On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:16 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
Again you seem to be speaking with authority about the past. 1000 years ago > is long time ago, how do you know these things? > I may be showing my age but we used to use a thing before computers that we called books. Some where dedicated purely to history. Hah hah yes indeed all topics are broad, I can think of not one that is > simple. However does this mean we cannot have meaningfull discourse on any > subject? Nope I disagree, if only that after almost a week you > and I have gotten to know each other a little. I find that very meaningfull > indeed. What is a human without human interaction? > My point is that the subject of the conversation is poorly defined. The less defined the subject the harder it is to find common ground on which to exchange thoughts. > Yes I mean some of that, but also it is possible to realise that such > feelings serve a low porpouse and erradicate them from your life. > > I can't agree that the erradication of such feelings somehow changes what > it is to be human. > > I am human, if I state that I am now-a-days rarely angry and never jelous, > am I now to be defined as being diferant from human? > So you are saying that you are no longer capable of being jealous? I'm not referring to the actual act of being angry or jealous. I'm referring to the ability to get angry or jealous. Unless you are a severe sociopath with a broken mind you have these abilities and you can't just make them go away. Another thing; Anger and jealousy don't serve a 'low purpose'. They are necessary biological factors that helped us survive in more primitive times (no i did not live in primitive times and can not email you pictures). > Yes I can see some forward movement on world widfe ethics, but I also see > much evidance of backwards movment on personal morality, so agian > eb and flow and taking the whole into acount. > Can you cite cases of backwards movement in personal morality that can be applied to a global statement on the subject? > Heh so you have asserted without knowing then? > I have no idea what this comment refers to. > No I don't belive that American gun onwers are all frighted rabbits, > only that this is the typical argument that I hear from the majority > of them. You have heard from the majority of American gun owners? Wow, that's impressive. Current estimates say that there are between 47 and 53 million households in the US where the residents own a gun. Just out of curiosity, did you speak to all members in the household who share the gun or just the ones who barricade themselves waiting for burglars? ;) > After all if you can't take a persons words as being true > then I think we are doomed. > Again, not sure of context. Are you referring to the claims made by the gun owners you've spoken too or something else? > Guns are fun, and yes I have fired them many times. Revolvers, .22's, > SLR's, semi automatic hand guns. They sure are fun, but you know I > still can't help thinking that the only desgin use for a hand gun is > to shoot people. So not at all like basket ball IMO. > That's because you have embraced tunnel vision. You can only see one use for a gun and therefore you can't conceive of other uses. I'm not disputing that the biggest utility that a gun has is to kill. It would be pretty hard to fight a war using only pillows and harsh words. But it's not the biggest reason that civilians (other than criminals) have for owning guns. > I'll takle single indivduals in sociaty and what the PM has just said > together as they are linked. > > The uppermost thought in Mr Camerons mind is I belive the up and > coming local elections come May 5th and the referendum on AV at the > same day. Our PM is despertly trying to curry favour with the > electorate, and so this talk about cutting down immergration I am > alsmost ashamed to say mirrors the mood of the majority of the > people. Nope not for economic reasons has he now trotted this line > out. Single indviduals are angry, angry that the Poles take all the > jobs, angry at the banks, angry at the goverment, angry at the world > wide global crisis, just plain angry(I of course can only really speak > about my own sociaty on this). Anger is not condusive to social > cohesivness is it? > Again, not sure of context... If you're point is that anger is a negative emotion consider; - without anger there would be no environmentalists trying to save forest, wildlife, nature preserves... - without anger there would be no reason to fight against tyranny... - without anger there would be no reason to prosecute the person who raped your daughter or killed your son... - without anger there would be no reason to join alcoholics anonymous... and the list goes on and on. > On the surface it may seem that technology is not the same as increased > intelegence, but surely they are linked? Your avarage school leaver now > understands more about physics then they did say 60 years ago. What else > would you call an uptake in the level of > understaning of sciences in a given sociaty if not intelegence? > There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Intelligence enhances your capacity to acquire knowledge but it is not knowledge. To use an analogy; your brain is like a computer in that it can acquire, process, and store information. That doesn't mean that it inherently knows how to run a spreadsheet or play a game. That information must be loaded and processed first.
