On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:08 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Chuck, > > Seeing as you seem to be missing some of my context let me do it this > way for you. > Thanks. This helps a lot. > > 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. > IMO common ground is the root of all communication. Without some commonality there is no possible way to exchange ideas and viewpoints. For instance, in the previous discussion we have a common understanding that forward means accumulating positive progress while backward means losing positive progress. The problem is that we have not established what we each understand progress to mean and how our ideas of progress differ. Without that common understanding communication is less focused and an exchange of ideas is harder. > 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? > Yes. Aspergers and autism are both aberrations in the functioning of a human brain that cause a significant deviation from what is deemed 'normal' behavior. > 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? > I thought I already addressed this with a list of accomplishments that wouldn't happen without the presence of anger. Issues like political activism and environmental protection would never happen without anger as a motivator. > 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? > The actions of a single politician don't say anything at all about the morality of the global community. Besides, it's debatable as to whether the actions you cited have any negative moral connotation. > > 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. > I'm guessing that the American gun owners who have spoken to you have done so from a defensive position. Usually they feel as if they are being attacked on some moral ground and have to justify the fact that they own guns to defend their own moral character. > > 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? > I hope you don't mind a bit of cut & paste here... When you take a basketball 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 basketball nets with more acuracy? I did some minor editing of your quote. 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. > Yes, I will deny it. > > 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? > Rabbits, squirrels, and beer cans. > > 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? > A person with who is concerned about the environment is not an environmental activist. For me throwing paper in one bin and metal in another requires very little effort. OTOH, it takes a lot of effort to change the world through activism. That requires a special kind of motivation. 2. Justice and against oppresion are both far better reaon than anger. > Why in the world would you be for justice and against oppression? Just keep your head down and let your neighbor take the beating. > 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. > Screw the law. It's not about waving some flag for truth & justice. It's about protecting your family from animals. 4. Not even to save your life? > You don't think that someone would want to quit drinking because they were angry at their own behavior while drunk? > 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. > If you tell me where the self-awareness of a human is then I will tell you where the self-awareness of a computer is. Of course a brain is not like a computer (at least not one with a Von Neumann architecture). If one were to make a direct comparison it wouldn't be much different than making a comparison between brains and oranges. They both have layers but the orange usually tastes better. The purpose of the brain/computer analogy wasn't to compare computers to brains. It was intended as an aid to distinguish the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Put (hopefully) simpler; knowledge is information. Intelligence is the mechanism that is used to store, process, and utilize knowledge. You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you don't have intelligence it is useless. By the same token, if you don't have knowledge then there isn't much you can do with intelligence. Hominids as far back as half a million years ago had cranial capacities comparable to modern humans and yet none of them built nuclear weapons or made trips to the Moon. The reason for this is that knowledge is a cumulative thing. You can't make bronze tools without first inventing fire intense enough to melt metal. This says nothing about intelligence except that some prehistoric genius was able to accomplish something no one had ever done before. I'd hazard a guess that you or I placed in the same position without the knowledge we have been absorbing all our lives would never be able to figure out how to melt metal.
