SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 135
  1. #101
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly
    The rules of these threads have not been followed in strict accordance as stated. I think its biased for advisors to make comments in a thread and then close it because of personal attacks especially if they are the one attacking. Calling someone a "pathetic waste of flesh" is just as bad as calling someone ignorant for their opinion. Everyone is guilty of it in one form or another - from advisors to SP enthusiasts.


    I would hate to see this thread closed based on personal attacks because its an interesting debate and one that warrants a discussion. Altough I don't completely agree with HB, I still believe he is entitled to his opinion, right or wrong. And if we can't continue this discussion as adults, then someone other than the advisors that made comments in this thread should see fit to close it if necessary.

    I'm looking forward to hearing other comments about "Natural Selection and evolution in Modern Society." So can we please continue on with this without attacking each other like elementary school children?
    I agree... This thread is now on my watch list and will be summarily closed on the next transgression of the guidelines. And they are guidelines. We try to examine each issue on a case by case basis and make the proper determination for the best interests of the community as a whole. If we simply blindly followed static rules, we wouldn't be able to evolve and succeed.

    Now, I return you to deciding the socio-economic fate of the world's less unfortunate.
    Last edited by Hierophant; Nov 2, 2002 at 01:09.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  2. #102
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by jofa
    I'm still wondering: In what way is modern society not a part of nature/evolution?
    And this: "...if nature were truly allowed to take its course." ???
    What is the true nature of nature?
    Obviously, according to HB, some outcomes of evolution aren't truly evolutionary
    Jofa I have been deliberately avoiding this question because it is somewhat tricky. However I will attempt to explain. Through this supposed blessing of "Social Evolution" the number of humans has exploded (because we are all equal with a "right" to live). The Earth has finite resources. Increasing our population/consumption places severe stress on the natural processes that renew some resources and deplete those resources that cannot be renewed. This is not natural. If the weak,,, Never mind it's very late and im to tired to think properly. Ill pick this up later tomorrow
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  3. #103
    SitePoint Zealot akohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hellbent
    Due to "societal norms" it is no longer acceptable to allow the weak to die off...
    Those who are genetically inferior are allowed to breed as well as other undesirables...
    Through our own benevolence we ensure the delabrement of our species. We are systematically counteracting the evolution of our species.
    You confuse the idea of selective breeding with evolution.

    Evolution is a process that takes thousands of generations and could not possibly be influenced significatnly by the social philosophy of any human group, even if it prevades a major portion of the world community for several decades, or even a few centuries.

    Evolution forwards modifications in a species based on ever so slight breeding advantages that remain valid in the ENTIRE enviorment of the species for many THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS.

    Selective breeding is where you have control of the breeding of a specific population and you decide which members live, die and breed. This works with a flock of sheep. And it would work with humans as well, if somebody posessed a flock of humans that could be isolated from the rest of humanity.

    But this human contolled process of selected breeding is not as powerful as evolution. Its can give you a stronger flock of sheep, better wool, higher SAT scores and so on. But only evolution, which is powered by the abundance of time and probably all sorts of clever functions built into nature to ensure that the changes are the "right" ones, can modify a species significantly enough to lead to the development of a truly superior species as opposed to just a stronger population of the same species.


    Another problem with applying some method of selective breeding to homeless, handicapped and other "undesireables" is that you will find that they (or perhaps I should say "we") will continue to breed even if you cut off benefits. You don't need a life expentancy of 60+ to breed. You don't need a high standard of living to breed. In fact birth rates are known to corrolate negatively with living standards and education. I think that for your selective breeding program to work you would have to use an aggressive gene elimination policy. Cutting off benefits would probably have very little effect.

    Originally posted by Hellbent
    And to speak out against such aid is to be categorized amongst the most evil of men.
    One can speak out against such aid without being categorized amongst the most evil men if you make a case that such aid is bad for the economy or creates a mentality of dependence among the poor and is therefore bad social policy. If you speak out against such aid because you want a group of individuals to die off so that resources currently devoted to them can be redirected to a group of which you are a memeber, which is your argument, well yes, such a position is usually associated with the most evil of men. But you said it first. Not me.

    Originally posted by Bill Posters
    What needs to be recognised here is that the evolution of humankind is no longer a purely physiological process. Humankind has now evolved to the degree that our societal habits and instincts for empathy strongly suggest that, for us, evolution is also an intellectual process.

    In fact, it could well be argued that the physiological aspects of human evolution have now taken a back seat to cerebral and spiritual (for want of a better term) evolution.
    Bill. Is not the brain a physical organ? How did it get to the advanced level of development that we have today if not by evolution? Steven Pinker probably talks about this in his new book, "The Blank Slate". All sorts of psychological and intellectual abilities and traits are genetic and have been created by evolution, according to Pinker.

    My point is that you are underestimating the power of evolution and therefore missing the real flaws in Hellbent's arguments.


    More needs to be said about the moral issues in Hellbent's arguments. Also, there are some other side-issues that have come up in this thread which are really interesting and I would love to comment on when I have the time.

    And finally, I really enjoyed reading the personal life stories of Hellbent and RKuhle. You guys are both marvelous products of evolution full of tenacity, inner strength and talent.

    Just one final note to Hellbent, if your system of selective breeding really worked, although I don't think it would, and had been implemented in the past to strengthen the human species, supermen like you would be a dime a dozen and your extraordinary qualities might not have been enough to merit your survival and prosperity against all odds as you have described it.

  4. #104
    SitePoint Wizard Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    3,847
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by johnn
    Somehow, when I read hellbent words remind me about the Nazis sent people with mental disabilities to gas chambers. (not just the Jews)
    Same here - Hitler believed that the germans were the true people, the arian race. Yet he was a short, brown haired, brown eyed, not exactly attractive little man - what a hypocrit!

    However I think he did show one thing - it doesn't matter about your physical appearence or much else for that matter, anyone can become one of the most powerful leaders the world has seen.

    Just becuase its our natural instinct to do something doesn't mean its right to... Discrimination is part of us, part of our instincts. Its a fact that having a white person identify a black person is un-reliable, because we see other 'races' through a sterotype of how they look. I think everyone here agrees racism is un-acceptable, right 1 nature 0!

    Rick

    P.s. Sorry I havn't made my point very well! I'm tired, if I really don't make sense I'll explain what I mean!
    Rick

  5. #105
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I’m not talking about discrimination or selective breeding programs. Nature will do the "selecting" for us if we allow it to take it's course.

    Originally posted by akohl
    If you speak out against such aid because you want a group of individuals to die off so that resources currently devoted to them can be redirected to a group of which you are a memeber, which is your argument, well yes, such a position is usually associated with the most evil of men. But you said it first. Not me.
    So it is evil not to enable the weak? To keep what you earn for those who actually are capable of producing for themselves and others? If this is the case consider me evil absolute.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  6. #106
    SitePoint Zealot akohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hellbent
    So it is evil not to enable the weak? To keep what you earn for those who actually are capable of producing for themselves and others? If this is the case consider me evil absolute. [/B]
    Its evil to try to eliminate a group so that you can get the resources that they would otherwise get even if you are the source of those resources. Again, the moral problem with your position is BECAUSE of your expectation that cutting off aid to these people will cause them to die off. I personally think that if you cut off aid, the weak and "undeseirables" in your eyes would prove a lot more resiliant than you think.

    But, If you just want to keep your own money and let others fend for themselves, that would not be the worst kind of evil. That would just be lack of generosity, which is bad enough.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Akohl, do you believe that it is *as evil* to 'withdraw' resources that are currently given as it is to 'not offer' those resources in the first place?

    It's just a brief point of principle.

    Regarding your point about resilience:
    If, as you say, those in question *can* fend for themselves more successfully than they currently are, then Hellbent's next question would surely be - why don't they?

    I may not share his views, but the logic would be reasonable were he to ask that question.

    HB's position is based on letting nature (or God, if that's your bag) be the line-judge regarding an individual's 'worthiness'.
    If they are left unaided and still manage to survive then presumably they have proved their worthiness.
    I feel that these are not the people that HB is targeting.
    HB's position principally concerns those who *would* otherwise perish.
    I think the words coming out of HB's mouth are noxious enough already without you trying to put similar words into it.

    --

    If we're talking about concepts of evil, let's not forget that once you reach the age of 'three score and ten' Nature/God will be sizing you up for a toe tag too.
    Nature/God must surely be the greatest mass murderer in the history of the planet. Nature/God kills *everyone* left standing after man and man's actions have already done their worst.
    'Man's inhumanity to man' and man's stupidity are like the proverbial p**s in the ocean compared to nature's/god's kill count.

    By the presumption that to *not* intervene in cases where people need resources to stay alive is evil; it follows that the belief must be that Nature/God must be wrong in its/his/her decision and that intervention is needed to counteract the effect of this 'evil'.

    This last point can easily be explored and can lead to really interesting questions about man's graduation to god status and the rights and wrongs of it according to religious/science-religious/scientific positions.
    God may have made man in his own likeness more than many are willing to acknowledge.

    --

    Just to reiterate, I don't share these positions, but I'll willingly turn devil's advocate when points of logic are being missed (all for the sake of a good debate, of course).

    Alternatively, I may just be looking for an argument to spice up an otherwise dull and wet Wednesday morning.
    Last edited by Bill Posters; Nov 6, 2002 at 02:33.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  8. #108
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Bill Posters

    Alternatively, I may just be looking for an argument to spice up an otherwise dull and wet Wednesday morning.
    Aint that the truth

    Think I'll read through the thread in full and throw some trite opinion into the pot later
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  9. #109
    SitePoint Zealot akohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Bill Posters
    Akohl, do you believe that it is *as evil* to 'withdraw' resources that are currently given as it is to 'not offer' those resources in the first place?
    Withdrawing would hurt more because that would be worsening the condition of the needy, as opposed to not improving.

    But it wouldn't neccesarily be evil at all. It depends on the motivation.

    Originally posted by Bill Posters

    Regarding your point about resilience:
    If, as you say, those in question *can* fend for themselves more successfully than they currently are, then Hellbent's next question would surely be - why don't they?
    I'm not saying that they would fend for themselves WELL. Are the masses of poor in India or Brazil fending well for themselves? No. But they are breeding nevertheless. Lack of social benefits have not caused them to die off, as Hellbent suggests.


    Originally posted by Bill Posters

    If they are left unaided and still manage to survive then presumably they have proved their worthiness.
    I feel that these are not the people that HB is targeting.
    HB's position principally concerns those who *would* otherwise perish.
    In other words a small fraction of the population receiving benefits and an even smaller portion of the general population, some of whome would probably be supported by relatives even if benfits were withdrawen. C'mon, is the premature death of these few sorry individuals really going to make a siginificant impact on the gene pool? Is Hellbent suggesting not only that government support be withdrawen but that familial support of the weak and undesireable be made illegal as well?

    Believe me. I'm not trying to read more evil into Hellbent's position than is already there. I'm just trying to make sense of it.

    If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.



    Originally posted by Bill Posters

    By the presumption that to *not* intervene in cases where people need resources to stay alive is evil; it follows that the belief must be that Nature/God must be wrong in its/his/her decision and that intervention is needed to counteract the effect of this 'evil'.

    Your theological reasoning has got me short circuted. My gut feeling is that theology is a waste of time.

    But lets take a look at the ethical question from a different perspective. You are sitting at home at your dinner table and one of your guests is handicapped and cannot feed himself. Are you going to let him go hungry right there in your own dinning room out of respect for the laws of nature? Or are you going to spoon feed him?

    Hellbent is a big talker. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he would intervene to prevent outcome of the evolutionary principle if was about to take place in his own living room.

  10. #110
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by akohl

    But lets take a look at the ethical question from a different perspective. You are sitting at home at your dinner table and one of your guests is handicapped and cannot feed himself. Are you going to let him go hungry right there in your own dinning room out of respect for the laws of nature? Or are you going to spoon feed him?

    Hellbent is a big talker. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he would intervene to prevent outcome of the evolutionary principle if was about to take place in his own living room.
    You might just have me on that point. No matter what I believe about evolution and the social decay of evolution, I have some rules in my home. No one goes hungry at my dinner table. However I find it unlikely that an invalid would be invited to my home for dinner. And on the off chance it happened, he had better have taken the necessary steps to have a nurse or something with him.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  11. #111
    SitePoint Zealot akohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hellbent

    You might just have me on that point. No matter what I believe about evolution and the social decay of evolution, I have some rules in my home. No one goes hungry at my dinner table.
    My next question is; How do you define "my home". Most people mean it the way you do. Others feel connected enough to their community to apply high standards of social responsibility to a larger domain.

    If you knew that your next door neighbor was hungry, would you send him some food? Would you feel comfortable going to sleep at night knowing that he was going to sleep hungry?

    How about the neighbor accross the road? Or on the other side of town, or in the next villiage?


    Originally posted by Hellbent

    However I find it unlikely that an invalid would be invited to my home for dinner. And on the off chance it happened, he had better have taken the necessary steps to have a nurse or something with him.
    What if he were your own son?

    I think in that case you would be the one to take those necessary steps... whatever the cost.

  12. #112
    Sultan of Ping jofa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Svj
    Posts
    4,080
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by akohl
    ...You are sitting at home at your dinner table and one of your guests is handicapped and cannot feed himself. Are you going to let him go hungry right there in your own dinning room out of respect for the laws of nature? ...
    Following the laws of nature could also mean this; evolution made me a type of human being that helps other people, so out of respect for the laws of nature I don't let him go hungry.

  13. #113
    SitePoint Zealot akohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Jofa I think you are 100% right.

    I would put the same idea like this;

    "We are human beings. Let's act like it!"

  14. #114
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by akohl


    My next question is; How do you define "my home". Most people mean it the way you do. Others feel connected enough to their community to apply high standards of social responsibility to a larger domain.

    If you knew that your next door neighbor was hungry, would you send him some food? Would you feel comfortable going to sleep at night knowing that he was going to sleep hungry?

    How about the neighbor accross the road? Or on the other side of town, or in the next villiage?
    My neighbor should have made better choices. He would be hungry until his last day if he waited for my assistance.


    Originally posted by akohl
    What if he were your own son?

    I think in that case you would be the one to take those necessary steps... whatever the cost.
    If my son was grown he would be on his own. He would not be much of a man if he could not provide for himself.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  15. #115
    SitePoint Zealot akohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Hellbent

    If my son was grown he would be on his own. He would not be much of a man if he could not provide for himself.
    /QUOTE]

    That's the point of this hypothetical. He's not much of a man. He can't survive without parental support. If he's treated like you were he would be dead before he reached adulthood. And even as an adult, he needs your daily support moral, financial, and physical.

    He's your own son. Do you let him die?

  16. #116
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by akohl
    Originally posted by Hellbent

    If my son was grown he would be on his own. He would not be much of a man if he could not provide for himself.
    /QUOTE]

    That's the point of this hypothetical. He's not much of a man. He can't survive without parental support. If he's treated like you were he would be dead before he reached adulthood. And even as an adult, he needs your daily support moral, financial, and physical.

    He's your own son. Do you let him die?
    I would have to.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  17. #117
    SitePoint Wizard johnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    1,181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    By Hellbent
    I would have to.
    Incredible! That reflects when you were young, you didn't have love and support by your parents. You probably treat your child the same as your mom has treated you.

  18. #118
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hellbent


    I would have to.
    Aah, the return of the HB of old. Talking big and fooling no-one. (well, perhaps johnn)

    I think you just crossed a line from having a thread of reason in your statements to talking utter bs in order not to concede the point.

    The point is that you wouldn't "have to" at all. I would wager heavily that you'd do what you could just like the rest of us if it ever came to the crunch.

    Do you really believe that you have the strength of character needed to be able to sit and do nothing while your own child dies when you have it within your powers to save their life?
    Based on the evidence of your personality that is displayed on these boards I'd say that you are seriously deluding yourself.

    Complete strength in the face of hypothetical situations is always unerring. But you give yourself far more credit than you deserve when it comes to sticking to principles in practice whatever the cost.
    I doubt very much that you have the level of 'grand' integrity that you like to think you have. You've simply lapsed back into being little more than a person who so desperately wants to be great/different/remembered/noticed that you'd manufacture an untrue persona that you could use to lie to yourself and be convinced.

    You've also lost what little credibility you had managed to muster here as a rational thinker.
    You may think that repeating the same slogans over and over passes as an actual set of beliefs, but others can see your hollow rhetoric for what it is.
    Others are not so easily fooled by your words as you yourself seem to be.

    Come out of the closet, HB. Say it loud - you're average and proud!

    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  19. #119
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Bill Posters


    Aah, the return of the HB of old. Talking big and fooling no one. (well, perhaps johnn)

    I think you just crossed a line from having a thread of reason in your statements to talking utter bs in order not to concede the point.

    The point is that you wouldn't "have to" at all. I would wager heavily that you'd do what you could just like the rest of us if it ever came to the crunch.

    Do you really believe that you have the strength of character needed to be able to sit and do nothing while your own child dies when you have it within your powers to save their life?
    Based on the evidence of your personality that is displayed on these boards I'd say that you are seriously deluding yourself.

    Complete strength in the face of hypothetical situations is always unerring. But you give yourself far more credit than you deserve when it comes to sticking to principles in practice whatever the cost.
    I doubt very much that you have the level of 'grand' integrity that you like to think you have. You've simply lapsed back into being little more than a person who so desperately wants to be great/different/remembered/noticed that you'd manufacture an untrue persona that you could use to lie to yourself and be convinced.
    You know what Bill, Your right. After I posted here I kept tossing that question around in my head. It started to bother me, Of course my gut response suits my argument. However I got to thinking, If it were truly my son and for some reason he ignored everything I taught him about self-reliance and being a man im not so sure I could let him die off. Upon further pondering of "what would I really do" I decided I would most likely force him to join the service. They have ways of changing a mans ability to fend for himself. Failing that I would make it miserable at home in an attempt to spur him into growth and self-reliance.

    Originally posted by Bill Posters

    You've also lost what little credibility you had managed to muster here as a rational thinker.
    You may think that repeating the same slogans over and over passes as an actual set of beliefs, but others can see your hollow rhetoric for what it is.
    Others are not so easily fooled by your words as you yourself seem to be.

    Come out of the closet, HB. Say it loud - you're average and proud!

    Hollow rhetoric? I find myself amused and somewhat offended by the second quoted paragraph. My beliefs and yours differ and have differed in the past. And albeit it odd for me, I never even considered I was not being taken at my word. I have heard the chanting of "troll" and "flame bait" and dismissed them. My presence in this online community I consider very credible and anything but hollow posturing. As I have explained before I use this forum as a place to toss around my true ideas and feelings with others who do not share similar mindsets. You presume to know an awful lot about my motivations, However I assure you no matter how eloquent and well-contrived responses have been in the past, this time you are wrong.

    I am not unyielding, when I am wrong I say so. For instance I made a comment to mmi once regarding Rhode Island, I had my head up my *** and barked out a statement I had not researched. He proved me wrong and I retracted my statement and thanked him for educating me on the subject.

    I take what I consider to be logical and reasonable and apply it to my Life Philosophy, If you know a better way to define your belief structure im all ears.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  20. #120
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's perfectly fine, but it should be recognised by all, including yourself, that there is often a chasm between what we *think* should be done and what we ourselves would be willing to do.
    It takes a person with unusually strong stomach to stick to strong principles.
    I'd wager that no-one here has the intestinal fortitude that is neccessary to see their most radical ideals through to the end (regardless of where that takes them.)

    Talking 'big' is easy to do when principles aren't being put to the test.
    All I'm saying is that a greater degree of honesty in the way people formulate and relate their ideas would save alot of time wasted on posting and reacting to a set of beliefs that are unshared by others and quite possibly even those who posted them.

    Anything less is really only flamebait. Surely someone with your intelligence should have no need to resort to the illusion of an unlikely strength of conviction when the only thing it produces is a bloody-minded hardening of positions.

    Don't get me wrong. I too have certain views on certain subjects that would be considered unsavoury by some. I will gladly discuss them for their philosophical value in their unadulterated form.
    However, I'm realistic enough to appreciate that they have limited value in terms of effecting sudden and great change amongst others.

    Quite often, it is neccessary to moderate the presentation of an idea in order for it to have any currency. It doesn't neccessarily mean that the principle has change, just the tactic.

    Positioning one's rhetoric so far outside the 'norm' just smacks of 'protesting too much', methinks.
    Even if sincere, there are more effective ways of convincing people of an argument and bringing them round to a certain way of thinking.

    Anyway, it's all good
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  21. #121
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Bill Posters
    That's perfectly fine, but it should be recognized by all, including yourself, that there is often a chasm between what we *think* should be done and what we ourselves would be willing to do.
    It takes a person with unusually strong stomach to stick to strong principles.
    I'd wager that no one here has the intestinal fortitude that is necessary to see his or her most radical ideals through to the end (regardless of where that takes them.)

    Talking 'big' is easy to do when principles aren't being put to the test.
    All I'm saying is that a greater degree of honesty in the way people formulate and relate their ideas would save a lot of time wasted on posting and reacting to a set of beliefs that are unshared by others and quite possibly even those who posted them.

    Anything less is really only flame bait. Surely someone with your intelligence should have no need to resort to the illusion of an unlikely strength of conviction when the only thing it produces is a bloody-minded hardening of positions.

    Don't get me wrong. I too have certain views on certain subjects that would be considered unsavory by some. I will gladly discuss them for their philosophical value in their unadulterated form.
    However, I'm realistic enough to appreciate that they have limited value in terms of effecting sudden and great change amongst others.

    Quite often, it is necessary to moderate the presentation of an idea in order for it to have any currency. It doesn't necessarily mean that the principle has change, just the tactic.

    Positioning one's rhetoric so far outside the 'norm' just smacks of 'protesting too much', methinks.
    Even if sincere, there are more effective ways of convincing people of an argument and bringing them round to a certain way of thinking.

    Anyway, it's all good
    Bill, First off as usual I am struck by the elegance and completeness of your response. Second, and also as usual I believe you mistake my intentions. No one will be converted to Hellbentism by the words I type here. I am simply sharing my ideas and views. Those holding opposing views here at sitepoint have actually taught me a great deal. You would not believe how great it is when you make a post on a subject that you feel you know every nuance of only to have someone mention something that you did not know. When that happens I learn a good deal researching the new aspect of the subject.

    Between yourself, TheOrginalH, akohl, mmi, Polymath, W. Luke, etc. I have been forced on many occasions to rethink certain philosophies I hold and rarely even amend them. I can only hope I have similar effects on the lot of you.

    I can be fiercely bull headed at times and when it comes to a debate I have been known to lose sight of the subject and focus purely on winning the debate. That is a character flaw that I am actively targeting. I much like any normal person attempt to better myself through education and exposure to differing philosophies. Some philosophies or lifestyles I choose to avoid because of my beliefs.

    So those are my true intentions Bill, This may or may not clear up some of my postings for you. I am by no means perfect, and I do have somewhat of an ego. Where im from pride in yourself is a beneficial character trait. It is also to use an old metaphor "a lot like cologne, nice in small amounts and overpowering in large amounts". Tempering my statements has never been my style. I have no idea why im bothering to explain myself instead of the topic, but like I said I found your earlier statement about me having a "manufactured an untrue persona" agitating and hurtful at the same time.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.

  22. #122
    SitePoint Wizard Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    3,847
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hellbent
    I can be fiercely bull headed at times and when it comes to a debate I have been known to lose sight of the subject and focus purely on winning the debate. That is a character flaw that I am actively targeting. I much like any normal person attempt to better myself through education and exposure to differing philosophies. Some philosophies or lifestyles I choose to avoid because of my beliefs.
    and I certainly havn't noticed that I get a bit like that too, in a few threads I had become hellbent (no pun intended) on winning, only when I read some members excellent comments did I re-evaluate my argument.

    I agree with Hellbent for once, I have learn't loads on Site Point Forums, far more than simply new skills - various members comments have made me re-evaluate my own view on life.

    I am completly intollerant of Racism, Sexism, Homophobia etc and I will argue any one who is to the death, its only through comments in Gay Couples and Children... thread that I have come to look at the 'other side of the coin' that in taking away peoples right to be racist, homophobic we would become intollerant of them and would be taking away their free speach - as long as people don't stop others from doing something, or physicly attack them I don't care what they think.

    This is a great thread, its been very interesting viewing peoples comments on the subject.

    Still I have a battle to win... off to the Gay Couples and Children thread

    Rick
    Rick

  23. #123
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Hellbent
    I also like the obvious disregard for the fact Jigokudani park is just that, a park. The monkey's are not subject to natural predators.
    Are men subject to natural predators?
    [blogger: zengun] [blogware contributor: wordpress]

  24. #124
    SitePoint Wizard Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    3,847
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Depends what you mean.

    At the moment we don't have any, but if Jurassic Park were ever to become a reality (hmmmmm.... ) we would have some tough competiton

    Rick
    Rick

  25. #125
    Chikin Choker Hellbent's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Arlington, Texas
    Posts
    210
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by zoo
    Depends what you mean.

    At the moment we don't have any, but if Jurassic Park were ever to become a reality (hmmmmm.... ) we would have some tough competiton

    Rick
    You have more cause to worry about a mutant flu virus than dinosuars.
    Straight from the TP! And I don't mean the Trailer Park.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •