8
   

The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

 
 
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:15 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

As I said, since we're all in this together, no one wins.

As I said, winning is defined here as surviving. Are you saying no one survives?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:17 pm
@Tuna,
No. I'm saying that we all survive. You seem to be suggesting that to win is to survive, and to lose is to die. Is that correct?
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:20 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

No. I'm saying that we all survive. You seem to be suggesting that to win is to survive, and to lose is to die. Is that correct?

Um. No. I'm not saying that "winning" is always defined as surviving.

The OP is asking a question about survival, though. Perhaps you can't give an answer. If you can't, that's cool. If you have an opinion, please share it: who ultimately displays the best strategy for survival: the meek or the ruthless?
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:25 pm
@Tuna,
The OP asks: who will prevail. Define prevail.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:27 pm
@Tuna,
No, he didn't say he didn't have any idea who would win in the end. You are proposing that there can only be a choice between the meek and the ruthless. Look around, who has succeeded so far? Was it the weak or the ruthless? The balance shifts, and then shifts again.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:35 pm
@glitterbag,
I understand you to be saying that neither stance has an advantage over the other.
Tuna
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:40 pm
Short thread, perhaps. It is what it is.

My opinion: the meek have a survival advantage. Strength alienates. Meekness invites friends. There is strength in numbers.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2015 10:47 pm
@Tuna,
Tuna wrote:

I understand you to be saying that neither stance has an advantage over the other.


No, that is not what I'm saying. It's been a long day here, we had family and friends for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day (today). I need to unwind, so I can go to sleep because there is a whole new day coming in about 18 minutes. Good night
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 12:22 am
It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

If the goal is to be the most liked while trying to survive, then the meek have a chance.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 06:40 am
Reptils are in the place they are because they are not clever enough to make social tradeoffs...that says it all.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 11:27 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

that says it all.


I am not sure what that says at all.
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Reptils are in the place they are because they are not clever enough to make social tradeoffs...that says it all.

Trade off? Is there such a thing as human nature?

Karl Marx
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 08:32 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

If the goal is to be the most liked while trying to survive, then the meek have a chance.

Do you think most people are ruthless?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:25 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.


The ruthless bastards require the labor of the meek. In such a relationship, both must survive. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:27 pm
@Glennn,
That's what Adam Smith said. Turns out, he was wrong.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:30 pm
@Tuna,
When I see the ruthless rulers leading the charge in war, I'll believe you have a point.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:45 pm
@Tuna,
Tuna wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

If the goal is to be the most liked while trying to survive, then the meek have a chance.

Do you think most people are ruthless?


Not at all. That is why most people are not in the top 1% of anything.

I think some people are ruthless and some succeed and fail in life based around how they use that to their advantage.
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:46 pm
@Glennn,
It's all about money, Glenn.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:51 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
It's all about money, Glenn.

You're preaching to the choir.

However, it goes way beyond money. In the great Monopoly game called the world, those who own the properties, the railroads, and the utilities eventually came to the place where they couldn’t stand the static nature of the game. They have everything they could ever want in a hundred lifetimes, but it’s not enough because they have psychological problems. So then fulfillment became a matter of making wars and taking what the other owners have. They’re like extremely developed infants; think “terrible twos.” And they need the meek to use as laborers and cannon fodder. Symbiotic relationship!
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2015 09:53 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:


Not at all. That is why most people are not in the top 1% of anything.

I think some people are ruthless and some succeed and fail in life based around how they use that to their advantage.

Ah. The 1%. They own more than 90% of the wealth.

Each of us will ponder that in private, I imagine. I'm a newcomer to this forum, but I understand that it has pretty strict limits.

Thanks!


 

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 © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2020 at 09:27:07