Call For Civility

“A chick showed me her boobs at the bar I went to tonight. My fiance thought it was funny.”

“SC, I am also mild, but am so physically aggressive I always have at least one.I'm 63, so I'm slowing down on the bone breaker stuff.”

“weird.
i showed my weiner to a chick last night but her fiance didn't think it was so funny.”

“WOW Uncliff. I havent known anyone else since I was pretty young that had it and everyone I had met with it was saddly, much worse. Either wheelchair bound and dwarfed or couldnt live on hier own without constant help. My grandparnets and I went to a convention once and I was very shocked to see how bad it can be. Most of my bone breaking was when I was younger, i was a pretty goofy kid- fearless and dumb LOL! They didnt find out I had it untill I was 11 but that didnt stop me from jumping outta those trees or skate boarding lol! Nobody would of even known to check for that except that I had broken my back one day falling down a very small cliff.
last edited: 4/08/06 8:42:05 AM”

“LMFAO Sacco!!!!!!!!!!!”

“Sarge, sorry to hear you're having such a hard time.
But something in your post I must take issue with....

You stated "...human nature says there will be conflict. It's natural."

It's learned behavior, amigo.

Despite the popular myth, there is no universal human nature. There's no "war" gene or a "conflict" gene or a natural predisposition to conflict in humans.

Some well known folks in behavioral science have tried to prove this, but have been unsuccessful and have met vigorous refutation in academe, especially in cultural anthropology. We do know behavioral genetics have shown certain behavioral characteristics are inheritable, but violence is not one of them.

Sorry to nitpick, but if we're to ever remove the type of conflict you're bringing to light, we have to stop perpetuating the notion that this sort of conflict is a normal part of life. It's not.
last edited: 4/08/06 10:13:26 AM”

“I have spent many minutes/hours/days of my life debating politics with various people. Since I am a conservative, the vast majority of people I have debated were liberal. The more time each of those conversations went on, the more likely they would lead to a recognizable common denominator of our differences.

It seems that the basis for the differences between most liberal and conservative political policies boils down to the resolution of the nature of human beings. That is, should we conclude that human nature is naturally good, or evil?

An example of a political conflict is: What do we do about pollution?

For simplification sake, let me provide two possible solutions.

A liberal looks at human nature as naturally good. Society is what has turned the person's nature into something it wasn't at birth. Advertising from corporations who compete for your money, competition in the schools, both at the academic and the social levels, and the flamboyant American lifestyle has molded a young baby into an adult with a self-centered attitude regarding life.

A conservative, on the other hand, believes man is evil by nature. He is a creature that is inherently self-centered, and through proper parenting, a good set of friends, logic and reasoning, and even a bit of spiritual influence, a person can grow to be a fine, up-standing citizen.

So, how do these viewpoints affect political choices? Let's first take the liberal approach. Since people are inherently good, if we were to work on molding society in such a way as it would provide an atmosphere for man's natural goodness to reveal itself, we can solve many problems. With pollution we need to set-up recycling centers and create laws where people must put their trash into separate bins, depending on the materials. A factory can sort-out the trash into proper stacks and we can recycle the materials. If we can tell people enough, put enough signs up or through the school system or on the trash itself, we can remind people of their natural desire to protect the earth.

These measures are temporary, by the way, mere band-aids to fix the societal mess we currently find ourselves in. Through indoctrination and persistent schooling, eventually protecting our environment will be apart of our way of living. We can eventually drop these reminders, and through a society that has the proper systems in place, and maybe even a bit of intellectual evolution, eventually we will rid the earth of polluters. To be a polluter in the future would be so shunned upon by society, nobody would even dare try. Those that do, we have therapy available for your mental disease.

Now, the conservative believes that man, by his very nature, prioritizes his actions based on what will benefit him the most. Shall I conserve bodily energy and not walk the extra distance to the recycling bin when the trash can is right here, or shall I go the extra distance for the betterment of mankind?

The conservative believes that without instruction the person would put the trash in the closer trash can. Through a good belief system and a heart for others, the man will take the extra steps to the recycling bin. His heart has changed, and now he's less self-centered, and more loving to others.

The two solutions sound almost identical, but the difference lies in the focus - where do we put our resources? One emphasizes the need to change the environment, while the other focuses on changing the heart of the individual.

Who is correct? Is man naturally good, born wanting to do the right thing, but conforming to an improperly built society and possibly being lead astray; or is man evil by nature, born looking out for himself, but with proper upbringing matured into something else, someone more civilized?

In this brief thesis I will attempt to resolve this in an unusual way. I will put my personal beliefs aside, for the sake of discussion, and make my argument using a conviction of the liberals. I will assume for this that the liberal scientist is correct in that man is a product of millions of years of evolution.

What is our nature?

Thirteen billion years ago, before humans even existed, human nature was born. In one brief instant, there was a tear in the space/time fabric. In less than a second, space and time went from non-existent to existent. There was the "big-bang".

In that bang there was everything. Everything that ever has does or will exist in this universe was contained in that infinitesimally small collection of all the matter needed to form every star, planet, tree, rock and human being.

Everything grew out of that expansion. In one instant, every bit of matter was within an inch of every other bit of matter, and in another, they were miles apart. As the mass grew, the matter went through massive change. Everything was related to and affected every other thing. Collisions, temperatures, gravities, all pushing and pulling and speeding up and slowing down each other.

Eventually what will come to be known as the earth was whizzing through space as a hot ball of molten matter. Chunks flew off and pieces flew in, but for the most part, every bit of you was there. You just hadn't come together quite yet.

The earth cooled. Water was formed and collected into a giant ocean. At some point, some millions of years ago, conditions were just so that life was born. Slowly, plants and animals began to evolve at a cellular level.

Early on, people did not look like people. We were more than likely a very "primitive" primate like creature. We even had a tail if you go back far enough. We weren't thinking like people then. We were in survivor mode just like all the other animals on the planet. We didn't know music or art or mathematics or culture. We didn't know it is proper to say "please" and "thank you", nor could we comprehend what they meant.

We were attacked by other earthly creatures, we were even attacked by ourselves. We hunted food. Food hunted us.

Sometime about 16 million years ago things began to quickly change. We got smarter. Our relationships with one another began to resemble relationships of today. At some point, families stayed together. Language developed. Rules were slowly established, even before mathematics.

Our relationship with plants and other animals was evolving as well. We slowly learned about farming plants and animals. We eventually farmed plants and animals not just for food, but for entertainment. We began to paint. We invented weapons and tools. All the while we were getting a little less hairy, a little less toothy, and standing a little taller.

Finally, civilization began to form in a more modern state. Laws were established. Governments were formed. Nations were built.

The whole time, from 13 billion years ago to the present day, our nature was present and evolving. Modern "human nature" is a result of all those events combined.

Human nature is what has resulted from that evolution. What you see is what you get. Human nature is lying, stealing, murdering, adultery. Sure, there are good traits too, like love and culture. But each of those traits, "good" and "bad", are a result of a nature designed for survival, a selfish desire for survival. Human nature is what it is because that is how we evolved in a best attempt to "fit" into the environment in which we were grown.

Liberals claim that if we would alter the environment, human nature would change. But, that's not so. Human nature is by it's nature designed for this world in it's current state. The world has not corrupted us. We are the world. We are as much a part of the world as the rocks, fish and mountains.

Alter the environment and you'll only mask human nature. Make everything instantly biodegradable upon the end of it's usefulness and human nature will still be to litter, only now they won't have the opportunity to litter.

Evil is inherent in everyone's nature. If we work to change our hearts we can become more civilized creatures of this planet. By denying ourselves we will never solve any of the world's problems.”

“then why keep coming back?...

Like I just said, "This thread has shown me the light."

last word”
Sarge
1:06:25 PM
4/06/06


Anyone have 24 hours?”

“from that standpoint, i would be considered conservative. i believe all biological entities are constantly doing the self-serving thing. even people who "do right" only do it to ease their conscience, feel good about themselves, have others indebted to them, etc. there is no selfless deed. not the fireman who rushes into a burning building to save a child. not the soldier who risks his life every day. they all have something to gain, often something intangible but no less real to them. there is no such thing as heroism. those who risk their lives have to believe there is an eternal reward for them, or else they would cling to life as if it was more precious than gold. it has also been demonstrated that even acts that are seemingly blatant instances of self-sacrifice in animals are really just the result of natural selection selecting for survival those individuals who look out for other members of their groups or species.

this is an interesting discussion youve started here, sargeant.”

“theres a book you may find interesting to read, s-rge. its called "dark nature" with the subtitle something something something evil. its a good read. i can look it up if you want”

“No, I didn't have 24 hours. I had never gone:

“Leo: You think he's gone? He's not gone ! He's never gone !!

Bob: Is this some radical new therapy ?

Leo: YOU SEE ??”


Geobeet
2:16:24 PM
4/06/06”

“Dude, I am not reading all of that!
you should know by now anything over 3 lines we all lose interest.”

“But geo's post only has 4 lines, mapes. Come on, go for it!”

“First of all Sarge, this isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. Perhaps you see it that way, but I don't. I simply want to see a view such as yours tested. When scientifically tested, your view doesn't hold up.

It only takes one negative example to disprove any proposition. That's why we use the null hypothesis in the hypthetico-deductive method of theory confirmation. You've stated that warring confrontation between societies and individuals is human nature. I can provide numerous examples to the contrary, and in doing so would therefore disprove your proposition. Do a quick search on egalitarian societies....

And I don't know this, but it sounds like your views may be colored and influenced by religion, because you're making some leaps and injecting words like "evil," a concept that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.

I'd like to see a study that has been endorsed by both evolutionary psychologists and cultural anthropologists that supports your view. It's very Hobbesian, but Hobbes isn't considered a scientific authority.

And to Crash Bang who believes that "all biological entities are constantly doing the self-serving thing." This isn't necessarily true, either. Life is of course unitary, in the sense that the basic molecular architectures of humans, redwoods and slime molds all indicate a common ancestor. Yet, life is also multiform, in a profusion that has arisen over 3.5 billion years through ceaseless interactions between living creatures and their non-living surround.

In today's world, the word "struggle" is endowed with Hobbesian and Social-Darwinian meanings: struggle is the war against all, and the survival of the fittest in a regime of continual mutual aggression. This notion was not Darwin's, and it is not only ideologically distorted, but factually wrong. By no means do all creatures behave in this way. In fact, no creature, not even the "king of the jungle," endures wholly through predation; while for the simplist creatures, those microscopic cellular beings on which the entire biosphere rests, the Social-Darwinian notion that is without meaning. As the British palaeontologist Richard Fortey points out, the first "sustainable" systems, the mat creatures or stromatolites whose lineage goes 3 billion years back to the Precambian period (roughly 2.4 billion years before the emergence of more complex multicellular organisms), and that still endure in certain protected locales, are composed of layers of prokaryotic bacteria, the topmost, doing photosynthesis, the lower layers breaking down the waste products of the upper by fermentation, the whole given structure and nutrient by trapped grains of minerals. It's a sustainable system in miniature, one where existence at base can be thought of as reciprocal rather than competitive. These humble structures are the birth of ecosystems.

And not only is warring behavior and conflict not human nature, we now know (thanks to a recently released study at Stanford) that you can take highly violent mammals from one community and place them in a community that is non-violent and the formerly violent mammals observe, learn and embrace the egalitarian behavior observed in the new community.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030406I.shtml”

“i never read geos posts. its all crap anyway





ducking under the table”

“ok this is not right, do i really have to read all of this?”

“no”

“thank goodness”

“Yes.”

“shut up you!!!!!!

ok you read it and tell me what was said!”

“mapes, check your e-mail :P”

“I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Can i have an email too?”

“no. :D”

“dammit. Can Dani have an email?”

“Does Dani backpack?”

“who is dani? his alter ego?”

“hey BM, got a pic of Dani. She has to be a special person to put up with you ;)”

“im not necessarily saying its natural to always be warring, predatory, competitive, etc. sometimes it is in an organisms best interest to be cooperative, nurturing, peaceful, etc. but an organism will only be those things if evolution has selected its behaviour to be that way because it is in that organisms best behaviour.

btw, i by no means claim to be an expert. im just paraphrasing some of the stuff that stuck out to me from books ive read.
last edited: 4/09/06 6:18:42 AM”

“however, i do agree that this is not a liberal/conservative issue.

take the so-called "liberal" who calls for highly regulated big business and the conservative who believes in a free market. it seems to me that the liberal has less faith in the good nature of man, believing that people need to be forced by strict laws to do the right thing, while the conservative believes the natural course of events will lead people to do the right thing. this is opposite of s-rge's view.

many, if not most christians are conservative, and seem to believe that human nature is evil or bad (going along with s-rge's theory), and only by the grace of god are they saved. but it could also be argued that real human nature was what it was before The Fall, especially if you view the story of adam and eve as allegory. some christians talk of an "age of accountability". to me, that is when we first become aware that there is a right and wrong, and we are no longer operating solely on instinct. one could argue that our instinctual pre-age of accountability is our true human nature, because now the world is forcing us to make choices. reaching the age of accountability and selfishly choosing what we know or believe to be wrong is our Fall from Grace. Evil is when we make a choice to put ourself ahead of others, to their detriment.
last edited: 4/09/06 7:00:02 AM”

“1. i believe that things like Evil, Good, Sin, Grace, and even Love are all abstract concepts. useful terminology to get an idea across, but by no means tangible.

2. all things act in a self-serving manner. even god, if (s)he exists. often it is in ones best interest to look out for the interests of others.

3. buddhists believe man is inherently good. christians believe man is inherently bad. i believe man is what he is. some believe that we are all inter-connected and one fragmented consciousness. maybe we are. its still not a bad thing to look out for the consciousness that you are attached to, because your pain and your contentment are the ones you can most easily relate to.

it is what it is.”

“hey BM, got a pic of Dani. She has to be a special person to put up with you ;)”
Ewker
11:18:57 PM
4/08/06


Whattya mean, "special"???????????


Dani backpacks. Our one and only trip so far was in Mohog........................Monogohol.................Manahaga.........................West Virginia.”

“LOL

Monongahela?”

“Sung to the tune of Hava Nagila..... It's fun!!”

“Thanks! I can never git that spelling right.”

“I understand, Crash Bang. I just wanted to point out an important aspect of biology. I'm no expert either, but I have spent some time studying this subject, and I won't allow warmongers to justify their actions with Hobbesian myths.

I remember one society I read about during my undergrad days where the man that gives the most is considered the greatest in the village. Not the man that has the most or take s the most. The man with the most power is the man that gives the most to others.

These things are possible, but only if people decide they are possible and practice these principles in their everyday lives.”

“"one society I read about during my undergrad days where the man that gives the most is considered the greatest in the village. "

i believe many native american societies are like that. i also think just about every society is somewhat like that, to some degree. many of us, when we become successful, like to give nice gifts or throw parties, or invite all our friends on to our yachts. to show off. some societies take it even further and make it an ingrained way of life, no matter the amount of wealth. that is a really healthy way to live, imho.
last edited: 4/09/06 5:53:51 PM”

“Crash Bang has a yacht!!”

“just call it The Mon like most hikers do BM”

“Funny, we had a long and somewhat fractuous discussion about The Mon among our board. Started when we wanted to name a new group "Friends of the Mon," and a board member suggested it should be Friends of the Mon National Forest.

Friends of the Mon won out in the end, but some people are missing body parts, I fear.”

“...why...(get ready fer it).......that's just...(Ready?)....MONsterous!”

“OK. I will call it The Mon when I can remember Monongahela without fail.

;)

Shouldn't it be "The Mon Nat For"?”

“only if you are in the Army”

“I prefer the "Mons"”

“Hoot mon!”

“Mon............................soon?”

“Mons Pubis (what's wrong with you guys?).”

“Sarge?”

“There is nothing ironic about a call for civility by Sarge.


Nothing at all.”

“Yes, sire!”