> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -0000
>       Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you think
>       that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the
>       enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work.
>
>       "There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant
>       comment.

Whatever. This is just hard-ass, inflexible thinking. The point of the
matter is that right and wrong are largely a matter of interpretation
through cultural norms.

It was socially reinforced to be racist back then. It was socially
reinforced to not be homosexual. Hence, it was MORE DIFFICULT to be
racially egalitarian, or homosexual. This, it would seem to me, shows that
FREE WILL has limits. Those people were LESS FREE to be homosexual, or
racially egalitarian.

Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the slave
could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would be a cost:
beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is your free will?

Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.

But for christ's sake you KNOW WHAT I MEAN when I say the slave doesn't
have free will. There is a COST to exercising it. It isn't fucking FREE.

Same for going against social conventions.

It's fucking grade school elementary.

>       I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't have
>       'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more
>       relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'

Domesticated cats, no. But anyone with a cat will tell you they are LESS
SOCIAL pets than dogs.

That is my whole point.

>       So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to other
>       animals doesn't prove anything.

How very Biblical of you.

There is an idea in our culture, that it is man's right to use the planet,
and animals any way we see fit. Because we can, basically. It's "might
makes right." It's Yahweh's commandment to "hold dominion over the earth"
where he set man apart from animals.

It's a primitive notion, really.

Are you mention humans are animals. Now, its perfectly normal in our
science to compare lions to tigers. Or horses to zebras. We're content to
abstract from their behaviors, and find similarities and guiding
principles for the activity of different genus'.

Except when it comes to humans, and our primate relatives. It's arrogance.

>       OK. So in **authoritarian cultures**, some grown-ups pay
>       attention to 'leaders'. There are also grown-ups who believe
>       incredibly stupid and evil nonsense they call 'religion' -
>       especially rhe jew-kkkristian sort. Do you think the bible
>       comes from the DNA? But it just so happens that children don't
>       believe that shit 'naturally'. They have to be brainwashed and
>       coerced into believing it.

Lets be precise: in authoritarian cultures MOST adults will pay attention
to the leaders. The ones that don't will get a label and will suffer some
level of ostracism or social sanctions.

Does religious nonsense come from DNA? No, not as such. But considering
that EVERY human culture has developed some type of religious mythology,
I'd say that its in our bones, so to speak. It's not JUST a matter of
coercion and control, either. For example, shamanistic religions where
there is no priestly initiation, or transfer of authority, etc. Humans
seem to have a great need for myth.

But lets take it a step further. What is a "non-authoritarian" culture?
Hippies? Punks? Bohemians and beat-nicks? Sure. But even they have
leaders. They have ALPHAS that get a measure of deference and respect. The
key difference, and why we don't consider them authoritarian, is that
there is less expectation to conform and do as one is told. But, for
example, you're still going to get treated oddly by most members of these
sub-groups if your fashion sense is to wear a three-piece button up suit.

But what is important to realize is that the alpha/beta dynamic exists in
*virtually* all human social interaction. It *PLAYS* to a deep need, among
most primates, to HAVE that dynamic.

There are always anomalies. You may be one of them. I certainly am. As a
child, I was socially ostracized for being friendly and talkative with
mentally handicapped kids. They were my "lessers" and there was an
expectation that I'd treat them as such.. not to be mean to them, but to
not include them in "the circle."

I saw many kids grow up and learn those types of "lessons." The vast
majority folded to social pressure.

I never cared about it. Still don't.

But I recognize that for many people, they deeply care about what others
think of them.

>> Agreed, with the proviso that quite often people rationalize, rather
>> than act rationally. They rationalize away animal instincts.
>
>       I don't know what you mean by 'rationalize' - Isn't that
>       psychobabble?

Not at all. Let me give you an all-to-common example. Alice is married to
Bob, and is close friends with Charlie. Bob is jealous of Charlie. Not
full on, sweaty, digging through her phone jealous. But he feels it in a
low-level way.

So, Alice decides to go hang out with Charlie and a few other friends one
day, and Bob doesn't want her to go.

But he doesn't tell her NOT to go. He rationalizes: gives seemingly
rational reasons why she should not go. "Oh, well hey babe, I was hoping
to spend that day with you fixing up the garden." Or, "well, shit honey
sorry, I wish I'd known earlier, but there is a good chance I'll get
called in to work that day so you might have to watch the kids." And so
on.

They are rational, in the sense that proceed according to practical,
reasonable principles. But they are (possibly unknowingly) dishonest.

The unknowing part is the important part. It may be that Bob really isn't
aware that he is acting out of jealousy. He doesn't feel it in an acute
way,
and so he is largely unaware.

>
>       Also, there are animal behaviours that don't entail aggresion
>       towards other animals, so even "acting like an animal" isn't
>       necessarily a bad thing.

I disagree. Animalistic responses, while not necessarily a bad thing in
terms of effects, are inherently MINDLESS. Bob isn't MINDFULLY thinking to
himself "Well, why don't I want Alice to go out today. Is it Charlie?
Could I be jealous of Charlie? Hmm.. yeah, maybe thats it.."

In fact, he doesn't necessarily THINK about it at all.. he KNOWS he
doesn't want her to go out, for a low-level gut feeling, and has already
started acting or rationalizing in a way to get what he wants.

>       Bottom line again, your 'realistic' view that SOME humans do
>       what they do because of their animal nature is bullshit.

Nope.

>>
>> Ever get jealous of a guy hitting on your girlfriend? That's primate
>> territorialism.
>
>       If you say do. Did you learn that in the discovery channel?

Nope.

>       Right. You are generalizing and that's why your argument fails.

Nope.

When I speak in generalizations, it is to say: the river is flowing south,
and people get pulled south with the current.

You point to the two Olympic swimmers who can fight the current and say
"SEE! NOT EVERYONE GOES SOUTH!"

Failing to realize the significance of the fact that they are able to do
so, and what it means for the rest of people.

Reply via email to