSo your "myth" is your "truth?"  ROFL

See, that's what meant: you are not constructive!

I think that the problem may be the word "normal". That is a very misunderstood word. Perhaps a better word would be "average", which has to do with statistics. On average, humans have two legs, two arms, are heterosexual, are women and live in Asia. The rest of us are other than average, but still exist within nature. We are not mutants, we are simply less in number than the average.

That's my opinion about homosexuals, as well. There are fewer of them not because of a flaw, but because here are more heterosexuals. Big deal!

I think it's silly how jjj accuses others of judging and goes on to call things "evil", etc. It's too bad we don't all live in his dark little world, then we'd have a clue as to what he's on about. Personally, I prefer fresher air. Please excuse me if this sounds unkind, but that's the truth for me. 

Yes, 'average' seems a better term... but we need to do a bit of lateral thinking. Thanks for doing it on this one...

QuoteI think it's silly how jjj accuses others of judging and goes on to call things "evil", etc.

I didn't call homosexuality 'evil'.
Our inherited/ acquired, neg traits causing us to act evil.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 04:49:17 PM
I didn't call homosexuality 'evil'. Our inherited/ acquired, neg traits causing us to act evil.

So what you are saying is:

inherited negative trait = homosexual = acting evil

I am saying:

eugenics = acting evil = jjj

What's the difference?

I didn't say that you did call homosexuality evil, did I? I don't appreciate having my words twisted around.

You've called other things evil: government for example.

jjj, this example has been brought up a few times, and you have yet to address it. Please, I beg your pardon if you have already and I just haven't noticed.

There are more women than men in the world. Asian people constitute the largest ethnic group in the world. (Nuances of ethnicity and the broad term "asian" aside.)

According to your observation of the majority as the standard by which nature's "intention" can be measured, do you consider all men to be abnormal? What about all non-asian people?

Quote from: jjj

Quote from: KiyoAnd yet again you abandon the answer... I was curious about your insight of the situation, but once again you throw away my question... Now you say it's a fairytale. Earlier you have put it like it has been a serious idea of yours, an experiment that would work if put into action.

Don't you get 'quick ideas', which soon are proven unworkable? Well, that's one of them! No point to stir it up... since it has got the mentioned disadvantages. If you still insist in having some of these weird question answered, please rephrase them in another context.

Quote from: alpacaKiyo, in jjj's defence, I believe his switch to describing the vision as a "fairytale" was his way of acknowledging that the points you and others made in challenging it are correct, and that you have changed his mind on the subject.

Thx. Alpaca... that it! You see, I don't stubbornly insist in unworkable theories. That's why we discuss and sort them out. Also we should  take no offense on personal views, but rather help each other to amend them for the better. Instead some of you prefer to judge and my expressed opinions and merely decry them as 'offensive'... This tactic ('tictac') isn't helpful; i.e. it doesn't help me changing opinion for the better. Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!

My bold.

You are being allowed to speak out. We have not instructed our Moderators to treat you any differently to anyone else. Indeed no one else has used the word Moderation or even hinted at it. There are no strict Moderators.

Whether you agree or not, I interpret "Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!" as a raising of the stakes. As something inserted for us to react to. I also believe that a lot of other statements by you have this flavour - something to cause reactions. This is stimulating a lot of debate. In itself debate is good and we like it. Some of those stimulating phrases you scatter through your posts many find offensive. Toadfish are not easily offended. To use an ongoing debated word, it is not the norm round here to be offensive or be offended. It occurs to me that you like a kind of engagement in conversation which is not popular here. Why otherwise would you write "Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!" when there's no need for it?

I am asking this as an Administrator of this site. While many here are joined in discussions with you, many are staying away from it. I am asking this in consideration of all our members happiness. I am not asking it privately in a PM as I would like others to see your answer. I would hope you won't draw others into this aspect (eg. quoting others) as I am asking it directly of you and not raising it as a general discussion for our members.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 02:53:45 PM

Quotethe members of the species that have the trait would die out

Another observation is that the human body is designed for heterosexual activities. Any other use/ abuse leads to bleeding and muscle destruction.
 

You are out on very deep water now my friend and from what I can tell by you posts you don't have the slightest clue on how to navigate them...

Are you aware that women can get irreparable damage to their genital area when raped. How does that fit in in your "human body is designed for heterosexual activities" theory?
(actually I'm of the opinion that rape has very little do with sex but that is entirely differnt can of worms)

There are also many heterosexuals engaging in "activities" that I suppose you would classify as norm breaking... what do you call them?

Also, I have never heard about any "muscle destruction" due to lesbian "activities" which are to be considered as homosexual "activities" since two people of the same sex are involved. ::)

Frankly, this line of arguments are as dumb as the old one that your brain will decay and you will grow hair on the palms of your hand if you masturbate! 

Damage to the body occur when one part isn't paying attention to the other for some reason, and that goes for all thinkable partner constellations. 


/D

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 11:47:03 AM
genetic it is one of two things: a) a genetic mutation or b) a hereditary genetic trait
Aren't genes consistently mutating? Why then the need to subdivide them into these two categories?  Or do you mean genetically related specie?

Genes do not constantly mutate.  It's very possible that the genes passed down to a child from the parents are completely identical to the parents (although they do get a good shuffling during meiosis, the alleles are unchanged).  Genetic damage does happen constantly, but most DNA is in non-reproductive tissue, and a HUGE percentage of DNA is 'non-coding'.

Quote from: Darlica on August 17, 2007, 10:57:27 PM

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 02:53:45 PM

Quotethe members of the species that have the trait would die out

Another observation is that the human body is designed for heterosexual activities. Any other use/ abuse leads to bleeding and muscle destruction.
 

You are out on very deep water now my friend and from what I can tell by you posts you don't have the slightest clue on how to navigate them...

Are you aware that women can get irreparable damage to their genital area when raped. How does that fit in in your "human body is designed for heterosexual activities" theory?
(actually I'm of the opinion that rape has very little do with sex but that is entirely differnt can of worms)

There are also many heterosexuals engaging in "activities" that I suppose you would classify as norm breaking... what do you call them?

Also, I have never heard about any "muscle destruction" due to lesbian "activities" which are to be considered as homosexual "activities" since two people of the same sex are involved. ::)

Frankly, this line of arguments are as dumb as the old one that your brain will decay and you will grow hair on the palms of your hand if you masturbate! 

Damage to the body occur when one part isn't paying attention to the other for some reason, and that goes for all thinkable partner constellations. 


/D

Thank you for saying that so I didn't have to go off again...I need to limit my fits to one a day.

QuoteI don't call homosexuality 'evil'.

Sure, nothing stops us to confuse negat traits with genetic abnormalities. Yet, the difference is that neg traits, such as envy, selfishness, aggression, rage, possessiveness, power-hunger etc. are indeed undesired, destructive neg traits, whereas physical handicaps or abnormalities are merely undesired physical shortcomings.

QuoteAccording to your observation of the majority as the standard by which nature's "intention" can be measured, do you consider all men to be abnormal?

All people seem normal until we get to know them...

QuoteWhat about all non-asian people?

Same with them. My global experience taught me that there exist only two nationalities in the world: the good and the bad (+ in movies... the ugly!) Beside, I thought I answered your question with the following:
>>>My method of observing nature and reasoning isn't rigid. To the contrary... quite adaptable/ flexible and takes into account diverse factors, depending on the matter to be investigated. In some cases it's the norm, which is crucial, in other cases it the shape, size, weight, frequency, color, circumstances, intensity etc.

I wrote, "Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!" permission and so hopeful to beg permission and avoid getting another warning.
It's my uncertainty... because I never know when/ if my written words/thought might offend anyone here. Beside, I assure you that nothing said in here is ever going to offend me... but your overreactions to my words / insight and warnings... worry me somewhat; that's all.
Next please!   ;)

QuoteAre you aware that women can get irreparable damage to their genital area when raped. How does that fit in in your "human body is designed for heterosexual activities" theory?

Abuse of all sorts is invariably destructive. Yet, usual/ regular or normal (heterosexual) intercourse is considered neither harmful, nor destructive, whereas homosexual activities easily causes skin/ tissue rupture and in the long run irreparable muscle destruction, because the skin is far weaker and designed to merely evacuate digested food.

QuoteThere are also many heterosexuals engaging in "activities" that I suppose you would classify as norm breaking... what do you call them?

Confused perv's!  ;D  Suffering from sexual disorientation/ perversion.

QuoteAlso, I have never heard about...

It's about time you hear about!   :D

Quote..."muscle destruction" due to lesbian "activities" which are to be considered as homosexual "activities" since two people of the same sex are involved.   

That's, because they are missing the vital male bits and if they substitute them with objects, the result will be the same; albeit women's tissues are more flexible. Men have more muscles and women more flap.

QuoteFrankly, this line of arguments are as dumb as the old one that your brain will decay and you will grow hair on the palms of your hand if you masturbate! 

I agree and to avoid it I got married, yet now hair seems to grow between teeth; go to dentist for haircuts.
==========================

QuoteGenes do not constantly mutate.  It's very possible that the genes passed down to a child from the parents are completely identical to the parents...

I reason that, by engaging in prolonged activities, such as practicing piano for years, we actually amend our genetic make-up and estimate that every generation is limited to enrich its gene program by some 3-5% and it's not always guaranteed that our offspring is going to inherit our personal contribution.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 02:14:34 AM

QuoteI don't call homosexuality 'evil'.

Sure, nothing stops us to confuse negat traits with genetic abnormalities. Yet, the difference is that neg traits, such as envy, selfishness, aggression, rage, possessiveness, power-hunger etc. are indeed undesired, destructive neg traits, whereas physical handicaps or abnormalities are merely undesired physical shortcomings.

Actually, all those traits can be positive as well.  They're only negative when you have too much of them, or when they're misdirected.

Envy and power-hunger are only ambition cranked way up.  Selfishness is only too much self-interest (and possessiveness is only too much regard for material posessions), and aggression is only assertiveness taken too far.  Anger (or rage) can be a positive trait when used properly; much of the Civil Rights movement came out of anger at the status quo, for example.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 02:14:34 AMAbuse of all sorts is invariably destructive. Yet, usual/ regular or normal (heterosexual) intercourse is considered neither harmful, nor destructive, whereas homosexual activities easily causes skin/ tissue rupture and in the long run irreparable muscle destruction, because the skin is far weaker and designed to merely evacuate digested food.

I'd wager that the female body can have just as rough a time in going through childbirth.  Does that mean that we aren't "intended" to breed?

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 02:14:34 AM

QuoteGenes do not constantly mutate.  It's very possible that the genes passed down to a child from the parents are completely identical to the parents...

I reason that, by engaging in prolonged activities, such as practicing piano for years, we actually amend our genetic make-up and estimate that every generation is limited to enrich its gene program by some 3-5% and it's not always guaranteed that our offspring is going to inherit our personal contribution.

I guarantee you that no amount of piano practice will change your genes.*  If you believe that it can, you have a faulty understanding of basic genetics.



*provided your piano isn't radioactive, that is, but even that genetic change won't make your kids better musicians than you were.

Quote from: Opsanus tau on August 17, 2007, 04:29:34 PM
I think that the problem may be the word "normal". That is a very misunderstood word. Perhaps a better word would be "average", which has to do with statistics. On average, humans have two legs, two arms, are heterosexual, are women and live in Asia. The rest of us are other than average, but still exist within nature. We are not mutants, we are simply less in number than the average.

whilst i agree with you about most things the only mathmatecal average which sees people having these things is mode. not generally considered a good average. the avearge person has 1.998 legs, 1.996 arms, is 91.2% heterosexual, 51% female and are 58% asian.

should anyone meet this paragon of animals, like unto a god in apprehension, please let me know so i can put them in a zoo!

Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on August 18, 2007, 03:18:09 AM
*provided your piano isn't radioactive, that is, but even that genetic change won't make your kids better musicians than you were.

Oh. I see. This explains a lot...

---

jjj, I'm curious about the 3-5% statistic you cite from your personal observations. How did you arrive at that, exactly? (And not just "through observation," please. What was your method for gathering and analyzing the data to support this finding?)

That tidbit aside, I believe what you are describing is Lamarckism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). I know you've decried scientists in another post, but this guy might be worth a read, since he apparently would have agreed with you about the acquisition and inheritance of genetic traits. Getting at least through the third paragraph of that article might be helpful, as it describes the modern theories of evolution that have since overridden Lamarck's concepts - although said concepts remain useful in other fields.

Quote from: jjj on August 16, 2007, 07:44:16 PM
Dear Bruder Cuzzen... Your humor is irresistible! Do y...

I wasn't trying to be funny.

WTF??? are you still doing in here and not giving samples of your poetry ? some recipes ? with perhaps insights to their origins and such ?

And still no two cent contribution regarding humility!!!!!!....

And now you are thumbing your nose at patience !

I now I see you as a wee kid , one who has found the most awwwwsome perfecttest stick down by the beach . Now you are running around the monastery  waving it about , showing it off and stirring the contents of every damn toilet you can find .
I will always consider you a friend , but that stick you wave about.....I'm giving myself some distance....yes , tis  a lovely stick.....with a variety of usages....I am happy with your contentment....

Quote from: goat starer on August 18, 2007, 04:18:24 AMthe avearge person has 1.998 legs, 1.996 arms, is 91.2% heterosexual, 51% female and are 58% asian.

should anyone meet this paragon of animals, like unto a god in apprehension, please let me know so i can put them in a zoo!

You haven't been to Thailand, have you, Goatie? ;)

QuoteEnvy and power-hunger are only ambition cranked way up.  Selfishness is only too much self-interest (and possessiveness is only too much regard for material posessions), and aggression is only assertiveness taken too far.  Anger (or rage) can be a positive trait when used properly; much of the Civil Rights movement came out of anger at the status quo, for example.

That's why we should dismantle them instead of putting up with them or worse, fostering them. If you analyze every neg/ detrimental result the true cause was a (or several) neg trait(s).

QuoteChildbirth...

Women's bodies are designed to take it; men not.

Quote...no amount of piano practice will change your genes.

Since you know it, please explain how (for instants) a musical talent is inherited, if it's not, because an ancestor from that particular family tree was musically active?  On Boxing Day I used to ask my little fans: 'What did you get for Christmas? I got a whistle!  See, that explains it all or does it?

QuoteI'm curious about the 3-5% statistic you cite from your personal observations. How did you arrive at that, exactly? (And not just "through observation," please. What was your method for gathering and analyzing the data to support this finding?)

Taking in account that it took some 26 generations for a world renowned concert pianist (a relative) for him to excel (plus personal experiences), makes me arrive at that evolution pace. He comes from a piano builder family tree... Mind you, not every child inherits its parents unique abilities or talents.

QuoteLamarckism...

trust me he stole it from me!   ;) I enjoy to do my own reasoning on that matter, albeit I don't mind to amend it at a given time as the opportunity arises. For now I'm quite satisfied to have tracked it down thus far.
N

Quoteow you are running around the monastery  waving it about , showing it off and stirring  the contents of every damn toilet you can find .

Good fun! Jeez, I wished I could apply English like that...

QuoteYou haven't been to Thailand...

Stay clear of Thailand, because a friend of my brother was their two years ago, caught AIDS and now my brother got his ashes. At least hairs between fingers won't kill you!
If you are really desperat, do it like me: My sweetheart is in Chile and I have to renovate my flat here in Sydney. Albeit I'm still horny as the neighbor's 'Lumpi' I'm not tempted to look for a woman here. I built myself a very efficient machine! Much better than the pink stuff on sale in those weird shops. End of that problem!

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 02:14:34 AM

QuoteThere are also many heterosexuals engaging in "activities" that I suppose you would classify as norm breaking... what do you call them?

Confused perv's!  ;D  Suffering from sexual disorientation/ perversion.

QuoteAlso, I have never heard about...

It's about time you hear about!   :D

You know, I hope you joke about this... However it is not funny.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 02:14:34 AM

Quote..."muscle destruction" due to lesbian "activities" which are to be considered as homosexual "activities" since two people of the same sex are involved.   

That's, because they are missing the vital male bits and if they substitute them with objects, the result will be the same; albeit women's tissues are more flexible. Men have more muscles and women more flap.

Dear friend, Women do not miss vital male bits we have other vital bits! Sex does not equals penetration there is a lot of other things to it... For all sexes and couple constellations.


/D

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 09:04:56 AM

Stay clear of Thailand, because a friend of my brother was their two years ago, caught AIDS and now my brother got his ashes. At least hairs between fingers won't kill you!

Your horniness is non of our business neither the way you choose handle it.
Condolences to your brothers for his friend. However this sentence about Thailand and there by Thai people not only borders to racism, it crosses the bridges and burns them behind it.

Have you for one second considered that there may be Thai people present here?

This is not funny, at all. If you consider this funny please stick to being serious.

/D

QuoteThere are also many heterosexuals engaging in "activities" that I suppose you would classify as norm breaking... what do you call them?

OK on a more serious not:  If our partner relationship is founded on genuine emotional compatibility, than there's no need for 'norm breaking activities'.

Quotemuscle destruction due to lesbian "activities" which are to be considered as homosexual "activities" since two people of the same sex are involved. 

Obviously, lesbian activities don't necessarily involve penetration. Thus, muscle destruction can be discounted. In cases, where women use object for penetration, muscle destruction can equally occur. Women's genital tissues also becomes thinner (weaker) with age.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 09:04:56 AM

QuoteChildbirth...

Women's bodies are designed to take it; men not.

The design was poorly executed then. Wonder how that happened?

There was no way out for my baby as unknown at the time was that my pelvic bones do not allow enough space to give birth. Without human surgical intervention to overcome this genetic deafult we would have both died. My second child would never have existed either.

It's intriguing wondering what a much better place the world would be without me and my offspring. Less chance of my bad genes remaining in circulation for one. Bad birth canal genes should be wiped out !!!  :'(

Childbirth is far from perfect. It is still a killer of women and children.  A natural killer. One which humans mess with and prevent correction to survival of the fittest. Steralisation of bad pelvic females may be needed.

:beta:

if you ask any group of people in their 30s if they would be dead without medical intervention (be it childbirth or an appendix) you invariably find that at least 50% would be. We are all so unnatural and imperfect!

I would like to suggest some kind of cleansing programme to rid us of these imperfect specimens. a sort of 'final solution' to mans imperfections that will pave the way for 1000 years of JJJ utopia.

QuoteChildbirth is far from perfect. It is still a killer of women and children.  A natural killer. One which humans mess with and prevent correction to survival of the fittest. Steralisation of bad pelvic females may be needed.

Women have the choice/ right not to have children. Bad pelvic women are aware of their condition and thus, need to abstain from childbearing or choose the Cesarean method. Or could it be (like homosexuality) that nature tries to curb population growth in this way?

QuoteWe are all so unnatural and imperfect!

???     Speak for yourself!

QuoteI would like to suggest some kind of cleansing programme

Buy yourself a Maytag washer and washing powder!

Quoteto rid us of these imperfect specimens. a sort of 'final solution' to mans imperfections that will pave the way for 1000 years of JJJ utopia.

Now don't dare to drag me into your personalized 'Hitler' utopia program, will you?

  There are countless reasons why some of us inherited less than healthy genes. One thing is sure that nature had a reason for each and every created flawed gene pattern. I.e. nothing is coincidental. Albeit to us the true reason is unknown most of the time, some reasons, such as the consequence of alcohol, drug abuse, smoking etc. are known. I wouldn't be surprised that horrendous situations, such as war, torture etc. might as well trigger neg genetic mutations. Yes, there's something we can/ should do, namely: learning to co-operate with nature. Here's how:
>>> Society should aim at creating and maintaining a high standard of family values, because it benefits society in every aspect and ultimately it's going to benefit our evolution as well. Dismantling or at least curbing of inherited/ environmentally acquired neg traits is a good way to start.  Next, we need to ensure that every family offers their children love & affection. The first four years of a child's life on parent should be with the child at all times. Parents, who don't know how to offer their children love and affection (because they themselves suffered a cruel childhood), need to be instructed and practice it. This way their children will be able to break the vicious cycle and become good parents. I don't think it's something too hard to believe and please don't ask me how I arrive at this 'Hitler's Utopia', because pondering and reasoning (like fresh air... and Hitler's Utopia) is available to all of us. Just grab yourself a swastika and stick it up your... mind!!   ;D

P.S. We abuse our bodies with stress and drugs etc. and torture our hearts and minds with varies neg traits day in, day out. No wonder our bodies fail to deliver the desired results. Our bodies are subtle machines and as such require all the care (such as a healthy diet) and emotional peace to accomplish all these intricate genetic processes.

Ok- I've stayed quiet  :-X
trying to be humble and allow my fellow human being his say but...

jjj- "vital male bits" etc   :headbang:

my female bits are vital as well or no males ever born (etc)

jjj-"dear strict moderators"
you haven't really seen strict yet friend--- some strict comes with a big ole smiting stick and so far it is well hidden somewhere in Texas by a dear one who wields it well ( I am so glad I don't have it with me- I would be bad)

also you seem to have this idea that all lesbians use a penis substitute as part of their lovemaking- ??????-- most lesbians I know, and I meet many as a wedding/ceremonial officiant, not to mention family and friends- anyway they don't need or desire a penis substitute!


Normal is a setting on a washing machine- not a human trait(genetic or otherwise). Genes are copies and when making copies things change and hence evolution over several billion years to what all earth species are now.
Gay/Lesbian people are not broken and in need of fixing. They are not mutants. The idea of genes being healthy or unhealthy is incorrect- genes don't have a moral compas- they exist strictly to survive and go on- some say we are simply "ugly bags of mostly water" that are simply gene vehicles and nothing else- that all else is secondary to our genes needing to replicate and go on.

variation is overwhealmingly a  GOOD thing.
Yes their is evil (holocaust, African slave disapora, sex slavery, etc)
And

debate is good- and is welcome and often refreshing- but when it degrades into arguing and categorising people negatively then it is bad

exchange of ideas is good- many positive things can come out of it- human growth is very dependant on the exchange of ideas- we've evolved this over many eons, but bashing is not good

Your thoughts and ideas are your own- and because you are a person you are entitled to your thoughts and ideas but you are taking it a bit further- you want to debate which is ok with me but you don't seem to want to learn from the debate, that is crossing the line here. We are a diverse group who don't agree 100% of the time- but we are humble enough to listen and try and wear each others shoes and play nicely.

Ok I'm going to be quiet now-- I've been a bit un-humble but when my "bits" are picked on ...

yours in peace
anthrobabe

I think we should allow ourselves the luxury to speak our mind without worrying that someone is offended by it. I mean otherwise we cannot learn anything from each other if we all the time say... ahhh this is offensive, this is over the line, this is touching my bits... etc.
To me there's nothing at all whats-o-ever can offend or upset me!

This clearly means I'm censored in which insight I can disclose and which I have to hide... That's how it was under communism in East Germany!
See, I don't have this problem when I ponder and reason with myself. There I can be totally honest about my thoughts and views. It's been long time since I left East Germany. No wonder I got used to freedom of speech, but now the red flag hangs over me once again, Oh no, please!
Sure, my insight isn't perfect, but as I mentioned (many times) it's amendable. What more can one wish for? So, it's not true that I don't want to learn something. You see to enjoy revenge more than humility, don't you? That's a neg trait I think... I don't want to amend my insight with that; sorry. Well, it's almost 1 a.m... Allow me to dream about it. Good night!   :)

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 03:50:33 PM
I think we should allow ourselves the luxury to speak our mind without worrying that someone is offended by it. I mean otherwise we cannot learn anything from each other if we all the time say... ahhh this is offensive, this is over the line, this is touching my bits... etc.
To me there's nothing at all whats-o-ever can offend or upset me!

This clearly means I'm censored in which insight I can disclose and which I have to hide... That's how it was under communism in East Germany!
See, I don't have this problem when I ponder and reason with myself. There I can be totally honest about my thoughts and views. It's been long time since I left East Germany. No wonder I got used to freedom of speech, but now the red flag hangs over me once again, Oh no, please!
Sure, my insight isn't perfect, but as I mentioned (many times) it's amendable. What more can one wish for? So, it's not true that I don't want to learn something. You see to enjoy revenge more than humility, don't you? That's a neg trait I think... I don't want to amend my insight with that; sorry. Well, it's almost 1 a.m... Allow me to dream about it. Good night!   :)

Hi, jjj. This is a message written in my official capacity as an administrator of this forum.

You will please not accuse the management of this forum of censorship, be it by innuendo, outright accusation, or grossly over-inflated comparison to oppressive regimes in history. You have not been prevented from expressing your views. You shall accordingly not attempt to play the role of oppressed victim, because you are no such thing.

The members of this forum have a right of free expression equal to yours. If they are offended or otherwise moved by something, they are free to express that sentiment, and you are likewise free to express any sentiment of offense or lack thereof.

Thank you.

May I please add in my capacity as a moderator that the stated goal of this site (see home page) is to learn how to communicate more effectively using humbleness and tolerance. The ones who stay here are the ones who feel that this is a worthy project. If we are simply blurting out whatever we want, unapologetically without regard to others, we are not communicating in the intended fashion.

If someone is unable to be sensitive to the feelings of others, he may have to accept that he is unqualified to continue here.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 03:50:33 PMSee, I don't have this problem when I ponder and reason with myself. There I can be totally honest about my thoughts and views.

If you sincerely wish to learn, and 'amend your views', perhaps you might consider that the reason you 'don't have this problem' when inside your own head, is that there is nothing else in there from which you might learn that a) your views are rooted in an appalling level of ignorance about the very things you claim to base them on, b) you are encountering no-one else in there to whom your inappropriate judgement of everything other than what pleases you as 'defective' might cause offense.

I wanted to ignore this thread, as I get a little mad from time to time, while reading it, but I had to react. Not on the topic the moderators talked about, they stated clearly what many around here think.



I wanted to add something to the whole "anal" topic that was here. JJJ, you say that it's unnatural for a man to have sex with another man.

There's one thing in a male body that would actually quite denounce this statement:

A man's prosthate can be stimulated through the rectum and thus lead to an orgasm and ejaculation. Why would the nature give us men this "gift" if it wasn't intended for use? In you way of thinking I would say that us, heterosexuals, are being against nature laws, against our genes, because of not using this capability? Actually we are the "imperfect", "handicapped" ones...

JJ, I've mostly stayed away from debating you. It's my standard to be tolerant of views different than mine, now matter how different than mine.
And yours are cannot resemble mine less.

I have no problem with you having an opinion. And with you speaking about it.
I do object those who are impervious to reason.
As you seem to be.

I do object to people who are extremely pushy about their views,
As you have been.

I do object to people who play the victim.
Which you just did.
Our admins and mods have been so very tolerant of you. Far more then I would be. They've put up with your comments about camps and homosexuality. They've allowed you to say your piece.
If this was Soviet East Germany, you'd have been in a gulag in Siberia right now, and you know it!
How dare you compare one of the most tolerant group of people I've ever, ever met with a government that killed and imprisoned millions of people for very damn little! One that oppressed and mislead its people for decades!

I do object to people who refuse to adjust their views to logic!
You've been presented with lots of information that counters yours, and yet you refuse to adjust.

I do object to hypocrites.
You don't want to cloud your world view with that of others, huh? But you'll sell your crackpot views to any sucker who'll buy it in order to enlighten them?
Hmmm...I wonder.

I do object to cherry picking and back pedaling.
And you've done both.

I object to people who purposely stir others up.
And I swear that's what it looks like you're doing!

Perhaps I've over stepped my bounds as a non-mod, and I apologize. I normally am more relaxed and even tempered, but you frustrate me so very, very much.

Well said Kanaloa!  :thumbsup:

Sibling K, you're a Sibling.

Modship isn't anywhere near as important as Siblinghood. (Mods get to do the heavy lifting of clean-up, except me, because I am too lazy to learn how...heh, heh.)

You may speak truth when you wish, and you have, and I thank you.

here is a medal for kanaloa from the people republic of goatistan!

(http://www2.lionsclubs.org/LionsClubsSuppliesStore/images/product/small/S46.jpg)


she is hereby made president of the lions club (whatever that is!)

I am also not one to confront the silicon anti-defamation league easily and am happy that the need for modding here is far lower than it was at TOP.

@#$%&! jj I can't believe this shit !!!! You weren't even supposed respond as a sign of good will !!! Now that I've found you after wandering about , lost in the corridors , I find that the mods have gotten so befuddled by you that sibling Chatty has been called to the front .

Now Chatty happens to be very dear to us and has earned our respect , if you piss her off a phone call will most likely be sent to Auntie Dee Dee , if that happens I'm headed for cover and you are on your own pal .

I think she's already gone in, BC.

Thanks! And I'll wear that medal with pride, O Leader of the Goatistan People.

I have nothing to add to the posts by other Toadfish here except to say to jjj here is an opportunity for you to read the posts and understand them and amend your insights, an activity you talk a lot about doing.

I do wish to amend things which I are factually incorrect.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 11:16:33 AM

QuoteChildbirth is far from perfect. It is still a killer of women and children.  A natural killer. One which humans mess with and prevent correction to survival of the fittest. Steralisation of bad pelvic females may be needed.

Women have the choice/ right not to have children. Bad pelvic women are aware of their condition and thus, need to abstain from childbearing or choose the Cesarean method. Or could it be (like homosexuality) that nature tries to curb population growth in this way?

Worldwide, few women have the choice/right not to have children.

"Bad pelvic" women are not aware of the shape of their pelvis until it fails to allow childbirth the first time, unless they have been X-rayed or scanned which few will have been. The usual way it is discovered is post-childbirth when birth trauma leads to investigation. If they are still alive.

Usually, I think.
My own mother has a bad pelvis for child birth. And there are three of us.
I didn't see this one before. I'm sort of surprised that you suggested that, jjj. But I shouldn't be.

I'd suppose as a DES daughter, I should have been sterilized at puberty...

I should be dead. Apparently.

One more thing that nor siblings, mods or admins had said (at least explicitly): there is not absolute freedom of  speech within the walls of the monastery. We do not allow hateful speech, offensive material, and we reserve the right to determine which is which.

Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 19, 2007, 02:20:37 AM

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 11:16:33 AM

QuoteChildbirth is far from perfect. It is still a killer of women and children.  A natural killer. One which humans mess with and prevent correction to survival of the fittest. Steralisation of bad pelvic females may be needed.

Women have the choice/ right not to have children. Bad pelvic women are aware of their condition and thus, need to abstain from childbearing or choose the Cesarean method. Or could it be (like homosexuality) that nature tries to curb population growth in this way?

Worldwide, few women have the choice/right not to have children.

"Bad pelvic" women are not aware of the shape of their pelvis until it fails to allow childbirth the first time, unless they have been X-rayed or scanned which few will have been. The usual way it is discovered is post-childbirth when birth trauma leads to investigation. If they are still alive.

interestingly the human pelvis was included in a recent new scientist article debunking intelligent design. ALL womens pelvises are not ideal for childbirth because in adapting to upright walking (which confers many advantages) there was a pay off in terms of suitability for childbirth - that is how evolution works. That is why the ludicrous idea that there is a 'natural', 'correct' way for people to be is simply wrong.

Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 19, 2007, 02:38:57 AM
I should be dead. Apparently.

Or possibly we shouldn't have been born...

What if our mothers weren't "right" either??

(I know mine wasn't...if she'd been the perfect human reproduction animal she wouldn't have had so many miscarriages. Damn, I was superfluous before I got here.)

Gosh, I wonder how many people are like us Chatty?

There's at least three of us.

I'm so glad that I prefer modern medicine to 'natural philosophy'...or whatevet it's called THIS go-round.

I'd be ten years (horribly) dead, if not for the evil rapacious drug companies.

Curiously I never read the start of this thread. I am beginning to wonder, at last, what it has to do with trade agreements.

It seems to me an awful lot of people I know shouldn't be alive at all under the current terms. I'll offer to trade bodies with all of you as I imagine the same must be true for you all if you look around you.

If we trade bodies, I expect we would get away with it. I reckon it would take a long time for anyone to work out why my back yard was full of assorted american bodies. I haven't worked out the transport arrangements but that's a mere detail. It's a long shot but it might just work and we would at least be trying to restore a more natural world.

Perfection is a human construct nature never intended.

You can all relax now.  :mrgreen:

trade agreements. evil capitalist methods of keeping the proletariat in check if you ask me  ;D

The proletariat is tired of checks.

How about a nice stripe, or maybe polka dots!! Dots are so festive!! :mrgreen:

dont try to divert us from the inevitable path of historical progress with your capitalist fripperies of fashion and pattern.  :mrgreen:

They're not merely capitalist, Goat. Bourgeoisie slime is more like it. (That phrase needs to be used more gratuitously.)

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 09:04:56 AM

QuoteEnvy and power-hunger are only ambition cranked way up.  Selfishness is only too much self-interest (and possessiveness is only too much regard for material posessions), and aggression is only assertiveness taken too far.  Anger (or rage) can be a positive trait when used properly; much of the Civil Rights movement came out of anger at the status quo, for example.

That's why we should dismantle them instead of putting up with them or worse, fostering them. If you analyze every neg/ detrimental result the true cause was a (or several) neg trait(s).

You're ignoring my point: just about any trait that a person can have can be positive or negative, depening on how its applied.

A person with no capacity for anger will be happy with any injustice.  A person with no personal ambition to change the world (which, if taken to its extreme could become hunger for power) would not try to grasp it from a tyrant.

Saying that because we don't want rage, for example, we should breed it out is like saying that because drug overdoses are dangerous, we should get rid of all drugs, even if very beneficial at the proper dosages.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 09:04:56 AM

QuoteChildbirth...

Women's bodies are designed to take it; men not.

It's my contention that peoples' bodies are not designed at all, which would render your argument meaningless.

Quote from: jjj on August 18, 2007, 09:04:56 AM

Quote...no amount of piano practice will change your genes.

Since you know it, please explain how (for instants) a musical talent is inherited, if it's not, because an ancestor from that particular family tree was musically active?  On Boxing Day I used to ask my little fans: 'What did you get for Christmas? I got a whistle!  See, that explains it all or does it?

I'm not really sure what you're referring to about Christmas, but here's a crash course in genetics:

- Each of us has a set of genes.  These genes are fixed and do not change during our lives. 

- We get certain traits from our genes.  We get other traits in other ways: environment (which can include everything from hormones while in the womb to upbringing), learning, circumstance, luck, etc.  While these traits may help or harm us as individuals, they don't change our genes.

- If we're lucky enough to find mates and have children, their genes will be a combination of the genes of both parents.  These genes will, in some combination, give the children some innate traits that either one parent or both parents had.  Children don't directly get piano playing ability through their genes, for example, but whatever innate capacity was in the parents may lie untapped within the child as well.

- In addition to our genes, we pass down other traits to our children by providing their environment (which causes traits in the child), teaching them both directly and indirectly, etc.

So... let's look at how this effects piano playing ability: the genes would affect the inherent, innate, unlearned traits, such as: finger length, muscle structure, or general intelligence.  Building on that foundation, we put the learned behaviour: the actually playing piano part.

So... you may get better at piano over your life, but this doesn't affect your genes.  Your child may be better at playing the piano than you are, but all else being equal (i.e. same parents, same environment, same education, etc.), your child will play the piano just as well whether or not you played.