so how far back in history are we going to find these prohibited acts?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Name a single universally prohibited act
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
so how far back in history are we going to find these prohibited acts?
Theft.
yeah, I come from a long line of reivers. Take from the English; they think its bad. Take from other Scots; a game/challenge.
But that is only if I am understanding this thread. It is going back in time right?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I still think raping your own leaders is considered immoral in every culture.
Thanks for the acknowledgment Asguard.
Thanks for the acknowledgment Asguard.
I know you're just a troll sock puppet and realize that there might not be any point in trying to have an actual conversation with you, but the Sawi really don't consider it morally wrong to lie to people. Obviously the person who is being lied to will be unhappy if they realize that they have been tricked, but it's not considered an ethical transgression by the community. They look at it much like we would if I got to the store slightly before you and purchased the last unit of some item that you needed to buy; you certainly wouldn't consider it to be a "good thing," but no one would think that I had behaved immorally.Sure, as a fun little game around the campfire at night. The Native Americans also had such interesting, fun little games.
But ask them how they'd like it if someone lied to them about where the good hunting was, and the person sent them off to a swamp with no game at all.
Or that's how it used to be, anyway. Lately many of them have been converting to christianity.
So by the time a person does all that, he doesn't have time to take any action on anything. How can anyone possibly know, or even guess, how others are going to judge him for his actions?
And worse, he'll be judged on his actions far into the future, by historians, if no one else. So see, a man of action is just plain fucked ...big time!
I'm sorry, TT, but you seem to have completely lost it on this issue.
Baron Max
It's called being smart. When I make a decision I consider all of that in anywhere from a split second to a few minutes/hours/days depending on how many people are involved. How do you think I maintain a good reputation?
Last edited:
What does that have to do with anything? The fact is we keep assassins to murder them. The definitions change with the passions of the day.
If thats the case then they are irrational. Rational decisions arent weak and shakey. They are stable and usually become more right over time.
That's nice. Its too bad things don't actually work that way.
Things work that way for me and I think thats the way things should be. But I'm not running this world so I'm not responsible for the results and consequences.
You can't fight a war against a tactic. Terrorism is just a tactic. We use it and call it "shock and awe" and kill hundreds of thousands of people. They use it and we call it terrorism.
I agree, terrorism is a law enforcement and intelligence agency problem, not something to fight with the Army. Terrorism is a tactic but the terrorist adopts certain patterns of behavior which we should attack.
[That worked so well for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
They didn't have behavior profiling and surveillence.
No one has that information and there is no way to get it, let alone get it reliably.
You do realize your plan qualifies you as a sociopath? Just saying.
My plan qualifies me as smart. My behavior adapts to the situation, I adapt to the mission, that does not make me a sociopath it just simply means I'm very determined to accomplish whatever the mission is. Why would you want someone to lead you who wont accomplish their mission because they have a fuzzy feeling in their stomach which keeps them from pulling the trigger? You want the people protecting you to submit to their feelings when under pressure? An individual does not have to be a sociopath to be strong.
And I guess you've never read the Prince, or the art of war, or learned anything about military thinking. It's about accomplishing a set of objectives, it's all about whether or not you complete your mission, and it's completely utilitarian in nature, this is why there is a chain of command. The people in the militaries, the soldiers, they aren't sociopaths, they are following orders.
If anyone is a sociopath it's the individual who kills passionately. If you are just following orders, to accomplish some set of goals to accomplish an overall mission, as long as you accomplish YOUR mission, you did what was right, that is if you can trust that your superiors aren't sociopaths going around setting their policies and strategies based on how they feel. If you can trust your superiors to do the right thing, then you can do your mission and not feel like perhaps you are doing something completely wrong.
I'll give you two examples to be fair, in the example of Hitler commiting genocide, despite what you may think about me, I'd had never agreed to that, it's clearly wrong from a military tactic standpoint and wrong morally.
However if the goal is fight the war for germany and strategically control the worlds resources, thats a smart military tactic and it's morally right for a German to want to support the effort to do this because it helps improve the quality of life for their family, their friends and their country. To have quality of life for you and yours, sometimes them and theirs has to suffer and pay the price. It's not something we have to enjoy doing to recognize it has to be done.
Another example is the USA, when the people in the USA fought Germany it wasn't because the USA wanted to save the Jews or cared about that holocaust stuff. The war started because Germany was trying to upset the world order and alliances between the USA and the UK, which was and will always be close. When the US allies got into the war, the USA realized that it's economic interests were at stake, that if the USA did not take a side that it would be marginalized. So the USA joined the war effort because it made economic sense, not because it made political sense. The result of the effort was that the USA became the superpower. The USA became superpower because it controlled the worlds natural resources.
Why did Russia become a threat? It had nothing to do with communism vs capitalism and everything to do with the fact that Russia was a competitor for natural resources. Russia wanted oil, gold, minerals, and was expanding after the war building a strong alliance of its own. It wouldn't have mattered what political philosphy Russia had, that was just used to get people to hate Russia to build support, sorta like how terrorism is used to build support for the stuff going on in the middle east, but it's really just about controlling the natural resources. It's actually strategic to attack Iraq, Iran and other oil rich nations.
Tactically however they did it all wrong. And also the oil companies that did profit kept it all for themselves, which is why the USA is so against the war now. If all of us had higher salaries, cheaper food and products, and lower taxes, we'd all be for the war. The point I'm trying to make is, sometimes war is right, when the results of the war improves the quality of life for you, me, our families, our friends, our offspring down the line, etc.
And if you cannot see that, then I'm just more logical than you. If you want to label me a sociopath because I'm more logical, go ahead, make a fool out of yourself.
Last edited:
If thats the case then they are irrational.
Is this really a surprise?
Terrorism is a tactic but the terrorist adopts certain patterns of behavior which we should attack.
You are looking at the symptom and attacking the symptoms of terrorism just feeds its causes. The only way to defeat terrorism is to remove its perceived need in the sheltering population.
They didn't have behavior profiling and surveillence.
Are you suggesting the KGB didn't have the best behavior profiling and surveillance in the world to date?
My plan qualifies me as smart.
Sociopaths tend to be in the top 10% in terms of intelligence. Its the heartless suggestion to kill people based solely on their not meeting your standards for survival that is the sociopath part.
I'm very determined to accomplish whatever the mission is. Why would you want someone to lead you who wont accomplish their mission because they have a fuzzy feeling in their stomach which keeps them from pulling the trigger?
Spoken like a true sociopath. There is this little saying you might consider, the ends do not justify the means. Killing people to possibly prevent them from committing crime you merely think they might commit just makes you a murderer and them innocent victims. There is no means to predict any particular person's future actions with the least degree of accuracy.
You want the people protecting you to submit to their feelings when under pressure? An individual does not have to be a sociopath to be strong.
Having feelings for each other doesn't make people weak. It is what makes the group stronger than any particular individual. Also, I can only assume you have little experience actually working under pressure. When the shit hits the fan the rational mind shuts down and the more primitive parts of the brain take over. This is why it is so important for military, first responders, martial artists, to train over and over and over until what they need to do is as close to a reflex as possible. Without that you fall back on basic instincts.
And I guess you've never read the Prince, or the art of war, or learned anything about military thinking.
I'm an ex paratrooper, trained as a French commando and have studied kung fu for some years. I find most people use Machiavelli only justify their own callousness without any care for his actual message and neither Sun Tzu or Miyamoto Musashi advocate anything close to what you suggest. To win without conflict is the ultimate art of war. Any time you have to engage, you have already lost the first battle.
It's about accomplishing a set of objectives
No, it is not.
If anyone is a sociopath it's the individual who kills passionately.
Sociopaths are noted for their lack of passion and empathy.
Your analysis is flawed on many levels, and outside the scope of this discussion. If you wish I'm sure you can discuss it further in the appropriate section.
then I'm just more logical than you. If you want to label me a sociopath because I'm more logical, go ahead, make a fool out of yourself.
Disagreeing with you does not mean I am less "logical."
Also, I'm not labeling you a sociopath. I am pointing out that your current discussion and strategies parallel those used by sociopaths.
I'm guessing if you haven't yet discovered them yet you will probably enjoy Miyamoto Musashi, Nietzsche and Ayn Rand. I recommend not getting stuck there though.
Well, then, ...what percentage must agree for something to be objectively true?
Objective truth concerns accurate descriptions of matters of fact, not a matters of opinion.
For example "I have a coffee mug on my desk." Is objectively true if and only if I actually have a coffee mug on my desk.
Opinions about it are irrelevant. It would be necessary to actually verify or disprove the assertion empirically to ascertain its truth value.
Theft.
While often regulated, theft is almost universally permitted in one regard or another.
Some, like say the old Gaelic cultures and some Native American cultures, turn it into a pastime and means of gaining social standing.
so how far back in history are we going to find these prohibited acts?
Universally implies for me all known cultures throughout known history up to and including the current day.
Earth all culture prohibition act: not being beneficial to society (others), all cultures are focused on its members to be beneficial to the culture's existence
I would say the US culture of "rugged individualism" (aka "me first") would definately qualify as "not being beneficial to society."
On your other question, I may have missed it. What were you asking about?
I would say the US culture of "rugged individualism" (aka "me first") would definately qualify as "not being beneficial to society."
On your other question, I may have missed it. What were you asking about?
oh you are wrong, even a culture that kills the other is beneficial in either its own development of that of the culture it kills, since the culture weak traits die off and better parts pass on the genes.
On your other question, I may have missed it. What were you asking about?
I was asking if my ears are filled with wax and rain has sipped unto them, or have you not heard of my replies towards you?
Cultures don't have genes and you are redefining "benefit" so as to make it meaningless.
I answer what I feel needs answering, but I'm not perfect and occasionally miss things. If you feel I missed something feel free to direct my attention to the specific point.
I answer what I feel needs answering, but I'm not perfect and occasionally miss things. If you feel I missed something feel free to direct my attention to the specific point.