There's More Than One Kind Of Freedom

[Lord Worm]

Freedom to one is opression to another. Culture is dynamic.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Well...Sure somthing a bit deeper would have be appreciated, but i think this fits the theme of the day.

Everything is relative after all/

[HereticPB]

And Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, dictatorships isn't oppression. Its just dynamic and progressive thought right. lol

The problem with progressive thinking (which is liberal thinking they just use another world cause they don't like and fear the L word) is that it doesn't progress it stays in the same spot with negativity, hate, fear mongering, and angry mobs that have no clue what is really going on.

Their Mommy Governments will take care of them. Hush, now Baby, Mommy will heal and protect you. Hush, now Baby, Mommy will always know where you been, Mommy will always check on your girlfriends for you, YES Mommy will help you build a wall.

Sure as you said worm there are various liberal ideas and governments the problem is they are still liberal with way out there utopia thinking which never gets anywhere.

Freedom to one is oppression to another. Culture is dynamic.

Those anothers are also drinking that weird, smelly, clouded, cool aid too.

[Lord Worm]

This is less about politics and more about philosophy. Some people feel vulnerable without the state constantly monitoring them. Are they wrong?

[peasantlover]

No, they are astute, because that is what the state wants to do, if it is left alone (see my sig)

[Lord Worm]

Freedom is the belief one is free. Whether they are or not is of no consequence. Like Orwell said in 1984, "If he believes he floated off the ground, and I simultaneously believe I saw him do it, then the thing happened."

[Boggy700]

Freedom is what we have when all of the Iraqis are dead.
Apparently.


I like to think of freedom in terms of Pandas.
If you keep them as a house pet, then their home is the house.
But then you kick them out into "freedom".
All of a sudden they don't feel safe anymore.
They might even get hit by a car or something.

I think freedom is just another distorted word for comfort.
Freedom is being comfortable enough to do what you want.
Well, in the non-spiritual sense anyway.
I don't know what I'm trying to say that I'm trying to say.

[Dorbin]

Well, in what cases is "freedom" as Americans see it oppressive to other cultures?

[Viper]

Well, in what cases is "freedom" as Americans see it oppressive to other cultures?
Thank you for asking my question.


As for Freedom. Tricky to nail down but it's not something a government gives, it's something the people demand and take. It's not something that's tangible but it can touch you. Freedom is like a drug, give a sample, they want a lifetime supply. Freedom is the right to express your thoughts and emotions and share them with others without having to listen to anyone elses. Freedom is relative to no single individual, it's a persepctive of society. Freedom takes nothing and gives everything but to get freedom you must give everything and expect nothing.

[peasantlover]

True freedom is obedience.

[aerofan113]

And Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, dictatorships isn't oppression. Its just dynamic and progressive thought right. lol

The problem with progressive thinking (which is liberal thinking they just use another world cause they don't like and fear the L word) is that it doesn't progress it stays in the same spot with negativity, hate, fear mongering, and angry mobs that have no clue what is really going on.


Fear mongering? Dont complain about that when you support Bush for president. I would love it if you would discontinue your constant attacks on liberals. It seems that you generalize all of us. Im proud to be a liberal and even prouder that I resist the liberal extremist bullshit. Just remember who your insulting. And i agree with you, but its the liberal extremists to blame.

[Relient J]

^ That's true. Generalizations can be dangerous. There are various degrees of liberalism and conservatism. To me the issues are more important than the labels or the parties.

If freedom truly is relative, then it's all the more exciting that we live in a country where, in theory, the will of the people prevails. If the freedom existed within a communist state to dissolve the communist form of government at any time due to the will of the people, then I would say freedom existed within that communist state. I think the reality is somewhat less rosy, unfortunately.

[plebben]

Freedom might aswell only be an illusion created by the human mind.
On the other hand, its an illusion that gives us joy.

[Jon]

Like Orwell said in 1984, "If he believes he floated off the ground, and I simultaneously believe I saw him do it, then the thing happened."

Unless someone ELSE saw that, in fact, that person did NOT float off the ground. I like that part of the book. When I just recently read through it again, I stopped and spent a while thinking about it. I like that question. It's kinda like "if a tree falls in the woods etc". Boy is philosophy fun.

Philosophy + Mind altering substances = Bliss.

Does anyone know a good book or website that is full of these things where you just have to stop and think about them for a while? I would love you forever.

[Lord Worm]

Well, in what cases is "freedom" as Americans see it oppressive to other cultures?

How about in the case of Al Queda, who are the enemies of America? Their way of life is contradicted by the American way of life. Do you think they can go to America and practice their culture?

Americans believe, for some reason, that they epitomize freedom. Freedom is a word that I find, due to its overuse and misuse, is becoming more and more disgusting.

Americans epitomize American culture. They are not "The most highly evolved society". The American word for American culture is "Freedom", and although it does resemble the English word "Freedom", they do not mean the same thing.

[aerofan113]

Are you an American? How do you know what Americans think if your not one? America was the country that has basically given birth to the idea of free speech and free press and freee religion. Did Canada, England, or any other country do that untill America came along? No. You are generalizing Americans. And Al Queda sponsers people to kill Americans. They dont just live a different life, they want to end ours at any cost.

[Viper]

Al Quada has no country. They've killed more Iraqis than US soldiers.

Does any nation offer what I described in my first post more than America?

Lets use that floatation concept for a moment. If no other nation holds more freedoms than America, then it's society is the most synonymous with freedom of all nations.

Freedom is to be free of oppression, tyranny and persecution. Freedom is not anarchy and lack of law and enforcement

Individualistic freedom and societal freedom are different.

Freedom = choice and the opportunity for change if the society wants it.

[Bryan]

I'm not going to say that we don't press our culture on others, but it isn't always oppression. I will say that Al-Qaeda is an organization that I do not feel sorry for, and I do believe that every one of them needs to be captured and put on trial, or killed if they resist.. because like it or not, it doesn't matter if they are martyrs in their homeland, they attacked the United States, and the United States has a right, and an obligation to respond. There is no walking away from killing roughly 3,000 people, most of which were American citizens. If the same thing happened to France, England, Germany, or even Canada, they would feel like they needed to do something about it.

Granted, that doesn't make Saddam Hussein part of 9/11, or a real threat to national security, but military action in Afghanistan was and still is necessary. Having an intelligence war with these terrorist networks is also a necessity, and I don't feel the least bit angry about tracking them down.

Let me just say that I don't give a damn about oppressing Al-Qaeda, so if you could think of an example that matters... that'd be wonderful.

[Jushiko]

Thank you for asking my question.


As for Freedom. Tricky to nail down but it's not something a government gives, it's something the people demand and take. It's not something that's tangible but it can touch you. Freedom is like a drug, give a sample, they want a lifetime supply. Freedom is the right to express your thoughts and emotions and share them with others without having to listen to anyone elses. Freedom is relative to no single individual, it's a persepctive of society. Freedom takes nothing and gives everything but to get freedom you must give everything and expect nothing.

Sounds like a Hallmark™ Moment to me :ohplease:.

[Relient J]

When you hear people talk about America forcing its culture on other nations, it makes it sound like all of us are working together in a concerted effort to assimilate every nation into our culture. Now, my experience could be unique, but I find that not only am I and the people I know not attempting to force my culture down the throats of others, but frankly we don't give much thought to the rest of the world, at least in that sense. Sure, American corporations are marketing their products in other countries, but those other countries are buying into it, or else it wouldn't be happening.

There are a lot of facets of "American culture" that I find distasteful too, but with freedom comes the weeds of vice as well as the light of virtue. It's all about what you buy into, and what your focus is.

Are we the most highly evolved society on Earth? I'm not sure what measuring stick you use to judge that. One man's evolution is another man's downward spiral. All I have to hang onto is the Word of God. Don't let American culture get you down if you find it abrasive.

[Lord Worm]

Are you an American? How do you know what Americans think if your not one? America was the country that has basically given birth to the idea of free speech and free press and freee religion. Did Canada, England, or any other country do that untill America came along? No. You are generalizing Americans. And Al Queda sponsers people to kill Americans. They dont just live a different life, they want to end ours at any cost.

Right, before America there was no such concept as "Free Speech". It hadn't occured to anybody before America figured it out.

There are two conflicting factors in ideology and they are Security and Freedom. The concept of Security cannot be associated with left or right, and neither can the concept of Freedom. Security cannot exist without making the state less free, and Freedom cannot exist without making the state less secure. It is up to the people to deside what balance they want. This balance changes from culture to culture. Nobody is wrong for wanting more of one than the other.

But this is just economic freedom.

Real freedom is a hard word to define because it is a human concept that exists nowhere else except within the human mind. You can easily convince someone who lives within a totalitarian regime that they are free. Of course, you need to make sure that this person under the totalitarian regime cannot compare his life with someone who is better off. Isolation is important.

But all of this said and done, someone who is mentally conditioned to believe themself to be free is, in fact, free. I've said this before, and Peasant didn't like it, saying that the person would, deep down, know they aren't free.
But don't forget ideological constant number one: People are stupid.

Every government takes advantage of this. Every country is convinced that its culture is the best culture. Every country is convinced that its accomplishments have more weight than the accomplishments of others. It's not Patriotism; it's mind control.

And having said that, I think I've come to a startling realization. My patriotism towards my country is just another facet of brainwashing where it's not particularly obvious. I've never believed that one culture is better than the other, but I have found myself mindlessly cheering when our Canadian hockey team beat the American hockey team in the olympics.

In fact, I'd bet most of my distain for the American way of life is caused by patriotism. So as of right now, I'm declaring myself a neutral without an alliance to any country in particular.

This is not to say that I am going to be politically neutral.

[Viper]

Convincing one they are free does not make them free. That goes back to the whole floatation issue. You can alter ones perspectives but you can't alter the fact.

[Lord Worm]

What use is a fact, really? All you must do is control percpective. Then you can make your own "Facts".

The Earth is flat. This used to be fact. Would you have known instinctually that the Earth was round?

[Viper]

No but like I said, it didn't change the actual fact, just the perception.

[Relient J]

There are two conflicting factors in ideology and they are Security and Freedom. The concept of Security cannot be associated with left or right, and neither can the concept of Freedom. Security cannot exist without making the state less free, and Freedom cannot exist without making the state less secure.

Are you an anarchist? I ask that not as a veiled criticism, but as an honest interest in exactly what your position is. Or to put it another way, do you believe that anarchy is the only true freedom? That would seem to fit the quote above, but I'd like to know what you think.

[Lord Worm]

So?

[Lord Worm]

Are you an anarchist? I ask that not as a veiled criticism, but as an honest interest in exactly what your position is. Or to put it another way, do you believe that anarchy is the only true freedom? That would seem to fit the quote above, but I'd like to know what you think.

Yes, I am a utopian anarchist and a passifist. I do not seek a violent revolution, or to put a pipe-bomb on a bus to instigate some sort of chaos. I believe that, when human beings have evolved enough, utopian anarchies will arrise.

[=NukeBlaze=]

I am not back yet, but I thought I would comment.

First off, in regards to Socialism and Capitalism, what does anyone think about the comparision of the two as a limit of one other. Capitalism is socialism, but with the limit of socialism.


I do not see a Utopia as a valid future. There will always be choice of either good or evil in decion-making, and the only way to prevent a pollutant in a pure society is some form of control. How do you combat that drop of oil in a glass of pure water? Do you let the society prevent it as a whole though wide-spead higher education and equality? How would the mind in these people be kept busy to keep the devil away from idle hands? Will there be enough time to prevent total destruction before this terra-scale social change occurs?

Do we need to look to the sub-atomic for the workings of the mind to find out why we work? Should our eyes be raised to the heavens to find out who we are, where we are, and why were were ment to be? Can we keep our gaze level and see everything in all of thier colors and interprete them as beauty?

An infinate amount of questions that are conviced by a piece of matter only 3 pounds heavy. A capacity of infinity without seeing it..whats the word I am looking for...?

[Viper]

Yes, I am a utopian anarchist and a passifist. I do not seek a violent revolution, or to put a pipe-bomb on a bus to instigate some sort of chaos. I believe that, when human beings have evolved enough, utopian anarchies will arrise.
Not all revolution requires violence.

Utopian anarchies = an oxymoron. Humans have not the capacity of self control on a level that can sustain a society without government and law.

If you look close enough, you will note that human civility has not evolved much over tha last few thousand years in many societies. Explain how in a few thousand years you expect the entire world to undergo such drastic change.

In many opinions, mine included, Native Americans were more civilized than any nation on Earth today. Their customs and formalities were incredible. It would even leave the most honorable Japanese impressed.

Think of it this way, even in the most well maintained, educated and virtuos, neighborhoods in the world still have crime, deceit, and mal thought. To believe that humans can raise our entire population to a mental state of virtue above the best we have to offer today is simply wishful thinking.

[Lord Worm]

I too admire the American Indian culture. You're also right when you say that human society hasn't evolved much...But we're a young species.

I simply believe that when humans have evolved past pettiness and corruption, if this is even possible with our species, we will be able to operate without any formal government. Like the dawn of democracy, when we are ready for anarchy, it will happen.

On a side note, I use the term "Utopian Anarchy" not to imply a perfect system, but rather to emphasize that it will be a peaceful system. There's a common misconception that anarchists are violent and that within any anarchy, there is chaos.

Also Viper, I don't expect for this to happen any time soon, which is why I don't instigate any kind of anarchist movement. You can't force a square block into a round hole. We're simply not capable of anarcy yet.

[Viper]

No, I don't mean to use it as a means of chaos either but rather as an expression of no formal control.

The problem is that humans as a whole will never evolve beyond pettiness and corruption. At least not without major gene therapy and hormonal treatments and then by genetic proliferation that outpaces those will normal human genetics but then....that would alter the species and we'd no longer be human beings or at least not Homo Sapiens.

[Lord Worm]

I was talking about genetic evolution, not cultural evolution. It would definatly take a higher species than Homo Sapiens to pull off Anarchy.

[peasantlover]

It would take a race of slaves. It isnt genetics that make man do evil to man, it is "free will." (which is different from freedom, free will frequently enslaves man to his passions and the evil he commits). Of course that goes back to my definition of freedom.. The only people that can be truly free are those that are humble enough to be obedient. That is, they are obedience to God (or justice, if you prefer). By obedience I mean that it is their own will to live in accordance with justice\God's will.

[Lord Worm]

Well, what do you mean by "a race of slaves"? It is very possible that eventually the desire to do evil towards another will dissolve.

Let's say, for instance, in a post-apocalyptic Earth that there are several small groups of humans who have survived. Life is extremely difficult; the ground is no longer fertile, our crude oil reserves have been depleted to the point where the expense of production cannot justify the benefits from use and the records that contain the schematics for technology have been destroyed.

Could you build a computer given the parts without instruction?

In this situation, we'd be reduced to almost nothing. In order to survive, these small groups would be forced to work together. No individual could exploit others effectively because this exploitation would throw off the delicate balance required for survival.

Because it is absolute necessity that everyone works together to ensure the survival of the group, eventually (likely within a short time) social evolution will take place. Long after social evolution, genetic evolution follows. Genetic evolution relies on the principal that changes occur when they are absolutely necessary for the survival of the species. This includes basic altruistic instincts, loyalty to the community and goodwill towards the species.

Is this slavery? I'd think not. Instinctual repulsion to the thought of exploiting others is no more slavery than the instinctual repulsion to the thought of killing a baby.

[Relient J]

No individual could exploit others effectively because this exploitation would throw off the delicate balance required for survival.


I disagree. Someone will always find away to exploit those who are less intelligent, or crafty, or strong. Kings arose in ancient times without the aids of modern technology. I don't believe that humans evolved from apes, but like apes humans tend to exist in world in which there's at least one alpha male.

[Lord Worm]

But the situation exists where exploitation would inevitably lead to the destruction of the community. The more intelligent, being such, would surely recognize this and would contribute their full share to the community, if only to ensure their own selfish existance.

[Relient J]

^ I don't doubt that humans are capable of such a life, but the lure of sin is a strong one. That's why I believe we need the grace of God. Theoretically Christians should act more like the humans you are describing. After all, Jesus said the world would know us by our love for one another. Unfortunately the lure of sin is strong even among Christians.

[=NukeBlaze=]

We haven't the time to gentically evolve to a point where a universal sense of morality will exist. If you point out that necessity will drive the evolution, you must also take into account of the possilibty that you are not accouting for factors that would cancel out a drive to higher moral code, and possibly a division in species that could lead to a civil war in time. Even if one side adapts to have the capacity of high thinking without formal and informal training/schooling, it is possible that the other will be the same as we are current. If humanity cannot tolerate one another becuase of a color of a body part, it will be a scary thought to have two diffrent human species. Sure it happened before with our ancestors and the now extinct Neandertals, but would a conflict of this lead to the other species to still carry a seed off evil?

In all, can you really say that a higher capacity of thought will ever lead to a more peaceful world without the hands of a skilled artisan to shape it?

[aerofan113]

Lord worm, the only thing that you just did was make my point stronger. You did nothing to disprove what i said. Yes there was the concept of free speech, but no government had ever been able to successfully implement it. Theres also the concept of me growing wings and flying to the moon. But i havent able to implement that either. My point is that its easy to come up witha concept, but America has imbodied the concept of freedom.

[peasantlover]

Worm, the problem is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. You think that environment, society, government, etc. creates situations where man acts evil. While this is partially true, it is only half of it. The other half is that because man is evil he creates environments, societies, governments, etc, that encourage evil. It is a never ending cycle that can only be ended with the destruction of man altogethor.

Relient is right. Have you not read Lord of the Flies? It is a much more realistic depiction of what would result in the situation you describe.

[Lord Worm]

So essentially you believe that, even if the consequence of evil was clearly death, we'd choose to self-destruct? What kind of creatures are we?

Although I agree that our drive towards evil is strong, our drive towards survival is stronger. In small communities, like those that would form in a post-apocalyptic earth, exploitation would be obvious and punished, likely in the form of banishment from the community.

Eventually, the individuals who are not able to resist the temptation to exploit others will die out. There have been theories that state that some human beings are more suseptable to corruption than others, and there are human beings that have the tendancy to act altruistically. This is called the "Selfish Gene Theory".

"The Selfish Gene Theory" kind of goes the other way than what I'm trying to say. Altruistic individuals are willing to work towards the community rather than to be greedy and thrive because these individuals, on a genetic level, believe themselves to be undeserving of survival. They believe that their energy and time is better spent on others. This aside, it does state that altruism and selfishness are genetic.

Eventually, those with the selfish gene will die out, leaving a community of altruists. This is highly theoretical and might not happen every time, or it might not happen at all, but it could happen.

Now there are two possible outcomes to human beings trying to survive. On a ravaged and depleted Earth, it'd take a lot of work to produce enough food for survival. In a small community, exploitation from just one individual would be felt by the rest of the community.

Either humans work together and slowly lose the instinctual drive to take advantage of others, or we all die. What do you think would happen, considering my hypothetical situation?

[Viper]

You base much on probability without any statistics.

For one, you require a post-apacolyptic era. Then, you have to hope the 'altruistics' outnumber the bad guys by a considerable margin (only takes one person to harm many).

Then you must take genetics into account. If the 'sltruistic' gene is dominant in both parents, it is most likely the child will have it too but it's not a guarantee.

Other factors cause problems too, stress, mental illness, crimes of temperment. To weed all the factors that are involved with why one person does another person bad is utterly impossible.

[Relient J]

So essentially you believe that, even if the consequence of evil was clearly death, we'd choose to self-destruct? What kind of creatures are we?

We're imperfect. We're sinners. We foolishly think that we can become gods. What you describe as a hypothetical is in fact reality. God's Word says that the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is everlasting life through Christ Jesus. Despite what Christ did for all of us on the cross, there are still many who choose hell over God. What set Jesus apart is that he never allowed himself to be fooled into thinking that equality of God is something to be grasped. But despite our evil, God showed his love for us by sacrificing His son for us.

[Lord Worm]

Viper, I'm not saying that this is what will happen, I'm saying this is what could happen. Evolution isn't an everyday occurance because there are factors and complications that must be considered. But it is possible. To demonstrate the remote possibility of a workable anarchy, I must create a very hypothetical situation.
This is also why I do not seek to make an anarchist movement. I know that, in our current situation with our current species, we wouldn't be able to do make it work.

However, I support most of the anarchist principals.


For those who do not believe in evolution, then when we've destroyed ourselves, God will try harder next time around.

[peasantlover]

You dont have to discredit evolution to show the holes in your argument. Rather, I think evolution shows that you are wrong.

Our drive towards survival only fuels our drive towards evil. Man does not have the "continuation of the species" instinct that SOME animals have. Even when some men want to have children to "continue the line," it is an ego thing, i.e., they want to continue their last name. In a world of very limited resources, the hypothetical you mention, I see cooperation as just about impossible. Limited resources always brings about competition, and with it selfishness, violence, and contention - survival of the fittest, as you will (after all, the easiest way to manage a population without enough resources to support it is to eliminate the segment of the population that is least able to acquire these resources).
In fact, I dont have to deal with the realm of the hypothetical to prove my point. The fact is, previous to the industrial age, that was the world we all lived in - limited resources and a large population (from ancient times all the way up to the Enlightenment). So, Lord Worm, if you believe the axiom "those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat it," then you would have to admit that in the scenario you described the most likely outcome is something like the middle ages - a ruling class, (nobility) with more resources, and a slave class (serfs) with less scarce resources.

(note that the reason there is so much abundance in modern times, at least in the west, is because of industrialization, which was only made possible because of capitalism. And yes, I realize there were many downsides to industrialization, but that is beside the point).

Human nature does not evolve, Worm, regardless of what Hegel or Marx think. Some facets may change based on environment, but egoism and the desire for power remain a constant.

[Lord Worm]

We're a stupid species, then.

Since it's human nature to exploit and be evil, let's just succumb to it. Why not? It's human nature! We're fucking machines, we're just programs. Free will indeed!

[aerofan113]

We're a stupid species, then.

Since it's human nature to exploit and be evil, let's just succumb to it. Why not? It's human nature! We're fucking machines, we're just programs. Free will indeed!


People as a whole are dumb, stupid, and mindless. However a person can be smart and intelligent without associating with masses.

[aerofan113]

Human nature does not evolve, Worm, regardless of what Hegel or Marx think. Some facets may change based on environment, but egoism and the desire for power remain a constant.


Completly untrue. If human nature does not evolve that why arent things the exact same as they were one hundred years ago. That is a very untrue statement.

[Lord Worm]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. "We can't change, we'll never change, we'll just keep on doing the same thing we've always done".

Eventually there will exist a situation where this way of life doesn't work anymore. Then we'll become extinct. Smiling all the way to oblivion. Excellent plan, guys.

[Viper]

Completly untrue. If human nature does not evolve that why arent things the exact same as they were one hundred years ago. That is a very untrue statement.
Aero, what facet of human nature has evolved in that split hair of a moment in the timeline?

[Lord Worm]

How about from America owning black slaves to giving blacks equality? That happened within a hundred years, didn't it?

[Viper]

Inform my uninformed mind how that is a change in human nature.

[Lord Worm]

If anything it is a sign that humans at least can choose to resist their human nature.

It's human nature to own slaves, isn't it? We will exploit who we have power over. Slavery is the ultimate form of exploitation.

If we can resist the temptation to own slaves, we can resist the temptation to act greedily.

[Viper]

LOl, it isn't human nature to own slaves. Exploitation is natural, yes...slave owning is not.

[Travis]

But owning slaves is a form of exploitation...

[Viper]

Owning slaves is more than just exploitation. It's ego, it's status, it's capitalism, it's also a deep rooted concept of hatred and fear. Never mind the fact that slavery still happens in the world. The US abolished slavery over 100 years ago. Some countries did centeries ago. A few never even had slaves and some still do today.


Even so, if it were just exploitation, we still exploit in millions of other fashions. We didn't evolve, we got smarter in how to do it.

[peasantlover]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. "We can't change, we'll never change, we'll just keep on doing the same thing we've always done".

Eventually there will exist a situation where this way of life doesn't work anymore. Then we'll become extinct. Smiling all the way to oblivion. Excellent plan, guys.
Dont misunderstand me.. Im a pessimists, maybe, but but doomsdayer. YOU can change, *I* can change.. hell even Aerofan ;). As he pointed out, individuals are able to overcome their evil nature and exercise their individual free will. This is why we have free will. The world is full of saints, philosophers, and lovers in the midsts of great calamities and evils. However, throughout the whole history of man, this has only happenned on an individual basis, and there will never be a "society" of saints or philosophers.
Completly untrue. If human nature does not evolve that why arent things the exact same as they were one hundred years ago. That is a very untrue statement.

umm. what the fuck are you talking about? lol. "things" are affected by a lot more factors tahn human nature.
"things" are different for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with human nature:
1. technology, science
2. history
3. fads, culture, society, etc.
4. weather, pollution
5. politics
6. random occurances
7. wars, and the consequences of wars

Does that answer your question?
edit: Aerofan, ever heard the expression "the more things change the more things stay the same." Ponder it for a bit before you reply :)

[aerofan113]

LOl, it isn't human nature to own slaves. Exploitation is natural, yes...slave owning is not.


By human nature, it also includes the culture. The culture refelects human nature. Such as slaves, drugs, alcohol, and homosexuality. All these are vastly diffent from 100 years ago. Now if you are talking pure scientifically ill have to do a bit more thinking.

[Viper]

No no, none of that has changed. Some countries still have slaves. Drugs, alcohol and homosexuality have been around for millennia.

[Lord Worm]

I'm going to yield. Peasant is right, a society like the one I'm describing would take a society of philosophers and saints.

I believe in what I believe because to me, it's right. Why believe in something that's flawed? Believe in a utopia, because then you've got something to work towards.

[Lord Worm]

Viper, if slavery wasn't human nature, it wouldn't happen. In fact, slavery happens everywhere. America has a slave trade, Canada has a slave trade and so does almost every other country.

I can see a few isolated incidents being deviations from human nature, but there's a sickening number of cases. It has been happening since the dawn of man, and it still is. Our problem with slavery isn't addressed and acknowledge the way it should be.

[peasantlover]

I think the desire to dominate is definately human nature. However, humans express this desire the easiest way they can in the society they exist in. In societies where slavery exists, this is obviously the answer. In societies where it does not, they find other methods. Even in these societies there is sometimes underground slavery - obviously the people doing it feel they can dominate in this socially unacceptable way because they dont think they will get caught.

But there are other ways man dominates man that achieve the same end as slavery: organized crime\ street gangs, rape, hoarding of extreme amounts of wealth simply for the purpose of showing off, any kinds of systematic oppression (i.e., KKK, or lynch mobs), bosses who enjoy being in control and making his workers suffer a little too much...


So, I guess I kind of agree with worm that the desire to enslave is a part of human nature, although "slavery" as an institution is not at all (Maybe just akwardly worded??)

[Blaksmoke]

How about from America owning black slaves to giving blacks equality? That happened within a hundred years, didn't it?

On paper, perhaps.

[aerofan113]

Viper, Peasant, ill agree that the behaviors of humans at the root have not changed much. The way we deal with them has though. Blaksmoke, what are you implying?

[Lord Worm]

The slavery example that states that humans can control our primitave drives. This means that maybe, just maybe, we might be able to cooperate without trying to exploit each other.

Eventually we're going to depend on it.

[peasantlover]

Aero, he is implying that that blacks dont have equality even now, contrary to Worm's statement that they now do.

Speaking of, im going to write an article about race relations I have been thinking about for awhile.. if I ever get motivated and do it, I will post it.

[Travis]

If exploitation is human nature, how do you explain hunter/gatherer groups like the !Kung from the 1950's, who were strictly egalitarian and never had any problems with their egalitarianism until they were introduced to western society in the 1960's and 1970's?

[aerofan113]

Im sorry Blaksmoke but while there are some unequalities with black there are now severl double standards that totally are unfair to whites. Partiicularly the fact that only whites have to be politically correct in this society. (waits to be called a racist)

[Lord Worm]

If exploitation is human nature, how do you explain hunter/gatherer groups like the !Kung from the 1950's, who were strictly egalitarian and never had any problems with their egalitarianism until they were introduced to western society in the 1960's and 1970's?

We can control our human nature.
It goes like this:

"I want this apple. I'm going to steal it. Wait, I'd better not."

"I want to bone this woman, but I don't have a chance with her. I'm going to rape her. Wait...I'm better off just jerking off."

[Viper]

We can control our human nature.
It goes like this:

"I want this apple. I'm going to steal it. Wait, I'd better not."

"I want to bone this woman, but I don't have a chance with her. I'm going to rape her. Wait...I'm better off just jerking off."
But do we control it as a people? Individually, yes we can. As a whole, no we do not.

[Lord Worm]

The whole is made up of individuals. Referring to Suzuki's example of a perfectly egalitarian society. It's just a matter of social evolution. Capitalism pretty much depends on exploitation, so there's not much chance of seeing it here.

[Blaksmoke]

Im sorry Blaksmoke but while there are some unequalities with black there are now severl double standards that totally are unfair to whites. Partiicularly the fact that only whites have to be politically correct in this society. (waits to be called a racist)

You're right....which pretty much proves my point. We don't have equality. We probably never will.

[peasantlover]

If exploitation is human nature, how do you explain hunter/gatherer groups like the !Kung from the 1950's, who were strictly egalitarian and never had any problems with their egalitarianism until they were introduced to western society in the 1960's and 1970's?

Actually, that is a good point. This is a topic Jean-Jacques Rousseau covered a lot (I did my thesis paper on him and Nietzsche). According to Rousseau, the native\savage is noble and good, while man in civilization is corrupted by society. I dont think there are any set of "peoples" who are truly good, however there is no doubt that he is on to something, as it seems to me the more "civilized" and "advanced" a society becomes the more licentious it becomes. I think this is because there are more temptations and luxuries that can enflame the vices in people (technology, fashion, music, porn, entertainment, etc.).

However, that having been said, the will to dominate is present in all societies, although I do think it is less powerful and not so omnipresent in more primative cultures like the one you described. For instance, in many primative cultures the leaders are chosen by bloodshed, where violence is respected and victory in warfare almighty (the huns and the mongols, and the ancient Assyrians are a few examples of this).

[Mach]

Im sorry Blaksmoke but while there are some unequalities with black there are now severl double standards that totally are unfair to whites. Partiicularly the fact that only whites have to be politically correct in this society. (waits to be called a racist)
You almost make Rush Limbaugh look like Sharpton with that statement....Very good though.

[Travis]

Rousseau believed in the "tabula rasa" theory, correct peasant?

Sorry I get the philosophers from my Euro History class mixed up sometimes ;).

[peasantlover]

I dont believe so.. Im pretty familiar with Rousseau, and I dont remember the "tabula rasa" theory.. maybe if you told me what it was I could tell you who believed in it, heh. Rousseau coined the "natural man" terminology though..

[Travis]

Humans are born as a "blank slate" and they are molded by the ideas of the society they are born in. They are born neither good or bad, society makes them the way they become, not human nature.

[Lord Worm]

I personally don't think that society is responsible for causing good/evil individuals. Many of us have been raised in pretty much the same conditions, but some of us are more evil than others.

Essentially, you can't generalize the human race. Some of us will be good, some of us won't. Some of us will be affected by our surroundings, some of us will be unaffected. All these factors make human behaviour difficult to properly map out, and it is why psychology is still a largely theoretical science.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Lost innocence?

I supose society just accelerates that rate at which a mind can encounter all sorts of diffrent events that are considered good and evil. Simmilar to the mind of a child, versus that later adult. Is it the intelligence that is a factor, or the mind abilty to not be appaled by building a sort of tolerance to events? Does this evil and mailce come from tolerance in the decision making process of the brain, by removing the checks and balances that would otherwise point toward not killing/stealing?

"Psyco"-logy is not exact, as you said, for there tons of variables and functions of thinking in the brain. We would need to answer why matter from the stars is able to minupate its surrounding and be aware of itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Lord Worm::

I believe in what I believe because to me, it's right. Why believe in something that's flawed? Believe in a utopia, because then you've got something to work towards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I tip my hat. You have found a one of the foundations of the world's religions.

[peasantlover]

Humans are born as a "blank slate" and they are molded by the ideas of the society they are born in. They are born neither good or bad, society makes them the way they become, not human nature.

ahh. I think that is Hobbes. not positive tho. It is definately not Rousseau. For Rousseau, humans are born good and noble, but as soon as they are introduced to society they become wicked. "Natural man," is a theoretical man who existed before society and was therefore good.

[Mach]

ahh. I think that is Hobbes. not positive tho. It is definately not Rousseau. For Rousseau, humans are born good and noble, but as soon as they are introduced to society they become wicked. "Natural man," is a theoretical man who existed before society and was therefore good.
Hehe, that guy is an ultra-liberal idiot. Humans born noble and good?
They'd like to think that wouldn't they? Always blame someone else for your evil ways...the story of many people's lives.

Babies have a built in self centered personality. They care nothing for anyone but themselves. Their main priority is to be taken care of, fed, soothed, comforted, and pacified at all times...at all costs.
That's not quite noble if you ask me. That is the beginning of the things to come...lust, greed, selfishness, pleasure centered, etc.

[peasantlover]

No, he is not a liberal at all Mach. He is a romantic. Anyway, just because people are born good "in theory" doesnt mean they ever all good. The second they are in society they become evil. He even goes so far as to call newborns selfish, for the same reasons you mentioned. The natural man can also be interpreted as metaphor also, so it is not even clear that Rousseau means that he ever existed... (anyway the Metaphor is not that dissimilar to the Christian story of Adam and Eve, and the sin humanity has been afflicted with ever since.)

[Mach]

No, he is not a liberal at all Mach. He is a romantic. Anyway, just because people are born good "in theory" doesnt mean they ever all good. The second they are in society they become evil. He even goes so far as to call newborns selfish, for the same reasons you mentioned. The natural man can also be interpreted as metaphor also, so it is not even clear that Rousseau means that he ever existed... (anyway the Metaphor is not that dissimilar to the Christian story of Adam and Eve, and the sin humanity has been afflicted with ever since.)
Uh, sure about that?
You can even go type in Hobbes liberal in google or whatever and see what comes up...
Everyone knows Hobbes was a classical liberal.

[Travis]

ahh. I think that is Hobbes. not positive tho. It is definately not Rousseau. For Rousseau, humans are born good and noble, but as soon as they are introduced to society they become wicked. "Natural man," is a theoretical man who existed before society and was therefore good.

Yep I think you're right, it's Hobbes. Locke used it also I believe.

And he was saying Rousseau is not liberal, Mach. And why don't you just quit labeling people as conservative and liberal? It's pretty stupid, especially when you're talking about people from the 1700's...

[aerofan113]

You almost make Rush Limbaugh look like Sharpton with that statement....Very good though.


Is that an insult or compliment? Im not sure cause im god awful tired.

[Mach]

Yep I think you're right, it's Hobbes. Locke used it also I believe.

And he was saying Rousseau is not liberal, Mach. And why don't you just quit labeling people as conservative and liberal? It's pretty stupid, especially when you're talking about people from the 1700's...
It's not labeling. It helps define who they are and some of the ideals and motives behind their statements and reasoning.
Chill out, nothing's stupid.


Aerofan, it's a compliment but you can take whatever way you want. To be right of Limbaugh on an issue is a valiant thing. I think you'd agree with a lot of his stuff if you actually put aside preconceived notions or things you heard about him from haters. There's a reason he is the most listened to Radio show in the US.

[Travis]

Hehe, that guy is an ultra-liberal idiot.

That is labeling. And you added the nice negative comment along with "liberal," since nothing liberal can ever be correct (at least in your eyes).

[Lord Worm]

Mach, being right-of-centre doesn't automatically make you correct.

[Mach]

That is labeling. And you added the nice negative comment along with "liberal," since nothing liberal can ever be correct (at least in your eyes).
Well now we see that the only comment that's stupid is your comment.
That is not labeling pal, study your history. He mentioned Hobbes and I said a common known fact about him that many people who know their history about that area know. Labeling is assuming. This is not assuming it is a known thing.

And of course you've got to lie as well. You know damn well that I never said that all liberal things are not correct. You're being stupid. People try to be nice but you keep on trying to pick fights. Drop it.
It's amazing how some people will try to start a fight and blow something totally out of proportion based off of a simple statement made by someone that many others saw and had no problem with.

[Travis]

OK Mach, I'm sorry. Whatever.

[peasantlover]

Yes, I thought you were talking about Rousseau, Mach. But I dont see how you could label Hobbes as liberal either. If I remember correctly, Hobbes was somewhat Machiavellian. That is, everyone is base and wicked, etc., and the ends justifies the means. Anyway, as Suzuki pointed out it is improper to call enlightenment figures "liberal," because it means something completely different today. The American founders were "liberals," if you remember, as were most figures of the enlightenment (conservatives call them "classical liberals" today). The conservatives were supporting the monarchy.

The insanity of modern liberalism didnt come about until approxiamately World War I (Woodrow Wilson, the "progressives," communism, etc.).

[Lord Worm]

I'd say Liberal and Conservative governments do an equally adequete job of running their countries.

[The Dude]

You cant argue if being a liberal or conservative is right or wrong. It's all subjective. However, I think liberals have it wrong and conservatism is the way to go. I don't care if you agree with me or not. We all choose our posion and live with the consequences. I also think people get too emotion about this topic, we all are trying to solve the same problems, its just two diffrent ways of doing things.

The only real freedom that matters is the freedom to control your own thoughts. But I think thats a bit off topic for now.

[Mach]

Yes, I thought you were talking about Rousseau, Mach. But I dont see how you could label Hobbes as liberal either. If I remember correctly, Hobbes was somewhat Machiavellian. That is, everyone is base and wicked, etc., and the ends justifies the means. Anyway, as Suzuki pointed out it is improper to call enlightenment figures "liberal," because it means something completely different today. The American founders were "liberals," if you remember, as were most figures of the enlightenment (conservatives call them "classical liberals" today). The conservatives were supporting the monarchy.

The insanity of modern liberalism didnt come about until approxiamately World War I (Woodrow Wilson, the "progressives," communism, etc.).
I think the bottom line is we were talking about two totally different subjects and they were confused and intertwined.

I did not give Hobbes the label liberal. That's what the history analysts have said and shown. But yes there is a difference between today's liberals and classical liberals.

And the Dude, I think I've touched on this before. There is good and evil on both the liberal and conservative camps. And on both sides a lot of people are wrong and a lot of people are right....However, that doesn't mean we have to back down and assume that because of the garbage known as political correctness and say that morally speaking there is no right and wrong. We know there is a right and wrong and I know that on most of the issues the core conservative philosophy stands up for what is truly morally right. Doesn't mean all conservatives are right. Doesn't mean they are all good. It just means that at the core the conservative philosophy generally stands up for what is morally right across the board on different issues.














Th

[peasantlover]

Th?

[Lord Worm]

I was wondering that, too.

[Mach]

Thhhhhop it. :crazy2:

[Bryan]

Okay.. so could I say that someone is an "ultra-Conservative idiot" without looking like a complete douche?

Not sure. Respond if you will, but that's all I'm saying.

Suzuki: It's the same with sexuality. Learned, not inherited.

[Mach]

Okay.. so could I say that someone is an "ultra-Conservative idiot" without looking like a complete douche?

Not sure. Respond if you will, but that's all I'm saying.

Suzuki: It's the same with sexuality. Learned, not inherited.
Umm, it's up to you.
But for my comment:
1. It's based on a common held sentiment a lot of people have of a historical figure.
2. It's based off of certain stances and things in the person's life that many people do not like.
3. It's not directed at anyone here.
4. It's a statement based on opinion based on past knowledge and history.

That is all.

[Bryan]

So past knowledge and history suggests.. "Liberal idiot".

[Mach]

So past knowledge and history suggests.. "Liberal idiot".
To a lot of people, yes.

[Bryan]

Would it be fair to assume that not everyone sees liberals as idiots? Even liberals aside, how about people who don't like the country being so polarized on everything?

[peasantlover]

It's easy to make that generalization Bryan because such a large number of liberals are idiots. Sad, but its true.

idiot (definied by me): lacking logic and certain intellectual capacities.

[Lord Worm]

I find that the majority of politicians are idiots.
Sad, but its true.

You see, I'm a Liberal. I am going to favour Liberal politicians. Most of them are retards, but I see them in the best possible light. Why? I'm a Liberal. Now, most Conservative politicians are also retards, but since I'm not Conservative, I don't agree with them at all. At least with the retarded Liberal politicians, we share some common beliefs.

I see more Conservative morons than I see Liberal idiots just because I'm Liberal. And I'll bet my left testicle that the opposite applies to Conservatives. Please take this into consideration when you "generalize" any further.

[aerofan113]

You cant argue if being a liberal or conservative is right or wrong. It's all subjective. However, I think liberals have it wrong and conservatism is the way to go. I don't care if you agree with me or not. We all choose our posion and live with the consequences. I also think people get too emotion about this topic, we all are trying to solve the same problems, its just two diffrent ways of doing things.

The only real freedom that matters is the freedom to control your own thoughts. But I think thats a bit off topic for now.


I completly agree.

[Bryan]

It's easy to make that generalization Bryan because such a large number of liberals are idiots. Sad, but its true.

idiot (definied by me): lacking logic and certain intellectual capacities.

lol, a majority of PEOPLE are idiots. But we all knew that, didn't we?

[Santa Claus]

Seeing as I give away so much so carelessly and my hippy-like ideals - I am a liberal. Additionally its common knowledge that I am a very large man which makes me one of the biggest liberals. Couple that with the fact that my old lady calls me an idiot all the time and one can conclude that even the biggest liberals are idiots. :drunk: :drunk: