Hey Chuck, Seeing as you seem to be missing some of my context let me do it this way for you.
> 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. Ohh no man I disagree with this. We can of course exchange thougths without common ground. If common ground is what you seek then, yes we can of course agree and adhere to definitions. But from my POV, simple taking is worth the effert, even if the end result is we agree to disagree, we have at least learnt somethings about each other and each others POV's yes? That in itself is worth the doing. > 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. Heh yes at times it does seem that jealousy is a forigen concept to me, I honestly can't remember feeling such a thing. Now of course even socialpaths are still human are they not? Yet I am far from that, I do feel, I am emotive, I know love and have known hate. I have always questioned this 'Broken mind' mentality. If a human is a socialpath, then obviously although wide spread socialpathy is within the normal working parameters of the human mind. Would you aspergers syndrome is also sign of a broken mind? Or Aultism? Anger is a strange one for me. You'll be hard pressed to offend me, which is of course a form of anger. I deal with anger by rationalising it's worth in any particular instance, I ask what good will my anger do in this situation, if the answer is no good at all, then I just leave it, it literaly melts away from me. If the answer is otherwise, then I'll use it. > Another thing; Anger and jealousy don't serve a 'low purpose'. They are > necessary biological factors that helped us survive in more primitive times Yes granted, and now in our modern times, what high functoin do they serve? > Can you cite cases of backwards movement in personal morality that can be > applied to a global statement on the subject? I thought that I had already done so with my talk of Mr Camerons motives? > 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? Hah haha okay fair enough, your turn to be disingenuies. However I am somewhat of a giving bloke, and so already having credited you with a modicum of intelect you should easily be able to see that what I meant of course is the majority of American Gun owners who have debated with me. Meh! I myself love a little pedandisim so, good one mate, bloody good one. > 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. Hahah no my freind that is becaue I am English and so I was not brought up in a gun culture. Lets run through it though, I would not like you to carry on beliving that I was in any way norrow minded, or tunnel visioned. When you take a hand gun out for a bit of practice shooting, what are you practicing for? To be a better shot, I would imagine? Why would you like to be a better shot? So that you can shoot targets with more acuracy? All of that is fine, but still the fact remains that a hand guns porouse, its design, the very reason for it's invention is to kill people. So you practice to become better, so that if you ever need to you can shoot another person. Deny this if you want. > 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'm not denying this. I am speaking explicity about hand guns. What would you hunt with a hand gun? > 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... No that is not really the point. Really it's uses are limited and things done in anger are not worth it it. Let us take your examples. 1. Nope you do not need to be angree to be an enviromentalist. Do you recycle, do you do it out of anger? 2. Justice and against oppresion are both far better reaon than anger. 3. What not even to uphold the law? In fact this is a really bad example from you. To seek revenge from anger, is not seeking justice. 4. Not even to save your life? > There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Intelligence > enhances your capacity to acquire knowledge but it is not knowledge. Yes that is what I said. If we are now more knowledgeable than lets use your 1000 years ago, does that not suggest that our intelegnce has increaesed? > 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. I really dislike the brain is like a computer anologies, mostly because the brain is nothing like a computer. Where does the self awareness of a computer live? For example. However lets go with it. This anology really says much about memmory, not comptuing power. We learn all of the time, we are taught when young and then as we get older we start to learn ourselves, and then the day comes that you learn just by being alive. You can pick up a paper and learn something that A) you never expected to learn, and B) you never knew before. Teh samen can be said for talking with somebody, watching TV, all aspects of life are cabaple of teaching us things. What does this tell us? Well that your anlogy doesn't work, the brain is far more complex then any computer and that ther comes a time when we program ourselves, so that we do know how run a spreadsheet or play game. I guess youmust play game, video games, PC games what have you. Honestly now how many times do you buy, download, pirate a new game, and then take it home and read the manual from cover to cover? Or do you do what most of us do, just start playing it, knowing that you'll get the hang of it via simply experiancing it. This experianceing in your anology is how we program ourselves. And now coz I am a Brit and it has reached the end of the workign day for me, I'm outa here and you'll see nowt form me until Monday. Chuck hang cool matey, welcome here, I for one have been enjoying your company. On Apr 15, 3:45 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
