The Political Discussion Thread

[Galileo_Galilee]

Oh boy.

No, we are not "forced" to these things. Because here's the thing: humans have the capacity to make choices that goes against their instinctual needs and put other people above our own needs.

Such as the desire to make somebody else happy in complete disregards for your own happiness.

We do not have to make that kind of a choice.

If we were "forced" to make that kind of a choice, then there would be absolutely no way any human on the face of this planet could make a choice contrary to what their instincts are.

Because if we couldn't make those kinds of choices, then we would still be living in caves and using stones and eating raw means and vegetables after all these millions of years.

We would not be able to form societies or develop as far as we have without being able to overcome our instincts.

[Joachim]

humans have the capacity to make choices

lol
question: can you prove this without resorting to purely anecdotal evidence or a lack of knowledge?

Such as the desire to make somebody else happy in complete disregards for your own happiness.

this desire to make someone else happy intrinsically makes the person performing the action happy. there is a reason for everything we do; every action, even those perceived as selfless, can be justified as selfish. there is no such thing as an act that is not, in some way, self-fulfilling - it is impossible for a human being to do so.

If we were "forced" to make that kind of a choice, then there would be absolutely no way any human on the face of this planet could make a choice contrary to what their instincts are.

you're severely limiting both the scope of "instinct" and of my argument. our instincts promote the development of society because the development of society increases the odds of our survival, it strengthens us as a race.

what about other animals that build-up societies? are they capable of living beyond their instincts, do they possess that magical "soul" element that we purportedly have that allows for us to go beyond our instincts as you define them?

[Galileo_Galilee]

question: can you prove this without resorting to purely anecdotal evidence or a lack of knowledge?

This is a discussion not a formal debate so there is no need to do so. This is also called moving the goal posts.

this desire to make someone else happy intrinsically makes the person performing the action happy. there is a reason for everything we do; every action, even those perceived as selfless, can be justified as selfish. there is no such thing as an act that is not, in some way, self-fulfilling - it is impossible for a human being to do so.

Then how about parents who sacrifice their lives for their children? How is that selfish? How is that forcing the children in some sort of consent? Are you saying the parent is forcing their will on a child to force them to live when the child wants to live?

you're severely limiting both the scope of "instinct" and of my argument. our instincts promote the development of society because the development of society increases the odds of our survival, it strengthens us as a race.

No they do not. Human instincts are xenophobic. Anything that is different must be a threat and must be either made to be like us or destroy. There are plenty of historical examples to bear this out, and even in the modern age there are examples of this. Muslims get really violent over cartoons depicting Mohammed because they feel we should all be the same and we should bow down to their God Allah. Those are instincts rearing their ugly heads.

what about other animals that build-up societies? are they capable of living beyond their instincts, do they possess that magical "soul" element that we purportedly have that allows for us to go beyond our instincts as you define them?

Now you're shifting the discussion again. This has nothing to do with religion or souls.

But some animals do have the capability to some degree. Cats will go into a burning building to save their kittens as one example.

[Goose]

No they do not. Human instincts are xenophobic. Anything that is different must be a threat and must be either made to be like us or destroy. There are plenty of historical examples to bear this out, and even in the modern age there are examples of this. Muslims get really violent over cartoons depicting Mohammed because they feel we should all be the same and we should bow down to their God Allah. Those are instincts rearing their ugly heads.

Yet, the world is an increadibly diverse and different place. I don't agree that everything different is evil or bad. After all, how else could science have developed? There are indeed plenty of historical examples to prove that people are suspicious of differences, but equally as many that prove the exact opposit.

[Joachim]

This is a discussion not a formal debate so there is no need to do so. This is also called moving the goal posts.

if you're going to discuss or push a point, either go all the way or don't at all. this is just half-assing it; its unproductive and its defeatist.
further: how is it moving the goal post? we set no goal post, and as far as the argument is concerned the goal post has been there all along. purely anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much: anyone strongly involved in any kind of scientific or rational field will tell you as much. further, its a given; our perception of free-will will exist regardless of whether or not there is free-will, because of the limited nature of our perception. we perceive time as being purely this moment; we know not the future, thus we perceive it as being open, regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Then how about parents who sacrifice their lives for their children? How is that selfish?

It satisfies a desire to save and protect their child; it is what we are programmed and conditioned to do.

Here, let's rephrase that question in a more telling way: Would a parent with no love or affection for their child sacrifice their own life to save it? What if that parent would feel no guilt? What if that parent would suffer no legal issues for allowing their child to die? What if no harm at all would come to this parent?

The parent, with no motivating factor to save their child, would not. Every action we take invariably must benefit or satisfy some kind of desire within us: if the parent had no reason to save their child, only apathy towards the subject and with no repercussions, you would be hard-pressed to say that this parent would save that child.

And, before you start arguing that this disproves a genetic or biologically motivated sense of self, remember that all of these feelings and emotions and desires are intrinsically biologically motivated. they are expressions of ones biological state.

Now you're shifting the discussion again. This has nothing to do with religion or souls.

the word soul was in quotes: i was using the term to refer to whatever magical thing you think us humans have that somehow allows us to, unlike other animals (assuming, of course, you denied the proposition that i laid out in reference to this), supersede our instincts or our biological programming.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Oh boy.

if you're going to discuss or push a point, either go all the way or don't at all. this is just half-assing it; its unproductive and its defeatist.
further: how is it moving the goal post? we set no goal post, and as far as the argument is concerned the goal post has been there all along. purely anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much: anyone strongly involved in any kind of scientific or rational field will tell you as much. further, its a given; our perception of free-will will exist regardless of whether or not there is free-will, because of the limited nature of our perception. we perceive time as being purely this moment; we know not the future, thus we perceive it as being open, regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Okay then, since you are the one who made the claim first, the onus is on you to provide this evidence to back up your claim. Either go all the way or don't.

You're trying to win this discussion using different tactics. This is not about winning, it's just a discussion. It is not a formal debate. There are plenty of forums for formal debate if you want to go there.

It's moving the goal posts because you are the ones who made the claim that everything is forced consent. Absolutely everything. Then all of sudden I have to provide scientific papers in peer reviewed materials to support my disagreement with you to prove you wrong? Not in a discussion. This is a discussion, not a formal debate. Furthermore, you too have been using nothing more than anecdotal evidence. So follow your own advice. Either go all the way or don't discuss anything at all.

Which is a notion I do not agree with.

Here, let's rephrase that question in a more telling way: Would a parent with no love or affection for their child sacrifice their own life to save it? What if that parent would feel no guilt? What if that parent would suffer no legal issues for allowing their child to die? What if no harm at all would come to this parent?

What does this have to do with your claim of everything is forced consent? You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

the word soul was in quotes: i was using the term to refer to whatever magical thing you think us humans have that somehow allows us to, unlike other animals (assuming, of course, you denied the proposition that i laid out in reference to this), supersede our instincts or our biological programming.

There is nothing magical about it. People do have the capacity to go against their instincts. It doesn't have to be anything magical or mystical or religious.

You're dancing all over the place.

You made the claim that absolutely everything is forced consent and now you're saying we have no choice but to obey our instincts and that's forced consent.

You are making absolutely no sense.

[Goose]

This is a highly theortical debate; providing any evidence one way or the other is going to br very difficult, so lets not get bogged down in that debate.

[Galileo_Galilee]

i certainly don't want to get bogged down in it. This is just a discussion after all to have a little bit of fun with and is not about winning. Whatever winning means.

[Joachim]

at no point did i state this was a formal debate. i simply asserted that i have expectations when i'm discussing something with somebody. i'm not trying to win: i'm trying to push it forward, something that you seem to be doing your best to try and prevent.

Then all of sudden I have to provide scientific papers in peer reviewed materials to support my disagreement with you to prove you wrong?

no, i'm not. You can state your argument in any way; you can provide papers, you can reason it, whatever. but the fact is that in that particular argument the burden of proof is on you, because there is no evidence of choice or free-will beyond anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, particularly given the aforementioned weakness. what i am asking is for you to reason and express your perspective so that the discussion may move on.

Furthermore, you too have been using nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

have i, now? i have done nothing of the sort: i have made no reference to my own experience or my own personal perceptions. i have argued with reason, with hypothetical situations, and with science.

What does this have to do with your claim of everything is forced consent? You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

it was a response to something you said, which was a response to something i said. ignoring something and simply stating it as irrelevant accomplishes nothing, particularly when it is intrinsically relevant to the subject matter, something that i established earlier.

let me restate:
there is no such thing as consent. consent implies choice, implies decision; all of our "decisions", if they can even be called such, are forced and determined by our wants, our likes, our desires. these, too, are determined by past experience and genetics.

we were discussing facets of this when you paused to question why it was relevant.

People do have the capacity to go against their instincts.

how? what is and what is not an instinct? can other animals that are not human override their instincts in the same way? why or why not?

This is a highly theortical debate

the best kind. my only concern is that it is more philosophical than political in nature.

[Galileo_Galilee]

at no point did i state this was a formal debate.

You started turning it into a formal debate as soon as you started asking for scientific evidence to support by assertions. You were trying to control the debate.

there is no such thing as consent. consent implies choice, implies decision; all of our "decisions", if they can even be called such, are forced and determined by our wants, our likes, our desires. these, too, are determined by past experience and genetics.

we were discussing facets of this when you paused to question why it was relevant.

Which is a bunch of crap. We have all kinds of choices. You are making one now. But i guess we could go your way and say you are only following your chemical programming and your chemical programming says you must be right at all costs.

If all we are is nothing more than a biological machine, then what's the purpose of giving us more capacity for reason and logic beyond the abilities of an animal? It's all a bunch of crap to say that we have absolutely no choice in any decision we make and I for one can not and will refuse to believe in such utter nonsense.

Good day.

[Joachim]

You started turning it into a formal debate as soon as you started asking for scientific evidence to support by assertions. You were trying to control the debate.

...you didn't listen to me. i didn't ask for scientific evidence. i asked for "proof", or anything justifying your position. that could be reason. an argument. thats what people do in discussions: they discuss their viewpoints, they reason, they "argue".

If all we are is nothing more than a biological machine, then what's the purpose of giving us more capacity for reason and logic beyond the abilities of an animal?

give? what would be giving us that? nature? nature doesn't operate based on purpose or reason, it operates causatively.

It's all a bunch of crap to say that we have absolutely no choice in any decision we make and I for one can not and will refuse to believe in such utter nonsense.

i am sorry that your emotions prevent you from indulging in intellectual discourse, that it prevents you from seeking to broaden your mind through realization of fact or confirmation of ones own perspective. but... given the trouble i had in even getting you to that point, i won't say i'm surprised.

Good day.

to you, too.

[Womble]

Why consider this political extremist though over religious extremism? It's the religion that motivates these beliefs, and I believe it's the religious nature of them that make them so invulnerable to reason.

So you think that the Marxist crazies from RAF or Japanese Red Army or PFLP were vulnerable to reason, then?

[Joachim]

It still flows from a similar kind of belief. we ought not separate the matter into religious or not religious, but rather dogmatic or not dogmatic.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

So you think that the Marxist crazies from RAF or Japanese Red Army or PFLP were vulnerable to reason, then?

What?

[squirrely1]

The impression I got is that you said that having sex with someone you don't love is wrong. If that's not what you mean, then I apologise. But my point still remains: as long as sex is consensual, then love does not need to play any role in it.

Well I agree that love doesn't necessarily have to play a role in sex....but usually consensual sex in my mind anyway (and granted that could be very different than how most ppl think ) is when two people come together to engage in sex with both parties getting some emotional and physical benefit from it and it is "free" and not simply a business transaction.

I see prostitution as more of a "contract" rather than truly "consensual". Cuz to me it is a transaction in which one person is paying for a service and the other person is completely emotionally and probably physically (as much as possible) devoid from the activity only to do it just for money...while the other person gains some sort of satisfaction from it. This to me just seems wrong. I don't know if I am explaining myself adequately ....and if not...nevermind... I don't really want to debate this topic anymore.

Do you really advocate ignoring human rights when you don't particularly like the person?

It's not that I do not like the person...it's what that person stood for. The man is a known terrorist....he admitted on recordings that he was behind the 9/11 plot....non of those innocent people of 9/11 were given the benefit of a trial. He has also been seen talking on video recordings taking credit for his ongoing terror plots and admits he is the "leader" of the Al Qada group who is a known terrorist group that plot to kill innocent civilians. So really what more proof do you need? Furthermore, we have made it clear and the US has announced our position that we are clearly "at war" on this type of terror. When you are at war....and you are facing a combatant ....you do not stop and give your "enemy" a trial. You shoot to save your life and bring down your enemy. Osama Bin Laden was a known enemy of the US and it was clear he was a combatant/war criminal. Additionally, it was reported that Bin Laden picked up a weapon and began shooting. He was not merely assassinated.