Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Again, you are atempting to resolve our disupte using words while saying it's impossible to do so. Do you bump into furniture a lot, by any chance? I am not attempting to resolve our dispute I am just reinforcing my own beliefs, which is what you are also doing. In the example I gave we could attempt to decide which of our children got the bullet in the head by discussing the matter but we both know that discussion would not lead to a resolution My guess is that the physically strongest would get the gun and shoot the others child thus resolving the 'dispute'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) I am not attempting to resolve our dispute I am just reinforcing my own beliefs, which is what you are also doing. No, you are proving my position factually correct over and over and I am allowing you to continually do so by responding. In the example I gave we could attempt to decide which of our children got the bullet in the head by discussing the matter but we both know that discussion would not lead to a resolution My guess is that the physically strongest would get the gun and shoot the others child thus resolving the 'dispute'. Cockwaffle. Edited February 16, 2010 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 No, you are proving my position factually correct over and over and I am allowing you to continually do so by responding. Cockwaffle. I think you just lost the argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I think you just lost the argument You won an argument without being able to use force on your opponent - how can that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 You won an argument without being able to use force on your opponent - how can that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 You won an argument without being able to use force on your opponent - how can that be? I didn't win anything, I was just amusing myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I didn't win anything, I was just amusing myself. You are supposed to kil him to counter his points, there is no other way - do try and keep up! Everyone who chooses violence, chooses violence. No exceptions. They didn't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I didn't win anything, I was just amusing myself. There you go, we both agree you are wrong and nobody had to hit anyone I knew you would see sense in the end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I'll just have one more go at clarification - a political rights system is one of constraints. It's not like you are completely incapable of doing anything until you are allowed to, you are capable of much that you are no longer allowed. I understand Some of what we are capable of doing and not allowed to do is a good thing Some of what we are capable of doing and not allowed to do is a bad thing If we have a practical, better means of arbitrating the conflict between capability and rights than the current flawed political system, I would like to try to understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Because to be "right" it has to be a property that we all inherently possess. You can't have a right to chop someone elses head off due to the fact that to be a right, you would also need to chop off your own. Not to say you can't swing that axe, but you can't claim it as a right without suicide. At least you didn't say that rights don't exist ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I understand Some of what we are capable of doing and not allowed to do is a good thing Some of what we are capable of doing and not allowed to do is a bad thing If we have a practical, better means of arbitrating the conflict between capability and rights than the current flawed political system, I would like to try to understand it. We do, we've had it for a good while now but have been scared to use it. Scientific method, logic and evidence will get us the right answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 There you go, we both agree you are wrong and nobody had to hit anyone I knew you would see sense in the end I did not concede I was wrong, I said I did not believe I had won the 'argument' Our differences are impossible to resolve by discussion, but as they are unimportant we can disagree without resorting to violence. Most human conflict on the other hand involves competition for resources which is by definition a matter of life or death This would include competition for land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 We do, we've had it for a good while now but have been scared to use it. Scientific method, logic and evidence will get us the right answer. And what if the answer is there are too many people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I did not concede I was wrong, I said I did not believe I had won the 'argument' Our differences are impossible to resolve by discussion, but as they are unimportant we can disagree without resorting to violence. Most human conflict on the other hand involves competition for resources which is by definition a matter of life or death This would include competition for land. Oh we have dropped down to most from all! Good job man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 And what if the answer is there are too many people? What would be the hypothesis tested to give that result? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Oh we have dropped down to most from all! Good job man. Well occasionally people also kill each other in disputes over abstract concepts such as religion for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 What would be the hypothesis tested to give that result? People would be killing each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Well occasionally people also kill each other in disputes over abstract concepts such as religion for example. Yes, because those things don't exist. The only things you need to get violent about are fictional ones. No one fights over facts, they can just point to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 People would be killing each other. That's a result, not a question. What woul dbe the question posed to lead to the result "we have to kill each other" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 That's a result, not a question. What woul dbe the question posed to lead to the result "we have to kill each other" ? How do I get more resources in order ensure that my genes and not someone elses get passed on to future generations? And your assertion that scientific method, logic and evidence will get us the right answer is correct as long as the question is 'how can I kill other humans more easily and efficiently?' Unfortunately history clearly demonstrates that when one group of humans gains even a slight scientific advantage over another group of humans the result is usually pretty catastrophic for the less technologically advanced group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 How do I get more resources in order ensure that my genes and not someone elses get passed on to future generations? And your assertion that scientific method, logic and evidence will get us the right answer is correct as long as the question is 'how can I kill other humans more easily and efficiently?' Unfortunately history clearly demonstrates that when one group of humans gains even a slight scientific advantage over another group of humans the result is usually pretty catastrophic for the less technologically advanced group. Does it? If you look at the evidence you'll see that you can't get a scientific advantage without co-operating. Therefore co-operation is the answer to the question "how do I get more resources and ensure that my genes and not someone elses get passed on to future generations?" And not getting yourself blown up in a war or something retarded like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Does it? If you look at the evidence you'll see that you can't get a scientific advantage without co-operating. Therefore co-operation is the answer to the question "how do I get more resources and ensure that my genes and not someone elses get passed on to future generations?" And not getting yourself blown up in a war or something retarded like that. Co-operating with humans who share the majority of our genes in order to gain an advantage over other humans who do not. And if getting blown up in a war ensures that my own children survive then that is the opposite of retarded because I am going to die sooner or later anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) "The proletariat are being oppressed by the system." Unfortunately, the proletariat have a habit of being more oppressive to themselves than the traditional system that recognises their value along with their shortcomings. Yep - it's easy to rationalise placing your foot in people's faces and pretending the situation is 'neccessary' - afterall, people are so worthless and useless and there are so many of them, they need to be oppressed by your size tens. Wake up, halfwit, you are arguing away your own rights by engaging in this vain drivel Edited February 16, 2010 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Co-operating with humans who share the majority of our genes in order to gain an advantage over other humans who do not. And if getting blown up in a war ensures that my own children survive then that is the opposite of retarded because I am going to die sooner or later anyway. First you have to co-operate. Therefore co operation is superior to violence. Simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) First you have to co-operate. Therefore co operation is superior to violence. Simple as that. No. It is the threat of violence that drives co-operation between humans because co-operation is necessary in order to use superior violence to resolve disputes with other groups of humans. The disputes are resolved by violence - not co-operation. Edited February 16, 2010 by Game_Over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.