489 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

And we were getting along so well...

[Volus Warlord]

Saaziel wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Ha. Placing it on genetics is a bunch of liberal anti-responsibility bull****.

You're right, the genes force alcohol down people's throats and force them to acquire firearms, point them at another human, and pull the trigger.

To quote someone you might know...

Whether Genes control aggressivity /violent tendencies / substance dependence isn't my point.

What I'd like to know , from you, is : If Free will is an argument made by people to dissociate themselves from the consequence of their action , then how do we go about concluding  what or who's responsible?

That's easy. People are responsible for their actions- regardless of faith, origin, upbringing, genes, orientation, or whatever other excuses people would like to make.

[Volus Warlord]

slimgrin wrote...

And we were getting along so well...

Being direct. Fastest way.

[KenKenpachi]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Ha. Placing it on genetics is a bunch of liberal anti-responsibility bull****.

You're right, the genes force alcohol down people's throats and force them to acquire firearms, point them at another human, and pull the trigger.

To quote someone you might know...

Whether Genes control aggressivity /violent tendencies / substance dependence isn't my point.

What I'd like to know , from you, is : If Free will is an argument made by people to dissociate themselves from the consequence of their action , then how do we go about concluding  what or who's responsible?

That's easy. People are responsible for their actions- regardless of faith, origin, upbringing, genes, orientation, or whatever other excuses people would like to make.

I agree with this I had a ****ty childhood, am aggressive, and have a family member in orginized crime, and others who are deviants in one direction or another, yet you don't see me burning down the city or robbing 7/11's. I mean I get sick of hearing people going "Its mah genes or childhood!!!! YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT!!!!" Yet if I were to shoot someone I don't see that holding up in court. One is same as the other, self control and your own judgement account for alot. Even if you pick the base or others to make them for you, you still would have made a choice. Even in a collective you make a choice by partaking in it. No culture or society has ever had even control over 80% of its population.

[Saaziel]

Volus Warlord wrote...

That's easy. People are responsible for their actions.

Its easy because you didn't answer my question.

I asked "How do we go about concluding  what or who's responsible?" Notice the word How , and its use in the phrase. Answering the question : How do we concluded who's responsible , by saying : "People are responsible" is utterly useless because its the mechanism (the process , the system , the sequences ) The How , that we're interested in.

If , for example, I'd asked : "How do cars move forward?" Answering : "That's easy. Cars have motion." would be seen as ludicrous, and for good reasons. An answer revolving around combustion engines would be good, saying "I don't know" would be better than former.

If you can't answer How we can ascertain responsibility , just say so.

More importantly you omitted an important part of my post :"Either I can choose to do something , i.e.  Free will , or I can't  due to some form of determinism (Genes or whatever)."

This is the corner in which you boxed yourself in; Since , according to you , arguments of genetic determinism (which would branch out into neuro-determinism) is *: 

Volus Warlord wrote...
Placing it on genetics is a bunch of liberal anti-responsibility bull****.

And the argument of Free will is :

Volus Warlord wrote...
The pursuit of "free will" only ends in acts of gross irresponsibilty

Now , its been my experience that the question of responsibility ; Specifically How are people responsible, falls into two camps ; Both of which you rejected in your previous statements. I wasn't hoping to be dazzled by some new theory of Ethics or Neuroscience , but i was expecting you to be digging your own hole on this one. You can reject one notion , but not both without something to back it up.

Unfortunately , i believe that you're incapable or unwilling to provide a satisfactory answer. I would request , again ,that you link some document(s) that would detail the nature of your position. Anything else , i fear , wouldn't be worth your time or mine.

* For any 3rd party reading this from outside the U.S. Liberal/ Progressive /Social and all the derivative words are considered demeaning in North america , more so in the United States. Usually, its purpose is to aggravate or provoke. So if you don't like a type of ice cream, for example , just call it "A liberal ice cream". Marx, Marxist or Marxism also works.

Modifié par Saaziel, 10 septembre 2011 - 04:29 .

[chunkyman]

Saaziel wrote...
 So if you don't like a type of ice cream, for example , just call it "A liberal ice cream". 

Despite my opinions on progressives, I sure do love liberal ice cream! :happy:

[marshalleck]

Saaziel wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

That's easy. People are responsible for their actions.

Its easy because you didn't answer my question.

I asked "How do we go about concluding  what or who's responsible?" Notice the word How , and its use in the phrase. Answering the question : How do we concluded who's responsible , by saying : "People are responsible" is utterly useless because its the mechanism (the process , the system , the sequences ) The How , that we're interested in.

If , for example, I'd asked : "How do cars move forward?" Answering : "That's easy. Cars have motion." would be seen as ludicrous, and for good reasons. An answer revolving around combustion engines would be good, saying "I don't know" would be better than former.

If you can't answer How we can ascertain responsibility , just say so.

More importantly you omitted an important part of my post :"Either I can choose to do something , i.e.  Free will , or I can't  due to some form of determinism (Genes or whatever)."

This is the corner in which you boxed yourself in; Since , according to you , arguments of genetic determinism (which would branch out into neuro-determinism) is *: 

Volus Warlord wrote...
Placing it on genetics is a bunch of liberal anti-responsibility bull****.

And the argument of Free will is :

Volus Warlord wrote...
The pursuit of "free will" only ends in acts of gross irresponsibilty

Now , its been my experience that the question of responsibility ; Specifically How are people responsible, falls into two camps ; Both of which you rejected in your previous statements. I wasn't hoping to be dazzled by some new theory of Ethics or Neuroscience , but i was expecting you to be digging your own hole on this one. You can reject one notion , but not both without something to back it up.

Unfortunately , i believe that you're incapable or unwilling to provide a satisfactory answer. I would request , again ,that you link some document(s) that would detail the nature of your position. Anything else , i fear , wouldn't be worth your time or mine.

* For any 3rd party reading this from outside the U.S. Liberal/ Progressive /Social and all the derivative words are considered demeaning in North america , more so in the United States. Usually, its purpose is to aggravate or provoke. So if you don't like a type of ice cream, for example , just call it "A liberal ice cream". Marx, Marxist or Marxism also works.

FATALITY

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

We have almost a Free-will. Even if you're under torture or your body sucks, your mind is still your own. and your genes have nothing to do of what do you think if you're a healthy enough.
Free-Will through Liberalism without rational-ethical education has been the biggest abomination for humankind. More sexual aversion and freedom and also new ways of breaking the old traditions and good old arts.
I don't see any good in Liberalism it will raise hyper-b*ching and hyper heavy metal music. Hopefully, many can see what the hell this liberalism is causing. I myself am working on a Anti-Liberal Ideology (Liberalism is an Ideology too) to save the humanity from certain death. it will be prepared in 10 till 15 years from now. Nothing is worse than this that the majority of people become so arrogant, unethical and else and they get control of Democracies.

[Ulous]

slimgrin wrote...

Brainwashing is the most destructive thing, the indoctrination of children; and this is the specialty of religion: programming hate and ignorance for adulthood. It's designed to bend people to another's will. It's like a prison, the worst there is, and why we're still preparing ourselves in America for yet another nutjob to bomb us. All in the name of god.

Until the sky gods die, we'll never move on.

I agree to an extent, but by far the biggest form of indoctrination and the cause of the worst behaviour in humans at the moment is money. We are all part of a mutually agreed illusion, money quite literally isn't worth the paper it is printed on, throw on top of this the scams banks run to make money out of thin air then it makes for grim times.

Communist, Liberal, Conservative, Facist, Democratic and Republican etc......... they are all the same, they all use money and are corrupted by it, global monetarism.

“’The modern banking system manufactures
money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece
of sleight of hand that was ever invented.
 Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin.
Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power
to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough
money to buy it back again...
Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes
like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this
would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue
to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then
let bankers continue to create money and control credit’.”
Sir Josiah Stamp Director, Bank of England 1928-1941

(reputed to be the 2nd richest man in Britain at the time)

[GodWood]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
We have almost a Free-will. Even if you're under torture or your body sucks, your mind is still your own. and your genes have nothing to do of what do you think if you're a healthy enough.

You have no free will.
Everthing you say, everyhting do and even everything you think is determined by your genes and past experiences.

[Ulous]

With regards to behaviour I would recomend people look up Robert Sapolsky and Gabor Mate, I can almost guarantee (regardless of if they are right or wrong) that you will think more openly with regards to issues you only guessed about in the past and/or make you think about the platitudes (the problem being that most don't see them as platitudes) many of us use with regard to behaviour, addictions and violence.

A couple of links for those that care to take the time to learn something.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

[GodWood]

KenKenpachi wrote...
Never know he might worship the Gaia concept...

He's apparently a buddhist and a nihilist (two incompatible ideologies).

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

GodWood wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
We have almost a Free-will. Even if you're under torture or your body sucks, your mind is still your own. and your genes have nothing to do of what do you think if you're a healthy enough.

You have no free will.
Everthing you say, everyhting do and even everything you think is determined by your genes and past experiences.

No, you suck, you evolutionist psychologist. It was not my own experiences and genes which made me what I am but my own realization, through comprehension about subjects with the help of my masters which awoke me and made me think this way. And I'm not more polite than Napoleon Bonaparte.
I have Free will, I can think, I can blind myself, suicide, stop eating, avoid the temptations or kill you. 
For Ethics, Rationality and the Ultimate Government.

[GodWood]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
No, you suck, you evolutionist psychologist. It was not my own experiences and genes which made me what I am but my own realization, through comprehension about subjects with the help of my masters which awoke me and made me think this way.

Everything you just said confirms what I said. 

And I'm not more polite than Napoleon Bonaparte.
I have Free will, I can think, I can blind myself, suicide, stop eating, avoid the temptations or kill you.

The only thing here that is incorrect is that you have free will.

Yes you can think (however what you think will be determined by your genes and exeriences)
Yes you can blind yourself (however if you do it'll be because of your genes and/or past experiences)
Yes you can commit suicide (however if you do it'll be because of your genes and/or past experiences)
 
And so on.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

On the contrary, what is in my genes tells me to be a Lusty and Salacious person. But through philosophy I learned how to overcome these tendencies by my will.
K.O

[GodWood]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
On the contrary, what is in my genes tells me to be a Lusty and Salacious person. But through philosophy I learned how to overcome these tendencies by my will.

This interaction with philosphy falls under the past experiences category.

[GodWood]

And which parts would they be?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Luc0s wrote...

GodWood wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...
Never know he might worship the Gaia concept...

He's apparently a buddhist and a nihilist (two incompatible ideologies).

Wrong, I'm not a Buddhist and I'm not a nihilist either. I just have an affinity for both philosophies.

And wrong again, parts of Buddhism and parts of nihilism are perfectly compatible with each other. They're not each other's opposites.

Yes, that is the interpretations about the world, life and humans, and practical conclusions that makes the big differences between Ideas.


[edit] Now, I'm a Pragmatist-Rationalist-Idealist (also add socialist) ... Deal with it. lol

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 10 septembre 2011 - 10:20 .

[GodWood]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
^ Yes that is interpretations about the world, life and humans, and practical conclusions that make the big differences.

Is that directed at me or Lucos?

[GodWood]

Luc0s wrote...
Now tell me, how are those beliefs I just decribed not compatible with each other? In my opinion, they fit perfectly together.

Will do

I don't believe life has any objective meaning, life is pretty much meaningless from an objective point of view (nihilism).

This contradicts the Buddhist view that the whole purpose of existence is to break free from the cycle of rebirth and reach Nirvana.  

Keep in mind though, that 'meaningless' is not the same as 'worthless'. I value each and every single life.

A trait of Buddhism that goes against a fundamental nihilistic concept.
Everything is also without value.

I also believe objective morality doesn't exist (again, nihilism).

Buddhism does (karma)

I also believe in "the four noble truths" from Buddhism.
The 4 noble truths:

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment.
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

I will admit the first 3 actually fit reasonably well and don't seem to contradict anything however the fourth does.

The fourth noble truth states that one can only be free from suffering by following the 8-fold path.
The eightfold path provides 8 objective precepts on what Buddhists believe to be the objective truth on what is the 'morally' correct way to think and act.

This contradicts the nihilistic belief of there being no objective morality.

Modifié par GodWood, 10 septembre 2011 - 11:04 .

[Wereparrot]

slimgrin wrote...

Brainwashing is the most destructive thing, the indoctrination of children; and this is the specialty of religion: programming hate and ignorance for adulthood. It's designed to bend people to another's will. It's like a prison, the worst there is, and why we're still preparing ourselves in America for yet another nutjob to bomb us. All in the name of god.

Until the sky gods die, we'll never move on.

Indeed. But if we consider religious teaching to be brainwashing, then we must also consider similarly unprovable scientific theories currently taught as 'fact' (Big Bang, global warming, evolution) as brainwashing. Your bias is obvious, and your arrogance is typical of atheism.  

[Ulous]

Wereparrot wrote...

Indeed. But if we consider religious teaching to be brainwashing, then we must also consider similarly unprovable scientific theories currently taught as 'fact' (Big Bang, global warming, evolution) as brainwashing. Your bias is obvious, and your arrogance is typical of atheism.  

I suppose it depends upon where you get your information, but as far as i'm concerned the science community for the best part offer the big bang, global warming and evolution up as theories and they are open to debate on all of those issues, where as many religeous leaders will not debate the existance of god at all, as far as they are concerned a god or gods exist and that is the end of it.