Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine

by Cass Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

so awful to wake up to this. 12 dead including editor in chief, cartoonists and policemen assigned to protect them.

the video footage is chilling.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/07/france-charlie-hebdo-satirical-publisher/21377861/

Hunt them down. Capture them alive and let them rot in jail forever.

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:36 pm

thinking further on this

http://news.sky.com/story/1404631/al-qaeda-plotting-new-massacre-in-britain

i wonder what warped excuse they will have

i wonder what "insult" they will dream up

after all our papers have been VERY careful (presumablly out of a well founded fear rather than respect) not to publish any "offensive" cartoons

so who or what is the next excuse...

and what will we then have to "avoid doing so as not to insult" ?

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:41 pm

They have been plotting for years, where have you been, they need no excuse, you need to understand the rise of extremism.

by Guest Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:46 pm

Brasidas wrote:They have been plotting for years, where have you been, they need no excuse, you need to understand the rise of extremism.

I am quite aware they NEED no excuse, but you can bet your life they will "invent" one.......

by Guest Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:01 am

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:They have been plotting for years, where have you been, they need no excuse, you need to understand the rise of extremism.
I am quite aware they NEED no excuse, but you can bet your life they will "invent" one.......

I think we need to have more a discussion on this tomorrow, but no deflecting

Night

by stardesk Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:44 am

Good morning folks.
Obviously we condemn such atrocities, committed for whatever reason, and yet it comes to my mind that there is something terribly wrong with the human mind. Is there something far deeper in the mind that encourages such actions? Animals kill for food and/or fight off others coming in to their territory, yet we kill for no logical reason. Religion and politics may be important to many individuals, who think eveyone else should be the same, but surely that is no excuse to kill innocent people. With our technology, science and education, we can do and achieve so much in this world, and yet there are those who are worse than the animal kingdom. When God supposedly created Mankind he didn't do a very good job, for his so-called creation is badly flawed.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:08 pm

stardesk wrote:Good morning folks.
Obviously we condemn such atrocities, committed for whatever reason, and yet it comes to my mind that there is something terribly wrong with the human mind. Is there something far deeper in the mind that encourages such actions? Animals kill for food and/or fight off others coming in to their territory, yet we kill for no logical reason. Religion and politics may be important to many individuals, who think eveyone else should be the same, but surely that is no excuse to kill innocent people. With our technology, science and education, we can do and achieve so much in this world, and yet there are those who are worse than the animal kingdom. When God supposedly created Mankind he didn't do a very good job, for his so-called creation is badly flawed.

Very gd points, star. Let's take a look at how we think...what thought looks like. During the 17th- and 18th-century (Age of Reason) we laid down the assumptions we go by today: rational thought is like mathematics, in that words = numbers, and we shuffle them around to come to conclusions.

Thurs out, that is wrong. John Dewey, father of the science of psychology, taught us that we think, not in mathematical patterns, but in visceral scripts. We see events, and call down some narrative that we have seen before, and build upon that, calling it reason. We see OJ Simpson, and call down a script about spousal abuse. We see Dick Cheney, and call down a script about Darth Vader. We see a black man arrested, and conservatives among us call down a script about lazy, dull, shiftless individuals, demanding our taxes and living on the fringes of crime...and voilà, right away, we have a picture of what we are dealing with.

These scripts then become moral roadmaps, telling the individuals living within them what to do. George Zimmerman, living within a script involving himself as a police authority, and on the night in question, fueled by marital problems, follows a very standard, and predictable script: lazy, criminally-disposed black man ("...they always get away...) seen in "our" neighborhood, follow him, start a fight, and then pull your gun (already have it) and kill him. He's living any one of a million police dramas one sees on television every night...his life is a script.

So it is, today, with Muslims. Some among us use platitudes like they're not all like that, but for conservatives they still are in our loss column. They have caused some negativity in our lives, and we are not disposed kindly toward them. So we say things like, they may not all be like that, but they have an obligation to speak out... And why? Because they are in our loss column. It is all--all of these discussions we are having--a script we are living. It is a setting before we even arrive. It is a ready-made explanation for everything we view when we arrive. And, it is a moral compass for what we shall do, interpret or believe in the future.

So the next time you ask a question like, why are people so irrational??...ask yourself, not how they reason, but what script are they living.

by stardesk Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:52 pm

Hi Quill, sorry for the dealy in getting back to you. Indeed we shuffle thoughts around and come to conclusions, but as for what script people are living, my reasoning tells me it all goes back to infancy. When we are babies all we know is how to bawl when we are hungy. As we begin to grow older we start to take-in whatever we hear fom our parents &/or older siblings. We know nothing except what our elders teach us, until we go to school, and later perhaps to college and Uni. Although we may learn many things which help us to formulate ideas and conclusions which satisfy us, somewhere deep down in our minds and memories are those things heard and told us when babies and as they grow up. I'll give a fine example:,

Not far from where I live is a Jehovah's Witness family. They have two sons now in their late teens, both of whom had a good education and are bright lads, but, when little and as they grew older they were saturated and brainwashed with Witness beliefs, and that is all you get out of them when you talk to them. So, and to repeat myself, what we are taught when little may stay with us for many years. And this is the problem with miliants etc, they've been taught from babyhood and know no different, being steered away from othe subjects which could open their minds to other ways of behaviour or thinking.

by nicko Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:38 pm

Well put Star,

by Original Quill Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:23 am

stardesk wrote:Hi Quill, sorry for the dealy in getting back to you. Indeed we shuffle thoughts around and come to conclusions, but as for what script people are living, my reasoning tells me it all goes back to infancy. When we are babies all we know is how to bawl when we are hungy. As we begin to grow older we start to take-in whatever we hear fom our parents &/or older siblings. We know nothing except what our elders teach us, until we go to school, and later perhaps to college and Uni. Although we may learn many things which help us to formulate ideas and conclusions which satisfy us, somewhere deep down in our minds and memories are those things heard and told us when babies and as they grow up. I'll give a fine example:,

Not far from where I live is a Jehovah's Witness family. They have two sons now in their late teens, both of whom had a good education and are bright lads, but, when little and as they grew older they were saturated and brainwashed with Witness beliefs, and that is all you get out of them when you talk to them. So, and to repeat myself, what we are taught when little may stay with us for many years. And this is the problem with miliants etc, they've been taught from babyhood and know no different, being steered away from othe subjects which could open their minds to other ways of behaviour or thinking.

Well, I agree to the extent I can. I don't know how to evaluate between and among the scripts we come to follow, just that they are scripts and not naturally reason (unless you strive to reason).

Your thesis is that earliest leaves the strongest imprint. Some might argue the latest is the strongest, because it is the nearest in time. Others might argue that a script nearest to a traumatic incident--say, a rape or post-traumatic stress syndrome from battle--might be the imprinting one.

Maybe someone has actually built a scale of imprinting already. It would be interesting to look into.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:22 am

well the counter to Stars point is all the Black sheep of the Families.
while those early lessons have an impact, it only takes one REAL experience to wipe out all the rhetoric in the world. (sure not for everyone but many)

Plus some people are naturally authoritarian and others are naturally rebellious. both are required for our species to be successful.

regarding Scripts and Mathematical patterns of the mind.
I think smarter people think in maths, but most people are not smart. We are animals and like the Bison that circle their young (because the Script say it protects from predators) the majority of people use mental shortcuts that have proven effective over time. Loyalty to ones tribe, resistance to change and Dehumanisation of other tribes have been effective mental shortcuts for the average human for most of our existence.

Those discussing things in the 'Age of reason' were smart people thus their analysis is actually of the smart mind not the average. they are ones that question and are less likely to use the mental shortcuts.

keeping in mind that humans are Communal animals it has been millions of years of synergistic evolution within our species. while we don't have the specialisation of something like ants, we are possibly becoming more specialised individuals. Since we are communal not everyone has to do everything (including inventing/deep thinking) an individual can be just as successful with far less personal risk being a follower. the reason every one is not smart could well be the same reason why every Ant is not a Queen, A highly disputed leadership would end our communal nature and exposes us all to predators, thus it is in everyone's best interests if only a few are capable of leadership and 'new' ideas while the rest happily follow and thus have a preference for mental shortcuts.

.....
Ultimately we are but apes and while some of us may be smart enough to invent tools that far exceed out natural capacities, not all of us are mentally equipped to handle the capabilities these tools enable. Now we are seeing unprecedented tool development. This has required the development of more advanced social systems (higher populations, free speech, accountability etc) which has rendered some of those mental short cuts obsolete (like dehumanising other tribes) yet the script is still heavily programmed into many humans. but slowly (the direction changed in the 1700's) the average human is dropping the Change resistance and dehumanisation script (although the preference for ones own tribe is still strong) because they no longer hold an evolutionary advantage. we know the larger the tribe the stronger so the more that can fall under your banner the better and the capacity to keep pace with change has definitely seen fiscal/social advantage in the past century or 2.

by Irn Bru Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:38 am

Most people across the globe are disgusted at this cowardly attack on innocent people but is it a game changer?,,,,,,probably not

by Lone Wolf Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:10 am

darknessss wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote: YOU are truly demented, "darkness"...

NO DOUBT you consider yourself yourself to have some degree of "freedom", and a very narrow concept of righteousness on your side ~ but to me, the 'fact' that you would evidently be quite prepared to allow a thousand innocent people die, just so you can take your own 'vengeance' on the one guilty individual, shows that you're no different to those terrorists..

perhaps YOU should learn to read you "offensive" little man
go get an education....
then re-read the above....

OK i get it....>>> ok I can understand that (translation for the special needs man of the board)

gawd talk about terminally thick...

WHAT Sort of drugs were you on there on Friday ???
YOU were much more calm and civilised over the weekend !

AS for an education, you little girly boy ~ when you have actually finished high school, then you can come back and try that patently ridiculous line again..

NOT ONLY do I clearly have at least double your education, but also obviously a lot more 'life experience' than you - you racist and xenophobic know-nothing little maggot.

AS FOR calling me "little" when you know absolutely nothing about me, all I have to say is that you would be "painting yourself into a corner" with such arrant nonsense talk.. scratch

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:17 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
darknessss wrote:
perhaps YOU should learn to read you "offensive" little man
go get an education....
then re-read the above....

OK i get it....>>> ok I can understand that (translation for the special needs man of the board)

gawd talk about terminally thick...

WHAT Sort of drugs were you on there on Friday ???
YOU were much more calm and civilised over the weekend !

AS for an education, you little girly boy ~ when you have actually finished high school, then you can come back and try that patently ridiculous line again..

no you ignorant little worm.....you are far from "educated" (oh and BTW...you asked for everything you are going to get...from your first post onward)

NOT ONLY do I clearly have at least double your education, but also obviously a lot more 'life experience' than you - you racist and xenophobic know-nothing little maggot.

yeah..clearly the life experience of a pig...otherwise you would have some manners

AS FOR calling me "little" when you know absolutely nothing about me, all I have to say is that you would be "painting yourself into a corner" with such arrant nonsense talk..

by Original Quill Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:03 pm

darknessss wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:

WHAT Sort of drugs were you on there on Friday ???
YOU were much more calm and civilised over the weekend !

AS for an education, you little girly boy ~ when you have actually finished high school, then you can come back and try that patently ridiculous line again..

no you ignorant little worm.....you are far from "educated" (oh and BTW...you asked for everything you are going to get...from your first post onward)

NOT ONLY do I clearly have at least double your education, but also obviously a lot more 'life experience' than you - you racist and xenophobic know-nothing little maggot.

yeah..clearly the life experience of a pig...otherwise you would have some manners

AS FOR calling me "little" when you know absolutely nothing about me, all I have to say is that you would be "painting yourself into a corner" with such arrant nonsense talk..

Wolf has a university degree in agricultural science, and is quite a knowledgeable contributor to our threads.

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:13 pm

To be fair darknesssss seems to know a few things Quill.
Just gets over excited by some posters. When there is no need, as he should realise there is no ill feeling between posters including darknesss on here, as its just banter.

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
darknessss wrote:

Wolf has a university degree in agricultural science, and is quite a knowledgeable contributor to our threads.

another "white coat farmer" then

So he knows which end of a cow moos....great Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:05 pm

veya_victaous wrote:well the counter to Stars point is all the Black sheep of the Families.
while those early lessons have an impact, it only takes one REAL experience to wipe out all the rhetoric in the world. (sure not for everyone but many)

Good point. Disturbance is probably more significant than longevity.

veya_victaous wrote: Plus some people are naturally authoritarian and others are naturally rebellious. both are required for our species to be successful.

And personality type.

veya_victaous wrote: regarding Scripts and Mathematical patterns of the mind.
I think smarter people think in maths, but most people are not smart. We are animals and like the Bison that circle their young (because the Script say it protects from predators) the majority of people use mental shortcuts that have proven effective over time. Loyalty to ones tribe, resistance to change and Dehumanisation of other tribes have been effective mental shortcuts for the average human for most of our existence.

Yes, the mathematical mind—and I accept that characterization as apropos—is apparently not natural to the species (not sure I agree with that, but for the purpose of argument). But it is at least a convenience that we have developed conventionally and it competes with our viewpoint of the world as scripts.

I don’t really mean to disparage scripts (Dewey’s full term is scripts and stereotypes), as they are apparently quite valuable to cultures in codifying memories and morals. After all, what is the study of history but a recording of scripts?

veya_victaous wrote: Those discussing things in the 'Age of reason' were smart people thus their analysis is actually of the smart mind not the average. they are ones that question and are less likely to use the mental shortcuts.

Well, it’s really a methodology, not an epoch. Age of…yes it presents itself as a point in history, but I believe that is just a place mark. It is really only 'reason' that is intended.

Be that as it may, they were not really smart as much as clever. The idea of reason is really introspection of the sort that came about in the Renaissance, when philosophy turned from ontology to epistemology (what the world if made of, to how do we know(?))(note: from conversations I have had with Professor Benjamin Barber, professor of political theory at Rutgers University). We suddenly became aware of how important it is to question how we know…and of course, then logic became all important (which was the end of religion).

veya_victaous wrote: keeping in mind that humans are Communal animals it has been millions of years of synergistic evolution within our species. while we don't have the specialisation of something like ants, we are possibly becoming more specialised individuals. Since we are communal not everyone has to do everything (including inventing/deep thinking) an individual can be just as successful with far less personal risk being a follower. the reason every one is not smart could well be the same reason why every Ant is not a Queen, A highly disputed leadership would end our communal nature and exposes us all to predators, thus it is in everyone's best interests if only a few are capable of leadership and 'new' ideas while the rest happily follow and thus have a preference for mental shortcuts.

Yes, you are identifying the culture and its cultural mind, which is what scripts and stereotypes are, I agree. Again, I resist the idea of reason as ‘smarter’ because reason is just another methodology—a really important one, to be sure. But perhaps if ‘scripts and stereotypes’ were constructed and not innate, we would be calling them ‘smarter’ as well.

veya_victaous wrote:.....
Ultimately we are but apes and while some of us may be smart enough to invent tools that far exceed out natural capacities, not all of us are mentally equipped to handle the capabilities these tools enable. Now we are seeing unprecedented tool development. This has required the development of more advanced social systems (higher populations, free speech, accountability etc) which has rendered some of those mental short cuts obsolete (like dehumanising other tribes) yet the script is still heavily programmed into many humans. but slowly (the direction changed in the 1700's) the average human is dropping the Change resistance and dehumanisation script (although the preference for ones own tribe is still strong) because they no longer hold an evolutionary advantage. we know the larger the tribe the stronger so the more that can fall under your banner the better and the capacity to keep pace with change has definitely seen fiscal/social advantage in the past century or 2.

Wow…I’m impressed. That’s your thematic paragraph, and there is a lot to it. An evolution of the species from cultural "script" to “reason” (fueled by “dropping change resistance”) is quite Marxian, or perhaps Hegelian, in that there is both a march and a hierarchy (see, the dialectic).

But I question some of your assumptions: is evolution necessarily dehumanizing? The ‘script’ is naturally human, is it not? Perhaps it is that we are simply more excited by the new, and the old has lost its patina? From the "tribe" to “advanced social systems?” Lol…far be it from me to promote a legitimizing of conservatism, but it is fair to consider it as an alternative, not the evil one.

But you are well on your way to a theory of cultural transitioning. I look forward to hearing more.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:To be fair darknesssss seems to know a few things Quill.
Just gets over excited by some posters. When there is no need, as he should realise there is no ill feeling between posters including darknesss on here, as its just banter.

Oh, I'm impressed, didge. Darknessss has impressed my greatly.

I only mention Bee's background in order to fill in...and maybe so we can get beyond the disparagement.

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:53 pm

Bee??

I thought we were talking about wolfie boy....

and it MAY have escaped your notice
but wolf was the first one to toss the verbal hand grenade

by Original Quill Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:32 pm

darknessss wrote:Bee??
I thought we were talking about wolfie boy....

and it MAY have escaped your notice
but wolf was the first one to toss the verbal hand grenade

Wolf has a unique style, much of it quite entertaining if you have the ability to detach a bit. He reminds me of Robin Williams in his ability to be incisive, even while cutting.

Wolf, in another incarnation, is Beekeeper. He is known to old-timers as Bee. I have known, and enjoyed his posting for over 8-years.

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
darknessss wrote:Bee??
I thought we were talking about wolfie boy....

and it MAY have escaped your notice
but wolf was the first one to toss the verbal hand grenade

Wolf has a unique style, much of it quite entertaining if you have the ability to detach a bit. He reminds me of Robin Williams in his ability to be incisive, even while cutting.

Wolf, in another incarnation, is Beekeeper. He is known to old-timers as Bee. I have known, and enjoyed his posting for over 8-years.

really

so his second post to me being

"cyclops

YOU are truly demented, "darkness"...

NO DOUBT you consider yourself yourself to have some degree of "freedom", and a very narrow concept of righteousness on your side ~ but to me, the 'fact' that you would evidently be quite prepared to allow a thousand innocent people die, just so you can take your own 'vengeance' on the one guilty individual, shows that you're no different to those terrorists.. "

is merely unique style is it?

sounds to me like you are excusing an ill behaved brat...

"oh thats just his way"

Hmmmmm....

well my reply is just my "unique style"

got it?

my attitude if flexible to the point it varies with the attitude of the respondant......

by Original Quill Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:06 pm

darknessss wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Wolf has a unique style, much of it quite entertaining if you have the ability to detach a bit. He reminds me of Robin Williams in his ability to be incisive, even while cutting.

Wolf, in another incarnation, is Beekeeper. He is known to old-timers as Bee. I have known, and enjoyed his posting for over 8-years.

really

so his second post to me being

"cyclops

YOU are truly demented, "darkness"...

NO DOUBT you consider yourself yourself to have some degree of "freedom", and a very narrow concept of righteousness on your side ~ but to me, the 'fact' that you would evidently be quite prepared to allow a thousand innocent people die, just so you can take your own 'vengeance' on the one guilty individual, shows that you're no different to those terrorists.. "

is merely unique style is it?

sounds to me like you are excusing an ill behaved brat...

"oh thats just his way"

Hmmmmm....

well my reply is just my "unique style"

got it?

my attitude if flexible to the point it varies with the attitude of the respondant......

You sound upset. That is too bad. Haha...let's just say Bee is an acquired taste...but still more than intriguing. You have to learn how to take him.

I am well aware of Bee's occasional acerbic style. He speaks directly, and doesn't spare me when it comes to that. But he speaks in an imaginative style and has a lot of ideas to contribute. When he hurls an f-bomb your way, you just blink and look behind it. Pretty soon that frown will begin to curve into a curious smile.

So much better than always being unhappy.

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
darknessss wrote:

really

so his second post to me being

"cyclops

YOU are truly demented, "darkness"...

NO DOUBT you consider yourself yourself to have some degree of "freedom", and a very narrow concept of righteousness on your side ~ but to me, the 'fact' that you would evidently be quite prepared to allow a thousand innocent people die, just so you can take your own 'vengeance' on the one guilty individual, shows that you're no different to those terrorists.. "

is merely unique style is it?

sounds to me like you are excusing an ill behaved brat...

"oh thats just his way"

Hmmmmm....

well my reply is just my "unique style"

got it?

my attitude if flexible to the point it varies with the attitude of the respondant......

You sound upset. That is too bad. Haha...let's just say Bee is an acquired taste...but still more than intriguing. You have to learn how to take him.

I am well aware of Bee's occasional acerbic style. He speaks directly, and doesn't spare me when it comes to that. But he speaks in an imaginative style and has a lot of ideas to contribute. When he hurls an f-bomb your way, you just blink and look behind it. Pretty soon that frown will begin to curve into a curious smile.

So much better than always being unhappy.

nope...when he hurls a f-bomb as you put it...i will hurl one right back

its just my "unique style"

by stardesk Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:11 pm

What a shame, yet another interesting topic hits the vebal cesspit.

Bye bye, it was nice knowing some of you.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:.....
Ultimately we are but apes and while some of us may be smart enough to invent tools that far exceed out natural capacities, not all of us are mentally equipped to handle the capabilities these tools enable. Now we are seeing unprecedented tool development. This has required the development of more advanced social systems (higher populations, free speech, accountability etc) which has rendered some of those mental short cuts obsolete (like dehumanising other tribes) yet the script is still heavily programmed into many humans. but slowly (the direction changed in the 1700's) the average human is dropping the Change resistance and dehumanisation script (although the preference for ones own tribe is still strong) because they no longer hold an evolutionary advantage. we know the larger the tribe the stronger so the more that can fall under your banner the better and the capacity to keep pace with change has definitely seen fiscal/social advantage in the past century or 2.

Wow…I’m impressed. That’s your thematic paragraph, and there is a lot to it. An evolution of the species from cultural "script" to “reason” (fueled by “dropping change resistance”) is quite Marxian, or perhaps Hegelian, in that there is both a march and a hierarchy (see, the dialectic).

But I question some of your assumptions: is evolution necessarily dehumanizing? The ‘script’ is naturally human, is it not? Perhaps it is that we are simply more excited by the new, and the old has lost its patina? From the "tribe" to “advanced social systems?” Lol…far be it from me to promote a legitimizing of conservatism, but it is fair to consider it as an alternative, not the evil one.

But you are well on your way to a theory of cultural transitioning. I look forward to hearing more.

the 'Dehumanising' is not really human specific but there isn't a better word for it...in many social animal major competition comes from other tribes/packs/flocks wolves, lions, ants, bees and a horde of other animals will attack individuals of the same species that are of a different 'tribe'.

I think Homo Sapien are moving past the 'dehumanisation' script, we are more accepting of other 'tribes' than ever before.. and we are not the only ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_crazy_ant
the Yellow Crazy ant and a couple of other species have started to develop super colonies, essentially colonies that support multiple queens and work together. And we can see the evolutionary drivers causing the super colonies as they completely dominate areas where they are established.

Further to that, how many humans now believe other sentient beings deserve 'rights' or at least they deserve to not be mistreated and destroyed without consequence Neutral

pretty sure the answer will be more than ever before Wink

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:23 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Wow…I’m impressed. That’s your thematic paragraph, and there is a lot to it. An evolution of the species from cultural "script" to “reason” (fueled by “dropping change resistance”) is quite Marxian, or perhaps Hegelian, in that there is both a march and a hierarchy (see, the dialectic).

But I question some of your assumptions: is evolution necessarily dehumanizing? The ‘script’ is naturally human, is it not? Perhaps it is that we are simply more excited by the new, and the old has lost its patina? From the "tribe" to “advanced social systems?” Lol…far be it from me to promote a legitimizing of conservatism, but it is fair to consider it as an alternative, not the evil one.

But you are well on your way to a theory of cultural transitioning. I look forward to hearing more.

the 'Dehumanising' is not really human specific but there isn't a better word for it...in many social animal major competition comes from other tribes/packs/flocks wolves, lions, ants, bees and a horde of other animals will attack individuals of the same species that are of a different 'tribe'.

I think Homo Sapien are moving past the 'dehumanisation' script, we are more accepting of other 'tribes' than ever before.. and we are not the only ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_crazy_ant
the Yellow Crazy ant and a couple of other species have started to develop super colonies, essentially colonies that support multiple queens and work together. And we can see the evolutionary drivers causing this the super colonies as they are completely dominate areas where they are established.

Further to that, how many humans now believe other sentient beings deserve 'rights' or at least they deserve to not be mistreated and destroyed without consequence pretty sure the answer will be more than ever before

Define "sentient"

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:34 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:40 pm

veya_victaous wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

um...would argue this...think wiki has been infested with animal rights looneys,,,

feel as in what...emotions i presume from the context as opposed to physical sensations...
if the animal rights nuts are correct then even mosquitos can "suffer" and we should not insecticide em....

piffle....

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:13 pm

darknessss wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

um...would argue this...think wiki has been infested with animal rights looneys,,,

feel as in what...emotions i presume from the context as opposed to physical sensations...
if the animal rights nuts are correct then even mosquitos can "suffer" and we should not insecticide em....

piffle....

I don't think I ever claimed you were highly evolved darkness Cool

mosquitoes can "suffer", they are living things. I personally believe even trees suffer when you cut them there is evidence that trees communicate through electromagnetism and when one is cut there is a physical response in not only the cellular structure of the tree (Some it is visible such as curling of leaves) but also surrounding trees of the same species.

not killing them is a moral decision, if you are of Buddhist philosophy it is wrong, if you are of Taoist philosophy it is just part of life(all things are both good and bad depending on perspective, bad for mossies good for you Wink

)

Insecticide use to get a mosquito is wrong on the basis on minimising the amount of poison you are literally spraying in your living space, it is of course balance if you are talking a swarm of malaria carrying mosquitoes spray away but if you talking on or two use your bloody hands to swat them Suspect

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:20 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
darknessss wrote:

um...would argue this...think wiki has been infested with animal rights looneys,,,

feel as in what...emotions i presume from the context as opposed to physical sensations...
if the animal rights nuts are correct then even mosquitos can "suffer" and we should not insecticide em....

piffle....

I don't think I ever claimed you were highly evolved darkness

thats because I'm so evolved I'm off your scale and you cant measure it

mosquitoes can "suffer", they are living things. I personally believe even trees suffer when you cut them there is evidence that trees communicate through electromagnetism and when one is cut there is a physical response in not only the cellular structure of the tree (Some it is visible such as curling of leaves) but also surrounding trees of the same species.

not killing them is a moral decision, if you are of Buddhist philosophy it is wrong, if you are of Taoist philosophy it is just part of life(all things are both good and bad depending on perspective, bad for mossies good for you )

Insecticide use to get a mosquito is wrong on the basis on minimising the amount of poison you are literally spraying in your living space, it is of course balance if you are talking a swarm of malaria carrying mosquitoes spray away but if you talking on or two use your bloody hands to swat them

i prefer a more technological solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser as befits a highly evolved master simian

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:42 pm

vis

http://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_zap_malaria?language=en

from about 10 mins onward.... Laughing

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:53 pm

when you said
" i prefer a more technological solution "

the first thing that popped into my head was you wielding one of these Laughing

Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 4 Free-Shipping-1pcs-Rechargeable-LED-font-b-Electric-b-font-Insect-Bug-font-b-Fly-b

by Guest Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:56 pm

veya_victaous wrote:when you said
" i prefer a more technological solution "

the first thing that popped into my head was you wielding one of these

http://bugasalt.com/ Laughing

by Original Quill Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:39 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Wow…I’m impressed. That’s your thematic paragraph, and there is a lot to it. An evolution of the species from cultural "script" to “reason” (fueled by “dropping change resistance”) is quite Marxian, or perhaps Hegelian, in that there is both a march and a hierarchy (see, the dialectic).

But I question some of your assumptions: is evolution necessarily dehumanizing? The ‘script’ is naturally human, is it not? Perhaps it is that we are simply more excited by the new, and the old has lost its patina? From the "tribe" to “advanced social systems?” Lol…far be it from me to promote a legitimizing of conservatism, but it is fair to consider it as an alternative, not the evil one.

But you are well on your way to a theory of cultural transitioning. I look forward to hearing more.

the 'Dehumanising' is not really human specific but there isn't a better word for it...in many social animal major competition comes from other tribes/packs/flocks wolves, lions, ants, bees and a horde of other animals will attack individuals of the same species that are of a different 'tribe'.

I think Homo Sapien are moving past the 'dehumanisation' script, we are more accepting of other 'tribes' than ever before.. and we are not the only ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_crazy_ant
the Yellow Crazy ant and a couple of other species have started to develop super colonies, essentially colonies that support multiple queens and work together. And we can see the evolutionary drivers causing the super colonies as they completely dominate areas where they are established.

Further to that, how many humans now believe other sentient beings deserve 'rights' or at least they deserve to not be mistreated and destroyed without consequence pretty sure the answer will be more than ever before

It seems you are reaching for something at the end (so far) of evolution, perhaps why there is no name for it. Clearly, politically and socially, we are advancing toward globalization, which could be compared to colony creatures such as the yellow crazy ant and many others, reaching for super colonies. The opposing vector, then, would be something like UKIP, which by its very name seems to suggest hunkering down into the old tribal unit.

There does seem to be a dialectical tension between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’, which we call conservatism and liberal, or maybe progressivism. That tension appears to be valuable: the conservative view is the glue that holds together the corpus of the political/social being, while the progressive puts forth proposed answers to problems and challenges from the environment. Healthcare is a good example: the conservative says you should just go away (that is often the conservative answer for anything), while the progressive pushes for socialized medicine or some innovative program along the way. (You guys in the Commonwealth already have socialized medicine, so you’ll just have to imagine you are American…lol.) But to the point: you see both the old and the new settling into a tension, and the tension is actually adaptation (Darwin) working. It allows at once for survival and change.

So let’s take that theory out for a spin: what about this clash of the Muslim World with the Judeo/Christian World? You know, this isn’t a new confrontation; the Balkan conflict essentially started WWI, and some would argue goes back to the 6th-century. Look at a map: it is the meeting place of Muslims and Christians, and even before Islam, the Greeks and Persians were more or less permanently at war. Meh—That puts it into context, but it doesn’t provide any answers.

Ah-hah, we have what old teamsters called a rut in the road. So, what in terms of our theory of globalization is impeding the evolution in this case. One, it might be that one side or the other is moving too fast; maybe Muslims are scared at the pace of global progress. Two, maybe there is a mechanical flaw…some fundamental inconsistency between the belief system of Islam and the Judeo/Christian system Three, like frequently happens with air mishaps, some combination of failures cause the ultimate failure or crash. Or, four, it’s just happening too fast and the built in tension is in rebound mode: it’s really conservatism—in both the Muslim World and the Judeo/Christian World—saying Whoa, not so fast.

It’s not the first time we have hit a rut in the road. After all, we seem to still be having a problem getting over skin color. That one started with the opening up of Africa, centuries ago, and it continues with George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin. These are real, global road-blocks.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:19 pm

and Ukip is a minority party trying to return Old British Values that Used to be not only acceptable they were the Law.

And Zimmerman, it wasn't that long ago in the USA that it would have been a group of men (maybe dressed as Ghosts pale

) and no one would have even though twice (let alone been charged) when the Black guy was found hang from a tree..

Even the Muslims Christian Dynamic has changed by the rise of a 3rd power, Secularism.

The newspaper unapologetically skewered other religions as well, and bragged that Sunday's turnout of a million people at a march in Paris to condemn terrorism was larger "than for Mass."

"For the past week, Charlie, an atheist newspaper, has achieved more miracles than all the saints and prophets combined," it said in the edition's lead editorial. "The one we are most proud of is that you have in your hands the newspaper that we always made."

I would think the EU is the Best comparison to a Super Colony, Even the USA in earlier times each state is the size of a kingdom/nation (and does have it's own gov't) these individually ruling gov't have joined together to create a stronger entity, no different than the Yellow Crazy Ant Queens. Rather than fighting each other they have joined together for mutual benefit.

the Other thing your analysis missed is Asia, largely separate from the old Abrahamic nonsense. their pre existing religious structures fit much better with Secularism, let alone China that Under Mao destroyed the old institutions to give secularism and Solid foundation.

while some pot hole have caused things to slow in some nations, globally secularism is constantly rising. and not only that its is rising fastest in the strongest and most advanced nations.

And evolution is the constant drive to spread 'life'. While some are niche most life evolves in an attempt to thrive (although it will accept survive) The 'Super species' (in terms of Success) such as Humans, Ants, Flies, Influenza, Green Algae, Grass etc have adapted to meet a vast array of challenges to fill almost every available habitat on the Planet. And there is every reason to believe that If some how they ended up on another they would continue the evolutionary drive to try and thrive there too.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:55 pm

Or Conservationism is Change resistance because the easiest(least risky) path is to stay the way you are. they only change once forced too because enough others have already changed to make their old way insufficient to survive. An Example from human evolution is Nomad life style which once would have been the way most if not all humans, and humans thrived living like that. Settlements although requiring more work to establish and greater co-operation(same as globalisation) are ultimately stronger and more capable of survival than the prehistoric nomads tribes thus more and more converted to the settlement life style as it proved to be more effective. Now the catch 22 is that Humans are Communal thus individuals that may not have chosen the path on their own (maybe because it isn't the best for their individual strengths) but since they have better odds of survival sticking with the group they take it anyway.

From all Religions there are converts to secularism, secularism eventually leads to globalisation and 'universal rights' as it moves away from tribal institutions and towards 'equality for citizens' it is only logical that once people accept all people of their nation are equally entitled it is not a great jump to suggest that All peoples should be equally entitled.

Do you know what conservative Athenians though was Appropriate dress and what they thought was 'liberal/progressive' disgust?
the opposite of Christian Europe, wearing robes that hang below the Knee where considered immoral as it suggested that you no longer work the Land (you were a lay about city dweller) Conservatives wore short robes so they could preform agricultural tasks without getting their clothes too dirty As was Tradition. (although many were rich politicians that probably wouldn't work fields)

by Original Quill Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:52 am

Let me sleep on the thoughts you bring. I'm always much more energetic in the morning.

See ya then.

by stardesk Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:03 am

Morning folks. I wasn't going to bother anymore, considering a new member's sarcastic comments to some of us, but having read some of the above I, as a bird watcher and nature lover, feel the need to comment on the rights to live and survive, ie:
Surely everything that exists has a right to that existance, basically because it exists in the first place. Just because we humans are aware of our own individuality as opposed to group/herd instincts, that doesn't give us the right to kill whatever we don't like. I believe that at the last count there are as many as 30,000,000 (thirty million) species of life on our planet, how desolate and boring it would be if we killed off eveything we didn't like.

But, sadly, we humans are an exception to the natural rule. We kill each other, not for food or territorial protection, but because someone somewhere believes in something different to ourselves. This is counter-productive to an advancement of all the human species. I know my comments may be seen as somewhat negative but I have to say we are an anomaly, we don't conform to that basic, natural rule, the natural scheme of things, we have placed ourselves over and above nature and think we can change it to suit ourselves, but as seen with places like the Amazon jungles, and other deforestation, the now rare species of fish, birds and animals, we are ruining the planet and will ultimately pay the price.

BTW, someone said, above, about plants and trees communicating with each other, I believe it was some years ago when this was poved, that yes they do, there is some kind of signal between one plant/tree and another, so talking to your plants and flowers may not be so daft as it looks.

by Guest Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:11 am

Morning Stardesk

Hope you are well

Its just Victor, not anyone new mate.
Interesting post by the way

by stardesk Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:25 am

Morning Brasidas, I ok mate, I hope you are too.

Right so it's Victor, thanks for the warning. As for my post above, I wonder what kind of response it will bring. Watch this space.

by Guest Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:29 am

stardesk wrote:Morning Brasidas, I ok mate, I hope you are too.

Am fab thanks

Right so it's Victor, thanks for the warning. As for my post above, I wonder what kind of response it will bring. Watch this space.

He is just having some fun mate, nothing to be concerned about, I think more to see how people react. So now people know it will go back to normal.

Hope you have a good weekend

by stardesk Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:49 am

Concerning my comment above about nature, see Brasidas' input in the topic 'Humanity has exceeded 4 of 9 planetary boundaries.'

I think that underlines my comments. Thanks Brasidas.

by Guest Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:44 pm

stardesk wrote:Concerning my comment above about nature, see Brasidas' input in the topic 'Humanity has exceeded 4 of 9 planetary boundaries.'

I think that underlines my comments. Thanks Brasidas.

Good point Stardesk and you are welcome Stardesk

Ben is it possible to merge the threads or better still move the posts on this view point on this thread onto the new one I started?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:55 pm

veya_victaous wrote:and Ukip is a minority party trying to return Old British Values that Used to be not only acceptable they were the Law.

And Zimmerman, it wasn't that long ago in the USA that it would have been a group of men (maybe dressed as Ghosts ) and no one would have even though twice (let alone been charged) when the Black guy was found hang from a tree..

And I’m not so sure it isn’t still happening in the South today. The switch from the KKK rally in the woods, to the Zimmerman jury in a Florida courtroom, is change in setting but not in public personality.

veya_victaous wrote:Even the Muslims Christian Dynamic has changed by the rise of a 3rd power, Secularism.

The newspaper unapologetically skewered other religions as well, and bragged that Sunday's turnout of a million people at a march in Paris to condemn terrorism was larger "than for Mass."

"For the past week, Charlie, an atheist newspaper, has achieved more miracles than all the saints and prophets combined," it said in the edition's lead editorial. "The one we are most proud of is that you have in your hands the newspaper that we always made."

I would think the EU is the Best comparison to a Super Colony, Even the USA in earlier times each state is the size of a kingdom/nation (and does have it's own gov't) these individually ruling gov't have joined together to create a stronger entity, no different than the Yellow Crazy Ant Queens. Rather than fighting each other they have joined together for mutual benefit.

No, you have to live here I guess. The states are akin to your counties. The states are bigger, of course, because the US is so much bigger. But the idea of united, independent nations is a fiction. Republicans would like it to be otherwise, however the supremacy clause of constitutional law and the supremacy of federal money makes it impossible for them. A better example is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)…but, of course, there are only three countries in North America.

Yes, the EU is a reach for super-colony status, but only in economic terms. Perhaps that is fitting: economics and media have led to way toward super-state status…the world getting smaller, etc. But presently, it is obstructed by such things as language, history and culture…whatever that is. That’s where UKIP comes in…it mourns the loss of such things.

I believe that the Near East is also reaching for super-state status. No, these clowns like ISIL and their counterparts in the Arabian Peninsula and Persia, are not for real. But they are phases in the transition to super-state status. Nor is the Muslim religion to be taken seriously, but they ae coalescing scaffolds from which a super-state might emerge.

veya_victaous wrote:the Other thing your analysis missed is Asia, largely separate from the old Abrahamic nonsense. their pre existing religious structures fit much better with Secularism, let alone China that Under Mao destroyed the old institutions to give secularism and Solid foundation.

Very good point.

veya_victaous wrote:while some pot hole have caused things to slow in some nations, globally secularism is constantly rising. and not only that its is rising fastest in the strongest and most advanced nations.

Discuss secularism. I’m very interested in your ideas here.

veya_victaous wrote:And evolution is the constant drive to spread 'life'. While some are niche most life evolves in an attempt to thrive (although it will accept survive) The 'Super species' (in terms of Success) such as Humans, Ants, Flies, Influenza, Green Algae, Grass etc have adapted to meet a vast array of challenges to fill almost every available habitat on the Planet. And there is every reason to believe that If some how they ended up on another they would continue the evolutionary drive to try and thrive there too.

Or, perhaps the super-species will meet the fate of of mammal evolution: that there are liabilities to largeness, and those liabilities inhibit larger species from succeeding.

Science wrote:"Global temperature and the amount of land available as an animal's range are two ecological factors that appear to correlate with the evolution of maximum body size, but Gittleman warned against assigning cause and effect. "A big part of science is seeing patterns, and then producing new hypotheses and testing them," he said. "We have now identified this pattern very rigorously."

What are the geopolitical factors that would inhibit 'maximum super-state size'?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:38 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Or Conservationism is Change resistance because the easiest(least risky) path is to stay the way you are. they only change once forced too because enough others have already changed to make their old way insufficient to survive. An Example from human evolution is Nomad life style which once would have been the way most if not all humans, and humans thrived living like that. Settlements although requiring more work to establish and greater co-operation(same as globalisation) are ultimately stronger and more capable of survival than the prehistoric nomads tribes thus more and more converted to the settlement life style as it proved to be more effective. Now the catch 22 is that Humans are Communal thus individuals that may not have chosen the path on their own (maybe because it isn't the best for their individual strengths) but since they have better odds of survival sticking with the group they take it anyway.

I think you have hit the nail on the head: humans are communal. This is why conservatives so fear and loath socialism (beyond rational, and that is a clue): it is the recognition that the human is a social animal, and that recognition sets back their individual or selfish perspective, particularly in economics.

veya_victaous wrote:From all Religions there are converts to secularism, secularism eventually leads to globalisation and 'universal rights' as it moves away from tribal institutions and towards 'equality for citizens' it is only logical that once people accept all people of their nation are equally entitled it is not a great jump to suggest that All peoples should be equally entitled.

Again, are there limits to size? If so, what are they?

veya_victaous wrote:Do you know what conservative Athenians though was Appropriate dress and what they thought was 'liberal/progressive' disgust?
the opposite of Christian Europe, wearing robes that hang below the Knee where considered immoral as it suggested that you no longer work the Land (you were a lay about city dweller) Conservatives wore short robes so they could preform agricultural tasks without getting their clothes too dirty As was Tradition. (although many were rich politicians that probably wouldn't work fields)

Interesting.

by veya_victaous Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:36 am

I think Secularism is the breaking point where as humans we start being truly rational. when you break down the psychology of secularism. It is trust in other humans over a supernatural thus why Secularism and Humanism are intrinsically interlinked. To be truly secular you have to place the rules of man over the rules of your gods. It allows Democracy/Logic/Innovation to triumph over Tradition.. Which is the opposite of Theocracy.

it also creates the situation where Multiculturalism can exist (in a theocracy it is always going to be limited), Multiculturalism expands the individuals understanding of humanity through exposure if nothing else, some reject the lessons... but we can see similarities in that mind set and fundamentalism. And Personally I believe that fundamentalist movements are doomed by their very nature, their rigidity makes it difficult to adapt and man kinds technological progress means the ability to constantly adapt is becoming a necessity.

I don't understand you point about size? I don't think there is particularly any limit, I don't think we will see 100% Human unity, Possibly ever, but especially not until we find a species that directly challenges us. 'United Earth' is probable once we colonize other Planets, Several manga Sci-fi play on the idea of a "US revolution like" scenario where the 'old' Powers on Earth versus the new settlers in the 'outer colonies'.

by veya_victaous Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:53 am

stardesk wrote:Morning folks. I wasn't going to bother anymore, considering a new member's sarcastic comments to some of us, but having read some of the above I, as a bird watcher and nature lover, feel the need to comment on the rights to live and survive, ie:
Surely everything that exists has a right to that existance, basically because it exists in the first place. Just because we humans are aware of our own individuality as opposed to group/herd instincts, that doesn't give us the right to kill whatever we don't like. I believe that at the last count there are as many as 30,000,000 (thirty million) species of life on our planet, how desolate and boring it would be if we killed off eveything we didn't like.

But, sadly, we humans are an exception to the natural rule. We kill each other, not for food or territorial protection, but because someone somewhere believes in something different to ourselves. This is counter-productive to an advancement of all the human species. I know my comments may be seen as somewhat negative but I have to say we are an anomaly, we don't conform to that basic, natural rule, the natural scheme of things, we have placed ourselves over and above nature and think we can change it to suit ourselves, but as seen with places like the Amazon jungles, and other deforestation, the now rare species of fish, birds and animals, we are ruining the planet and will ultimately pay the price.

BTW, someone said, above, about plants and trees communicating with each other, I believe it was some years ago when this was poved, that yes they do, there is some kind of signal between one plant/tree and another, so talking to your plants and flowers may not be so daft as it looks.

Somewhat Agree (99%), But I actually think there are other species (like cats) where they would be as destructive or more if they had our capacity
(I said it about plants Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 4 1589716573

Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 4 1589716573

)

Think about this ....
But What if Animals Actually do have 'gods'? What If Wolf's Pack Instincts aren't as instinctive as we think (we do like to be special, how long until we admitted people of different skin colour actually had feelings Neutral

), and they are raised being taught to trust their pack and hate the others?
Consider... that even when we think we are fighting for ideals, are we not really fighting so that 'our ideals' (and therefore our tribe) Control the resources that another and 'their ideals' currently controls?
Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 4 3893789544

Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine - Page 4 3893789544

by Sponsored content