Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, he didn't vandalize personal property. He vandalized the Capitol building which is run with the money the state government stole from him and all other citizens. Really, he just painted his own share of the building in an eccentric way.
His bit was the brass ring on the light fitting that held the lights on the landing of the second floor.
He actually vandalised Robtard's bit, which I personally think was selfish and thoughtless...
😛
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
His bit was the brass ring on the light fitting that held the lights on the landing of the second floor.He actually vandalised Robtard's bit, which I personally think was selfish and thoughtless...
😛
Na, mine's a square inch on the third step furtherest left. Think I'll paste some chewed gum on mine.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, hence my commentnot surprising, most people do that even in light of really good evidence
Well lucky im not most people then, I guess.
Anybody that knows me knows that show me some convincing evidence and I'll readjust my theory.
Nothing is as convincing to people as something they've experienced first hand. (Whereas some'll just substitute that for whatever they read in a book or on the net.)
And thank f*** Im not one of those people.
Originally posted by Robtard
Na, mine's a square inch on the third step furtherest left. Think I'll paste some chewed gum on mine.
They gave you a bit of the stairway? Holy shit. How much tax were YOU paying....? At least its someplace on the way up, I guess. 😛
It is your prerogative, on your personal designated plot. 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
the study says nothing of introverts being less altruistic, which it appears to me was Sadako's main point...
Ah. Okay. I was referring only to this portion of his post.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Those altruisms you speak of again might actually coincide with the 'selfish humans' thang too.The idea being that those 'do good' instincts were formed as a method of ensuring a better tommorrow for the instinct holder.
(Nature's way of ensuring that you learn the idea of things you do affecting your survival prospects tommorrow.)
I thought that third part was an aside. I was referring to some altruistic behaviors being selfish behaviors in disguise. I could have sworn you posted a study on that or cited something on that in that atheist morals thread.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well lucky im not most people then, I guess.
most people aren't 😉
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Show me some convincing evidence and I'll readjust my theory.
I don't think I've ever expressed a desire to make you do so
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nothing is as convincing to people as something they've experienced first hand.
almost the specific reason why eye witness testimony is considered much poorer than physical evidence in court and why in the science of psychology, first hand reports of things are the anathema of most research programs.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(Whereas some'll just substitute this for whatever they read in a book or on the net for this.)
yes, because there are no books that are more informative than the never-failing human brain
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And thank f*** Im not one of those people.
certainly not
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought that third part was an aside. I was referring to some altruistic behaviors being selfish behaviors in disguise. I could have sworn you posted a study on that or cited something on that in that atheist morals thread.
I believe I did
I just didn't want there to be any confusion
I have provided empirical support for the idea that altruism can be selfishly motivated and is not reliant on religious structures, not that introverts are less altruistic.
Originally posted by inimalist
most people aren't 😉I don't think I've ever expressed a desire to make you do so
yes, because there are no books that are more informative than the never-failing human brain
Yes. Rotten lousy individuality. We really must have that erradicated some day.
Ah. Fair play.
And til computers actually start writing books themselves, all books rely on the human brain to write them.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And til computers actually start writing books themselves, all books rely on the human brain to write them.
some brains are better than others, and computers will rely on the same problem, as they will be built by humans.
Provided someone isn't a chronic liar, it is fairly easy to find information you can be certain is more reliable than your own experiences. You don't have to believe it obviously.
Originally posted by inimalist
I believe I didI just didn't want there to be any confusion
I have provided empirical support for the idea that altruism can be selfishly motivated and is not reliant on religious structures, not that introverts are less altruistic.
Shit if merely being an introvert was what I was talking about, then Id probably be describing half the posters on KMC as they are in RL.... 😛
Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't make sense, as altruism relies on selflessness, otherwise said actions would be something else, what, not sure the word.
thats fine, it is totally outside of the scope of explaining behaviour, which was the point of the study.
"Altruistic behaviour" is normally defined as behaviour that appears to have a cost for the actor that is not related to any particular reward. Historically, this has been a problem for philosophy because of, exactly what you are saying.
In science though, people are less concerned with what the philosophical-linguistic ultimate meaning of the symbol "altruism" is, and more with what motivates those behaviours.
The reason I personally don't think it matters is that the English language wouldn't look remotely similar if all of the words used had to follow strict scientific definitions.
Whether something can ever be done with no sense of self (no) is rather moot, imho, in anything but the most academic philosophical discussions of the term, as we all generally know what "altruism" means when it is said.
Also, if I am not mistaken, altruism is almost always referred to as "pro-social behaviour" in scientific literature.
Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't make sense, as altruism relies on selflessness, otherwise said actions would be something else, what, not sure the word.
No. It really is word semantics because it really would be half a dozen of one, six of the other.
Case in point, a cro-magnon mother cares greatly for her child to altruistic extreme's...putting her life in danger that she wouldn't have before the child; giving up food, that she normally would have eaten, for the child, etc.
On the surface, this is absurd altruism. However, take a genetic step back and you can see that it could also be classified as genetic selfishness. She is only doing what millions of years of mammalian evolution have her do. She is acting on selfish preservation genes. Instead of preserving herself, though, she is preserving her genes to selfishly keep ahead of the species attrition.
Edit- Oh, inimalist already answered...five minutes ahead of me. lol
Originally posted by Robtard
And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?
pro-social behaviour?
just because there is no reward for the animal in a particular instance does not mean that the behaviour might not have a survival benefit for the genes that create it.
humans have a cultural tradition of separating the world of nature from their own, thus all forms of cruelties are enacted on animals with total moral inertness. Maybe dolphins do not have a formalized culture that forces them to not assist other animals (and that is dumb anyways, people have been caring for animals for thousands of years)