Religion

[Satyr]

Define the difference between a victim and a defeated competitor.

 

[perplexity]

Define the difference between a victim and a defeated competitor.

"Victim" infers an unequal, unfair contest.

--- Ron.

 

[S.A.M.]

1) Because, in a large group (thousands to millions) some individual will always take advantage of the ease of exploiting others.

So there are no legal systems in small underdeveloped tribes?

2) This is about conflict between tribes. A totally different subject.

Why is there conflict between tribes?

3) No. Morality is an adaptive result of a species "learning" how to live effectively with each other in a small group.

If the species is living effectively in small groups and every one is instinctively moral, why is violence one of the leading causes of death worldwide- (The World Health Organization (WHO, estimates that each year around 1.6 million lives are lost world-wide due to violence. It is among the leading causes of death for people ages 15-44)- especially since it is mostly domestic partner violence and violence against the children and elderly?

What are your ideas about the relationship between sexual proprietariness and violence? And territorialism and violence?

 

[S.A.M.]

In addition, defence is required for other reasons then just against people, although currently that is one of the primary reasons.

Like what?

Sadly though, there are far too many years of religious conflict to simply just wipe the slate clean at this time. And with the advent of multiculturalism, that conflict will continue.

How does that explain domestic violence or violence against children?

Women are more religious than men; why are men more violent?
Most violence is men against men or men against women.

If morality is the result of education from parents, who taught them, and so on...?

You are familiar with the development of language and the fact that we have accumulated knowledge through several thousand years?

Ethics is about making behavioral choices. Some choices are better than others. Each human action starts a chain of reactions and sometimes overreactions that can affect other people long after the initial action is initiated. Bad choices can lead to overreactions that spiral out of control. Counterproductive choices become the inspiration of new rules of conduct. New rules evolve to minimize pain, suffering and death and to maximize peace prosperity and productivity.

 

[perplexity]

Women are more religious than men; why are men more violent?
Most violence is men against men or men against women.

Are we concerned here with violence or with the cause of violence?

Men are violent to those who distress them.

Do something toward the removal of a woman's license to distress and you'll do a lot more for the World, rather than to be hostile to violence, which only ever engenders more of the same.

--- Ron.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are we concerned here with violence or with the cause of violence?

Men are violent to those who distress them.

Do something toward the removal of a woman's license to distress and you'll do a lot more for the World, rather than to be hostile to violence, which only ever engenders more of the same.

--- Ron.

We are discussing religion as a cause (or not) of violence.

And education is the only way to combat intolerance.

And violence is not an answer to distress. It may be linked to aggression or fear, which are instinctive, but can be conditioned through self-control and a rational outlook.

 

[perplexity]

And violence is not an answer to distress. It may be linked to aggression or fear, which are instinctive, but can be conditioned through self-control and a rational outlook.

Indeed, self control and a rational outlook are often the very cause of violence.
My father comes immediately to mind, wonderfully well controlled, rational and conditioned, but terribly prone to react violently when faced with emotional distress.

Personally, I find that irrational, unconditioned uncontrolled aspects to a relationship are far more effective to calm a violent disposition: relaxation and affection, that sort of thing.

The problem with conditioning is the strength of the expectations. When presented with something foreign to the conditioned experience it all goes haywire.

--- Ron.

 

[(Q)]

Like what?

Defence from nature itself, my dear girl.

How does that explain domestic violence or violence against children?

I wasn't aware it was supposed to explain it? However, that type of violence is most prevalent amongst the uneducated, for which we'll find the highest portion of theists.

Women are more religious than men; why are men more violent?
Most violence is men against men or men against women.

No, women are not more religious then men, that is a fallacy.

You are familiar with the development of language and the fact that we have accumulated knowledge through several thousand years?

Was language given to us by gods? If not, then it must have been some other way we gained moralities as well.

 

[(Q)]

We are discussing religion as a cause (or not) of violence.

And education is the only way to combat intolerance.

Unfortunately, religion demands intolerance.

 

[Satyr]

Unfortunately, religion demands intolerance.

My bleeding heart friend, define the difference between a “victim” and a competitor that has lost.

Try to not use moralizing and human constructs concerning ‘justice’ and nature being "unfair" and such tripe as men-children use.

If you choose to use them define what 'unfair' means.
Do you subscribe to the idea which claims that there is a rule concerning competition?
Does the universe have a standard law concerning competition and exploitation or is this an arbitrary human construct?

Who does not “exploit” his environment, human beings included?
Who is not, in turn, exploited by it?

Or would you prefer to talk through your ass and call it thinking?

 

[(Q)]

My bleeding heart friend, define the difference between a “victim” and a competitor that has lost.

My short peckered friend, a competitor is willing while a victim is not. A competitor is not a victim if he loses, unless he was tricked, duped or who suffered from some adverse circumstance, then he is a victim.

Try to not use moralizing and human constructs concerning ‘justice’ and nature being "unfair" and such tripe as men-children use.

I didn't.

Do you subscribe to the idea which claims that there is a rule concerning competition?

Not really, but there should be some agreement between competitors by what rules they wish to compet, if any. Again, it is the willingness of both combatants.

Does the universe have a standard law concerning competition and exploitation or is this an arbitrary human construct?

I'm not aware of such universal standard laws.

Who does not “exploit” his environment, human beings included?
Who is not, in turn, exploited by it?

Is the environment "willing" to compete? Are we?

Or would you prefer to talk through your ass and call it thinking?

I'll need you to show me how to do that, first.

 

[superluminal]

So there are no legal systems in small underdeveloped tribes?

Underdeveloped? I'm talking about the natural group size for most of human nomadic history. Anthropologists think that humans and pre-humans spent most of their developmental history in groups of 30 or less. If anything, we are currently experiencing the abnormal effects of living in overly large groups.

This is why we need the rule of law. And no, there were most likely no "legal systems" in anything like the way you imagine them in our pre-agricultural/pre-industrial nomadic groups.

Why is there conflict between tribes?

Resources, security, and gene mixing. What else? Same reason chimps go on security patrols and attack neighboring groups, many times killing each other and raping the females. Inter-group hostility has a morality distinctly different from the intra-group morality of closely knit and highly interrelated individuals.

If the species is living effectively in small groups and every one is instinctively moral, why is violence one of the leading causes of death worldwide- (The World Health Organization (WHO, estimates that each year around 1.6 million lives are lost world-wide due to violence. It is among the leading causes of death for people ages 15-44)- especially since it is mostly domestic partner violence and violence against the children and elderly?

Um, there's no such thing as an independent functional "small" group (30 or less) in today's world. The violence we see today can be traced to our adoption of large-group living. The advantages of which apparently outweighed the disadvantages overall. And no one is proposing that our ancestors lived in moral bliss. There were and are constant conflicts. This is how the blind and ultimate remorseless bitch evolution successfully gets genes into the next generation.

What are your ideas about the relationship between sexual proprietariness and violence? And territorialism and violence?

All perfectly natural. But remember one thing. The violence you are thinking of today (murder, maiming) would have been extremely rare in small nomadic groups for obvious reasons. Most conflicts over mates within a group are resolved by well established dominance heierarchies. You can't afford to have your strongest members constantly killing themselves off over Betsy every other month.

The conflicts over territory are always much more violent because the moral imperative of the group is to protect itself and it's future. There is no moral prohibition against inter-group violence.

And all of this boils down to genetic relatedness as has been shown by many studies. Genes are selfish as Dawkins points out in the title of his book. They evolve to create host organisms that will take advantage of the very best strategy to propagate themselves. A fine mix of selfishness, altruism, bravery, comraderie, agressiveness, etc. seems to work very well for humans and other primates.

 

[S.A.M.]

This is why we need the rule of law. And no, there were most likely no "legal systems" in anything like the way you imagine them in our pre-agricultural/pre-industrial nomadic groups.

So the more people you know, the less morality you have? Even though it is instinctive?

Resources, security, and gene mixing. What else? Same reason chimps go on security patrols and attack neighboring groups, many times killing each other and raping the females. Inter-group hostility has a morality distinctly different from the intra-group morality of closely knit and highly interrelated individuals.

So basic morality is only instinctive within the group; and violence (ignoring partner violence, rape and abuse of children and elderly) is more common with other separate groups?

Um, there's no such thing as an independent functional "small" group (30 or less) in today's world. The violence we see today can be traced to our adoption of large-group living. The advantages of which apparently outweighed the disadvantages overall. And no one is proposing that our ancestors lived in moral bliss. There were and are constant conflicts. This is how the blind and ultimate remorseless bitch evolution successfully gets genes into the next generation.

Why 30? Does morality erode beyond a certain number of people?
Are we capable of being instinctively good only towards a small number of people?
Does it not seem that we are more likely to be good towards people we can understand due to a similar way of life (familiarity, hence security) and those who have a system of moralty similar to us due to similar tribal culture?

All perfectly natural. But remember one thing. The violence you are thinking of today (murder, maiming) would have been extremely rare in small nomadic groups for obvious reasons. Most conflicts over mates within a group are resolved by well established dominance heierarchies. You can't afford to have your strongest members constantly killing themselves off over Betsy every other month.

I doubt they'd have to do it every month. If you look at the animal kingdom though it would seem that younger members might challenge older members for leadership and either emerge winners or if they lose, accept the lower rung of hierarchy.

The conflicts over territory are always much more violent because the moral imperative of the group is to protect itself and it's future. There is no moral prohibition against inter-group violence.

So moral behavior would have evolved when men realised that they would have greater security and protection in a group vs in a solitary condition; this would be restricted to the group that shared their interests and would hence be a selfish motive not an altruistic one.

And all of this boils down to genetic relatedness as has been shown by many studies. Genes are selfish as Dawkins points out in the title of his book. They evolve to create host organisms that will take advantage of the very best strategy to propagate themselves. A fine mix of selfishness, altruism, bravery, comraderie, agressiveness, etc. seems to work very well for humans and other primates.

And it is because the individual gains (ie self interest) that he is willing to be moral; it is not instinctive since a strange primate walking into a group will be challenged not embraced.

 

[Satyr]

My short peckered friend,

Hey my tiny penis is not the issue here.
A well-hung man like yourself should be more careful not to victimize his less well-endowed brothers.
I refuse to compete in this arena.

a competitor is willing while a victim is not. A competitor is not a victim if he loses, unless he was tricked, duped or who suffered from some adverse circumstance, then he is a victim.

So what differentiates a “victim” from a competitor is his willingness to lose or win? I see.
Awareness seems to be the key here.
If I am not aware of the competition I can cry fowl. My ignorance becomes an excuse for my failure to prepare for the challenge.
Then we can claim we never wanted to compete anyways and are “innocent victims” because we were blind.
Stupidity to the rescue.
For instance the 9/11 “innocent victims” participated in a system which exploited other nations, but remained unaware as to how their participation affected these nations.
These nations retaliated making the ignorant aggressors, innocent by default.
I get it now. It’s fun.
If a big bully attacks me I can label myself a victim of aggression because I refused to compete with him.
The rules state that if a deer refuses to compete with a wolf the deer becomes a victim. Not of its own weakness or ignorance but of the unfairness of life.
It sounds interesting.

Not really, but there should be some agreement between competitors by what rules they wish to compet, if any. Again, it is the willingness of both combatants.

So, rules should be placed where a lion cannot victimize a gazelle unless the gazelle willingly admits that it is competing for resources?

I'm not aware of such universal standard laws.

Maybe you can come up with some.
Call them....morals or laws.
Morals should be used to judge nature.
Thanks.

Is the environment "willing" to compete? Are we?

So, whatever has no Will should be left alone.
We victimize plants. We victimize chickens.
Viruses victimize us.
We can cry fowl when we experience competition we were not aware of or we begin losing.

 

[S.A.M.]

Defence from nature itself, my dear girl

Interesting; so we spend a large part of our country's budget on building the most efficient defence systems to fight the elements?

I wasn't aware it was supposed to explain it? However, that type of violence is most prevalent amongst the uneducated, for which we'll find the highest portion of theists.

It is similar in both developing and developed countries; as for being present only in the uneducated, it may be merely underreported in the educated, due to shame. I know of instances where apparently well educated and well respected men have been wife beaters (including doctors).
http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/030811/violence/story.html

...that such violence can occur in any relationship, regardless of age, sex, class, race, culture, income or education; and that statistics only hint at the depths of the problem, since their rise often reflects increased reporting of violence rather than an actual rise in attacks. "This problem is a curse throughout the world, and the E.U. is no exception," says Barbara Helfferich, cabinet officer in charge of equality for the European Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, Anna Diamantopoulou. "And stereotypes don't apply."

No, women are not more religious then men, that is a fallacy.

This "fallacy" is supported by evidence, unlike your random theories.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/uow-wam121802.php

"Recent studies of biochemistry imply that both male irreligiousness and male lawlessness are rooted in the fact that far more males than females have an underdeveloped ability to inhibit their impulses, especially those involving immediate gratification and thrills."

To examine rates of religiosity, Stark used the World Values Surveys, which collected data in 57 nations. The world's major faiths were included and the data came from such countries as the United States, most European states, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, China, India, South Africa and Turkey. In all 57 countries, a higher percentage of women than men said they were religious.

Was language given to us by gods? If not, then it must have been some other way we gained moralities as well.

Who said anything about gods? And we gained morality because what benefits the group also benefits the individual; hence morality is not extended to individuals perceived as adverse to our interests.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unfortunately, religion demands intolerance.

So does atheism, apparently, alongwith intellectual elitism as another side effect.

 

[superluminal]

So the more people you know, the less morality you have? Even though it is instinctive?



So basic morality is only instinctive within the group; and violence (ignoring partner violence, rape and abuse of children and elderly) is more common with other separate groups?



Why 30? Does morality erode beyond a certain number of people?
Are we capable of being instinctively good only towards a small number of people?
Does it not seem that we are more likely to be good towards people we can understand due to a similar way of life (familiarity, hence security) and those who have a system of moralty similar to us due to similar tribal culture?




I doubt they'd have to do it every month. If you look at the animal kingdom though it would seem that younger members might challenge older members for leadership and either emerge winners or if they lose, accept the lower rung of hierarchy.



So moral behavior would have evolved when men realised that they would have greater security and protection in a group vs in a solitary condition; this would be restricted to the group that shared their interests and would hence be a selfish motive not an altruistic one.


And it is because the individual gains (ie self interest) that he is willing to be moral; it is not instinctive since a strange primate walking into a group will be challenged not embraced.

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

Maybe I'll respond in a more substantive way later. Just so you can twist and manipulate what I say to meet your own view of things.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

Maybe I'll respond in a more substantive way later. Just so you can twist and manipulate what I say to meet your own view of things.

I could hardly have someone else's view.

Convince me.

The way I see it, the more people "need" each other, the more they are willing to be accomodating. This is related to their motivation to be moral. The less they perceive their dependence to be, the greater the social isolation (in terms of intimacy) and also the greater the suspicion and distrust with which they view each other. A group of people who see benefits to supporting and helping each other show a greater degree of morality (e.g. a local community) than one that sees no such benefit (e.g. competitors in a work setting).

Where people see adverse effects resulting from helping their morality does not come into play, unless they have a sense of fair play that overcomes their natural "will to win" and aggressiveness. This, I believe is directly related to their upbringing and the norms and mores they grew up with.

 

[(Q)]

Hey my tiny penis is not the issue here.

Neither was my heart, bleeding or otherwise.

So what differentiates a “victim” from a competitor is his willingness to lose or win? I see.

No, a willingness to participate, I thought that was obvious.

Awareness seems to be the key here.
If I am not aware of the competition I can cry fowl. My ignorance becomes an excuse for my failure to prepare for the challenge.
Then we can claim we never wanted to compete anyways and are “innocent victims” because we were blind.
Stupidity to the rescue.

It's amazing how you catapult the benign into obscurity.

For instance the 9/11 “innocent victims” participated in a system which exploited other nations, but remained unaware as to how their participation affected these nations.
These nations retaliated making the ignorant aggressors, innocent by default.
I get it now. It’s fun.

You yourself participate in a system that exploits other nations, what's your point?

If a big bully attacks me I can label myself a victim of aggression because I refused to compete with him.
The rules state that if a deer refuses to compete with a wolf the deer becomes a victim. Not of its own weakness or ignorance but of the unfairness of life.
It sounds interesting.

Hey, weren't you the one complaining about how men children claiming the unfairness of life?

So, rules should be placed where a lion cannot victimize a gazelle unless the gazelle willingly admits that it is competing for resources?
Maybe you can come up with some.
Call them....morals or laws.
Morals should be used to judge nature.
Thanks.

Well, that's a far cry from the slaughterhouse killing floor.

So, whatever has no Will should be left alone.
We victimize plants. We victimize chickens.
Viruses victimize us.
We can cry fowl when we experience competition we were not aware of or we begin losing.

Is it not better to kill a carrot then a cow?

 

[Satyr]

Neither was my heart, bleeding or otherwise.

No, a willingness to participate, I thought that was obvious.

Then the question is who willingly chooses living?
Life is that which is in perpetual competition over resuorces.

It's amazing how you catapult the benign into obscurity.

It's a talent.

You yourself participate in a system that exploits other nations, what's your point?

But then I don't call myself a "victim" nor do I pretend I am selfless.
I accept full responsibility for my being.
My comforts are another's suffering. I know it and admit it.
My life depends on the death of another whether this other chooses or not to compete with me or feels like I'm being fair or competing fairly.

Hey, weren't you the one complaining about how men children claiming the unfairness of life?

Yes, and?

Is it not better to kill a carrot then a cow?

Why?
Is it because the cow reminds you of you?
Where do you draw your moral line?