Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small.

[Lief Erikson]

Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small. Then they debate about debating!


This is a continuation of the AIDS thread. Lizra also has been involved a great deal. Anyone who wants to join the debate, go ahead . If we ever manage to make enough progress, we'll come back to the main discussion of the AIDS thread and perhaps move back into the thread itself. This is a kind of offshoot.


EDIT: The old title is changed, now. I'm choosing another topic title, one that RÃ*an was considering making a new topic and hadn't decided firmly. It's a religious debate, but it can go beyond that. The current topic for debate is free will vs. gene-rule. The discussion gets into the reasons for our beliefs.

Other discussion topics are completely permitted. Anyone can bring up their beliefs on various subjects, such as religion and other.

This thread is akin to the other Offshoot threads that have been created. This is the offshoot from the AIDS thread.

[Insidious Rex]

Ha ha! Now THIS i respect. Using a joking comment I made and running with it. Thats gut points right there. Umm... now what were we talking about anyway...

[Insidious Rex]

Although watch out a thread like this is just calling out for renigade moderators who want to test their thread splitting powers and fracture it into a million pieces.

[Lief Erikson]

(Remembers that Sister Golden Hair has a BIG stick ) Right. We'll watch. I'll debate with whatever moderator comes. (Gets all defensive)

I'll transfer my most recent posts. We were talking about strength, weakness and language, and we were talking about predestination through genes, emotion-control . . . and before that we were talking about freedom of religion.

I'll submit my most recent posts.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

anger implies anger. Nothing more. You choose to be angry sometimes? You have such controls over your emotions?

People can control when they express it. Also I think to some small extent people actually do indulge in controlling their emotions. Some people purposely go out and have a pity party, even though they could choose instead to do other things. Feelings of anger grant some people a feeling of empowerment, so they work with that anger, and I believe it becomes more frequent for them then it does for people without that anger.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The very fact that we DON’T control our emotions to our whims should show you that our BEHVIOR is the product of deeply rooted factors that combine with environmental factors to chart out the general course of our behavior.

Sometimes I don't think we can at all control our emotions. We feel enormous grief when someone we know dies. We feel elation when we receive a raise at work. However, we can control our behavior. While we can't always (though perhaps sometimes we can, like in my above examples) control our feelings, we can control what we do. If I feel hatred for someone, that doesn't mean I'll certainly kill them. If I feel burning lust for someone, it doesn't mean that I'll have sex with them. I can control what I do.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is it a coincidence that there is more murder in poorer neighborhoods generally? There just HAPPENS to be that pattern of people making freely willed choices to kill one another for a purse or a tv or in a drive by? Or could it be that the effect of that specific environment in which survival is harder then in your nice rich suburban neighborhood in combination with human genetics as they are brings about more situations where people wind up killing each other. If it was all free will then the murder rate should be even everywhere. Why isn’t it?[/B]

It's LIMITED free will we're talking about here. We're limited by our circumstances, by the extent of our own individual powers, and we feel emotions and temptations. Some of us let these emotions and desires control us. Others have power over the emotions and desires, refusing to let them gain sway in their lives.

If people have these emotions that push them toward breaking the law more then the rich people do, they're more likely to succumb to the temptation. Where there's more temptation, there's more likelihood of succumbing to that temptation. Even from a free will standpoint that's accepted. I know that if I was in a situation where everyone around me is corrupt and accepting bribes, I would be far more likely to enter into the same type of behavior then I am now, where there's no temptation whatsoever. HOWEVER, I still have control. I could choose not to involve myself in that corruption. There are people that do that, individuals who are that strong. Some are killed because of their morality in an immoral environment. Others change the environment through their own integrity (though this is rarer).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

no because THEY didn’t hit you. the other person hit you. If I hit you with a stick will you be mad at the stick or me?

That's exactly her point. So if she does something against you, she has no control over what she does, therefore she is as deserving of anger as the stick.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
And I hope, given your worldview, that you wouldn't be angry at people that oppose homosexual marriage, since you think their genes and environment made them be that way.
oh is this the part where you are trying to tie it all back in? quite a reach. I can say if I was homosexual and you told me no you cant get married I think I would be justified in being angry at you just as you would be justified in being angry at me if I said no you cant worship as you please. Just because your genes and your environment combine to make you misguided doesn’t mean my genes and my environment wont combine to make me angry about you trying to control me.

She wouldn't deserve your anger though. She's a robot.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I see what you are saying. But what if i GENUINLY feel something that was said WAS silly? What do i do? say nothing? im not that type. i dont mince words. i dont pull punches. i just say exactly what i think. in fact i go out of my way to try to provide the exact right word in any given situation. its how i am. so in your example yes i would most likely have told your sister that was silly if i genuinly felt it was silly. but THEN i would have told her WHY i felt that way and given her suggestions as to how she could change the paper to make it more useful. would you say thats great sister yer such a good writer? who is doing the true discervice then? with my approach not only does she get thicker skin over time (a VERY handy thing in this world where people for no reason call you MUCH worse things then "silly") but she also learns how to structure a paper better and gets a batter grade.

I would say, "great sister, yer such a good writer," and then I would tell her how she can improve. She would listen to my criticisms- I know because I do criticize in that way and she listens and tries to change in those ways.

I'm teaching fencing on Saturdays, usually. There are a lot of beginners there, trying to improve. They are terrible at fencing. Do I tell them exactly how terrible they are and then help them improve? Or do I encourage them, tell them what they're doing right at the same time as telling them some of the wrong things? If I tell them they're terrible and then instruct them, many of them will never come back to fencing. They'll be hurt. If I tell them they're doing well and encourage them as I teach them, they'll keep getting more and more involved.

My two younger brothers write stories and books entirely because of my influence and encouragement. Telling ways to improve in my opinion should be usually linked with encouragement. I've seen nothing but good results from that, friendships blossoming at the same time as enthusiasm to progress increases and the words of criticism are heeded.

It's not our responsibility to give the people "training for life", by hurting them. The U.S. military does that because otherwise they'll be more likely to get shot dead. That's different.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I can only be who i am. if i try to force myself into being all sachrine and nausiatingly friendly

Is that what I do? Lol!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and ignore any comments that simply scream out call me silly then ill probably explode. i cant do that. so if you have another suggestion in how i deal with people like you who dont like to joke around in that way then im all ears. perhaps we can meet half way. perhaps i can toughen you up a bit and you can show me how to be sweet and lovey dovey and gushy when i interact with people.

I've been told by people on Entmoot to leave the debates because in their opinion I don't know enough. I've been condescended to and belittled by others. I'm still here, and I didn't strike back. In my opinion, the ability to control anger or expression of certain feelings shows that you have power over them. This shows that you're strong. That is the kind of strength I strive for. If I can give up all my money of my own will for God, I am strong. Money doesn't control me- I control it. Christians that have done this in the past, in my opinion are very strong. Even if they don't use bad language and aren't tough on other people (which I actually think is much nearer to a sign of weakness). It takes more strength to avoid tearing a maddening person down then it does to tear them down. If I think I am strong yet don't even have mastery over myself and my own behavior, I really am weak.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You never answered my question.

Would you please answer my question?

Here it is again: So can I use the word "nigger", and as long as I do it in an informal manner, like a big bear who wants to play, it's ok with you?

And Ill say again: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY. Meaning go ahead and lets see how you come off. As i said im guessing it wont work for you. But who knows. maybe you greet your friends with a hand shake and a firm "Sup nigga!" in which case that works just fine. Although I must admit Im highly amused at the very image of you doing this. *imagining Rian in baggy pants and with a gold tooth*

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(And even tho you like Sminty's style, I'll continue to post in the way that I think is best I think people should do what they think is right, don't you?)

agreed. now tell that to lief who seems to want everyone to post in a style only he approves of.

Honestly im not saying you need to let me brutalize you here. I mean at most message boards im pretty much middle of the road as far as beligerance goes so im not really sure why im being tagged with the horrible bastard tag here really. im pretty mellow and easy going normally. i just enjoy joking around and debating passionatly. remember the whole rian the baby killer? we went back and forth about that for weeks and it was always in a funny joking way. how come i didnt have lief and others jumping down my throat for being mean and immoral when i first said that?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I got it, and if it's a programmed response, then it's obvious that when people are angry at each other, it's only because it's programmed, and a person that, say, kills someone don't DESERVE the anger against him, right? I mean the anger is just a knee-jerk reaction that can't be helped, and there's no fault involved on the part of the murderer since he couldn't help himself, right? There's no justice in putting a murderer behind bars, because he couldn't help it, right? And those who were friends of the murder victim are angry at him only because they're programmed to be, and not because the guy deserves to have decent people angry at him, right?

what are you talking about here? If someone kills someone of course there is justification in putting them behind bars. They commited a crime and they robbed someone of their life and they are dangerous. When does anger enter into the reason why people are sent to jail?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anger implies blame, which implies - yes - free will choices.

anger implies anger. Nothing more. You choose to be angry sometimes? You have such controls over your emotions? The very fact that we DON’T control our emotions to our whims should show you that our BEHVIOR is the product of deeply rooted factors that combine with environmental factors to chart out the general course of our behavior. Is it a coincidence that there is more murder in poorer neighborhoods generally? There just HAPPENS to be that pattern of people making freely willed choices to kill one another for a purse or a tv or in a drive by? Or could it be that the effect of that specific environment in which survival is harder then in your nice rich suburban neighborhood in combination with human genetics as they are brings about more situations where people wind up killing each other. If it was all free will then the murder rate should be even everywhere. Why isn’t it?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not mad at a person that hits me if someone else took their arm and used it to hit me against their will.

no because THEY didn’t hit you. the other person hit you. If I hit you with a stick will you be mad at the stick or me?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I hope, given your worldview, that you wouldn't be angry at people that oppose homosexual marriage, since you think their genes and environment made them be that way.

oh is this the part where you are trying to tie it all back in? quite a reach. I can say if I was homosexual and you told me no you cant get married I think I would be justified in being angry at you just as you would be justified in being angry at me if I said no you cant worship as you please. Just because your genes and your environment combine to make you misguided doesn’t mean my genes and my environment wont combine to make me angry about you trying to control me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And Ill say again: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY. Meaning go ahead and lets see how you come off. As i said im guessing it wont work for you. But who knows. maybe you greet your friends with a hand shake and a firm "Sup nigga!" in which case that works just fine. Although I must admit Im highly amused at the very image of you doing this. *imagining Rian in baggy pants and with a gold tooth*

So you won't answer my question. I"m not surprised; you'd have to contradict yourself too much!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

My grandmother (who died 20 years ago) used the word "nigger" every time she referred to an African-American (she was raised in Georgia). Yet I NEVER heard her use it in a derogatory way. To her, it was a descriptive word to distinguish a person you were talking about, like how I would use "Asian" ("no, not that guy, the Asian guy"). Yet "nigger" is a word with such painful associations to so many, that if she were alive today, I would ask her to consider stop using it because of that.

All I was trying to do was to point out the inconsistencies in your argument, and the sad lack of consideration for others in your attitude. I'm not trying to say which words you should say; I'm only trying to say please reconsider your underlying attitudes and justifications, because words are powerful. "Its just how I play" is a sad excuse for hurting people. I'm not into telling people what to do; I will, however, ask them to think about something if I think they're unaware that they are hurting people. The ball is now in your court; I've done what I felt I needed to do.

Go ahead and use whatever words you want to, and I will choose to point it out when it gets too frequent and abusive, IMO, which typically happens when you don't have a logical answer to my questions I ignore LOTS and LOTS of what I consider insulting words from you, but it was just getting so bad and so frequent in the last few days that I felt I had to comment. Words like that are typically used to distract, and since you haven't answered my questions, I guess either you don't understand them or you don't have a good answer that's consistent with what you've said in the past so you're trying to throw little word bombs into the air to cover it up. (you've invited me to give you a hard time, so here it is yet I will continue to do so without using terms that I think are rude and also have nothing to do with the subject).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

agreed. now tell that to lief who seems to want everyone to post in a style only he approves of.

That's a typical inaccurate overstatement from you. Lief was concerned that you might be unaware that your words hurt people, and he courageously and kindly informed you, I"m sure in the full knowledge he'd get blasted by you. It would have been easier for both of us to remain silent, but we have more courage than that.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Honestly im not saying you need to let me brutalize you here. I mean at most message boards im pretty much middle of the road as far as beligerance goes so im not really sure why im being tagged with the horrible bastard tag here really. im pretty mellow and easy going normally. i just enjoy joking around and debating passionatly. remember the whole rian the baby killer? we went back and forth about that for weeks and it was always in a funny joking way. how come i didnt have lief and others jumping down my throat for being mean and immoral when i first said that?

As I've said many times before, I think you're quite kind-hearted. I really hope you'll seriously consider the things that Lief and I have been loving enough to share with you. Again, we're NOT setting ourselves up as the word-judge; it's YOUR decision what words you use. And it's our decision to talk to you about it, if we really think it's going overboard. And I talk to you about it because I think you're kind-hearted and were just not aware of it.

The "baby-killer" thing was pretty obviously a joke. I don't see any joke in the way you've used words like "fool", etc. You seem dead serious. And that's your right; but it's my right to point out your use of words and what I think that use demonstrates.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

anger implies anger. Nothing more. You choose to be angry sometimes? You have such controls over your emotions? The very fact that we DON’T control our emotions to our whims should show you that our BEHVIOR is the product of deeply rooted factors that combine with environmental factors to chart out the general course of our behavior.

I'm not denying that anger occurs. I'm not denying that it's often "uncontrollable". What I AM pointing out is that given YOUR worldview, which is that our behavior is entirely controlled by our genes and environment (and I noticed you're already starting to back off that position - you used the word "general" just now ) then altho my views on homosexual marriage anger you, I don't DESERVE that anger because I can't help it. You hear me state my views and you get angry; it would be just as logical for you to strike out at an innocent passer-by than at me, given your worldview. I don't deny your anger; I just point out that to be consistent with what you've stated in the past, it's not fair to direct your anger at ME. Or to put it another way, it's just as fair to direct it at a friend of yours who supports homosexual marriage. After all, neither one of us can help our views (according to you), right?

Is it a coincidence that there is more murder in poorer neighborhoods generally? There just HAPPENS to be that pattern of people making freely willed choices to kill one another for a purse or a tv or in a drive by? Or could it be that the effect of that specific environment in which survival is harder then in your nice rich suburban neighborhood in combination with human genetics as they are brings about more situations where people wind up killing each other. If it was all free will then the murder rate should be even everywhere. Why isn’t it?

I completely agree that it's no coincidence that there's more murder in poorer neighborhoods, and that the effects of environment make it this way. But that's irrelevant to my point. My point is that according to your worldview, a person in a poorer neighborhood would not be justified at directing his anger to anyone in particular, because no one can help their actions. So it would be just as understandable for this angry guy to strike a baby and kill it ( see my true colors are coming out! ) than to strike a rich person who made money by oppressing the poor. The rich guy can't help oppressing the poor, right? because of survival of the fittest and all that jazz, and his genes and environment made him do it, so there's no actual FAULT involved.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So you won't answer my question. I"m not surprised; you'd have to contradict yourself too much!

saying id like to see you try is contradicting? Don’t try the old bait and switch on me rian. You know I know this old tactic of yours and it doesn’t work on me. I gave you my response. You wanted a different response so you could pounce on it to score your point about me using the word “silly�. So when I don’t respond the way you want you pretend I didn’t say anything and shift the logic to make it out as if I was grasping at straws with the answer when my answer was a very well tailored response to your ridiculous and unparallel attempt at antagonization. Nice try. But maybe next time deal with what I say rather then pretending I didn’t say anything so you can make your preset point. People aren’t always gonna fall into your traps sorry to say.

All I was trying to do was to point out the inconsistencies in your argument, and the sad lack of consideration for others in your attitude. I'm not trying to say which words you should say; I'm only trying to say please reconsider your underlying attitudes and justifications, because words are powerful. "Its just how I play" is a sad excuse for hurting people. I'm not into telling people what to do; I will, however, ask them to think about something if I think they're unaware that they are hurting people. The ball is now in your court; I've done what I felt I needed to do.

and Ill say to you as well if you don’t like debating with me then simply DON’T do it. Its pretty simple. I don’t expect you to conform to me so don’t bother expecting me to conform to you. ill be myself and not waiver in inch from it. And patronizing holier then though lectures like that paragraph above SURE aren’t going to make me cow down to your personal expectations. Frankly I find THIS the most insulting an derogatory thing you could do. I could care less how passionate we disagree on different topics or what language you use when you talk to me that’s part of the process. You act as if all I do is unleash streams of expletives or something when I talk to you. id like you to point out even one example in over a year and a half of debate where ive done anything like that rian. Or even when ive called you directly anything insulting. Using the term “every fool in the world� certainly is NOT calling YOU anything. Its bringing up a hypothetical situation to make a point. Is every person in the world anti-gay? So why in the world are you so tremendously insulted and hurt over a simple throw away comment about a hypothetical situation. If I call your REASONING silly or illogical why do you feel the need to jump up and down and protest as if ive called you every four letter name in the book. As I told Lief if your reasoning is silly I will say so. Does that mean you are stupid or not worth debating? No. do I need to start each and every post with I THINK RIAN IS INTELLIGENT (which I DO and I HAVE many times) now as well as IN MY OPINION? You seem to have a complaint about everything now. Maybe you need to give me a list of things I need to stay so that you don’t feel so picked on by my incidental wording.

Go ahead and use whatever words you want to, and I will choose to point it out when it gets too frequent and abusive, IMO, which typically happens when you don't have a logical answer to my questions

then I would conclude from that comment you aren’t very observant but that’s not surprising considering the conclusions you make on other topics. Seems to fit the pattern. Ill get passionate when we are discussing a passionate topic and someone keeps saying the same thing over and over that has been countered long ago. If you don’t want to hear passion from me then A. don’t debate me. Or B. listen to what I have to say and don’t simply ignore it and say the same thing and use your usual tricks to counter my points rather then meeting them on directly with relevant responses. You’ve said several times well I just disagree. And that’s fine. But leave it at that. Don’t do shell games or bait and switch tactics to try to score points anyway then come back with crap like well its OBVIOUS that insidious cant answer my questions so I win.

(you've invited me to give you a hard time, so here it is yet I will continue to do so without using terms that I think are rude and also have nothing to do with the subject).

please do. And expect an equally hard time back especially when you are wrong and talking trash anyway. When you are right youll know it because ill agree with you and trumpet your great point for all to see as I HAVE done in the past with many people I have had disagreements with. But of course choose to ignore this because it goes against your main point.

That's a typical inaccurate overstatement from you. Lief was concerned that you might be unaware that your words hurt people, and he courageously and kindly informed you, I"m sure in the full knowledge he'd get blasted by you. It would have been easier for both of us to remain silent, but we have more courage than that.

courage to me is facing up to someone and not backing down no matter what language they use. Not insisting they play by your rules or they are somehow a deviant or a thug and crying about it when they don’t give you your way. You are a hypocrite to sit here and state that all I do is attack and you never instigate or antagonize or frustrate or demean in any shape or form because you are better then me. That’s ridiculous. You are all about jabbing here and poking there and using whatever means necessary to make your points. Then when I expose you for what you are doing you play the whole woah is me card or the indignation card and attempt to by pass the point of our topic by focusing on my delivery. Well I reject this hypocrisy out right. Ive been debating you long enough to know your tactics and how you can be awfully petty sometimes when you deal with me. So this whole silly lecture is a joke if you ask me. Like I said if you cant stand even the mildest of passion then just DON’T respond. Its really quite simple.

The "baby-killer" thing was pretty obviously a joke. I don't see any joke in the way you've used words like "fool", etc. You seem dead serious. And that's your right; but it's my right to point out your use of words and what I think that use demonstrates.

if I cant use the word fool in the sentence “Every fool in the world can be against the concept of gay marriage and ill still be fighting them and showing them that according to the founding ideals of this country that you CANT do that.� then we have a real issue here because you weren’t even REFERRED to in that sentence. If you are really and truly that thin skinned that every time I type a word that’s not complimentary in a response that you feel the need to jump up an down and complain about it then we are going to have a hard time communicating. This isn’t kindergarten and you are the one that’s a huge opponent of PC talk so I don’t get why you are crusading against me on this exactly.

frankly if someone is reduced to simply being belligerent and spouting curses AT someone and calling them names that’s usually a sign to me that ive won. So the last thing youll see from me is that kind of behavior even though you seem to think that’s all I do.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People can control when they express it. Also I think to some small extent people actually do indulge in controlling their emotions. Some people purposely go out and have a pity party, even though they could choose instead to do other things. Feelings of anger grant some people a feeling of empowerment, so they work with that anger, and I believe it becomes more frequent for them then it does for people without that anger.

oh sure but that’s just normal human psychology you are talking about. Its part of the programming. Whatever works remember. People are passive aggressive because it has its benefits. People are neurotic about some things because it has its benefits. And people are angry because it has its benefits. All very animal really.

Sometimes I don't think we can at all control our emotions. We feel enormous grief when someone we know dies. We feel elation when we receive a raise at work. However, we can control our behavior. While we can't always (though perhaps sometimes we can, like in my above examples) control our feelings, we can control what we do. If I feel hatred for someone, that doesn't mean I'll certainly kill them. If I feel burning lust for someone, it doesn't mean that I'll have sex with them. I can control what I do.

well sure you better be able to control yourself because if you DO kill that person it may end up in your death later. So if your genes give you the ability to control yourself depending on circumstance and possible outcome then you stand a higher chance of survival and these genes get passed on.

It's LIMITED free will we're talking about here. We're limited by our circumstances

I have no problem with this statement. And im pretty sure ive said this before at least once. That its not about being mindless machines its about ultimately being a vessel for our genes. Does that mean that your genes are in total control of you? of course not. But it sure as heck does mean that they have set the rules up before you were even around. And you have no choice but to operate WITHIN those rules. That’s genetics. If you want to call something free will because you are conscious of the decision you are making (or think you are) then that’s fine. But be aware that every action you make is the tail end of a million generations of genetic odds shuffling. And in THAT way if you think about it free will really becomes something of an illusion. Human behavior is relatively easy to predict in mass.

If people have these emotions that push them toward breaking the law more then the rich people do, they're more likely to succumb to the temptation. Where there's more temptation, there's more likelihood of succumbing to that temptation. Even from a free will standpoint that's accepted. I know that if I was in a situation where everyone around me is corrupt and accepting bribes, I would be far more likely to enter into the same type of behavior then I am now, where there's no temptation whatsoever. HOWEVER, I still have control. I could choose not to involve myself in that corruption. There are people that do that, individuals who are that strong. Some are killed because of their morality in an immoral environment. Others change the environment through their own integrity (though this is rarer).

so in effect what you are saying is that god made it harder on poor people because he placed them in situations where their temptation to do wrong is going to be stronger then the rich persons. I know god has reasons for everything he does but that seems rather unfair. I mean they were already poor to begin with. Why add insult to injury.

Lets look at the biological translation of what you just said. Poor communities are more likely to experience more crime because our genes allow us to do pretty much whatever it takes to survive even if some things are extreme or what we would call “evil�. So if you grow up in poverty and you are starving stealing becomes a much more viable option. Biologically the choice is steal or die. Well guess what your genes want you to do. The risk is you get caught and killed or thrown in jail but it may be a risk worth taking because the alternative is perhaps a higher chance of death. Where as the rich person does not need to take such risks because they have food at all times. So if they stole food anyway they would be taking an unnecessary risk and guess what your genes think about unnecessary risks. So what we observe in nature works out perfectly according to the logic of genetics.

That's exactly her point. So if she does something against you, she has no control over what she does, therefore she is as deserving of anger as the stick.

if she hits me my genes don’t want me to stand their smiling so she can hit me again and eventually kill me. They want my adrenaline to spike and flood my muscles. They want my heart to race and my oxygen receptors to suddenly explode in percentage of use. And they want me to make some openly hostile display toward rian so that hopefully she will just back off without a conflict. Barring that they want me to attack her so as to keep her from hurting me anymore. Anger helps all these things happen. Its part of the programming. This is how its supposed to work. Its not about deserving or not deserving. It just is.

She wouldn't deserve your anger though. She's a robot.

um no shes an ANIMAL. Which we clearly established before. or a highly complex human machine if you find the whole animal thing offensive.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not denying that anger occurs. I'm not denying that it's often "uncontrollable". What I AM pointing out is that given YOUR worldview, which is that our behavior is entirely controlled by our genes and environment (and I noticed you're already starting to back off that position - you used the word "general" just now )

ah the classic rian response of redefining the opponents thinking and then quickly using this against them. Lets clear this up shall we because im sure many people simply took you at your word and didn’t bother to think that you don’t speak for my “world view�.
Im not going to let you get away with attempting to sneak in the world “controlled�. I have never said that and whats sad is that you know I don’t think that. Heres the difference. Please take notes if necessary for future use… GENES AND ENVIRONMENT do not CONTROL us. There are no strings between the genes and your muscles or your brain. Nor is their strings between the environment and same. The genes provide the blue print for operation. The environment provides the stimulus for overt behavior patterns. Combine the two and you get total behavior. Changing your mind is part of this programming. CHOOSING to do one thing versus another thing is PART of this programming. Acting on an angry impulse is PART OF THE PROGRAMMING. Have we established this now? Any more questions? How long till my point of view on this is cunningly shifted to make another point I wonder…

then altho my views on homosexual marriage anger you, I don't DESERVE that anger because I can't help it. You hear me state my views and you get angry; it would be just as logical for you to strike out at an innocent passer-by than at me, given your worldview. I don't deny your anger; I just point out that to be consistent with what you've stated in the past, it's not fair to direct your anger at ME.

read what I said above to lief about the stick attack. Anger is an animal response. I don’t ponder getting angry and do it because I want to. There is a stimulus in the environment (your insistence of something unfair) and I respond with anger which spurs my response to you. if I didn’t get angry I wouldn’t be inspired to make any kind of response worth a dime against yours and you would be the victor. Sounds awful animal to me. Substitute the stick for your words and a bigger (more accurate ) stick for mine. And you can see how perfectly biological this all is. No inconsistencies. No unexplained parts or weird circular logic as with other explanations of natural phenomenon. It works fine.

My point is that according to your worldview, a person in a poorer neighborhood would not be justified at directing his anger to anyone in particular, because no one can help their actions. So it would be just as understandable for this angry guy to strike a baby and kill it ( see my true colors are coming out! ) than to strike a rich person who made money by oppressing the poor.

I don’t understand this one bit. The baby did nothing to the poor guy. The rich guy has stuff the poor guy needs. So what logic are you using to say theres no difference and no less justification? Is there some kind of weird backwards logic here that im not picking up on? In any case im assuming what you were getting at here has already been refuted above.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh sure but that’s just normal human psychology you are talking about. Its part of the programming. Whatever works remember. People are passive aggressive because it has its benefits. People are neurotic about some things because it has its benefits. And people are angry because it has its benefits. All very animal really.

What is the benefit of certain religious belief? Such as the religious strength that causes a small minority of Muslims in India to hold to their beliefs even though the Hindus are massacring them for it. Do the genes think that they're going to heaven? Or care if the human thinks that, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well sure you better be able to control yourself because if you DO kill that person it may end up in your death later. So if your genes give you the ability to control yourself depending on circumstance and possible outcome then you stand a higher chance of survival and these genes get passed on.

Many times these things are simply not the scenarios we encounter in real life, though. People give their lives up for friends as well as family. Many people completely abstain from marriage or sex for religious reasons, things their genes would surely be furious about (not that genes have feelings, of course you understand ). I seem to recall having brought up all these arguments in the past. Forgive me though; I don't remember your responses . Right now it looks to me like religion often goes against all gene instincts. Having faith in God for protection probably wouldn't look like such a good idea to the genes . Then there's also marriage- wouldn't genes be more in favor of getting a harem type system going? The risk of STD doesn't seem nearly so great as the advantage of multiple partners. Minds and choices seem to be involved here, choices I believe are made by the soul.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I have no problem with this statement. And im pretty sure ive said this before at least once. That its not about being mindless machines its about ultimately being a vessel for our genes. Does that mean that your genes are in total control of you? of course not. But it sure as heck does mean that they have set the rules up before you were even around. And you have no choice but to operate WITHIN those rules. That’s genetics.

Hmm. I tend to look at the genetics rather differently. To me, they are powerful influences upon the individual. Anger comes on the person. The person's soul decides whether to express it or stamp on it. Love comes upon a person. The person decides whether to express it or stamp on it. The different emotions and pressures of genes come upon people and the decision is up to the soul in which way to act. The vast diversity of human behavior seems largely self centered as you suggest, but there are so many blazing examples of unselfish behavior that the hypothesis (gene rule ) seems flawed. People giving up their lives for their religion (whether family benefits or not), people abstaining from sex by choice, the existence of HOMICIDE, and other examples I'm sure I'll be able to think of indicate that genes don't rule in peoples' lives.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If you want to call something free will because you are conscious of the decision you are making (or think you are) then that’s fine. But be aware that every action you make is the tail end of a million generations of genetic odds shuffling. And in THAT way if you think about it free will really becomes something of an illusion. Human behavior is relatively easy to predict in mass.

Sometimes it can be. But often times it isn't. I'm sure genes and environment, which you keep pointing to, have a large impact upon an individual making his or her choice. Often though, people control the instincts they feel. They keep them under their own power, not letting these feelings control them.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so in effect what you are saying is that god made it harder on poor people because he placed them in situations where their temptation to do wrong is going to be stronger then the rich persons. I know god has reasons for everything he does but that seems rather unfair. I mean they were already poor to begin with. Why add insult to injury.

Good question. RÃ*an would say that God allows these evil things, but doesn't cause them. I actually don't believe in free will, so I would give a different answer. I would say God planned these occurrences for good purposes that haven't yet been revealed, as in the book of Job. Job really is the right book of the Bible to go to when wondering about the question of suffering.

Simply because we from our extremely limited reference frames cannot see the answer to something doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm sure you've heard the answers to the question of pain before, from Christians. If you don't remember them, we'll be fine with discussing this .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lets look at the biological translation of what you just said. Poor communities are more likely to experience more crime because our genes allow us to do pretty much whatever it takes to survive even if some things are extreme or what we would call “evil�. So if you grow up in poverty and you are starving stealing becomes a much more viable option. Biologically the choice is steal or die. Well guess what your genes want you to do. The risk is you get caught and killed or thrown in jail but it may be a risk worth taking because the alternative is perhaps a higher chance of death.

No doubt those things are part of people's decision making. But they certainly aren't all. People also consider the moral issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal. They consider whether they are going to break that moral teaching. You might argue that the moral teaching was placed in for the betterment of the community, which is everyone including the potential thief. But the person's thoughts never even briefly touch on this.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Where as the rich person does not need to take such risks because they have food at all times. So if they stole food anyway they would be taking an unnecessary risk and guess what your genes think about unnecessary risks. So what we observe in nature works out perfectly according to the logic of genetics.

Not really perfectly . Who was that famous actress that a year or so ago was jailed for shoplifting? Something Ryder.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

if she hits me my genes don’t want me to stand their smiling so she can hit me again and eventually kill me. They want my adrenaline to spike and flood my muscles. They want my heart to race and my oxygen receptors to suddenly explode in percentage of use. And they want me to make some openly hostile display toward rian so that hopefully she will just back off without a conflict. Barring that they want me to attack her so as to keep her from hurting me anymore. Anger helps all these things happen. Its part of the programming. This is how its supposed to work. Its not about deserving or not deserving. It just is.

Then there are people like Gandhi and many Christians that will take blow after blow without fighting back, without aggressive displays or anything. Not because they can't, but because they choose not to.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

um no shes an ANIMAL. Which we clearly established before. or a highly complex human machine if you find the whole animal thing offensive.

Robot . . . animal . . . my point was that she's no more to blame then a stick that's descending. You can't blame the stick. RÃ*an would be no more to blame. She couldn't help what she did.

Perhaps you can't control your feeling anger, but you can control whether you express it or not. And she doesn't deserve it. Nothing deserves anything. Nothing is worthy of anything. No sense of fairness matters. No man deserves a reward; you give him a reward because it'll make him happier with you because that'll benefit you in the long run.

[Rían]

(just to insert a reference here - from a post by IRex, #223478 : "But EVERYTHING we do EVERY behavior we make is dictated ultimately with the collusion of our genes. And by this standard, free will does indeed become more or less meaningless. Because we cant escape the fact that we are an extention of our genes. " )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Irex

saying id like to see you try is contradicting? Don’t try the old bait and switch on me rian. You know I know this old tactic of yours and it doesn’t work on me. I gave you my response. You wanted a different response so you could pounce on it to score your point about me using the word “silly�. So when I don’t respond the way you want you pretend I didn’t say anything and shift the logic to make it out as if I was grasping at straws with the answer when my answer was a very well tailored response to your ridiculous and unparallel attempt at antagonization. Nice try. But maybe next time deal with what I say rather then pretending I didn’t say anything so you can make your preset point. People aren’t always gonna fall into your traps sorry to say.

I'm asking a "yes" or "no" question, and I would like an answer, not a "response" on your opinion on how it would come off if I tried it Your response of "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY" does NOT answer my question. Your response of "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY" is NOT contradicting; it's avoiding the question. How is my pressing for you to answer my question "bait and switch?"

And I did not try to antagonize you or set a trap I don't do things like that. Seems like you're throwing up a lot of dust to try to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.

Here it is again: "So can I use the word "nigger", and as long as I do it in an informal manner, like a big bear who wants to play, it's ok with you?"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by RÃ*an
I'm not denying that anger occurs. I'm not denying that it's often "uncontrollable". What I AM pointing out is that given YOUR worldview, which is that our behavior is entirely controlled by our genes and environment (and I noticed you're already starting to back off that position - you used the word "general" just now )


ah the classic rian response of redefining the opponents thinking and then quickly using this against them. Lets clear this up shall we because im sure many people simply took you at your word and didn’t bother to think that you don’t speak for my “world view�.

Im not going to let you get away with attempting to sneak in the world “controlled�. I have never said that and whats sad is that you know I don’t think that.

I think in your time debating with RÃ*an, you've made some serious mistakes about her tactics and what she's like. She's saying exactly what she views your view to be. She didn't know that's not what you thought. Assume that she loves you and isn't just out to beat you. Then you'll be able to begin understanding her posts better. She won't become frustrated with you so often. What's sad to me is how distrustful you are of RÃ*an.

I've gained the impression you believe self oriented genes combined with environment control our behavior- in other words, our behavior all comes from genes. See what I say below before responding, please.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Heres the difference. Please take notes if necessary for future use… GENES AND ENVIRONMENT do not CONTROL us. There are no strings between the genes and your muscles or your brain. Nor is their strings between the environment and same. The genes provide the blue print for operation. The environment provides the stimulus for overt behavior patterns. Combine the two and you get total behavior. Changing your mind is part of this programming. CHOOSING to do one thing versus another thing is PART of this programming. Acting on an angry impulse is PART OF THE PROGRAMMING. Have we established this now? Any more questions?

I think the word control is simply another means of expressing this point of view you just stated.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

How long till my point of view on this is cunningly shifted to make another point I wonder…

Insidious Rex, stop insulting her again and again. I hate seeing it. Don't you know she loves you? Don't you know she's posting for that reason alone? So stop. She never seeks to provoke you. She's never said anything against you except in the form of recent requests that you stop using harsh language against her.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and Ill say to you as well if you don’t like debating with me then simply DON’T do it. Its pretty simple.

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll stop debating with you when I want to. For now, even tho I often don't like it, I've decided to continue. There's important things at stake here, IMO.

I don’t expect you to conform to me so don’t bother expecting me to conform to you.

But where in the world did I say I expected you to conform to me? All I did was offer a suggestion, because I was concerned that you might be unaware that you're sometimes hurting people. Apparently you're not concerned, or I would think you would at least consider what Lief and I said. And that's your option.

ill be myself and not waiver in inch from it. And patronizing holier then though lectures like that paragraph above SURE aren’t going to make me cow down to your personal expectations.

I NEVER asked you to kowtow to my expectations. I asked you to CONSIDER something and CHOOSE what you want to do. I'm very big on personal choice. Personally, I'm grateful when people point out something that I'm unaware of, and I'll consider what they say. It looks like you won't even consider what we said. And that's your choice.

Frankly I find THIS the most insulting an derogatory thing you could do.

Since I never did it, I guess you need to take back this sentence

When you are right youll know it because ill agree with you and trumpet your great point for all to see as I HAVE done in the past with many people I have had disagreements with.

Whew! Now THERE'S quite a statement! People are only right when they agree with YOU?!

No further comment.

courage to me is facing up to someone and not backing down no matter what language they use. Not insisting they play by your rules or they are somehow a deviant or a thug and crying about it when they don’t give you your way.

And we haven't faced up to you? Part of MY definition (which is EQUALLY valid) of courage is also to point out things that people may be unaware of and that they might be glad to hear about, even if I run a risk of being trashed.

And where did I insist you play by my rules, or cry when I didn't get my way? All we did was try to offer a helpful suggestion for you to consider. And we all know what you did with the suggestion.

You are a hypocrite to sit here and state that all I do is attack and you never instigate or antagonize or frustrate or demean in any shape or form because you are better then me. That’s ridiculous.

What's TRULY ridiculous is to claim that I "sit here and state that all I do is attack and you never instigate or antagonize or frustrate or demean in any shape or form because you are better then me." Please provide quotes to back up your claim about things I say. Where in the WORLD, especially, did I say I'm better than you??? Please stop making things up. Do you think that's courageous?

You are all about jabbing here and poking there and using whatever means necessary to make your points.

Yes, I am truly persistent to make points that I think are valid, just like you are. I strive to play honestly and courteously.

if I cant use the word fool in the sentence “Every fool in the world can be against the concept of gay marriage and ill still be fighting them and showing them that according to the founding ideals of this country that you CANT do that.� then we have a real issue here because you weren’t even REFERRED to in that sentence.

Well, since I'm against marriage being redefined (or as you say, I'm "against the concept of gay marriage"), I think it's a pretty valid deduction to think I'm included in that group, in your opinion. But perhaps you think that some people that are against redefining marriage are NOT fools. Is that true?

If you are really and truly that thin skinned that every time I type a word that’s not complimentary in a response that you feel the need to jump up an down and complain about it then we are going to have a hard time communicating. This isn’t kindergarten and you are the one that’s a huge opponent of PC talk so I don’t get why you are crusading against me on this exactly.

As I said before, it's NOT "every time". I ignore a lot of stuff that comes from you that is rude and irrelevant to the topic. It was just getting so bad in the last few days that I decided to comment on it. But I think I'm done now. You go ahead and keep posting however you want (I've never asked you to do anything different; I've only asked you to CONSIDER changing). Your posts can speak for what you do with that suggestion.

frankly if someone is reduced to simply being belligerent and spouting curses AT someone and calling them names that’s usually a sign to me that ive won.

And that's why I think that I have won. Shall we ask people to compare our posts and see who is closer to that description?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll stop debating with you when I want to. For now, even tho I often don't like it, I've decided to continue. There's important things at stake here, IMO.

great. Then stick to the topics at hand and don’t bother with the lectures and the language control and we will be fine.

I NEVER asked you to kowtow to my expectations. I asked you to CONSIDER something and CHOOSE what you want to do.

you tell me to act a certain way. I don’t tell you to act a certain way. That’s all the difference you need to see. Maybe I should ask you to be rougher with me because I feel ignored when you treat me with kid gloves or like a piece of china. But I don’t do that. I let you act any way you feel comfortable. Because asking you to do otherwise would undermine you ability to communicate your point in YOUR best style possibly.

Whew! Now THERE'S quite a statement! People are only right when they agree with YOU?!

and you say you don’t manipulate words… obviously im talking about people im in a debate with. so I am therefore DISAGREEING with them. But they make a point which is valid and I have to acknowledge. Like when Sminty tells me to my face how arrogant im being or when Lief brought up brothers and sisters marrying and I had to agree that he had a great point there. Even knowing he would certainly use that against me in future debates. So again nice try.

What's TRULY ridiculous is to claim that I "sit here and state that all I do is attack and you never instigate or antagonize or frustrate or demean in any shape or form because you are better then me." Please provide quotes to back up your claim about things I say.

well this is EXACTLY the message ive gotten from you. that’s my point. Are you saying my perception of how you interact with me is illegitimate and false? Its HOW I FEEL. How can you contest it at all. If anything it should tell you something about how we communicate with each other and perhaps how you are. Or you can reply by saying that’s all wrong and you NEVER do ANY of those things and im just making it up. Actions speak louder the words to me. You are very good at mea culpas and indignation but ive debated with you enough to know your subtle ways. And I stand by every word I said.

Where in the WORLD, especially, did I say I'm better than you??? Please stop making things up.

you say the way I interact with you is insulting and rude and should be changed and I reply with well its just how I am don’t take it personally and you continue to bring up MY approach to debating as if its unacceptable and less legitimate then yours. That TO ME directly implies that you think you do it BETTER then me. So sue me.

Yes, I am truly persistent to make points that I think are valid, just like you are. I strive to play honestly and courteously.

I don’t buy into it. Ive usually kept quiet when you say things like this but since the post is all about attacking me for how I post im gonna call you on how you are in debates and you can be wonderfully manipulative and tricky in the way you do things. You have a series of parlor tricks you use when debating me and others and that’s all fine and good. Everybody has their shtick to score in a discussion. But then you turn around and give me this I NEVER do anything like that speech. Well sorry but I believe what I see and what I experience and see it enough to be perfectly sure of it. If you don’t want me to have the impression then as I said actions speak louder then words. If you don’t care then continue.

Well, since I'm against marriage being redefined (or as you say, I'm "against the concept of gay marriage"), I think it's a pretty valid deduction to think I'm included in that group, in your opinion.

once again… if I make a generic throw away HYPOTHETICAL statement about every fool in the world believing something you DON’T need to get so super offended. Its just absurd. Everybody in the world ISNT against gay marriage so the situation isn’t REAL. And to me “every fool in the [whatever]� is like a standard form a speech. Not an attack. Its like Mr. T saying “I pity the fool!�. Well you don’t need to be all super offended because even though he is pittying you he is calling you a fool. Its just a phrase of speech.

And that's why I think that I have won. Shall we ask people to compare our posts and see who is closer to that description?

I think they already have from the replies I see on many many threads where we disagree. and youll notice that I said if someone is just streaming CURSES at you and not saying anything of substance THAT’S when you can feel you’ve won like I do. But of course we did a little fast switch of that wording to your advantage. As usual… AND you ignore that YOU brought up this whole language thing when I was talking directly about the subject at hand. And IM the one that’s diverting from the topic? Amazing.