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.

[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.