Originally posted by inimalistNot blaming anybody, just saying it's the way it is, nature and all.
I don't knowit seems like he is really blaming people for not being strong enough not to get bombed, not simply for being in the way when we bomb them...
like, "jeez, natives, how could you be so weak to let Europeans take all of your land, you should really step up your bloodthirsty militarism"
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But nobody is entitled to live the "lifestyle" they feel entitled to without working for it. Some feel entitled to what the very rich have without working for it. If a person doesn't get up and earn it they don't have the right to anything.
if a person doesn't work they don't have the right to health care if they get sick or hit by a car?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Not blaming anybody, just saying it's the way it is.
... given we all act as bloodthirsty individuals who don't care for anyone else, sure...
...so long as we go along with the most amoral and willing to do harm to others, sure...
... [circular reasoning that shows the absolute lack of morals in this position], sure...
Originally posted by dadudemonUnfortunately this does seem to be the case. And oddly enough, I pity those types...when they're not pissing me off.
I'm not joking when I say this: for some, one of the finer things in life IS gaining prosperity at the cost of the quality of life or standard of living of others.
In fact, I think there's some sort of biological mechanism in place that rewards those that "win" over their fellow man. I remember reading about "winners" having elevated test levels after winning a sports event. The "winners" get more "winny" by winning. Does that make sense?This does sound familiar. I think it was related to biomechanisms related to fight-or-flight. Basically, if you 'fought' and won, the systems responsible are reinforced. But I could be recalling incorrectly.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, those claims are fakethe readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....
Really? That's not what I got when I read about it in depth.
It seems that one of the sites has elevated levels, for sure...but not enough to attribute it to weapons. Then another has strata that are too old to be "modern nukes".
There's 2 sites. Isn't there a thread on this?
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but their society didn't revolve around technological investment into arms and armament. A lot of this has to do with available minerals and geography, but still, European nations were fielding standing armies long before the rest of the world had developed anything remotely similar (China might be the exception... I'm not sure when they first militarized)
China would be an excellent exception. They were conducting mass army campaigns thousands of years before the Europeans (except the greeks and romans).
Now China is waging war with their rare-earth metals. uhuh
Originally posted by inimalistWe all care about ourselves and those directly tied to ourselves, and we do what is in our own best interest. No different than 1,000,000 people dying is a statistic and one person dying is a tragedy. We do what motivates us and pleases us all day, every day.
... given we all act as bloodthirsty individuals who don't care for anyone else, sure......so long as we go along with the most amoral and willing to do harm to others, sure...
... [circular reasoning that shows the absolute lack of morals in this position], sure...
Your primary motivation for buying food is not to help out farmers or to help people keep jobs, you buy food to eat.
People do everything for their own benefit. Have kids, exercise, go out, etc. We cooperate and follow laws because we feel it is in our benefit rather than not cooperating. I wouldn't go to a job (which I don't at all thank god), if I weren't getting something in return. I'm not going for the benefit of the economy or the company. I'm going for the benefit of myself. Just like we all are.
People do compete and the ones that fall behind eventually fade away. This is why poorer areas have worse schooling, worse health care, worse neighborhoods. The reason poorer people have more kids is to increase the chances of them surviving and having one of their take care of them. It will always be that way. People who are the least educated and successful will always produce the most offspring whether or not it is any detriment to society. We're in a lot of debt and in reality people are still having kids to the detriment of us as a whole. Why? Their own self satisfaction.
Originally posted by inimalistWhat's the story behind the person that doesn't work. Did they recently lose their job? Or did they just decide not to do anything ( I know people like this). Why do they not have money put away for health care? Who is going to subsidize these people. Where does the money come from?
if a person doesn't work they don't have the right to health care if they get sick or hit by a car?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
What's the story behind the person that doesn't work. Did they recently lose their job? Or did they just decide not to do anything ( I know people like this). Why do they not have money put away for health care? Who is going to subsidize these people. Where does the money come from?
im sorry, let me rephrase:
is not dying due to treatable illness a human right in your mind?
Originally posted by dadudemon
China would be an excellent exception. They were conducting mass army campaigns thousands of years before the Europeans (except the greeks and romans).
those were the Europeans I was speaking of, yes
Egypt also, but the medeterainian shares a lot of geographical similarity to Europe
Originally posted by inimalist
im sorry, let me rephrase:is not dying due to treatable illness a human right in your mind?
That hurt my mind.
I want to rephrase that:
"Is being able to live from a treatable, yet deadly, illness a basic human right in your mind?"
The answer is answer is easy: only if the "treatability" is economically feasible for all parties involved. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemonRight. This also brings me back to the original phrase. Those who have the most money get the best healthcare. Those who can't, might not get any.
That hurt my mind.I want to rephrase that:
"Is being able to live from a treatable, yet deadly, illness a basic human right in your mind?"
The answer is answer is easy: only if the "treatability" is economically feasible for all parties involved. 😐
Other countries have very little healthcare and very few get it.
Originally posted by inimalistThis isn't about whether people think it's right or fair, because everyone disagrees on what's equal. Hell men and women disagree on what's equal. It's about what is. No matter what technological advances there are, people seek to be at the top to increase their chances of survival.
I bet you say that without the slightest bit of irony either...
People who are poor will have many kids in hopes that one of *them* will take care of them. It's always going to be that way.
Well if you go broke too bad. I'm on my way at the top baby!!! 😛
Seriously though I'm all for giving. I donate 10% of my gross to numerous causes. But I give to those who are in a tough bind and plan on improving or doing something. Not to losers, or people who had too many kids, etc. Even if they are family or friends. I believe in charity because it gives me options on who I help and people realize that it is a choice I made, not an entitlement. My problem with welfare is that it is taken from us without our option and given to others who may or may not really deserve it.
But even giving is something I do because I'm interested in doing it, even though it helps out others. I get satisfaction out of it or else I wouldn't do it. We all do what is in our own self interest. Nothing wrong with that.
But even as our society advances and allows these things for losers, they can't cheat nature. They'll never be at the top if they don't do anything, they can't. People who do just enough to get by will have only enough to get by. They will never be at the top. Those who are better looking and more successful will have more options. Even in our current culture of monogamy. We've allowed the weaker to be on life support longer, but they don't prosper.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well if you go broke too bad. I'm on my way at the top baby!!! 😛Seriously though I'm all for giving. I donate 10% of my gross to numerous causes. But I give to those who are in a tough bind and plan on improving or doing something. Not to losers, or people who had too many kids, etc. Even if they are family or friends. I believe in charity because it gives me options on who I help and people realize that it is a choice I made, not an entitlement. My problem with welfare is that it is taken from us without our option and given to others who may or may not really deserve it.
But even giving is something I do because I'm interested in doing it, even though it helps out others. I get satisfaction out of it or else I wouldn't do it. We all do what is in our own self interest. Nothing wrong with that.
But even as our society advances and allows these things for losers, they can't cheat nature. They'll never be at the top if they don't do anything, they can't. People who do just enough to get by will have only enough to get by. They will never be at the top. Those who are better looking and more successful will have more options. Even in our current culture of monogamy. We've allowed the weaker to be on life support longer, but they don't prosper.
Case-in-point: My niece loves her cousin (also my niece) more than her favorite icecream. She's only 7 but she already values her cousin more than her favorite desert. I'm sure this would change with the frequency of either "choice" but the point is still there: humans have what I think is a natural tendency towards altruism.
I don't know how this altruism gets lost in the complex economic structures of today. I think our capitalistic selfishness is more learned than natural.
Kids seem nicer than adults. Jaded, cynical, bastards.
Kids I believe can be very nasty: they just lack the ability to hide their emotions and intent the way adults do. They've done experiments on this, where the kids were alone and they established a social order. There was the on in charge, and there was the one at the bottom.
Of course the better looking, better dressed kids were treated better. Fat kids, poorer kids, kids who didn't wear as nice of clothes were treated worse. This was shown in *very* young kids, like the age of 6.
I remember in school the kids who wore the same shirt too often, or were fat got picked on a lot. The better looking kids were more popular.
Originally posted by dadudemonI think our civilization's at the point where we have to reconsider which tendency should dominate. I'd prefer a paradigm shift, but I'll settle for modified behavior.
...humans have what I think is a natural tendency towards altruism.I don't know how this altruism gets lost in the complex economic structures of today. I think our capitalistic selfishness is more learned than natural.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
This isn't about whether people think it's right or fair, because everyone disagrees on what's equal. Hell men and women disagree on what's equal. It's about what is. No matter what technological advances there are, people seek to be at the top to increase their chances of survival.People who are poor will have many kids in hopes that one of *them* will take care of them. It's always going to be that way.
i was referring to the fact you obviously have no idea what health care, standards of living, life expectancy, or any number of other indicators of individual health are like in other nations
Spoiler:
they are much better than in America while costing significantly less, even when a public option is used
iirc, I think only certain types of cancer treatment or other highly specialized types of care are have better outcomes in America versus other first world nations. Standard care and access are far lower however. To any random individual, the American health system is far less accessible or efficient than pretty much any other system in the West.
but then, you are mixing issues to just rant about how little you understand poverty and human psychology, so have at it hoss
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Kids I believe can be very nasty: they just lack the ability to hide their emotions and intent the way adults do. They've done experiments on this, where the kids were alone and they established a social order. There was the on in charge, and there was the one at the bottom.Of course the better looking, better dressed kids were treated better. Fat kids, poorer kids, kids who didn't wear as nice of clothes were treated worse. This was shown in *very* young kids, like the age of 6.
I remember in school the kids who wore the same shirt too often, or were fat got picked on a lot. The better looking kids were more popular.
That sounds similar to "Bigler's Experiment." The red and blue shirt experiment.