11
   

Do you think humanity will ever evolve/adapt/learn to not engage in violence/warfare?

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 12:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
OK Strawman, you certainly love your cliché logical fallacies.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 07:14 pm
@Chumly,
I would not count of it without the drive for combat any such "humans "lasting any lenght of time. See the history of say the vikings for example of a small population able to imposed it will on any number of larger and in theory more powerful people just by having a far superior will to combat.

They remove so many coins from Europe that they needed to go back to the barter system!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:14 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Alas , vision is not your forté


If this is true then showing where I am wrong is like shooting fish in a barrel, given my posting history.
Funny how some don't like what I say yet can't point to mistakes in facts or logic on my part.


I have found this to be TRUE.
A lot of people (usually on the LEFT side of the political spectrum)
prefer to attack the messenger rather than to consider the message.

I think that their implicit logic
is that the messenger (if he is timid enuf)
will alter the substance of his message so as to conform it
to the opinions of his abusers in an effort to dissuade them from further defamatory torment.





David
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:34 am
Some persons refuse to give credence to the others' arguments, no matter how well presented, so they can declare themslves winner by fiat. There are several a2k members who do this.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:41 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I think that their implicit logic
is that the messenger (if he is timid enuf)
will alter the substance of his message so as to conform it
to the opinions of his abusers in an effort to dissuade them from further defamatory torment.


There is a psycolocial problem that has infected an alarmingly large segment of the population, one that renders them incapable of honest communication and also participation in debate. My guess is that it comes from a lifetime of being coddled, a bad education, and an lack of familiarity with the rigors of life. It goes beyond will full ignorance, it is the insistence that fantasy can trump reality of one tries hard enough.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 11:05 am
@hawkeye10,
And to continue, those who are actively using every means at their disposal to force others to conform to their version of reality will generally insist that only bad people like me engage in power games. There is a stunning lack of self awareness in these people.

What is probably most disturbing is that there is also a lack of comprehension of the boundary between people, where they end and the next person begins, where their rights end and where the next persons rights begin. I am accustomed to seeing this is people who have been traumatized by childhood sexual abuse, but to see this so often in people who have had a cushy life is mind boggling. In this last case at least I think it is mostly a problem with those who lean left politically, though those on the Right tend to not understand that they are part of the collective and are nothing without the collective which is maybe just as bad of a mistake in seeing reality. As for the rest it seems to me to effect blue and red both.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 11:22 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Some persons refuse to give credence to the others' arguments,
no matter how well presented, so they can declare themslves
winner by fiat. There are several a2k members who do this.

I don 't know who u have in mind,
but no matter HOW WELL arguments are presented,
if one DOES NOT give them credence -- if he is skeptical that thay are true --
then regardless of how well presented thay were,
he shoud not accept those arguments
(at least not until their allegations can be confirmed).
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 01:06 pm
I am so glad you admitted that, david.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 01:30 pm
@BillRM,
In your reply you exempt the context of my post. That does not leave you in a very enviable position.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 01:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
If you are referring to me, then given prior duologue with Mr. hawkeye10 I feel no great obligation to re-advise in detail as per Logical Fallacies. I argue it becomes Mr. hawkeye10's obligation to learn about them and respond accordingly, if he expects reply in kind.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 01:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have found this to be TRUE.

Not "troo"? You're slipping, David.

One might also consider the possibility that you and raper are simply batshit crazy.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 02:04 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
If you are referring to me, then given prior duologue with Mr. hawkeye10 I feel no great obligation to re-advise in detail as per Logical Fallacies. I argue it becomes Mr. hawkeye10's obligation to learn about them and respond accordingly, if he expects reply in kind.


Wrong, if you think a logic error has been committed then you are responsible for pointing out in the words where the error is. This back handed global "you made an logic error so I don't need to take your argument seriously" BS makes you a bad citizen. It raises the question about your level of commitment to honest debate.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:03 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I am so glad you admitted that, david.

I am pleased to have contributed to your contentment, Ed.

Factual credence is among the fundamental elements
of the reasoning process, unless it is held in abeyance
for a momentary assumption, for the sake of argument.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:10 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have found this to be TRUE.

Quote:
Not "troo"? You're slipping, David.

Yeah; it works that way too.
I approach fonetics with some liberal flexibility;
otherwise, I 'd drive everyone crazy; its enuf of a strain as it is.

Quote:
One might also consider the possibility that you and raper are simply batshit crazy.
Yeah, u can consider anything u wanna consider.
That 's the way I like it; harmless.

That 's better than the commies with the pocket diaries.
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:46 pm
Do you think humanity will ever evolve/adapt/learn to not engage in violence/warfare?

NO WAY! Animals can only evolve so far and when one animal trys to get your ****, blow that fucken animals head off.

It will always be this way.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 08:13 am
@candide,
candide wrote:
Do you think humanity will ever evolve/adapt/learn to not engage in violence/warfare?

NO WAY! Animals can only evolve so far and when one animal trys to get your ****, blow that fucken animals head off.

It will always be this way.

You seem to be the epitome of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Smile
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 12:33 pm
@rosborne979,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 09:22:42