Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:14:41 -0400, Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:05 PM 26/07/04 -0700, you wrote: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snip everything for the sake of a tangent] The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? Not at all. Just look at how insane MAD war is/was, although in caveman days it made genetic sense to wipe out a competing tribe in times of severe privation (say many years of drought and famine). Even stranger, it made genetic sense under these conditions to make a suicidal attack on a stronger tribe where the chances were very high *ever* warrior in the weaker tribe was gonna get killed. You have to grok both Hamilton's inclusive (kin) selection and the well known tendency for human tribe to consider the women of a defeated tribe to be booty for this to make sense. The Big Daddy theory of human evolution! One of the anthropological shocks of the 21st century was the discovery that the gene pool of central Asian men is dominated by such a limited range of Y-chromosome characteristics that the only conclusion is that one small group of closely related men dominated impregnation across the region about 800 years ago. They were probably all Mongols closely related to Genghis Khan... Studies by geneticists from Italy, Portugal and Spain recently suggested that sexual dominance by very few men may have been widespread before about 18 to 12 thousand years ago, around the beginning of the warming that closed the last glacial epoch (Dupanloup, I. et al. 2003. A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity. ...Dupanloup et al. show that the rise of agriculture around 10 thousand years ago seems to coincide with a breakdown of massive polygamy and more common monogamy. There are other possible interpretations of the data. In a largely monogamous society, if males stayed where they were born while women moved to live in their mates' home area, men would be closely related to others in their area, eventually resulting in very similar Y-chromosomes being shared by many. Different migration patterns or early deaths for most men while hunting may also have led to the genetic bias that is causing great discussion among evolutionary geneticists. http://www.earth-pages.com/archive/Anthropology.asp October 2003 Of course, socio-biology isn't destiny. -- Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:07:48 -0500 genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. You're referring to protozoa I hope... -Travis product of evolution Edmunds _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:07:48 -0500 genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. You're referring to protozoa I hope... For the most part I'm referring to multicellular creatures, and primarily creatures complex enough to have recognizable instinct. A billion years pretty much covers all of those creatures. xponent Fudge Factor Present Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:58:21 -0500 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:07:48 -0500 genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. You're referring to protozoa I hope... For the most part I'm referring to multicellular creatures, and primarily creatures complex enough to have recognizable instinct. A billion years pretty much covers all of those creatures. Sorry Rob, I thought you were referring to human genetic imperatives in the following: Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. In which case a billion years doesn't quite fit. Hence my protozoa wisecrack. (Yes, you COULD get me on the evolution technicality) Seems as though I made that subconscious underestimation of the thought behind your words. And for the record Rob, that's not an insult. -Travis _ Share a single photo or an entire photo slide show right inside MSN® Messenger. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
At 08:30 PM 7/26/04, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Humans, being social animals, created ethics/morality to enhance our ability to co-operate in order to compete with other species, and provide for continuance of our genetic package. Then why are some genetically favored actions immoral? For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3:19) -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Going back a while to answer parts of a post, as I've promised. - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... I saw the smiley, but I think you have over-simplified. This is not a conflict between experiment and theory, but rather between theory and theory. Gary has NOT performed the experiment of having his child taken for ransom to see if he would try to pay with all the money from a bank. Rather, he has hypothesized what he would do in such a situation. My point was that he probably would not do what he said he would, in short, because it would not be feasible (which would stop him in the short term from doing something irrational) and is unlikely to achieve his goal (which would stop him once he manages to calm down and behave rationally). I read Gary far differently than you did. I read him as speaking of relative priorities. Its not that he disagrees with the idea that, in principal, paying kidnappers is a bad idea. Its not that he thinks he has an inherent right to the money of other people. Its that, given that, his priorities are such that his kids' lives mean more to him than his own, to any risk of inprisonment for theft, than the wrong inherent in appeasing kidnappers, etc. After having kids for a while, one has an inherent sense of their relative importance. Given this, and taking the possibility of stealing other people's money to save the life of one's kid as a given, then saying one would take the tradeoff is a good way to communicate priorities. I don't think it should be considered an action plan. As you pointed out, the trade probably doesn't really exist. The second think worth thinking about here is the difference between your perspective and Gary's and mine. We've both have had many examples where we needed to understand our own priorities and act upon them. Of course, the situation of a kidnapped child is extreme. But, most parents who've raised children through their teenage years do have some understanding of their thinking when their child's life is at all at risk. The reason I mentioned that I was surprised was not that I didn't anticipate my child's actions. I didn't adequately anticipate how I would feel and think about things. After I had children, I had a better understanding of how I would react in various circumstances. So, calling the two views theory and experimental overstated my view; thus the smiley. However, I would agree that a parent would be in a much better position to predict their actions regarding contingencies with their children than a non-parent. Extrapolation from limited data is not nearly as good as interpellation between close data points, but its better than nothing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:41:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I read Gary far differently than you did. I read him as speaking of relative priorities. Its not that he disagrees with the idea that, in principal, paying kidnappers is a bad idea. Its not that he thinks he has an inherent right to the money of other people. Its that, given that, his priorities are such that his kids' lives mean more to him than his own, to any risk of inprisonment for theft, than the wrong inherent in appeasing kidnappers, etc. After having kids for a while, one has an inherent sense of their relative importance. If you're right, than apparently, after having kids for a while, one becomes irrational (or remains so if they started that way). Certainly I know the importance of kids to myself as well as you and Gary. I, too, would risk my life or liberty to save kids, IF it was likely to increase their chances. But not if it would not help them. The difference seems to be not the importance placed on children, but the irrationality -- people claiming they would do impractical things, that even if they were practical, would probably not help, in order to feel better. Kind of sad, really. I would do everything I could to hold onto my rationality in order to give the kids the maximum chance that I could think of something to help rather than taking a desperate, useless action. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:07 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:41:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I read Gary far differently than you did. I read him as speaking of relative priorities. Its not that he disagrees with the idea that, in principal, paying kidnappers is a bad idea. Its not that he thinks he has an inherent right to the money of other people. Its that, given that, his priorities are such that his kids' lives mean more to him than his own, to any risk of inprisonment for theft, than the wrong inherent in appeasing kidnappers, etc. After having kids for a while, one has an inherent sense of their relative importance. If you're right, than apparently, after having kids for a while, one becomes irrational (or remains so if they started that way). Certainly I know the importance of kids to myself as well as you and Gary. I, too, would risk my life or liberty to save kids, IF it was likely to increase their chances. But not if it would not help them. The difference seems to be not the importance placed on children, but the irrationality -- people claiming they would do impractical things, that even if they were practical, would probably not help, in order to feel better. Kind of sad, really. I would do everything I could to hold onto my rationality in order to give the kids the maximum chance that I could think of something to help rather than taking a desperate, useless action. Let me try to re-explain things, because we are having a failure to communicate. I went way back to Gary's original quote to make sure that read it correctly. It is: quote Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. The instinct to protect ones children, at almost any cost, is as basic as the instinct for survival. end quote The way I read it was expressing priorities in terms of what he would be willing to give up in order to obtain something more valuable. For example, when a sports fan states I'd trade Barry Bonds for A-Rod, he actually isn't operating under the illusion that he has the power to make that trade. He is expressing a hierarchy of importance. Gary can correct me, but he is not saying that, if his child were kidnapped he'd either rob a bank or kill someone immediately in order to attempt to save his child. He is saying _given the choice_, he'd pick someone else's death over his child's, or spend someone else's money to save his child. Left unstated is the question of whether he thought he could successfully rob a bank and pay off kidnappers in order to save his child. Also, left unstated is whether he thought trying either one of these was really within his power. We could ask Gary what he meant; I certainly don't always read posts the way the author intends them to be written. But I'd be happy to bet a beer, a buck, etc. that my interpretation is closer to his meaning than yours. A literal interpretation of the words also supports my contention. If he pays the money and the child is not returned safely, then he has failed in his attempt to ransom his child; he has not ransomed his child. As an aide, my interpretation goes with JDG's view of an economics of priorities. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:32:43 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:07 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:41:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I read Gary far differently than you did. I read him as speaking of relative priorities. Its not that he disagrees with the idea that, in principal, paying kidnappers is a bad idea. Its not that he thinks he has an inherent right to the money of other people. Its that, given that, his priorities are such that his kids' lives mean more to him than his own, to any risk of inprisonment for theft, than the wrong inherent in appeasing kidnappers, etc. After having kids for a while, one has an inherent sense of their relative importance. If you're right, than apparently, after having kids for a while, one becomes irrational (or remains so if they started that way). Certainly I know the importance of kids to myself as well as you and Gary. I, too, would risk my life or liberty to save kids, IF it was likely to increase their chances. But not if it would not help them. The difference seems to be not the importance placed on children, but the irrationality -- people claiming they would do impractical things, that even if they were practical, would probably not help, in order to feel better. Kind of sad, really. I would do everything I could to hold onto my rationality in order to give the kids the maximum chance that I could think of something to help rather than taking a desperate, useless action. Let me try to re-explain things, because we are having a failure to communicate. I went way back to Gary's original quote to make sure that read it correctly. It is: quote Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. The instinct to protect ones children, at almost any cost, is as basic as the instinct for survival. end quote The way I read it was expressing priorities in terms of what he would be willing to give up in order to obtain something more valuable. For example, when a sports fan states I'd trade Barry Bonds for A-Rod, he actually isn't operating under the illusion that he has the power to make that trade. He is expressing a hierarchy of importance. Gary can correct me, but he is not saying that, if his child were kidnapped he'd either rob a bank or kill someone immediately in order to attempt to save his child. He is saying _given the choice_, he'd pick someone else's death over his child's, or spend someone else's money to save his child. Left unstated is the question of whether he thought he could successfully rob a bank and pay off kidnappers in order to save his child. Also, left unstated is whether he thought trying either one of these was really within his power. We could ask Gary what he meant; I certainly don't always read posts the way the author intends them to be written. But I'd be happy to bet a beer, a buck, etc. that my interpretation is closer to his meaning than yours. A literal interpretation of the words also supports my contention. If he pays the money and the child is not returned safely, then he has failed in his attempt to ransom his child; he has not ransomed his child. As an aide, my interpretation goes with JDG's view of an economics of priorities. I have found this topic fascinating as an example of why some people use fear as a basis for political campaigns - it works with many people. The other Gary, Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:32 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:07 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... [Snip everything for the sake of a tangent] The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? I'm going to take it for granted that Erik is arguing from a moral/ethical point of view, and in that he is correct in describing Gary's scenario as irrational. But from a genetic point of view I think the answers are very different. Once you have reproduced, a parents sole (in terms of genetics) purpose in life is to protect ones offspring. (And/or to produce more.) Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. I'm wondering if there are not separate rationalities and if there are not more rationalities than these to be considered. xponent The Odd Thought Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snip everything for the sake of a tangent] The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? Not at all. Just look at how insane MAD war is/was, although in caveman days it made genetic sense to wipe out a competing tribe in times of severe privation (say many years of drought and famine). I'm going to take it for granted that Erik is arguing from a moral/ethical point of view, and in that he is correct in describing Gary's scenario as irrational. But from a genetic point of view I think the answers are very different. Once you have reproduced, a parents sole (in terms of genetics) purpose in life is to protect ones offspring. (And/or to produce more.) Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. Our brains likewise have many many millions of years steeped in reptile mode function [food, sex], many millions of years in mammal mode [food, sex, offspring, social hierarchy], millions in primate mode [food, sex, offspring, social hierarchy and society, curiosity/fun], and much less as _Homo sapiens_ the thinking, dancing, singing ape. [The above is a stick-figure drawing, but brain structure and function can be thought of in these terms; this is from a classroom lecture on the 'hind, mid- and fore' brain: http://www.cbn-atl.org/edu_resources/classroom/brainintro.pdf ...Although all vertebrates have three main brain regions, the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain, there are many adaptations by these classes in their neuronal structures. For example, the components of the cerebellum vary greatly across classes. Fish have the most primitive cerebellar organization since they do not need to support their weight on land. The amphibian and reptilian cerebellums are quite similar and are intermediate in complexity. The most complicated cerebellums are present in birds and mammals. Both the mammalian and avian cerebellums are convoluted (folded) and the mammalian cerebellum has a much more complicated pattern of development. The avian cerebellum has a central region that is highly developed for flying while the mammalian cerebellum has a lateral (sideways) expansion. Bat brains have one of the most interesting cerebellums since they have both the lateral expansion that you see in mammals and the highly developed central region for flying. One can see that as the cerebellum increases in complexity across classes of vertebrates, the ability to perform more complicated tasks and finer control of movements were developed. Although not obvious from an external examination of the brain, the limbic system shows great differences across vertebrate classes. In fact, some scientists believe that the limbic system did not truly exist until mammals that would suggest that the lower classes of animals do not have emotions the same as mammals. However, even fish can learn to avoid areas where punishments were given so it is likely that the functions of the limbic system are present in these other classes in some modified form. The largest distinction among the vertebrate classes is the expansion of the cerebral cortex. The forebrain is the area of the brain that one can see the most changes in across the vertebrate classes. Mammals have the relatively new structure of a neo-cortex that is not present in lower animals. The changes in the forebrain across the classes are some of the most prominent differences in the various classes. In fact, the frontal lobes of the cortex, and specifically the prefrontal cortex at the very rostral (front) part of the frontal lobes are more elaborate and larger in humans than other primates. The prefrontal cortex is important for planning, complex intellectual activities such as sorting a deck of cards and the emotional response to pain... Emotions evolved as a survival mechanism; fear insures speeding away from danger, anger insures the ability to fight when one must, love insures the survival of offspring to maturity. None of these gut feelings are absolutely logical, but that does not diminish their impact or continued necessity. Instead of dismissing them, they should be utilized _for_what_they_are_worth_; not to be blindly obeyed, but not to be ignored either. In working with both people and horses, I pay careful attention to what the other makes me _feel_, because that is valuable information in helping me deal with the problem or situation. Debbi Limbic Limbo Lower, Now! Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
I wrote: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? Not at all. snip! Whoops, meant to put in a funny about answering a rhetorical questionoh, well, I guess you knew that anyway! Debbi Engage Brain *Before* Pressing Send Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
Dan wrote major snippage We could ask Gary what he meant; I certainly don't always read posts the way the author intends them to be written. But I'd be happy to bet a beer, a buck, etc. that my interpretation is closer to his meaning than yours. A literal interpretation of the words also supports my contention. If he pays the money and the child is not returned safely, then he has failed in his attempt to ransom his child; he has not ransomed his child. Wow! I can't believe that this topic came back to life! Actually Dan, you have a very good understanding of the original post as I had intended it. Let me make a few clarifications for those that took the original post much too literally... 1. It is very unlikely that my children would be kidnapped for any type of ransom. I simply do not have the net worth to make them a equitable target for ransom. 2. If they were kidnapped, it is also equally unlikely that I would have the access to a bank full of money nor would I have the expertise or equipment to steal it. 3. There are limits to who what I would sacrifice to save my children. If I were in the UNLIKELY position that I had to choose someone or something to sacrifice to save my kids, I would gladly sacrifice my own life if that had even a slim hope of saving my children. Would I sacrifice a plane load of people to save my children - no. Would I sacrifice myself and a couple of other adults - given the right situation probably. As Dan said, it all comes down to priorities. Let me restate the original idea of the post In the unlikely event that my children were kidnapped - for any reason - I would use EVERY available resource to either ensure their safety or even to give them a reasonable chance of safety. If those resources included access to a vault full of money, then it would be gone. Granted that is an unlikely scenario, but my priority would be life over material objects. Rob's post about genetic factors influencing the parents built in desire to protect their young is more accurate than he knows. I can't find the reference at the moment, but there have been multiple studies that show that a crying child triggers a hormonal response in many adult brains that cause the adult to be concerned and sympathetic with the child, in the parents brain, the hormonal response is virtually overwhelming. I'll look for that reference when I get a chance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On 27 Jul 2004, at 1:13 am, Deborah Harrell wrote: Engage Brain *Before* Pressing Send Maru It would be a very dull list if we all did that! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ INTEL INSIDE It's not a marketing gimmick, it's a warning label. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 08:25:04PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Wow! I can't believe that this topic came back to life! There you go again with the irrationality! :-) Let me make a few clarifications for those that took the original post much too literally... On the other hand, isn't more likely that YOU took MY original post too metaphorically? In the unlikely event that my children were kidnapped - for any reason - I would use EVERY available resource to either ensure their safety or even to give them a reasonable chance of safety. If those resources included access to a vault full of money, then it would be gone. And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. Granted that is an unlikely scenario, but my priority would be life over material objects. Ummm, duh? Too bad you seem to have missed the point of my original post. Ah well, enough. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snip everything for the sake of a tangent] The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? Not at all. Just look at how insane MAD war is/was, although in caveman days it made genetic sense to wipe out a competing tribe in times of severe privation (say many years of drought and famine). I'm going to take it for granted that Erik is arguing from a moral/ethical point of view, and in that he is correct in describing Gary's scenario as irrational. But from a genetic point of view I think the answers are very different. Once you have reproduced, a parents sole (in terms of genetics) purpose in life is to protect ones offspring. (And/or to produce more.) Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. Our brains likewise have many many millions of years steeped in reptile mode function [food, sex], many millions of years in mammal mode [food, sex, offspring, social hierarchy], millions in primate mode [food, sex, offspring, social hierarchy and society, curiosity/fun], and much less as _Homo sapiens_ the thinking, dancing, singing ape. That's all true, but I was thinking more along the lines of [reproduce] [compete for resources] [ensure proliferation of your genetic package] as being the primal genetic imperatives. What I'm thinking is that it is odd to call a system that has worked well (and indeed, led to our existence) irrational. It has to have followed some sort of logical system of rules, else it would have failed. IOW genetics and the imperatives that have evolved out of genetics are an ordered system, subject to the effects of chaos, but not chaotic itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but the randomness one sees in genetics and evolution seems to be quite orderly and rational. (Not purposeful mind you, but survival and expansion oriented.) Humans, being social animals, created ethics/morality to enhance our ability to co-operate in order to compete with other species, and provide for continuance of our genetic package. As seen in this discussion, genetic imperatives and ethical/moral imperatives can be conflicting. Generally (AFAICT) we are going to favor ethical/moral imperatives, but does that mean that ethical/moral imperatives trump genetic imperatives every time? I'm thinking that genetic imperatives are rational, but in most cases are not preferred when in conflict with ethics/morality. xponent The Jungle Or The Anthill Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Humans, being social animals, created ethics/morality to enhance our ability to co-operate in order to compete with other species, and provide for continuance of our genetic package. Then why are some genetically favored actions immoral? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Humans, being social animals, created ethics/morality to enhance our ability to co-operate in order to compete with other species, and provide for continuance of our genetic package. Then why are some genetically favored actions immoral? I suppose that is because genetic priorities do not necessarily favor social interactions. Genetic priorities operate mostly at the individual level, so what is good for an individual may not be good for an associated group. Morality is concerned with groups and is geared toward ensuring the viability and survival of a group. I'm just guessing, but I would think that language, ethics/morality, and bigger brains developed in lockstep with each other. With genetic success came denser populations, more opportunities for interaction between individuals and groups, and a need for ethical/moral rules that covered ground genetic imperatives did not address. xponent Rules Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
In a message dated 7/26/2004 7:08:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But from a genetic point of view I think the answers are very different. Once you have reproduced, a parents sole (in terms of genetics) purpose in life is to protect ones offspring. (And/or to produce more.) Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. Evolutionary psychology offers important insights into these issues. Morality and ethics are at least in part adaptations. We are complex social animals. We give special status to our kin because they carry some of our genes. We engage in recipricol altruism with those who are not our kin because this strategy provides the most benefit for the individual. In order to keep track of who owes what to whom and who is dealing honestly and who is cheating we have developed for keeping score. Morality is how we keep score. It is tied to a series of emotional responses. Genes that favor an ability to sort out all of the tit for tat interactions that form the base of morality help the person to florish. For good explanations of this see Robert Wright's The Moral Animal Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and Matt Ridley's The Origin of Virtue ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:15 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... I'm just guessing, but I would think that language, ethics/morality, and bigger brains developed in lockstep with each other. With genetic success came denser populations, more opportunities for interaction between individuals and groups, and a need for ethical/moral rules that covered ground genetic imperatives did not address. The development of denser populations depended on farming; which was quite late:10k year back. There is no significant brain development differences between Native Americans and Europeans...who separated before that date. Indeed, a randomly chosen evolution site http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homosapiens.htm states that the great migration out of Africa was roughly 200k years ago. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
At 05:05 PM 26/07/04 -0700, you wrote: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Snip everything for the sake of a tangent] The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? Not at all. Just look at how insane MAD war is/was, although in caveman days it made genetic sense to wipe out a competing tribe in times of severe privation (say many years of drought and famine). Even stranger, it made genetic sense under these conditions to make a suicidal attack on a stronger tribe where the chances were very high *ever* warrior in the weaker tribe was gonna get killed. You have to grok both Hamilton's inclusive (kin) selection and the well known tendency for human tribe to consider the women of a defeated tribe to be booty for this to make sense. Worse yet, the mental state for this move is not rational. In spite of it being a smart move for *genes* it is by rational standards *stupid.* But then if the genes are going to induce suicidal attacks, they have to induce non-rational behavior. So wonder no longer why people make stupid decisions in wars, irrational optimisms under these circumstances has been wired into your fricking genes. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
At 10:17 PM 26/07/04 -0400, you wrote: In a message dated 7/26/2004 7:08:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But from a genetic point of view I think the answers are very different. Once you have reproduced, a parents sole (in terms of genetics) purpose in life is to protect ones offspring. (And/or to produce more.) Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. Evolutionary psychology offers important insights into these issues. Morality and ethics are at least in part adaptations. We are complex social animals. We give special status to our kin because they carry some of our genes. We engage in recipricol altruism with those who are not our kin because this strategy provides the most benefit for the individual. In order to keep track of who owes what to whom and who is dealing honestly and who is cheating we have developed for keeping score. Morality is how we keep score. It is tied to a series of emotional responses. Genes that favor an ability to sort out all of the tit for tat interactions that form the base of morality help the person to florish. For good explanations of this see Robert Wright's The Moral Animal Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and Matt Ridley's The Origin of Virtue Excellent choices. If you want to go further, David Buss's books starting with Evolution of Desire, Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation, and at least one of William Calvin's books, Ascent of Mind being a bit dated but very good. Round this out with some of Jane Goodall's books on chimps. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On 22 Jun 2004, at 4:39 am, Julia Thompson wrote: William T Goodall wrote: That sounds like a good reason not to have children. I don't fancy my brain getting messed about that much. Well, then, whatever you do, don't get pregnant -- that *really* messes with your brain. Breastfeeding afterwards doesn't help, either. (But it does have its merits.) I'll keep that in mind :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:19:37PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: In the scenario being discussed, this rule of law has already violated quite spectacularly by the kidnapper. And while two wrongs do not make a right, in many situations the available options do not include a choice between good and evil but only an attempt to find the lesser of two evils. Yeah, right. I'll just kidnap someone else's kid in order to pay the ransom to get my kid back. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying rational does not mean everyone does. I think this may be one of those cases where if you aren't in the situtation, you can't judge how you'd react. A few years before I had children, I was having a discussion with 4 of my brothers and the subject came up. My brothers, who all had kids, unanimously and without hesitation said they would die for their children. At the time, I thought they were all nuts. But now that I have kids of my own, I understand and agree completely. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On 21 Jun 2004, at 4:01 pm, Horn, John wrote: From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying rational does not mean everyone does. I think this may be one of those cases where if you aren't in the situtation, you can't judge how you'd react. A few years before I had children, I was having a discussion with 4 of my brothers and the subject came up. My brothers, who all had kids, unanimously and without hesitation said they would die for their children. At the time, I thought they were all nuts. But now that I have kids of my own, I understand and agree completely. That sounds like a good reason not to have children. I don't fancy my brain getting messed about that much. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 10:01:53AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: I think this may be one of those cases where if you aren't in the situtation, you can't judge how you'd react. Wrong again. I can predict what my actions would be. A few years before I had children, I was having a discussion with 4 of my brothers and the subject came up. My brothers, who all had kids, unanimously and without hesitation said they would die for their children. At the time, I thought they were all nuts. But now that I have kids of my own, I understand and agree completely. So you predicted your actions wrongly. Doesn't mean I would. In fact, my prediction (for myself) would have been the opposite of yours. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: To underscore this point: In the same conversation I mentioned in my last post*, my brothers all said that they found it amazing that there were no bodily fluids or wastes that could come out of their children that they couldn't deal with. At the time I couldn't believe it as I had a hard time cleaning a cats litter box. Diapers? Ick. Vomit? No way. But now, I don't even think about it. You just deal with it. Which once again only demonstrates your lack or foresight or knowledge, and your poor judgement in extrapolating that lack from yourself to everyone. It is well known that people can become accustomed to many things through repeated exposure, even things that may have been distasteful to them before. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
William T Goodall wrote: On 21 Jun 2004, at 4:01 pm, Horn, John wrote: From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying rational does not mean everyone does. I think this may be one of those cases where if you aren't in the situtation, you can't judge how you'd react. A few years before I had children, I was having a discussion with 4 of my brothers and the subject came up. My brothers, who all had kids, unanimously and without hesitation said they would die for their children. At the time, I thought they were all nuts. But now that I have kids of my own, I understand and agree completely. That sounds like a good reason not to have children. I don't fancy my brain getting messed about that much. Well, then, whatever you do, don't get pregnant -- that *really* messes with your brain. Breastfeeding afterwards doesn't help, either. (But it does have its merits.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Horn, John wrote: From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Parenting is the most life changing experience I have gone through. There are a number of things I didn't think that I would do, that I ended up doing. The main reason for this is that I didn't have as full an understanding of the circumstances involved in parenting as I originally thought I did. To underscore this point: In the same conversation I mentioned in my last post*, my brothers all said that they found it amazing that there were no bodily fluids or wastes that could come out of their children that they couldn't deal with. At the time I couldn't believe it as I had a hard time cleaning a cats litter box. Diapers? Ick. Vomit? No way. But now, I don't even think about it. You just deal with it. And the more catastrophic incidents you laugh about a week or a year later. Julia who found out firsthand that it's really not the end of the world to have a child vomit on you in a restaurant ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 7:03 AM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:32:14PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Erik, I was not being condescending or belittling you in any way when Yes, you were, even if you didn't realize it. Also, your comment about the discussion going down hill while you were gone. Ha! That's not what happened. You made several absurd comments. If it went downhill, that was when it happened. asked if you had children. Children change their parents in ways that could never have been anticipated. I could be wrong, but I think that you would view this issue in a different light if you had children. Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying rational does not mean everyone does. I've thought about this a while, and I think it is a more interesting question than you do. Let me lay out my logic. First, the you haven't experience this, so you don't know arguement. I've always found that is a partially true arguement. We all have the ability to abstract, so we can make some model of what our behavior will be under certain circumstances. If the circumstances are not far different from normal, the models work well. If they are quite different, we may find that we act differently than we expect, because our experiences are different from what we expect. Parenting is the most life changing experience I have gone through. There are a number of things I didn't think that I would do, that I ended up doing. The main reason for this is that I didn't have as full an understanding of the circumstances involved in parenting as I originally thought I did. Let me give you an example of this. My daughter, Amy, was at a low second story window when she was two years old. I told her to get away, and as she got up to do it, she lost her balance, tripped forward, and fell...hitting her head on an air conditioner below. I was calm at the time, and took her to the hospital to get her head stitched. Once it was over, I reacted. Ever since then, I have a fear of my kids and heights. I can take heights quite well, I just can't stand seeing my kids at the edge. So, I get nervous when they are at a second story railing, even though I can at the same time, calculate that the danger is in an acceptable range. Its a trueism of therapy that one cannot control one's feelings rationally. One can put limits on one's behavior, but overcoming a phobia is not just a matter of learning how to think rationally. Since my particular fear was well grounded, and strongly imprinted, I lived with moderating it, instead of being able to totally eliminate it. The other thing that I noticed is that my parenting didn't work out quite as I expected. Seeing other people's kids and knowing the theory of child psychology is helpful, but it isn't the same thing as actually parenting. One finds that one needs to discard theory when one actually acts. Having said that, I've often seen the arguement used as a shut up, you have no idea arguement. I disagree with that. I've been able to talk about my experiences with others that have not had those experiences and I don't dismiss their views. If someone makes a suggestion that I consider impractical, I point it out to them, but I don't reject their arguements out of hand. Even though I'm an experimentalist, I realize that theorists do have their place. :-) As far as his actions being logical; I cannot see how one can determine a priority list by logic alone. Lets give another example of the bank robbery scenario. Folks have been strapped with explosives and forced to go into a bank and demand money or else. I don't think that it is illogical to go along instead of refusing and being killed. I do think it is moral to sacarifice one's own life to save the lives of others...and if more than one life is saved, one can may a calculation based on all lives being equal to state that it is the logical conclusion that one should sacrifice one's own life. But, a person who values their own life more than they value anothers is not inherently illogical. A person who runs from a live grenade when he sees it instead of throwing himself on it to cut the number of dead to just one is not inherently illogical. She is not heroic, and it might be possible to call her cowardly, but I cannot see how someone who saves their own skin is acting inherently illogically. Given that, let us consider the case of a parent who values their children's lives over their own. That is not inherently illogical either. Although I don't know
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:46:55AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Ever since then, I have a fear of my kids and heights. I can take heights quite well, I just can't stand seeing my kids at the edge. So, I get nervous when they are at a second story railing, even though I can at the same time, calculate that the danger is in an acceptable range. ... Its a trueism of therapy that one cannot control one's feelings rationally. One can put limits on one's behavior, but overcoming a phobia is not just a matter of learning how to think rationally. Since my particular fear was well grounded, and strongly imprinted, I lived with moderating it, instead of being able to totally eliminate it. What do you mean by moderating it? Do you prevent (or try to prevent) your children from doing things they want to do that you know (rationally) are reasonably safe (by some statistical measure), because you have an irrational feeling of nervousness based on your unfortunate experience? I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming people could control their feelings. I certainly don't think that. But people can control their actions. Anyway, I had two main points in this discussion, the first one was my original point, and the second one came up a little later: 1) No one has the right to take (sacrifice, destroy, etc.) something that does not belong to them, no matter how much they may want to (this is more or less the rule of law upon which much of our civilization depends) 2) No matter how much you may desire something, if what you want is opposed to physical law, you will lose. And the looser form of that statement: if what you want is diametrically opposed to the way things usually work in the world, it is extremely unlikely you will win. The other thing that I noticed is that my parenting didn't work out quite as I expected. I would have predicted that outcome! Children are definitely hard to predict. But my own actions are frequently predictable (at least by me), and in certain situations, I know with high certainty what actions I would take. Having said that, I've often seen the arguement used as a shut up, you have no idea arguement. I disagree with that. I've been able to talk about my experiences with others that have not had those experiences and I don't dismiss their views. If someone makes a suggestion that I consider impractical, I point it out to them, but I don't reject their arguements out of hand. Even though I'm an experimentalist, I realize that theorists do have their place. :-) I saw the smiley, but I think you have over-simplified. This is not a conflict between experiment and theory, but rather between theory and theory. Gary has NOT performed the experiment of having his child taken for ransom to see if he would try to pay with all the money from a bank. Rather, he has hypothesized what he would do in such a situation. My point was that he probably would not do what he said he would, in short, because it would not be feasible (which would stop him in the short term from doing something irrational) and is unlikely to achieve his goal (which would stop him once he manages to calm down and behave rationally). As far as his actions being logical; I cannot see how one can determine a priority list by logic alone. Lets give another example of the bank robbery scenario. Folks have been strapped with explosives and forced to go into a bank and demand money or else. I don't think that it is illogical to go along instead of refusing and being killed. I do think it is moral to sacarifice one's own life to save the lives of others...and if more than one life is saved, one can may a calculation based on all lives being equal to state that it is the logical conclusion that one should sacrifice one's own life. But, a person who values their own life more than they value anothers is not inherently illogical. A person who runs from a live grenade when he sees it instead of throwing himself on it to cut the number of dead to just one is not inherently illogical. She is not heroic, and it might be possible to call her cowardly, but I cannot see how someone who saves their own skin is acting inherently illogically. I agree. But this is all irrelevant to my point. I made no claim about people acting logically or illogically. That person does not have the right to take another's life to save their own. They may do it anyway, but it is wrong. Whether or not it is logical for them to do that, I don't really have an opinion. Given that, let us consider the case of a parent who values their children's lives over their own. That is not inherently illogical either. Although I don't know for sure what I would do until I face it, if you ask me would I rather watch my children die and live or die, knowing they would be fine, my reaction is the second choice, hands down. I think that many parents have this set of priorities. So, someone who sees a risk to
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Erik wrote: Unless a very large super-majority agrees with you, you would be wrong to do so. You would be taking something that you do not have the right to take. Besides being unjust, it is also likely to be inefficient -- wasting your time on short-term, trivial matters instead of applying yourself to long-term, meaningful measures. Lincoln imposed a number of restrictions on rights during the Civil War including the suspension of Habius Corpus. Considering the situation, do you think they were justified? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:59:46AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Lincoln imposed a number of restrictions on rights during the Civil War including the suspension of Habius Corpus. Considering the situation, do you think they were justified? Since I suspect you are more familiar with that historical situation than I am, I will turn the question around. 1) What were Lincoln's goals in imposing the restrictions? 2) What other ways could he have accomplished those goals with fewer, less objectional, or no restrictions? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
At 01:28 PM 6/20/04, Erik Reuter wrote: 1) No one has the right to take (sacrifice, destroy, etc.) something that does not belong to them, no matter how much they may want to (this is more or less the rule of law upon which much of our civilization depends) Fodder for thought . . . In the scenario being discussed, this rule of law has already violated quite spectacularly by the kidnapper. And while two wrongs do not make a right, in many situations the available options do not include a choice between good and evil but only an attempt to find the lesser of two evils. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:32:14PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Erik, I was not being condescending or belittling you in any way when Yes, you were, even if you didn't realize it. Also, your comment about the discussion going down hill while you were gone. Ha! That's not what happened. You made several absurd comments. If it went downhill, that was when it happened. asked if you had children. Children change their parents in ways that could never have been anticipated. I could be wrong, but I think that you would view this issue in a different light if you had children. Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying rational does not mean everyone does. And you are foolish to talk about temporarily giving up other people's liberties. That is a slippery slope that has often led to disaster. A much better solution is to choose clever and wise leaders who are capable of choosing policies that maximize both safety and liberty. While there are some tradeoffs between the two, the overall situation is NOT zero sum. A skilled leader could use foreign policy to great effect to increase both liberty and safety in the long-term (of course not with the Bush administration in charge...) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
Gary Nunn wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. Erik wrote No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. Just a guess, but you don't have children do you? Julia write. I have children, and Erik's right. Now, you might be able to beg, borrow or steal some money, but realistically, are they really going to hit *you* up for ransom? Various other comments... Gheezzz, don't read mail for a few days and come back and find that this topic went this far downhill? Wow! Ok, just to clarify a few things While I would be willing to temporarily give up some liberties for the sake of my children's safety, the key words there are some and temporary. I think that the Patriot Act is an evil, ugly thing that needs to have a stake driven through it's heart. Hopefully once the democrats return to power, the Patriot Act will die a quick death. Ok, as for the ORIGINAL subject of this thread, the scenario of the ransom / bank money is HIGHLY unlikely and was only meant as an example of principal to show how far I might go for my children. Not even for a moment would I think that my children would be kidnapped and held for ransom. I don't have access to enough money or assets to make that a profitable venture for someone. HOWEVER, in principal, if my children were kidnapped, and I had access to a large amount of money (either legally or illegally) I would not hesitate to trade any amount of money for their potential return - my money - Erik's - whoever's. I would move heaven and earth to protect my children when called to. The instinct to protect ones children is as basic and hardwired as the human instinct for self preservation. As a matter of fact, I think the instinct to protect your children overrides the human instinct for self preservation, hence the parents that run into burning buildings or in front of cars to save their children. I would not hesitate to put myself between my children and any imminent danger that may head their way, even if my chances of personal survival were nil. I have seen calm, rational, intelligent and educated parents reduced to the point of irrationality in mere minutes when they perceived their children to be in imminent danger. Erik, I was not being condescending or belittling you in any way when I asked if you had children. Children change their parents in ways that could never have been anticipated. I could be wrong, but I think that you would view this issue in a different light if you had children. Or not, and that would be ok too. Every parent has a different set of standards and values that can change at a moments notice depending on the situation. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. He didn't say that he COULD. Only that he would. As would I. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: He didn't say that he COULD. Only that he would. As would I. I don't give a fuck what mental masturbation you want to engage in. Keep it to yourself. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:56:14 -0400 On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: He didn't say that he COULD. Only that he would. As would I. I don't give a fuck what mental masturbation you want to engage in. Keep it to yourself. If it's mental masturbation, then isn't it kept to oneself anyway? And if it's not, then wouldn't it be verbal masturbation? Which as we all know is easier said than done. Moreover, if you don't care about him engaging in mental/verbal masturbation, then why did you tell him to keep it to himself? Concision, thy name is NOT Erik Reuter... -Travis waiting for the forthcoming flame Edmunds _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
At 01:22 AM 6/16/2004 -0400 JDG wrote: At 11:17 AM 6/15/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: I don't know, I am a couple miles from a petrochemical plant and never think about terrorists attacking it. Then again, you've probably never watched an airplane crash into an office building ten miles away from your present location on TV, and then had someone knock on your office door and say You Need to Leave the Building Now I can't believe I forgot to add this, but. Then again, you've also probably not had people *die* at your local post office in a bioterrorism attack - not have other workers at your local post office suffer long-term debillitating health effects. I am also guessing that you don't have a daily reminder of the threat of bioterrorism in the form of your daily mail arriving on your desk only after being irradiated. I'm a little less sure of this, but I'm also guessing that your office does not hold emergency preparedness drills on what to do in the event of a biological, chemical, or radiolofical terrorist attack - or in the event of terror-induced rioting outside your building. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Julia Thompson wrote: As far as sacrificing someone else to save my kids, I might very well. Killing someone in defense of my children is something I would do if I had to. /me too, I would easily trade half of Earth - say, the useless and evil northern hemisphere - for any of my kids. But it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:23:33 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Welcome to the Club, Gary I can definitely sympathize with how it feels to think that there may be terrorists on your doorstep - say targetting your train into work or the very large Train Station next door to your office JDG - We Will Prevail, Maru I don't know, I am a couple miles from a petrochemical plant and never think about terrorists attacking it. Some people just seem much more concerned with their own safety, more willing to trade liberties for safety. Gary Denton - Psychological basis of politics Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
Gary Denton wrote I don't know, I am a couple miles from a petrochemical plant and never think about terrorists attacking it. Some people just seem much more concerned with their own safety, more willing to trade liberties for safety. Just out of curiosity, do you have children? Since the attacks on Sept 11, I have found consistently, that I am infinitely more fearful of my children's safety than I am of my own. Would I give up some liberties to ensure their safety? Absolutely. Gary Nunn ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Gary Nunn wrote: Since the attacks on Sept 11, I have found consistently, that I am infinitely more fearful of my children's safety than I am of my own. Would I give up some liberties to ensure their safety? Absolutely. Do you mean absolutely yes or absolutely no? serious I can think of some things I would _not_ give up even for the security of my children /serious Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 06:57:18PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I give up some liberties to ensure their safety? Absolutely. But you do not have the right to give up OTHERS liberties for your (or your children's) sake. Other's liberties are not yours to give up. That's like saying you would pay all the money in a bank to ransom a child from a kidnapper. Or saying that you would trade the life of a child in North Dakota to save the life of your child. I want my liberties. Don't you go giving them away without my permission. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:57 PM Subject: RE: Terrorism too close to home... Gary Denton wrote I don't know, I am a couple miles from a petrochemical plant and never think about terrorists attacking it. Some people just seem much more concerned with their own safety, more willing to trade liberties for safety. Just out of curiosity, do you have children? Since the attacks on Sept 11, I have found consistently, that I am infinitely more fearful of my children's safety than I am of my own. Would I give up some liberties to ensure their safety? Absolutely. But, as far a worrying about one's own children goes, dying in an auto accident is far more likely than being killed by a terrorist attack. When I use to let my kids walk to school, and when I now let my kids drive, I know that I am risking their safety. Their safety is more important than my own, but I am not ready to protect them at all costs. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:57 PM Subject: RE: Terrorism too close to home... Gary Denton wrote I don't know, I am a couple miles from a petrochemical plant and never think about terrorists attacking it. Some people just seem much more concerned with their own safety, more willing to trade liberties for safety. Just out of curiosity, do you have children? I do. (not in the plural sense thoughG) Since the attacks on Sept 11, I have found consistently, that I am infinitely more fearful of my children's safety than I am of my own. I don't know that I would use infinitely, but I live just a bit farther from those petrochemical plants Gary D.mentioned. I just hope my son is with his mother if Osama wises up and nukes the Houston Ship Channel. Would I give up some liberties to ensure their safety? Absolutely. Not me. I will tolerate inconvenience and hassles to provide for safety and to preserve liberty. Liberty is to precious for any individual or group to be allowed to dispense. Who do you trust with your liberty? xponent My Mind Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:05 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Would I give up some liberties to ensure their safety? Absolutely. Not me. I will tolerate inconvenience and hassles to provide for safety and to preserve liberty. Liberty is to precious for any individual or group to be allowed to dispense. Who do you trust with your liberty? But, as Gautam has pointed out, we already are balancing liberties that we give up vs. safety. For example, our chances of losing our liberty to the government would be significantly less if the standards for conviction were a 99% or higher probability of guilt rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Some things within the Patriot Act present reasonable tradeoff between liberty and safety, and some do not. I'm not opposed to allowing a roving wiretap by the same rules that allow a static one. It doesn't make sense to require the government obtain a new authorization every time a suspect switches cell phones. I am opposed to internment of citizens without charge or access to lawyers because the government calls them a national security threat. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
Erik wrote I want my liberties. Don't you go giving them away without my permission. Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ OK, I know better than to post a non-specific remark like what I wrote originally to this list. The question of giving up liberties for safety is much like the question of gun control or free speech. There *must* be reasonable limits for everything - including freedom and liberty. IS doing a background check when purchasing a gun infringing on someone's liberty? Actually yes it is, BUT, that is a small liberty that is given up for the greater good of protecting innocent people from a deranged lunatic purchasing a gun. Would random checks of bags being carried by suspicious people in a known targeted mall be infringing on someone's liberty. Yes it would, but I would certainly support that - on a temporary basis. Rob wrote I will tolerate inconvenience and hassles to provide for safety and to preserve liberty. Liberty is to precious for any individual or group to be allowed to dispense. Who do you trust with your liberty? There must be a balance between liberty and safety. Sometimes that balance can temporarily tip one way or the other, depending on the immediate situation. Is there really a difference between inconvenience and hassles and giving up some liberties *temporarily* to ensure safety? When every aircraft in the US was grounded on Sept 11th, wasn't that technically infringing on the liberty of the other passengers? Or was that a temporary suspension of liberty for those passengers to ensure the greater good of protecting others from similar attacks? Erik wrote That's like saying you would pay all the money in a bank to ransom a child from a kidnapper. Or saying that you would trade the life of a child in North Dakota to save the life of your child. Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. The instinct to protect ones children, at almost any cost, is as basic as the instinct for survival. Gary ___ Conscientia non oboedientia honor est. Honor is conscience, not obedience. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:50 PM Subject: RE: Terrorism too close to home... Conscientia non oboedientia honor est. Honor is conscience, not obedience. Actually, honor is not getting caught. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. Erik wrote No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. Just a guess, but you don't have children do you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:42:48PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. Erik wrote No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. Just a guess, but you don't have children do you? You really need to try harder to remain rational. No matter how much you may want save your children, reality takes precedence over your desires. Appeals to irrationality are not persuasive. First, if your child is being held for ransom, it is unlikely that your highest probability of getting the child back is to actually pay the ransom. Anyone unethical enough to kidnap a child for ransom cannot be relied upon to honor a deal (of course, perhaps the kidnapper is doing it to raise money to pay for an operation for his child...). Second, if you and the authorities do decide that the best way to proceed is to pay a ransom, you can probably find someone or some agency that will willingly put up the money for you. Third, I doubt you have the intelligence and ability to successfully plan and execute a successful non-homicidal bank robbery under normal circumstances. Let alone when you are even less rational than usual because your child has been kidnapped. Finally, if by some miracle you did succceed in robbing the bank without hurting anyone, paying the ransom, and getting the child back, you would then be serving many years in jail for armed robbery. And I doubt a jailbird father can do a good job of raising a child. Although with judgement that bad, it may be best to get the father away from the child as soon as possible... Just a guess, but you don't have a brain do you? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Gary Nunn wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children or sacrifice someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. Erik wrote No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. Just a guess, but you don't have children do you? I have children, and Erik's right. Now, you might be able to beg, borrow or steal some money, but realistically, are they really going to hit *you* up for ransom? As far as sacrificing someone else to save my kids, I might very well. Killing someone in defense of my children is something I would do if I had to. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
At 11:17 AM 6/15/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: I don't know, I am a couple miles from a petrochemical plant and never think about terrorists attacking it. Then again, you've probably never watched an airplane crash into an office building ten miles away from your present location on TV, and then had someone knock on your office door and say You Need to Leave the Building Now I'm also guessing that you probably weren't riding the subway system in a national capitol nine hundred and eleven days later and listened to a loud voice come over a Public Address system in the Subway Station reminding you to always be on the lookout for suspicious packages anywhere in the subway system. JDG - New York, Arlington, Shanksville, Madrid, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Gary wrote: Of course this threat is no different that any other terrorist threat, it's just a little closer to home for me. I have always said that the best way to create true terror would be the random bombing or destruction of small town targets that have no strategic value. Aye, look at the terror caused by the D.C. snipers. What if they had been really smart; stopped after killing several victims then moved on to a different city? It may have been years before they were caught. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
Welcome to the Club, Gary I can definitely sympathize with how it feels to think that there may be terrorists on your doorstep - say targetting your train into work or the very large Train Station next door to your office JDG - We Will Prevail, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
