Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ShowtekGER]

i will not attempt to deal with this issue using zef's diplomatic rhetoric which he had primarily used until we told him that he was too nice i will try to refrain from polemic and hidden ad hominem arguments as much as possible.

another quick foreword:

my position is that my relativism has little influence on my ability to construct arguments and value some things over others. you may disagree with that but for the time being it would be cool if you could just treat my arguments as though they were not written by a relativist.

No you couldn't because the body of facts don't support this. The reality is that the vast majority of suicide bombers are Muslim, not Jewish. You also can't find a consistent cultural & theological meme for the annihilation of Muslims world-wide, even amongst those who are afraid of Islam (Islamaphobia as you called it). It's one thing to be afraid of someone & their beliefs, it's quite another thing to want the complete destruction of a group of people.

you're right that i couldn't make a video of israelis suicide bombing arabs. my point was mainly to illustrate that i could make a video which depicted muslims as perfect human beings and israelis as the devils, partially by only showing the pro-palestinian side of the story. it would, for example, be quite easy for me to depict israel as a murdering state which uses violence in order to suppress palestinians and show videos of israeli soldiers shooting at crowds, beating up people, crying palestinian children, etc.

i could not make that kind of video about palestinians because their violence towards jews is not statistly institutionalized. in my mind, the muslim killers are terrorists and israeli killers are servants of the state and of an unjust system. you may disagree with that but i only say this in order to illustrate the point that violence is not the same on both sides.

The vast majority of human rights abuses are committed in Islamic or totalitarian states.

are you sure? what about christian african nations and east asian nations such as china, thailand, and north korea? on the basis of the news i read daily i wouldn't necessarily discern those in regard to the scale of human rights abuses.

I can assure you the rights of non-Muslims in Islamic countries is practically much less than Muslims in non-Islamic countries.

this may be true, and you have insisted on this fact many times, but i mostly fail to see the relevance of this fact. what conclusion should we draw from it? that we should support israel over muslims? shouldn't our goal be to either ensure fair treatment of both sides, regardless of their human rights records, or simply choose to not get involved too much? after all, this is no direct concern for israelis and westerners. it's an internal muslim issue and a problem for them.

Take away Israel's weapons, what happens? They all get murdered. Take away all of the Arab world's weapons, what happens? Nothing. Israel isn't trying to dominate or annihilate its neighbors while the Arab world is openly seeking Israel's annihilation. This is an open fact.

i agree with you that it is not is not the goal of the state of israel or israelis in general to annihilate muslims, kill them in large numbers, etc., while it is for a group of muslims that shouldn't be underestimated. what we shouldn't overestimate, however, is how large these muslim groups actually are. 2%? 10%? 70% of all muslims? as much as i am informed, questionnaires result in numbers clearly below 50% which fits with my perception of turks and other descendants of muslims i know who now live here and with my view of humans in general. if you posit that the number is larger what is your basis for that claim?

i think if the number was 1% that would be sufficient for killing all israelis if they got rid of all their weapons in an instant. therefore, i find the equation a little misleading. i probably agree, though, that the palestinian situation would actually better itself if all muslims laid down all weapons immediately.

but another very important question here is why there is fundamentalism in the middle east and why a large group of muslims is ready to kill? you posit that it's due to views internal to islam and muslim dispositional characteristics. while i wouldn't entirely turn down that claim my view would rather be that it's due to perceptions of great injustice and that religion is rather used as a tool to fuel and justify rage. so it is not insignificant. but if it had been chinese buddhists who had settled in palestine and had behaved exactly like the state of israel does, i think the issue would've been largely the same. the fact that there is historic and religious animosity i think only contributed marginally as real issues are geographical and geopolitical. if these issues don't exist, religious enemies get along, such as jews and chistians today.

how do you think we can resolve that issue and determine who is right?

It's just that simple & until that issue (the teaching of annihilation as a valid relational concept) is dealt with, there is no peace possible. In that conclusion, the film is correct. Only if both sides accept the right to exist can peace even be approached.

i agree that fundamentalist tendencies in the muslim world also have to be dealt with internally.

the right to exist is a complicated issue. from a muslim perspective, i somewhat understand why they don't want to admit israel's right to exist as this would be equal to admitting historical defeat and concession. of course, they don't have a choice but to accept israel's existence. everyone knows that, even the israelis. therefore, i find that issue mostly arbitrary. no nation requires a right to exist, they just do. it seems to me that the israeli state is only insisting on public statements about that right in order to not negotiate. israel and palestine need not necessarily be friends in order to negotiate but i agree that it would probably make it easier. so there's definitely incentive for palestinian officials to publicly voice their support for israel's right to exist.

[ScottieX]

True but it's equally true that peace requires both sides to accept the existence of the other in order for reconciliation to occur.

yeah well I am always by default in favour of the side that is shall we say - more civilized - even if they are the oppressor.

But I think there are pragmatic solutions in here that can at least improve the situation if not fix it without actually siding with the palistinians.

For example i think the settlements make israel more difficult and expensive to defend (non continuous boarders, long supply roads that need protection, as well as increased flash points) and it appears that Israeli tax policy instead of pushing that cost on the settlements actually gives them incentives. Maybe you dont have to drag them out kicking and screaming from their settlement if you are just willing to withdraw your protection of them (maybe even provision of other public goods) if they repeatedly refuse to pay their share.

[ShowtekGER]

Shall I repeat my statement about listening to more than 11% of something before commenting? Your argument seems to be that 2 intellectually myopic approaches equals intellectual integrity. It doesn't. You made a mistake & you have now corrected it. That's good & there's no need to continue to defend an intellectually vapid argument.

i stated that i had watched 10 minutes "by now", that i would later proceed to watch the rest, and that i hoped that pro-palestinian commentators would be included later. i don't see how that is a mistake as i didn't draw any conclusions at that point and openly recognized the possibility that such commentators would be included.

i strongly believe that including two sides of a story is often a prerequisite for people to form an opinion about a complicated matter. to me it seems self-evident that only including one side manufactures opinions and offers a perspective which is not objective. objectivity is a key concept of journalism.

They rejected it then, yet desire & accept the land now. Now that's hypocrisy & deception for you.

it is? it seems to me as if palestinian officals have simply changed their mind, and reasonably so! the original 1947 was considered very unfair because it granted jews 56% of the land even though they only constituted 30% of the population and owned 6% of the land and because the land assigned to palestinians was agriculturally less usable than that assigned to the jews. so i do understand why it was rejected initially. i also understand why they would readily agree to it now. they have learned that against israeli western power they do not have a leg to stand on so they would take what they can get.

What can be said? The thing itself speaks. The goal is not to benefit the people but rather to destroy the Jews. By supporting the people it would implicitly allow the Jews to live which is contrary to the express goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, & other groups which control the atmosphere & dialogue of the region.

i see that problem but not your conclusions. does the idea that arab nations want to keep the refugee problem going imply that they want to destroy the jews, not let the jews life, and support terrorist organizations? or does it simply mean that they're antagonistic toward the jews and want to create problems? i just find the conclusion a little far-fetched.

and a palestinian voice would have been very important here because, as we both know, it would have offered a different perspective on the matter. and if not, then we could be pretty sure that this issue is actually real and that arab nations are, in fact, doing this only to keep the refugee problem alive. but because we aren't presented with that opinion we could once more suspect that we're up to a skewed presentation of the subject.

They show a textbook in the film yet what you "think" & "sounds more reasonable" to you has more weight? I don't know of an equivalent in the education of Jewish or Western children towards Muslims. Ok, let's just drop the facade that you aren't biased, shall we?

right. they show a textbook in which palestine is depicted without the israeli state. is that not exactly what we would expect from regions that do not recognize the israeli state, regardless of whether we agree with that lack of recognition or not? their implicit claim was that palestinian children are generally trained to hate israelis and become terrorists in textbooks. however, i find such a map hardly qualifies as evidence for that claim. as i said, i think it qualifies as evidence for the claim that arab textbooks are biased towards israel.

You are quite deluded if you think only 1 Muslim on the planet wants the entire globe to be Islamic. It is an open fact that radical Islam desires the subjugation of the world.

yes, it is more than one person but how many are they? you are probably right that radical muslims want something like the subjugation of the world but how significant is radical islam numerically? to say it polemically, aren't you the deluded one if you think that the majority of islam is radical? i don't say that you do but how significant do you think radical islam is in terms of numbers?

Frankly, that's the desire of any evangelistic religion such as atheism, Christianity, Islam, etc...

i don't quite understand. do all these movements seek subjugation of the world?

[ShowtekGER]

yeah well I am always by default in favour of the side that is shall we say - more civilized - even if they are the oppressor.

why? i am always on default on the side of those oppressed. why? because they are oppressed which is injustice.

[ScottieX]

why? i am always on default on the side of those oppressed. why? because they are oppressed which is injustice.

justice is relative and so is injustice.

Generally the more civilized side tends to offer a more viable solution. As p2m noted if palestinians as a society were to completly give in on their demands - then the result would probably be better than if the israelis were to give in to all demands.

Often the oppressed solution is just focused on the named opressor not being there... often that doesnt even result in them being any less oppressed (im visualising somthing like zimbabwae)..

i strongly believe that including two sides of a story is often a prerequisite for people to form an opinion about a complicated matter. to me it seems self-evident that only including one side manufactures opinions and offers a perspective which is not objective. objectivity is a key concept of journalism.

Hmm .. talking generally... I think with a critical eye sometimes the things designed to convince you of one truth can actually convince you of the opposite by the tactics that you can see they are forced to use... if only that worked the same with more people propoganda would be much harder.

On the other hand sometimes one can manipulate "fair" journalism by forcing the media to present both sides even though one side of the debate is clearly ridiculous.

[ITZ DENI3D]

i will not attempt to deal with this issue using zef's diplomatic rhetoric which he had primarily used until we told him that he was too nice i will try to refrain from polemic and hidden ad hominem arguments as much as possible.

another quick foreword:

my position is that my relativism has little influence on my ability to construct arguments and value some things over others. you may disagree with that but for the time being it would be cool if you could just treat my arguments as though they were not written by a relativist.



you're right that i couldn't make a video of israelis suicide bombing arabs. my point was mainly to illustrate that i could make a video which depicted muslims as perfect human beings and israelis as the devils, partially by only showing the pro-palestinian side of the story. it would, for example, be quite easy for me to depict israel as a murdering state which uses violence in order to suppress palestinians and show videos of israeli soldiers shooting at crowds, beating up people, crying palestinian children, etc.

i could not make that kind of video about palestinians because their violence towards jews is not statistly institutionalized. in my mind, the muslim killers are terrorists and israeli killers are servants of the state and of an unjust system. you may disagree with that but i only say this in order to illustrate the point that violence is not the same on both sides.



are you sure? what about christian african nations and east asian nations such as china, thailand, and north korea? on the basis of the news i read daily i wouldn't necessarily discern those in regard to the scale of human rights abuses.



this may be true, and you have insisted on this fact many times, but i mostly fail to see the relevance of this fact. what conclusion should we draw from it? that we should support israel over muslims? shouldn't our goal be to either ensure fair treatment of both sides, regardless of their human rights records, or simply choose to not get involved too much? after all, this is no direct concern for israelis and westerners. it's an internal muslim issue and a problem for them.



i agree with you that it is not is not the goal of the state of israel or israelis in general to annihilate muslims, kill them in large numbers, etc., while it is for a group of muslims that shouldn't be underestimated. what we shouldn't overestimate, however, is how large these muslim groups actually are. 2%? 10%? 70% of all muslims? as much as i am informed, questionnaires result in numbers clearly below 50% which fits with my perception of turks and other descendants of muslims i know who now live here and with my view of humans in general. if you posit that the number is larger what is your basis for that claim?

i think if the number was 1% that would be sufficient for killing all israelis if they got rid of all their weapons in an instant. therefore, i find the equation a little misleading. i probably agree, though, that the palestinian situation would actually better itself if all muslims laid down all weapons immediately.

but another very important question here is why there is fundamentalism in the middle east and why a large group of muslims is ready to kill? you posit that it's due to views internal to islam and muslim dispositional characteristics. while i wouldn't entirely turn down that claim my view would rather be that it's due to perceptions of great injustice and that religion is rather used as a tool to fuel and justify rage. so it is not insignificant. but if it had been chinese buddhists who had settled in palestine and had behaved exactly like the state of israel does, i think the issue would've been largely the same. the fact that there is historic and religious animosity i think only contributed marginally as real issues are geographical and geopolitical. if these issues don't exist, religious enemies get along, such as jews and chistians today.

how do you think we can resolve that issue and determine who is right?



i agree that fundamentalist tendencies in the muslim world also have to be dealt with internally.

the right to exist is a complicated issue. from a muslim perspective, i somewhat understand why they don't want to admit israel's right to exist as this would be equal to admitting historical defeat and concession. of course, they don't have a choice but to accept israel's existence. everyone knows that, even the israelis. therefore, i find that issue mostly arbitrary. no nation requires a right to exist, they just do. it seems to me that the israeli state is only insisting on public statements about that right in order to not negotiate. israel and palestine need not necessarily be friends in order to negotiate but i agree that it would probably make it easier. so there's definitely incentive for palestinian officials to publicly voice their support for israel's right to exist.

Ok lets just say every single one of your assumptions is correct. Well none of it matters you know why? Because we won. Centuries of wars and we have ended up on the winning side (so far), so we dictate what happens over there since we are the winners. This is the way it always has been, your right to exist is allowed or denied by the people who conquer you. In this case America and parts of the EU are making decisions about what happens over there, if they step out of line they will quickly meet destruction. Ya, it sucks but thats how it goes. We could easily have no Germany right now had we decided to not be so merciful, just saying... I know they wouldn't have been merciful.

[ShowtekGER]

On the other hand sometimes one can manipulate "fair" journalism by forcing the media to present both sides even though one side of the debate is clearly ridiculous.

i think what is serious and what is ridiculous will mostly be fairly easy to assess. for example, i suppose the pro-palestinian opinion is significant in regard to the israeli-palestinian conflict in terms of how many people support it while climate denial is, at least in germany and denmark, only supported by a minority. so usually the palestinian argument will be deserving of reporting while climate denying won't, at least not in scientific journals. in terms of public opinion, it deserves coverage, especially in the US.

[ShowtekGER]

Ok lets just say every single one of your assumptions is correct. Well none of it matters you know why? Because we won. Centuries of wars and we have ended up on the winning side (so far), so we dictate what happens over there since we are the winners. This is the way it always has been, your right to exist is allowed or denied by the people who conquer you. In this case America and parts of the EU are making decisions about what happens over there, if they step out of line they will quickly meet destruction. Ya, it sucks but thats how it goes. We could easily have no Germany right now had we decided to not be so merciful, just saying... I know they wouldn't have been merciful.

you admitting that this "sucks" disproves your implicit theory that power forever dictates all human relations. it would only be forever if there were no humans whatsoever wanting to change that.

in terms of conquering, we only do that since about 1000 years. before states came to be we didn't conquer in any way reminiscent of today. the idiocy of power and war we currently see mankind exhibiting is not inherent to the world. we can do without. one great step would be to stop arbitrarily concentrating groups of people as states.

[ITZ DENI3D]

So the first line of rebuttal against you is that I am not propounding that all competition operate on the most basic, brutal, physical levels. Perhaps children will continue to repeat earlier evolutionary developments in this way, as they likewise relearn on a habitual, cultural level so much of humanity's past, but this need not always carry over to adults; and thus your concern that we might battle it out as we walk by one another isn't applicable to my theory.

Why not? In a society that is raised like that I would feel obligated, even as an adult, to assert my dominance as an Alpha male. I feel it would be completely applicable as an adult.

Well then, what about your reflections on the value of intelligence over physicality? On the one hand, as I just alluded above, I agree with you. But on the other hand, I have to say that my agreement only goes so far. On the common sense level, Yes, we shouldn't be fighting wars at this stage of evolutionary history: we need to move beyond such self-defeating stupidity, unless of course we have very good reasons as with self-defense. But in a Freudian sense, I believe that all instinctual violence is sublimated in the higher levels of human consciousness. Hence, strictly speaking, I don't believe in the myth of Cartesian separation between mind and body. This means, for me, that all of culture embodies the urgency of existential conflict. Thanatos, or the death instinct, cannot be forever repressed. So even as we continue to evolve, my view is that there will always be confict on many levels, whether economic, political, religious, intellectual, technological, institutional, and suchlike.

Therefore I don't I agree that we should raise our children peacefully, but rather we must prepare them for future wars and conflicts as understood in the most complex, multi-layered sense. If we don't do this, then we are preparing them for defeat, and this is the way of a weak, cowardly, soft, dying society.

Undoubtedly war and conflict are seeded deep inside our subconscious and without it we would may not have survived back when life was so harsh. But now, (similar to the part of our brain that tries to eat as much as possible since it is there), I feel it is unnecessary for humans to reach the next higher plane of evolution.
By going off your ideology I believe that many great thinkers would be lost in the struggle which could set back human progress by centuries. All this bickering on this tiny insignificant planet won't have any purpose when next extinction event comes knocking. Therefore I believe we must try to abandon the old ways of conflict to weed out the weak, while it has served us very well speaking on evolutionary terms so far, it will only hinder us in the future. Just ask the dinosaurs, ohh wait

[ITZ DENI3D]

Apparently I need work on how to break up quotes ;/ Anyone know how to do that?

[HydroDragon]

Apparently I need work on how to break up quotes ;/ Anyone know how to do that?

Well since I'm experienced in this matter I'll tell you. (quote=Zefelius)Paste what you want to quote here(/quote)

[With these brackets, obviously] So start with (quote=Zefelius) and end with (/quote)

So

(quote=Albert Einstein)e = mc^2(/quote)

becomes

e = mc^2

[ITZ DENI3D]

Well since I'm experienced in this matter I'll tell you. (quote=Zefelius)Paste what you want to quote here(/quote)

[With these brackets, obviously] So start with (quote=Zefelius) and end with (/quote)

So

(quote=Albert Einstein)e = mc^2(/quote)

becomes

Thanks man

[Zefelius]

Well since I'm experienced in this matter I'll tell you. (quote=Zefelius)Paste what you want to quote here(/quote)

[With these brackets, obviously] So start with (quote=Zefelius) and end with (/quote)

So

(quote=Albert Einstein)e = mc^2(/quote)

becomes

Another good deed performed by HydroDragon!

[ShowtekGER]

wow. i suppose quebec is now slowly abandoning democracy as well. sadly, this has become a general development in the west.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nt-protest-law

[Zefelius]

Why not? In a society that is raised like that I would feel obligated, even as an adult, to assert my dominance as an Alpha male. I feel it would be completely applicable as an adult.

But not if you keep in mind what I argued, which is that domination at higher levels of civilization should take place through other means. So I agree that dominance is intrinsic to our social relations, but there are better and worse manifestations of it. My view is that humans will forever remain at war, but not always in the most purely physical manner: there are other, more strategic ways of dominating over others.

[ScottieX]

But not if you keep in mind what I argued, which is that domination at higher levels of civilization should take place through other means. So I agree that dominance is intrinsic to our social relations, but there are better and worse manifestations of it. My view is that humans will forever remain at war, but not always in the most purely physical manner: there are other, more strategic ways of dominating over others.

why not use those in education then as opposed to beatings and other violations?

[ScottieX]

wow. i suppose quebec is now slowly abandoning democracy as well. sadly, this has become a general development in the west.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nt-protest-law

when i first read this i wondered if you meant it was abandoning democracy by giving in to protestors just because it is too much trouble to have to deal with the harm they inflict (blocking roads, vandalism, littering and whatever else they choose to do). should have known better

[ITZ DENI3D]

But not if you keep in mind what I argued, which is that domination at higher levels of civilization should take place through other means. So I agree that dominance is intrinsic to our social relations, but there are better and worse manifestations of it. My view is that humans will forever remain at war, but not always in the most purely physical manner: there are other, more strategic ways of dominating over others.

How? By psychologically dominating them? I think that is way worse than even physical domination, having complete control over someones mind due to fear and manipulation seems truly dark to me... Actually I feel some religions do this to a degree and I think its wrong.

[ITZ DENI3D]

I just realized that we all are forced to take the red pill. I find that interesting...

[BetterThanAllofYOU]

Hey this is a nifty debate thread.....before I delve through trying to find the topic Im curious about.....Ill just beseech one of you to help me out a bit. Have you discussed religion at some point in this thread? I wont waste the greater minds of the forums time by imploring a debate on a topic that has previously been discussed.

I guess a debate isnt what I'm looing for as Im really just interested in opinions at this point. A debate would portray that quite nicely though I beleive.

[ScottieX]

Hey we are happy to tackle anything that you might bring up. We are jsut that kind of thread here

[ITZ DENI3D]

Hey this is a nifty debate thread.....before I delve through trying to find the topic Im curious about.....Ill just beseech one of you to help me out a bit. Have you discussed religion at some point in this thread? I wont waste the greater minds of the forums time by imploring a debate on a topic that has previously been discussed.

I guess a debate isnt what I'm looing for as Im really just interested in opinions at this point. A debate would portray that quite nicely though I beleive.

I guarantee you it has probably been discussed a few times. Its here somewhere, have fun looking Personally I'd kind of like to talk to P2M2 about why he is a Christian since the way he talks it would seem he would be one of the last ones to believe in that kind of stuff... But I think I may know why. Not trying to be disrespectful P2M2, just curious. Actually my post above yours is kind of talking about religion... Sort of

[HydroDragon]

I just realized that we all are forced to take the red pill. I find that interesting...

Can you expand on this? I'm a matrix fan but I don't know the details off by heart.

[ITZ DENI3D]

Can you expand on this? I'm a matrix fan but I don't know the details off by heart.

I'm making the red pill an analogy for death. Neo is given two choices. The red pill or the blue pill. The blue pill lets him stay in the matrix and believe whatever he wants to believe. The red one lets him discover the truth and so eloquently put by Morpheus "see how far the rabbit hole goes". I just realized that we have no choice and will eventually have to take the red pill, the red pill being death, and see just how far the rabbit hole goes... If you are wondering about the rabbit hole they are referring to Alice in wonderland where she falls down the tree into another world...

[Zefelius]

why not use those in education then as opposed to beatings and other violations?

I mentioned on the last page that I would prefer that adults, rather than children, handle the hazing process. Until that happens some of the rituals which one will encounter along the path to adulthood will likely include some form of beatings and other abuses. But if we put adults in charge of the hazing processes, then they could be conducted much more efficiently and pragmatically. Instead of simple beatings, kids might be put through a series of tests, some of which would place their lives in danger, in order to ensure that they learn the lessons of existential urgency. If they die, then obviously they don't pass. But if they do well on all the tests, not only physical but also psychological and intellectual in nature, then don't you think they would be much better prepared to face down enemies of our societies? And wouldn't that be a good thing? But as it stands right now most kids learn what it means to be a member of society through videogames, college courses with inflated grades, and social media like Facebook.

Education by itself, in any case, only captures part of what it means to be human. There's also the primordial side, and when we forget it we likewise forget what it means to live.

[ShowtekGER]

But if they do well on all the tests, not only physical but also psychological and intellectual in nature, then don't you think they would be much better prepared to face down enemies of our societies?

firstly, i think you will encounter practical obstacles trying to implement such policies because most or at least many parents will very much resist risking their children's lives.

secondly, my intuitive assessment of such tests would be that children learn that they cannot rely on their caregivers and therefore develop insecure attachment styles which will negatively accompany them in all major life areas, such as interpersonal relations where they might display dependent (mostly women) or violent (mostly men) behavior.

then again, these tests are usually forged in the very first years of the life. if children in your society at first grow up with love and security such attachment styles might not develop. also, i remember that african american children are beaten more often on average than other ethnic groups in the US but that this does not affect them negatively as long as they're clearly taught why they're being beaten and as long as these beatings are not random and happen in accordance with rules.

but, again, my perception is that those who do best in life interpersonally, academically, and achieve happiness are those that have grown up without too much struggle, pain, and strain. most social losers i know experienced a lot of pain in childhood and must've, according to your theory, been better prepared for later life.

my personal view is probably that the problems of life should be reserved for teenagers, increase, and climax in adulthood along with responsibility.

thirdly, i think your view might be as likely to be implemented as mine about anarchism and marxism. that is, quite unlikely. then again, as you said, some of your ideas go quite along with the fascist kinds of societies we have seen during the last century so yours might be more likely. though, while i see how people can sacrifice others and devalue them i would strongly assume that this is much harder elicited in regard to one's own children. so it might even be harder to be implemented.

fourthly, i think forcing children to do stuff like that requires force and in order to use such force we likely would have to dehumanize and deindividuate them. such brutality simply requires this. we have very often seen this in the course of our history, for example in war and in genocidal or fascist regimes, but i think these mechanisms are by definition harder to apply to people who aren't enemies but are supposed to be your fellow citizens. you might, e.g., ask yourself whether you would be willing to beat up a child or force her to risk her life.

but i'd like to her more about your theory.

[ShowtekGER]

moreover, your methods might produce similar pathology to that of soldiers returning from war. e.g., PTSD, traumas, and suicidal behavior.

it might also create a society which is a lot more stratified than the one we have now with all the obstacles of inequality and power differences.

in many ways it is hard for me to see how such a system would create better scientists, philosophers, artists, etc. and also how it is supposed to make people happy. but perhaps that isn't your goal.

[ShowtekGER]

dupliacte...

[Zefelius]

firstly, i think you will encounter practical obstacles trying to implement such policies because most or at least many parents will very much resist risking their children's lives.

Once I develop and write out my views, I would be shocked if they were ever implemented. I think that's just a fact of life in many ways. There is so much we can critique, from various perspectives, yet that doesn't mean that society will follow what we think is best. And I'm okay with that; I simply adapt to society the way it is when necessary.

secondly, my intuitive assessment of such tests would be that children learn that they cannot rely on their caregivers and therefore develop insecure attachment styles which will negatively accompany them in all major life areas, such as interpersonal relations where they might display dependent (mostly women) or violent (mostly men) behavior.

Some of these coming of age rituals could be done in groups. In that way the kids would learn to rely on one another and perhaps even the adults. If they pass the tests then they gain respect for one another as adults. Those who don't pass the tests fail to become true members of society.

[ITZ DENI3D]

I mentioned on the last page that I would prefer that adults, rather than children, handle the hazing process. Until that happens some of the rituals which one will encounter along the path to adulthood will likely include some form of beatings and other abuses. But if we put adults in charge of the hazing processes, then they could be conducted much more efficiently and pragmatically. Instead of simple beatings, kids might be put through a series of tests, some of which would place their lives in danger, in order to ensure that they learn the lessons of existential urgency. If they die, then obviously they don't pass. But if they do well on all the tests, not only physical but also psychological and intellectual in nature, then don't you think they would be much better prepared to face down enemies of our societies? And wouldn't that be a good thing? But as it stands right now most kids learn what it means to be a member of society through videogames, college courses with inflated grades, and social media like Facebook.

Education by itself, in any case, only captures part of what it means to be human. There's also the primordial side, and when we forget it we likewise forget what it means to live.

If I grew up in this kind of society I would undoubtedly have killed some people...

[Zefelius]

If I grew up in this kind of society I would undoubtedly have killed some people...

Of course in some tribes and societies throughout history killing was part of the ritualization of becoming a member of one's group. Kids either supporting or fighting alongside of their parents in battle wasn't always such an unusual thing. In some cases it was a necessity for victory. Of course we've done the same thing in America as elsewhere, although today one has to be at least 18, I think, to be in the U.S. military. But kids certainly fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Plato recommended it in his Republic as a way of training youth of the military class to become as good as possible at defending the country. None of this proves what is morally right or wrong, but it does go to show that you are factually correct in the sense that killing has been and still could be a part of the ritualistic process of becoming an adult. Hunting is another ritualistic version of this, although many people don't view killing other species as being morally problematic. I personally don't believe that human life is more inherently special or important than other animals.

[ITZ DENI3D]

Of course in some tribes and societies throughout history killing was part of the ritualization of becoming a member of one's group. Kids either supporting or fighting alongside of their parents in battle wasn't always such an unusual thing. In some cases it was a necessity for victory. Of course we've done the same thing in America as elsewhere, although today one has to be at least 18, I think, to be in the U.S. military. But kids certainly fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Plato recommended it in his Republic as a way of training youth of the military class to become as good as possible at defending the country. None of this proves what is morally right or wrong, but it does go to show that you are factually correct in the sense that killing has been and still could be a part of the ritualistic process of becoming an adult. Hunting is another ritualistic version of this, although many people don't view killing other species as being morally problematic. I personally don't believe that human life is more inherently special or important than other animals.

I agree I don't see why human life is valued above other animals, but since we have evolved enough to comprehend that I guess it does in a way?

[elthrasher]

I agree I don't see why human life is valued above other animals, but since we have evolved enough to comprehend that I guess it does in a way?

Most animals are like that. My cat hunts and kills rodents, snakes and birds, but he's never tried to kill another cat. I don't think the thought would occur to him.

As for humans hunting, it's not something I do, but in a lot of areas it's necessary to cull overpopulated animals. Ever hit a deer with your car? It's better for everybody if some hunter kills the deer (and takes it home and eats it) before the deer ever wanders onto the highway.

But let's say we valued all (animal kingdom) life equally. Would we wind up being vegetarians or cannibals?

[ITZ DENI3D]

Most animals are like that. My cat hunts and kills rodents, snakes and birds, but he's never tried to kill another cat. I don't think the thought would occur to him.

As for humans hunting, it's not something I do, but in a lot of areas it's necessary to cull overpopulated animals. Ever hit a deer with your car? It's better for everybody if some hunter kills the deer (and takes it home and eats it) before the deer ever wanders onto the highway.

But let's say we valued all (animal kingdom) life equally. Would we wind up being vegetarians or cannibals?

I would say vegetarians and if food became scarce then cannibals...

[ShowtekGER]

But let's say we valued all (animal kingdom) life equally. Would we wind up being vegetarians or cannibals?

i thought of something similar recently. if humans come to value other animals as much as they value humans some time, then how will they view their ancestors' meat consumption? it must seem like the most horrible crime in the history of the world. a giant, cannibalistic holocaust where some creatures industrially and torturously manufactured their fellow beings in order to consume them.

it wouldn't surprise me if that actually happens. our philosophy of equality is extended to ever more beings. at first it was white grown up men who were the only true beings. later females, humans of all colors, and children gained more rights. perhaps the distinction between humans and other animals is just as arbitrary as the distinction between man and woman, european and african.

then again, we have to draw a line somewhere. as i regularly point out to my vegan friends (there are a lot of these by now), they draw lines too. they still consume plants. of course, that line is in many ways meaningful but far from absolute. vegans cannot define what is sentient and what isn't. furthermore, if we were to extend equality to all not only plants shouldn't be hurt (and they react to damaging stimuli) but neither should pedophiles be discriminated against. they are in a very similar spot as homosexuals 50 years ago. the point is: we have to draw lines.

[Zefelius]

i thought of something similar recently. if humans come to value other animals as much as they value humans some time, then how will they view their ancestors' meat consumption? it must seem like the most horrible crime in the history of the world. a giant, cannibalistic holocaust where some creatures industrially and torturously manufactured their fellow beings in order to consume them.

So true. We like to think of ourselves as moral beings, yet we may well be absolute monsters.

[elthrasher]

I would say vegetarians and if food became scarce then cannibals...

Ironically, if we stopped eating animals, food would become more plentiful...though we'd really have to eat up all the factory-farmed animals first. Just setting them free to roam would really turn the ecology upside-down.

i thought of something similar recently. if humans come to value other animals as much as they value humans some time, then how will they view their ancestors' meat consumption? it must seem like the most horrible crime in the history of the world. a giant, cannibalistic holocaust where some creatures industrially and torturously manufactured their fellow beings in order to consume them.

Don't we all already have ancestors who did things that aren't in line with modern values? We had slavery in the USA. Germany tried to take over Europe and exterminate the Jews. Used to farm and eat animals? Just add it to the list.

it wouldn't surprise me if that actually happens. our philosophy of equality is extended to ever more beings. at first it was white grown up men who were the only true beings. later females, humans of all colors, and children gained more rights. perhaps the distinction between humans and other animals is just as arbitrary as the distinction between man and woman, european and african.

This seems like a strange slippery slope argument. Will we come to value protozoa and seek to improve their quality of life? What about inanimate objects? Shouldn't clods of dirt have equal rights?

I don't think we are that stupid.

then again, we have to draw a line somewhere. as i regularly point out to my vegan friends (there are a lot of these by now), they draw lines too. they still consume plants. of course, that line is in many ways meaningful but far from absolute. vegans cannot define what is sentient and what isn't. furthermore, if we were to extend equality to all not only plants shouldn't be hurt (and they react to damaging stimuli)

This is pretty damn silly. Many plants evolved to be eaten. Being eaten and thus spreading their seeds is how they reproduce. I grow a lot of food in my vegetable garden and I can tell you that if you don't harvest the food when it's ready, the plants don't do as well. It is there to be eaten.

but neither should pedophiles be discriminated against. they are in a very similar spot as homosexuals 50 years ago. the point is: we have to draw lines.

Are you equating pedophiles and gays? People who prey on children vs. consenting adults?

[ShowtekGER]

Don't we all already have ancestors who did things that aren't in line with modern values? We had slavery in the USA. Germany tried to take over Europe and exterminate the Jews. Used to farm and eat animals? Just add it to the list.

that's why i called it a "giant" holocaust. it would be a lot worse numerically. hundreds of millions, billions of animals. plus, we never bred humans, not to mention in order to eat them, and we never manufactured them as goods. we kill people for political and ideological purposes. so if some day other animals were valued as much as humans i think our meat consumption would definitely stand out amongst crimes committed against humans.

This seems like a strange slippery slope argument. Will we come to value protozoa and seek to improve their quality of life? What about inanimate objects? Shouldn't clods of dirt have equal rights?

I don't think we are that stupid.

i'm only hypothetically putting it out there. it seems very likely that animal rights will only increase in the long run. i don't necessarily see why we would stop there.

i was arguing that we're drawing lines. drawing a line between animals and inanimate objects seems quite obvious from our perspective. though, it wouldn't surprise me if ecologists' appeals "to respect the earth" and akin stuff would also someday be directly applied.

This is pretty damn silly. Many plants evolved to be eaten. Being eaten and thus spreading their seeds is how they reproduce. I grow a lot of food in my vegetable garden and I can tell you that if you don't harvest the food when it's ready, the plants don't do as well. It is there to be eaten.

why so judgmental?

anyway, at least some of these plants have been cultivated to require being consumed. a similar argument goes for some animals such as cows which, if i'm not mistaken, cannot live without being milked.

and plants are living beings too. as i said, drawing a line between animals and plants is probably quite meaningful but that line surely isn't absolute.

Are you equating pedophiles and gays? People who prey on children vs. consenting adults?

of course i am!

pedophiles aren't necessarily rapists and children are theoretically also able to consent. so as such pedophilia could just be another sexual orientation. people WERE equating homsexuality and pedophilia 50 or so years ago, they were both considered psychological disorders and by some to be against god's law, etc. pedophilia has simply stayed in the spot that homosexuality also once was classified under.

[Zefelius]

of course i am!

pedophiles aren't necessarily rapists and children are theoretically also able to consent. so as such pedophilia could just be another sexual orientation. people WERE equating homsexuality and pedophilia 50 or so years ago, they were both considered psychological disorders and by some to be against god's law, etc. pedophilia has simply stayed in the spot that homosexuality also once was classified under.

This issue has always intrigued me. I agree that we shouldn't judge desires or proclivities, as they aren't in themselves wrong. Society has a good reason to prevent action, but desire shouldn't be equated with action. Although I have zero interest in children, I am definitely attracted to some 15 and 16 year olds who look stunning and wear little clothing. Yet I don't act on those impulses.

As for consent, you may be on to something. Is it impossible that a child lacks the ability to consent to intimate affection? If so, I wonder where we draw the line. What sort of affection is automatically off limits? I remember my grandfather asking me to sleep with him once and we did some sexual things. I was about 5 or 6 years old. I told some family members of this when I was 20, but nobody believed me. In any case I wasn't hurt or traumatized by it. Perhaps in some cases the adult could hurt the child, but this is true of anything. Although the subject is extremely taboo, from a theoretical perspective it doesn't seem impossible to me that adults and children might bond through intimate affection at around the age of 10. I was definitely sexual with other children when I was that age, so the argument that children aren't sexual wouldn't seem to be true.

[ShowtekGER]

This issue has always intrigued me. I agree that we shouldn't judge desires or proclivities, as they aren't in themselves wrong. Society has a good reason to prevent action, but desire shouldn't be equated with action. Although I have zero interest in children, I am definitely attracted to some 15 and 16 year olds who look stunning and wear little clothing. Yet I don't act on those impulses.

HAHAHA. man, zef, you don't give a f*ck about convention you're not supposed to say that even though it's completely normal and makes much sense in terms of evolution.

but that doesn't quality as pedophilia. people who are 15 years old are sexually mature. i think being attracted to actual children is somewhat weird and doesn't really seem natural. on the other hand, homosexuality doesn't seem to fulfill any evolutionary purpose either.

As for consent, you may be on to something. Is it impossible that a child lacks the ability to consent to intimate affection? If so, I wonder where we draw the line. What sort of affection is automatically off limits? I remember my grandfather asking me to sleep with him once and we did some sexual things. I was about 5 or 6 years old. I told some family members of this when I was 20, but nobody believed me. In any case I wasn't hurt or traumatized by it. Perhaps in some cases the adult could hurt the child, but this is true of anything. Although the subject is extremely taboo, from a theoretical perspective it doesn't seem impossible to me that adults and children might bond through intimate affection at around the age of 10. I was definitely sexual with other children when I was that age, so the argument that children aren't sexual wouldn't seem to be true.

the idea that children are asexual has been thrown overboard a long time ago. i was sexually active in kindergarten already in pre-sexual ways that seem quite healthy. it is my perception that many or most children did things like that. i've recently read a little about (consensual) sibling incest and even that seem rather normal.

in the face of such facts it seems absurd to presuppose that children cannot be sexually attracted to grown ups. of course, they're very susceptible to abuse which is the problem. however, morally there can't be anything wrong with two partners consensually engaging in sexual contact even though i see that many parents will have a problem with it. the thought that my little brother who is eight might do something like that is terrible but that's probably just internalized social norms speaking here.

this is highly controversial! people may dislike us automatically just for expressing these opinions. i feel that no social phenomena is as acceptably hated as pedophilia.