Albert Einstein was a player/pimp?
- Thread starter identityless
- Start date
Human nature- the gut instincts of a human: kill, murder, destroy, burn, slay, raze, rape, pillage, crush, smash, obliterate, eviscerate, slaughter, and maim every living thing in it's path until there is nothing left to hurt.
Pacifism goes agains the gut instincts, the gut feeling, the natural purpose of humanity: to clear the slate, to make everything extinct, so that life may start anew.
All humans do is fuck, eat, excrete, and kill, and in the time inbetween that, they create new and more effecient ways of killing each other.
There's always going to be those luminaries that deny it, control it even, but the vast majority of humans are violent and a danger to themselves and others.
Pacifism goes agains the gut instincts, the gut feeling, the natural purpose of humanity: to clear the slate, to make everything extinct, so that life may start anew.
All humans do is fuck, eat, excrete, and kill, and in the time inbetween that, they create new and more effecient ways of killing each other.
There's always going to be those luminaries that deny it, control it even, but the vast majority of humans are violent and a danger to themselves and others.
one_raven said:
I disagree with the implication that compassion somehow MUST extend BEYOND the basic family or family extensions such as tribes or clans or such. Those other tribes, clans, etc just might be enemies! The very existence of those other tribes, clans, etc might be a threat to the other's survival by eating the food supply and killing the game. Surely no one would extend compassion to their enemies, would they?
And can humans REALLY feel compassion for another human on the other side of the Earth? ...without ever having met them? Or is it just that we're "supposed" to feel compassion becasue that's what we've been taught by some liberal, doo-gooder teachers?? People might SAY that they're compassionate, but are they??? Or do they just say that so others won't be pissed off at them?
Baron Max
as society grows more complex, so too do the ties of loyalty that the average individual has grow more complex. as families became tribes became cities became nations, compassion has a natural inclination to spread to the entirety of the structure.
i think there can be genuine compassion for the plight of those we have never met. it is naturally limited by the fact that we do not know their entire situation, but there's a real sense of some sort of bond there--it's the same reason we can make friends with people we have never met, who have no other commonality with us except for the things which make us human, and which humans experience.
max: 'do-gooder' only has a total of three 'o's in the word/phrase.
i think there can be genuine compassion for the plight of those we have never met. it is naturally limited by the fact that we do not know their entire situation, but there's a real sense of some sort of bond there--it's the same reason we can make friends with people we have never met, who have no other commonality with us except for the things which make us human, and which humans experience.
max: 'do-gooder' only has a total of three 'o's in the word/phrase.
dr. cello said:
During the week of Hurricane Katrina, when New Orleans was a major disaster, Americans spent the same for entertainment that week as most any other week of the year. They went out and partied, saw movies, laughed and enjoyed themselves in almost the same way as they did the weeks prior to Katrina. Is that what you mean by "genuine compassion"? Can you REALLY feel compassion for such disasterous plight, and still go out for a fun, happy night-on-the-town?
See? I don't think so. And that's just why I say that people are just fooling others AND themselves by SAYING that they're compassionate. Saying it and feeling it are two very, very different things. (And if they aren't, then...?)
dr. cello said:
No, I don't believe that. In fact, what I believe is that we're doing what others have tried to teach us ....and not feeling it at all. We're just following "orders" because it's easier than saying something like, "I don't give a fuck about those damned people ....let's go out and have some fun!"
Baron Max
I didn't imply that. per se.Baron Max said:
I said that at the core of human existence is compassion.
Compassion for your family CAN drive you to commit heinous acts against others to protect your family, or others in your community.
This does not, in any way, imply that Hapsburg's claim that humans are driven by a viscious, primal, evil blood lust at their core is in any way correct.
They are driven by compassion and an inclination towards cooperation (which, in a social animal, inherently must extent beyond the family to the community at least, but not necessarily further than that).
i did not say that many people do feel genuine compassion. just the opposite: a majority of people are apathetic. there are, however, those who truly pity the less fortunate. the majority is not the rule.
you're in a societal contract. when interacting with others who are under the same rules and the same conditions, you have a certain bond with them. you know what they're going through. when they go through hardships, that bond enables you to feel compassion on a more significant, real level.
i'm not saying that this happens very often. a majority of 'sympathetic' people are following orders (and subconsciously so; they believe themselves to have true sympathy, because they Feel Bad about it).
you're in a societal contract. when interacting with others who are under the same rules and the same conditions, you have a certain bond with them. you know what they're going through. when they go through hardships, that bond enables you to feel compassion on a more significant, real level.
i'm not saying that this happens very often. a majority of 'sympathetic' people are following orders (and subconsciously so; they believe themselves to have true sympathy, because they Feel Bad about it).
Hapsburg said:
Um, right and that’s why you are recording your insipid thoughts on a bulletin board rather than stalking some stranger with a gun or a knife or something. You're such a deadly badass killer that you sit on your fat ass in your computer chair to subject us to your moronic drivel. How are you even literate, shouldn't you have been busy breaking the soft necks of your classmates in grammar school?
SpyMoose said:
See how angry you get ....and it's only anger at words on a computer screen! I can just imagine how you'd be in real life ...you anger would undoubtedly be difficult if not impossible to control.
All of which shows that Hap was more than a little correct in his post!!
Baron Max
Please tell me how you can be so sure, and what supports your assertion that we are fundamentally driven by bloodlust and a desire to kill and maim, yet we have "evolved" to control these instincts rather than simply we sometimes feel vile anger and hatred, generally as a response to those who threaten us (real or percieved) and our loved ones (which, of course, would stem from compassion for those loved ones)?Hapsburg said:
Other than, of course, "I said so".
candy said:
If humans have such little interest in killing other humans, then why has there been such innovations in those very weapons that are intended to kill humans?
I, for one, don't think most humans wake up each morning with the thought of going out and killing someone. But that does NOT mean that a nice, easy-going person doesn't get violently angry at some driver who cut him off in the rush-hour traffic.
Humans have a tremendous potential for anger and violence .....and if you'd like "proof", just read these forums. People get terribly angry at simple words on a computer screen. What would those same people do if you were to give them a weapon, and their antagonist were placed before them?
And interestingly, some of those very same people claim to be "peace-loving and compassionate" individuals!
The problem is not so much the human desire to kill and maim as it is their INABILITY to control their violent emotional outbursts.
Baron Max