SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Mighty Buzzard (18)
The Mighty Buzzard
themightybuzzard@proton.me
http://soylentne ... e+Mighty+Buzzard
"Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
themightybuzzard@proton.me
http://soylentne ... e+Mighty+Buzzard
"Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
Journal of The Mighty Buzzard (18)
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Sunday January 21, 18
09:18 PM
You know what's fun? Making regressive looter shitheads lose their entire mind by asking them to rationally and logically explain their position without trying to claim "muh feelz" as a valid argument. Ninety-nine out of a hundred of them won't be able to do it and will lose their shit on the spot. The one left over will be able to but more than half the time they'll have some foundational assumption that cannot be chalked up to anything but feelz.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
There is nothing wrong with Southern California that a rise in the
ocean level wouldn't cure.
-- Ross MacDonald
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:05PM (58 children)
Doesn't almost every human decision have some kind of emotional, sensory or instinctive component to it? Say, for example, you answer questions on a mathematics exam. You use logic to derive the answers, but for sure emotions will have been involved in deciding whether to show up for the test or not. Hell, even when the brain chooses whether to apply the rules of logic to a problem or not I bet there are emotions (or at least neurotransmitter chemicals associated with motivation and reward) involved. There'll be emotions arising from memories of social peer pressure and fear of failure as well.
Assuming you mean "looter" in a metaphorical sense, presumably referring to people in support of social benefits, then of course the way people feel is a component. If people starve or lose their homes then they, generally speaking, will feel bad. Social benefits, in that sense, are about trying to minimize the number of people that feel bad.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:53PM (4 children)
Untrue. Social benefits are about keeping those advocating for them from feeling bad.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:59PM (3 children)
That's also true, but most people that benefit from them, and also some people that do not benefit from them, will advocate them. Presumably, in functioning democracies that implement social benefits, this combined group of people outnumbers those that oppose the benefits, therefore they succeed in minimizing feeling bad.
Further, in a nation where those that oppose social benefits slightly outnumber those that advocate them, it is arguable that the suffering endured by those that can afford to pay a small fraction of their income towards the benefits is likely to be vastly less intense than the suffering of someone that is homeless and starving and would not otherwise be so had they received social benefits. Consequently, the policy can still succeed in minimizing feeling bad over the population. If you don't accept this analysis then would you agree that it follows that you would rather be homeless and dying from starvation than pay tax to fund benefits?
If the answer's yes then I can assure you that you are a statistical outlier.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:12PM (2 children)
False assumption. There is no realistic situation in which I would ever find myself homeless and dying from starvation. I refuse to depend on others for my daily bread, so I've become quite adept at acquiring it myself.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)
It was a thought experiment. It doesn't need to be probable nor even possible. I just wished to know which would cause you the greater suffering.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:43PM
Bad question this time around. The first was better, so I'll answer it. I would never, under any circumstances, advocate theft of that which I have not earned to fill my belly. Charity I would grudgingly accept if it were absolutely necessary but never that which is not yours to give.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday January 21 2018, @10:58PM (34 children)
We can drop the "moral" facade. Social benefits are how you prevent riots and reduce property damage [ssrn.com]. Bread and circuses do have a useful purpose. But the psychopaths are on the march. And all they see is an overpopulation/demographic problem.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:08PM (4 children)
So, protection money then? Roger.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:13PM (1 child)
LOL, I think you nailed it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:49AM
"Breakin' the law, breakin' the law." Judas Priest.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday January 22 2018, @01:28AM (1 child)
Sorry, but our societies are still very primitive, despite all the blinking and flashing lights. You don't don't need all that silly philosophy and religion when The Animal Planet can clarify everything within the hour. Our poo is just a bit more deadly, that's all. We still fling it for all the same reasons. Pirates/gangsters have always run the world. When has it ever not been *protection money*? Or a Mexican Standoff? People still need protection from each other.
I believe the saying goes: "Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger."
Anyway, until something else waltzes in, majority rules, right?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @01:45AM
Hopefully not. Our nation was deliberately structured to prevent majority rule.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:11PM (4 children)
How does such social unrest correlate with not only austerity, but also with the general type of government and existing degree of handouts?
I'd guess the actual correlation is "handouts stopped" rather than austerity in general.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday January 22 2018, @01:51AM (3 children)
FTL:
"The link between cut-backs and unrest only appears in democratic regimes."
Ya think? In every other place they just get shot.
"Peer-to-peer media penetration strengthens the effect."
We have seen and are presently suffering what *peer-to-peer media* has given us, to the point where we have to ask (again! [mit.edu]) if majority rule really serves.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday January 22 2018, @02:36AM (1 child)
Doesn't answer my root question... the average welfarocracy is a "democratic state".
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 22 2018, @02:50AM
You asked how it correlates with the type of government. And the quote said you have unrest under the type of government that allows it. Now whether whether you're cutting individual welfare or cutting infrastructure expenditures, it's a distinction without a difference, you are practicing austerity.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:37AM
You say that like it is necessarily a "bad thing".
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 22 2018, @02:57AM (1 child)
No, societies capable of affording those social benefits are how. They can afford better approaches than mere social benefits too.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @03:52AM
So, I was thinking of the word "benefits" and how they're the exact opposite to me. That's probably on purpose. Commie fucktards do love their ironic naming.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Monday January 22 2018, @09:15AM (21 children)
Globally speaking, Earth does have a massive overpopulation problem. But cutting back the population's income doesn't necessarily reduce its size. It's frequently observed globally that the poorer tend to reproduce more.
If population control were a goal it would be easy to incentivize having one child or less. They did it in China with fines, but it could be done with carrot instead of stick. The truth is that western governments want continual population expansion. I think they think it helps maintain infinite economic growth as well as, I suppose, creating more voters (though obviously that doesn't work when they vote for the opposition!).
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 22 2018, @03:06PM (20 children)
Earth does have a massive overpopulation problem.
That is just not true. We have not begun to scratch the surface (barely five miles deep) in regards to planetary resources. All our problems are caused by humans. It is purely a managerial thing. Technology and quantity of resources is no longer an issue. It's all politics now.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday January 22 2018, @06:30PM (19 children)
Well it's mainly the scale of the deforestation as well as never ending road building carving up ecosystems that's destroying habitats for other organisms. Pollution and deliberate poaching sure don't help either. If food could be grown in petri dishes miles underground (or in tower blocks) lit by fusion powered lights and everyone lived in tower blocks or underground too, then maybe the human population could keep expanding without causing mass extinctions.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @08:20PM (18 children)
You seem to think this is a desirable thing. Care to articulate as to why?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday January 22 2018, @09:28PM (13 children)
Dude, I'm not even gonna bother to answer this one. A lot of my other posts have covered the ethics of why I believe other species deserve better than what humanity currently inflicts on them. You do seem to believe in some forms of ethics as you've previously mentioned "stealing" but they're clearly quite different to my own.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:09PM (1 child)
Meanwhile, every other species would gladly extinct us, or any other species, for its own benefit. The world runs on Darwinism, not on feelz.Something like 98% of every species that's ever existed went extinct long before humans came on the scene; we're just another form of adapt-or-die evolutionary pressure.
Species that can adapt to change persist. Those that can't die off. It's been this way since forever. What do you think anaerobes thought of green plants polluting the atmosphere with all that newfangled free oxygen? "Geez, if this keeps up they'll kill us all!"
Humans are the most adaptable species in Earth's entire history. (Most of what we think of as ubiquitous, like rats, actually followed man around the planet as in the course of making it habitable for ourselves, we made things more habitable for them.) That makes us the most biologically fit, and if it's at the expense of a species that's less fit and less adaptable, that's how it's always worked.Preserving dying species may give us good feelz, but it goes against how nature works.
But hey, if you really believe that every species needs to be preserved in its natural state -- how about bringing back smallpox??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:40PM
The bit you're missing is that when humans destroy other species, they harm their own. Sure I suppose with enough stocks of non-perishable food and energy humans might have just about enough knowledge and technology to engineer entirely new species from just amino acids, so it's just possible that even if they eradicated all other life on Earth, some of them might still survive. If you don't see anything wrong with such a scenario however, I can't help you.
Many, many humans enjoy sharing the planet with other species on an intellectual, aesthetic and, yes, emotional level. Some people even care deeply enough about them that they would willingly give their own lives. If "feelz" are completely irrelevant to you then why even bother getting out of bed in the morning? Why work? Why eat? Why live?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:31PM (10 children)
Obviously but I'd genuinely like to hear why you think survival of the fittest should suddenly be thrown out the window just because humans are suddenly (relatively speaking) involved. Do apes become above nature when they lose too much hair or something?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:52PM (9 children)
Well here's one way of looking at it. If, as you imply, the best course of action is to behave only on a primitive, instinctive level (following only the decision making processes we have in common with other mammals) then any kind of higher level introspective thinking, rigid logic and philosophy is probably now off limits. If that's the case, then why are you even pondering what I said? All pondering, naval gazing and meta level thinking would be unjustified.
Here's another question for you Mr Buzzard. What is it about "survival of the fittest", beyond being an observed trend in other organisms, that makes it an attractive operating procedure for humans?
To once again reference one of my other posts [soylentnews.org], many other animals arguably exhibit some degrees of empathy and when laden with oxytocin will sometimes expend energy caring for the young of a different species (just check out some of the cat videos online for evidence of this ;) ), so whilst "survival of the fittest" is unquestionably the general trend across populations of living species, it absolutely cannot be used as a catch-all justification for all indifferent, or intentional destructive, behavior.
As I stated in the linked post, humans differ from most other animals in that we, usually, have the intellectual capacity to understand the full implications of our actions in terms of the pleasure or suffering of those organisms they affect. Knowingly inflicting suffering is ethically worse than doing so unknowingly, I believe. In this instance, I disagree with the decree that "ignorance is no defence".
Humans are not above nature, we are part of nature. When deciding to act in a way that I consider ethically desirable, I and those who do likewise are contributing to trends in human behavior. Conservation can therefore be part of nature, if our brains decide to make it so.
It's also worth mentioning that "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean that any or every "lesser" species has to die out immediately. Many of the extinctions that are happening as a direct result of human behavior are of species that historically have been very "fit". Big cats for example. If humans weren't knowingly wiping them out, they'd be thriving. "Survival of the fittest" is a mechanism for evolution and different species can co-exist for millions of years without hindering the evolution of one another. In the same way, if humans stopped killing big cats, the impact on human evolution and even total human population would be utterly insignificant.
Mass extinctions are bad because biodiversity is good. When just a handful of species are left, the diet of each becomes restricted and each is that much more dependent on the others. A lack of diversity actually slows evolution as well. The end result can be even more extinctions and as Runaway pointed out eventually this can include humans.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:26PM (8 children)
It's served us extremely well as a species. Top of the food chain and utterly dominating our physical environment.
Ah, see there's where we differ. Unless I have a reason to care about a species, I don't. At all. Granted, the reason may be as trivial as "it's cute and fun to pet" or as vital as "it is necessary for my survival". Dependency of one species on another can be extremely complex but if there is no dependence then there is no ethical reason to put effort into that species's survival; there are in fact ethical reasons not to.
Utterly untrue. You owe your entire existence to the mass extinctions of the past. Without them there would have never been mammals of a large enough size to evolve into humans. Freeing up ecological niches allows for new species to evolve to fill them. It has happened countless times in the past and will continue happening long after humans are extinct themselves.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:58PM (7 children)
You're right that it's worked well in the past but with the assistance of technology and civilization as well as sheer numbers, we've become effectively untouchable. Only rare microorganisms like malaria or ebola come close to being a serious threat to our species. On Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, humans as a species ain't got nothing to worry about right now.
For that reason, it's not going to help human evolution for the next few centuries to cause widespread extinctions. Nor would increased conversation harm our evolution. Other species can only ever help our species to evolve if they're killing significant numbers of us before we have a chance to reproduce. That's just not the case for just about any other species (with the possible exception of the sort of microorganisms I mentioned) and the more we reduce their numbers, the further they get from being able to compete sufficiently to hone our genetic development. Even if we let lion populations explode into the hundreds of millions, there are so damned many of us (and with guns) that they still wouldn't have much effect on our species' development. Although, they might have more of a chance to evolve for themselves, which would be a good thing because it might even create some more competition for us, eventually.
You say top of the food chain, huh? Well that means we're dependent on the many links of that chain for our food. Causing those links to become extinct is a bad idea. Just look at what's happening to the pollinators right now. I suppose you'll be content with robots.
That sounds more like self-interest than an ethic, to me. The point of an ethic is that it's a rule to ensure that individuals other than oneself are treated fairly. Under your logic, there's nothing ethically wrong with space aliens from Europa coming to Earth and harvesting all of our oxygen and water as recreational fuel sources, letting humans die. After all, they don't care about us because we're not necessary for their survival.
I'd be fascinated to hear what some of your "ethical reasons not to" are please.
What you say certainly has been true in the past and yes will be true to some limited extent and for some species at present. But be careful how far you extrapolate this thinking. What doesn't kill you doesn't, always, make you stronger. For example, if we were to reduce the habitability of our planet to that of Mars or the Moon, I hope you'd be willing to accept that that would be bad for evolution and would likely restrict our diet and pet choices. This isn't your average mass extinction. The current rate of extinction is estimated to be 10 to 100 times higher than any of Earth's previous mass extinctions.
Humanity is destroying diverse natural habitats and replacing them with monocultures that are comparatively empty of species. That doesn't leave many of the ecological niches you describe. The rats are doing OK, for now, I suppose. It's widely recognized that the mere speed at which human activity is altering the characteristics of the environment is simply too fast for evolution to work effectively. A mutation that might work this decade could be obsolete in the next because humans have altered their agricultural practices or repurposed vast swathes of land or altered global temperatures.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Thursday January 25 2018, @08:03PM
Actually, some of the conversations on here might harm our evolution!
Rather, increased conservation would not harm our evolution.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 25 2018, @10:33PM (5 children)
Not even close. You're thinking only of external threats. Internal unfitness for your environment is still unfitness. Like, say, if we were to decide causing a nuclear winter were the thing to do.
Who told you this? They're talking out of their ass, whoever it was. Humans are sometimes good at guessing but that's all the first statement is. The second is true but only in the absolutely strictest sense. It won't harm our evolution but it pretty much guarantees stagnation from environmental pressures.
Which is why I mentioned it being okay to put effort into preserving things that are actually necessary or desirable for our existence, yes. I think I even mentioned the complexity that can be involved there.
What do you think ethics are? They're most assuredly not "how to be nice". We are a social species only because it works out a whole lot better for us when we gang up on the rest of the world. We evolved ethics to tell us how best to do that. That aspect of the human race is in fact still evolving right now. In this conversation even.
There are three ways this can go. You can either accidentally harm a useful species, in which case it is absolutely ethically sound to attempt to restore it. You can also harm a species that is a threat to you, which is again absolutely ethically sound while the alternative is most decidedly not. Finally, you can intentionally or inadvertently harm a species that is entirely irrelevant to you. I assume the last one is the one you're asking about.
In that case it is a definite violation of ethics to attempt to restore that species to thriving. You would be interfering with the natural selection processes of that species and any that might come along and fill its niche should it be wiped from existence. Playing god is never ethical unless it is beneficial to your own species's survival; it's simply hubris.
Translation: A bunch of self-important asshats who think they know a whole hell of a lot more than they actually do believe this, though nothing about its actual truth should be inferred.
You're worried we're shooting ourselves in the foot. That's good. We need people worrying over the consequences of our actions. It's what keeps us from actually shooting ourselves in the foot. What we do not need is them saying they know things for a certainty that they can't truthfully say with even half a clue and dishing out moral flagellation to any who point this out. That is in fact counterproductive. People just think "fuck him" and go on about what they were doing because we do not like listening to assholes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday January 26 2018, @12:28AM (4 children)
Yes, I was only discussing threats from non-human species because the pros and cons of their extinction and their effects on human evolution were the subject of our discussion, I thought. Social Darwinianism within humanity is another issue. I'll grant you, I suppose, that if a human Armageddon wiped out all but a few thousand humans (very unlikely) and all of their weapons (again unlikely - and they would make more) then a large population of big cats or crocodiles might suddenly start to be more relevant to our survival and evolution (assuming they somehow had survived it all better than we did).
No-one told me. I thought we just established that humanity currently has no major threats from other species ("external threats"). Do you dispute this? I've already presented an argument why a non-threatening species isn't currently relevant to our evolution. Not being relevant exactly means that neither its presence nor absence will significantly affect our evolution. Agreed? The only caveat I would concede would be the possibility of unforseen knock-on effects, like an extinction might bring about the rise of a new aggressor, but I consider that highly unlikely in the near future simply because humans know how to easily kill just about all higher organisms currently on the planet.
Your statement is almost exactly the opposite of what I am arguing. The Earth's current apex predators took millions of years to show up. If we wipe them all out in the next few hundred, it's likely to take millions more for anything that has a realistic chance of predating on humans (thus applying environmental pressure) to show up again. In the example of big cats, if we don't conserve them now, then we wiped them out. If we stop killing them and stop destroying their habitat, they could evolve more quickly. You could make a similar argument about the other primates. If we conserve them, one might develop a more efficient brain than homo sapiens, combined with a handy resistance to bullets, so we might have some new environmental pressures to contend with. Someone of your persuasion might even consider moving aside on the grounds that they were the true face of progress on this rock. It's all speculation, but it's undeniable that none of this stuff can evolve if the evolutionary ancestors are all dead.
Yes you did. The trouble is, species that are desirable for our existence are already at risk of extinction right now due to current trends in human behavior. If you accept that some of those trends may need to change because of that, then good. The kicker though is that there are almost certainly numerous species that might not be immediately obvious as useful for our survival that we may find out later were indirectly essential after we've caused them to die (is that what you meant by "the complexity"?). We just don't know. What we do know is that there are lots of interdependencies within an ecosystem so isn't it better to play it safe?
They can be. Check out Utilitarianism. And being nice can be totally awesome. You can live by the Prisoner's Dilemma if you want, but if enough people adopt "being nice" it can find a global optimum for wellbeing rather than just settling for local ones.
Perhaps, but I was more interested in humans scaling back their own behavior that is detrimental to the species. Again, human decisions are part of nature. We are free to decide to restore habitat that we previously destroyed. Unlike most other animals we can pause to consider the impact. You define "ethics" differently to me. Again, we are replacing diverse natural habitats with sterile monocultures: we are actively destroying potential niches.
Not really. Some of them know a lot more than you or I about biology. The evidence though is pretty clear. If we keep radically changing the world every few decades, that doesn't allow for many generations of animals to propogate advantageous mutations. And, if we keep rapidly moving the goalposts, then I expect rapid adaptability and high intelligence will be probably selected for above all else. We've already got other great apes, but we keep killing them. When the populations and habitat sizes of so many of the higher species are getting so small compared to our own, what chance have they got to evolve? When numbers get very small, genetic diversity is lost and in-breeding can kill a species.
If by me, you mean a large portion of biologists, other scientists, some politicians and a significant portion of the educated public, then yes, we are worried.
I'm not sure who this hypothetical person dishing out moral flagellation is. Their behavior sounds highly counterproductive and unscientific. You couldn't, perchance, have been referring to me, could you Buzzard? ;D
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 26 2018, @01:45AM (3 children)
Ah, my bad. I read that as combative rather than neutral.
Ah, there's the issue. I wasn't thinking apex predators because they've never been more than a short term issue to us. Evolution getting creative is what I'm expecting.
I'm peachy keen with lending those a hand. I'm not, however, down with preserving a species simply because our influence is what is causing its current hardships. Animals adapting to their environment or dying is what is supposed to happen.
Now you're the one misreading. Ethics are absolutely about getting along well with other people. They are not about feeling empathy for an animal that serves no useful purpose and presents no threat. Any concern you have for things that threaten or do not affect humanity is not founded in ethics. It's the empathy circuitry in your brain misfiring.
Yes, I'm giving the actual origin and purpose of ethics rather than the self-aggrandizing thing we've decided to think it is. Which would be a problem if there were anything useful in said diversity. Diversity in and of itself is not a positive attribute. Now not exploring potential uses of things you plan to remove in place of a monoculture, that is foolish.
Indeed but knowing ten times as much as someone who only knows 0.000000000000001% about biology does not an expert make. We know an amazing amount of things about our ecosystem as a species but it's foolish in the extreme to think we understand it thoroughly enough to be in any way skillful or wise in manipulating it. Ask the folks down in Oz how much they enjoy cane toads, for instance.
Naw, we're having a damned fine and civil discussion. This, however, is not the norm when people, even scientists, disagree on the environment. Or much of anything else lately.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday January 26 2018, @06:30AM (2 children)
No problem. It was good to re-examine my own argument. One thing I totally missed was at that point I was only considering species that threaten humans. Some are actually food for humans or are involved in its creation, so quite clearly their extinction would impact human evolution, but you've already covered this with your "desirable for our existence" bit.
From a purely Darwinian point of view, maybe it is misfiring. I can certainly see where you're coming from with all this now. The best bit though about being human is that I can use my intelligence to rebel against my inherited animal instincts and choose a new purpose for myself and even for the rest of humanity. Why not the global minimization of suffering and maximization of pleasure, globally, across all organisms, rather than the local maximum of only human pleasure?
"Purpose" only exists in a given context, at a given scale. In nature and in humanity, individuals primarily look after their own needs but they also usually look after the needs of their immediate family. In many cases, they will compete with and even attack rival families of their own species. As you correctly note, the development of social cues and conventions can help to temper this competitiveness within a species. This is the level that you've chosen to focus on and I'll grant you that ethics have always been closely wrapped up with human social interaction (even insofar as they were created using language which is another evolved social trait). The field of ethics has grown from that though into a wider abstract moral philosophy. That's the bit I'm more interested in.
Hold up though because I haven't finished looking at the different scales of purpose. You keep advocating evolution as being ethically right: "what is supposed to happen". With the exception of humans, living individuals and their families care nothing for evolution, nor do they know of its existence. They just want to survive and reproduce. It's just that we've observed that statistically, over the larger population, evolution is the long term end result of that behavior. I can't deny it achieves great things. We of course, wouldn't be here without it. But the current and future process of evolution is quite far removed from the factors that influence the pleasure or suffering of an individual. And ethics, for me, is about weighing the sums of those pleasures and sufferings across a population. We can make a case though that the success or failure of a species' evolution will have a causal effect on the pleasure or suffering of potential future individuals.
Looking again at different scales, evolution is not a process that applies only at the species level. Just as each individual has the potential to spawn a new species, each species has the potential to divide, eventually, into whole new families (in the biological sense) of organisms. It is, after all, how they got here. It is only you that are making the very specific and arbitrary choice that only things that benefit the human species are right and things that hinder it are wrong. It's Speciesism. You can make a point that animals rarely protect other organisms that don't benefit them (as individuals), but I don't see what that has to do with ethics nor with the boundaries of species. Species is just about which individuals could be successfully mated with but as we've noted many animals attack their own species and many also help others in symbiotic or sometimes accidental ways. And you seem to look to these animals for your ethical role models but most of them have no awareness at all of abstract ethics.
On a bigger scale still, when the Sun goes out it's highly probable that all life on Earth will cease. From that point of view, if ethics then even still apply at all, then I would again argue that what's desirable is for there to have been more pleasure on the planet and less knowingly avoidable suffering, combined with a rich diversity of experience, thought and knowledge. Across all species. Evolution plays a huge part in that, certainly, but I don't see it as some lofty end goal or rule to be obeyed. It's a random, emergent process. The richness of an individual's experiences are arguably nature's best end result.
Well I've just said that I believe richness of experience is a good thing. Diversity is what creates that richness. I would rather stare at a diverse, natural scene than a plain gray wall for an hour but I'd be willing to accept if that's another thing we differ on! As I said in another post on this page, many, many humans greatly enjoy sharing the planet with every species they're aware of, on an intellectual, aesthetic and emotional level - so there's even a case for all of them being useful to humanity! Ignoring the "feelz" now, some level of diversity can help evolution because it's like parallel processing or not having all your eggs in one basket. Genetic diversity within one species gives more opportunity for new advantageous characteristics to emerge from sexual reproduction. Outside of that species, more of other species means more choice of food and also more competition which causes more selective pressure. You were absolutely right to point out that mass extinctions can kick start a period of faster evolution as well but it's all about what (if anything) does survive the event and what kind of habitat (if any) they have left to develop in. There will always be a theoretical point where too few species or too few habitats cripples the whole process (if you don't believe this, just think of what happens if it's one, or zero).
That's why it's better to play it safe and try to reduce our impact on it.
Yeah we're spoiling each other with all this attention!
Generally speaking, I'd agree with you. Sadly I think in many cases it's sensationalism and dumbing down to simply try and get the message heard. I mean, look how involved our discussion is on this. Your average Joe would TLDR one of the first posts! Your average politician or CEO would do the same but it would be called asking for "an executive summary" if not outright ignoring it!
I certainly have a better idea of where you stand on this now. It does make some sense but I still don't agree with it!
With their power, intelligence and sheer numbers, humans have a unique ability to consciously choose the future outcome of the whole Earth's natural history. The level to which we can do this is utterly unprecedented, so in that sense it's not business as usual for natural selection. I suppose that in particular is why I find it distasteful to justify harm to a non-human species, by unnecessary human behavior, as being ethically right solely due to the principle of natural selection.
Do I think there's a good chance that a large number of living organisms will continue to thrive on Earth for eons to come regardless of human activity? Probably, yes, but all the risks I've been identifying are certainly significant possibilities and as such, I believe, they should be taken very seriously. You yourself admit that there are complex dynamics involved and we just do not know for certain what will happen. So isn't it better to play it safe as much as possible, while we still have the chance? Playing it safe definitely means watching out for the wellbeing of more species than we currently are and, I would argue, for all species threatened by human behavior (with the possible exception of our ebolas and malarias but include them if you like) because it's just too difficult to predict which ones are the most important, be that to us, or to any of the other organisms.
Did that answer your original question? :D
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 26 2018, @12:55PM (1 child)
Already covered by the "playing god" bit previously. Preserving one species that has plainly failed to adapt to its environment keeps another that would have from doing so. Misdirected empathy screws not only with our own evolution but that of most every species and potential species on the planet. Which would be fine if we A) knew what we were doing and B) had some sort of a plan.
There we differ. I see any migration from its original purpose as an aberration that can do nothing but cause harm. Moral philosophies are all fine and good but should never be allowed to conflict with fundamental traits that have been bred into us over hundreds of thousands of years. When they are they can easily, and often do, twist those traits to cause immense harm to our own species. See creating artificial "outsider" status for subgroups within our society. The left is doing the hell out of that currently with its identity politics push over the last few decades.
Interesting you should say that. I don't believe it to be true (it's exceedingly complex but not removed), mind you, but it's certainly interesting. Primarily because concern for the individual is antithetical to any philosophy based on social good. All philosophies embracing "the greater good" are all about throwing the individual under the bus and repeatedly backing over him.
Have we switched sides here? I seem to be arguing for letting evolution do its "greater good" thing while you're arguing for the individual now. I'm going to take a couple days and explore if my political philosophies can live alongside my evolutionary philosophies and which needs to survive if not. You might want to do the same if you're able to see the cognitive dissonance we've managed to expose in the both of us.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:16PM
This is the bit that I'm just not buying. Presumably, under the ethical system you are describing, any deaths that result from a corporation dumping thousands of tons of plastic into the ocean would be ethically justified provided the species that die are not of use to humans. You're not just implying that it's ethically justified, but, because a few humans decided that dumping the plastic there is of some use to humanity, also that causing those deaths does not come under "playing God".* You then go on to imply, if I'm understanding correctly, that any attempt to reverse this situation (removing plastic from the ocean or freeing nesting seabirds tangled in it for example) then does come under "playing God". Does my example fit your rules?
So far, in the above example, your ethical code seems pretty consistent (if distasteful to me) but the part that I really struggle with is where you go on to justify these sort of rulings by saying that the deaths free up niches for new species to evolve. It seems to me that you're actually suggesting that the lives of any hypothetical potential future species that, let's remember, may never come to exist, are of greater value than the lives of real individuals that are most definitely alive right now. That just seems nuts to me! How can they be of greater value if we don't even know whether they will exist? Perhaps they'd be of value to humanity, but don't forget they could just as easily be a terrible threat to humanity, so it's a risky roll of the dice. To me, it's tantamount to saying that murder of someone that poses no threat nor advantages is ethically justified because they might make way for someone different.
*I'm not even sure your code requires an action to be of use to humanity. Could it even be a pointless or mistaken human action that is still ethically justified so long as it doesn't harm humans and only harms an irrelevant (or threatening) species?
You've certainly got me scrutinizing the foundations of my own ethical codes which is very cool. It's a field I haven't explored as fully as some others. My ethics are almost certainly arbitrary just as I believe yours are -- in fact I'm very inclined to believe that every specific ethical code is arbitrary to some degree or other. What I will also say though is that the suffering, pleasure and contentment of many living organisms are all unquestionably real attributes that can vary, even if they're notoriously difficult to quantify and compare. I generally define my ethics in terms of the effects of actions on those attributes. The dodgy bit is who does the assessment of an action's impacts and exactly how they choose to quantify and compare the pleasures and sufferings.
You're right I often find myself focusing on the wellbeing of the individual but don't forget that when we consider "the greater good" we're generally talking about larger quantities of, again, individuals. I absolutely do try to think of the greater good as well. Sometimes though, the two ideas seem to become almost paradoxical. They touch on this in Star Trek II and III where Spock sacrifices himself because "the needs of the many outweigh [...] the needs of the one" but is later rescued because "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many". I also think sometimes there's an ethical case for doing good for one individual even if it's irrelevant or even futile with respect to the wider population (for example making someone's last moments more comfortable even if they have no family or all those involved are about to die).
I do think perhaps that I inadvertently focus a lot on the wellbeing of beings that are alive today perhaps to the detriment of those that are yet to exist, which is strange, because a lot of these ecological and conservational disciplines that I'm defending have a lot to do with the future. I rather expect short-termism is a deficiency of the human psyche.
To me, the fact that specific ethical systems are arbitrary does not justify completely abandoning them. You are right that we cannot fully understand every future implication of our actions involving other organisms but, to me, that doesn't excuse us from attempting to understand and, yes, also mitigate, the more immediate impact. I make the arbitrary ethical choice of siding with the ecological scientists that advocate avoiding the "playing God" when it interferes with the interactions between non-human species that go on with no (or little) relevant human involvement but that absolutely advocate stepping in when it's the destructive behavior of other humans that is unnecessarily destroying other species and their habitat. My choice is somewhat arbitrary but I'm still convinced it's good enough (against my stated goal of promoting global wellbeing and richness of experience) for me. I consider it better than any currently proposed alternative.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:43AM (3 children)
It should be obvious by now - the more we poison the environment for other life forms, the poorer our own quality of life. At some point, the poisoned environment is likely to kill us. Whatcha gonna do when the last fishing hole has been poisoned, the water diverted to some industrial use and farming, and a high rise built where the fish used to be?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:15PM (2 children)
Except that's not the direction it's going, at least in the West; we've cleaned up our act and pollution is now declining. China hasn't caught up yet, but might, eventually. India probably won't; Africa never will. If you don't like that, you'll need to halt their industrialization (not to mention stop feeding the excess population).
And as someone pointed out in another discussion, water in the West is increasing diverted to "environmental use" (over half in CA now). Yeah, we shouldn't be building atop farmland, but ... Whatcha gonna do when the last farm dries up and blows away??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:07PM
I wish I could feel optimistic about any decline in pollution but do you honestly believe this decline will continue at the current rate (it actually probably needs to accelerate)? What about destruction of habitat, will that be stopped and reversed over the next century or so?
It seems to me that most of these supposed environmental policies are little more than politicians paying lip service with token gestures. Usually, the changes that are put in place will be set up in such a way to make damn sure somebody they care about makes lots and lots of money (see renewables for example).
If they're running out of water by the way, overpopulation by humans is again the ultimate cause and problem.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:42PM
So, you are suggesting that urban sprawl has ended? Are there farmers going back to work on Long Island, and in New Jersey? Have we stopped all the plastics being flushed into the ocean? How about agricultural runoff? Human sewage? Does New York still load refuse aboard barges, to be dumped into the ocean? How about our voracious appetite for paper - have we stopped cutting down trees by the hundreds of square miles to be turned into paper?
If you are pointing to the former volatile rivers catching fire, yeah, we've improved somewhat. Those rivers still aren't safe to drink from. And, I haven't read of any new Superfund cleanup sites in years - maybe we've improved in that respect. But, natural disasters such as floods cost more and more money all the time, BECAUSE we are foolishly building in lowlands, paving over permeable earth, and tampering with natural drainage.
I think the best that can be said about our improvements in the West is, the NIMBY crowd has pushed our poisoning of the environment out of sight. We are still piss-poor excuses of "stewards of the land".
But, even if we have improved a whole lot - basically, back to the NIMBY crowd - we've outsourced all that really crappy stuff to places like Africa. The poisons are still flowing into the environment. Corporations like Bayer continue to produce poisons to be distributed over the earth, in the form of insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. And, we haven't even considered genetic engineering. GE crops sprout up where they were never inteded to grow, obviously displacing native species and/or alternative crops. There aren't enough invasive species, we had to engineer some more.
For myself, I live in Arkansas. Arkansas is pretty much covered in pine forests. Most people think that is natural - but it's not. I grew up in Pennsylvania, and I was taught that the Keystone State had the most diverse flora in the United States. While my home state couldn't equal an equatorial rainforest for diversity, we ranked pretty close behind them. Imagine my surprise, when I learned that Arkansas, in it's days before logging, ranked pretty closely behind Pennsylvania. Arkansas WAS NOT a statewide pine forest!
When do you think we'll ever get around to restoring this state to something resembling natural?
I suggest that we ask the Native Americans what they think of what we've done here.
I could rant for hours on the state of our land, but I'll just cut it here. Maybe I've given you some food for thought . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
Well, you are technically correct, like that episode of TOS where Spock is mislead to believe he killed Kirk, then reacts with emotion once he discovers that Kirk is still alive. They went over it again in TNG where Sarek suffers a degenerative disease and feels emotions.
But here in the greatest country on Earth, only foreigners (and youngsters of Asian origin) feel that pressure during math. True Americans consider losing at math a status symbol. The only Americans who don't are tweekers who graduate from MIT only to make a living counting cards. And using more meth, of course.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday January 22 2018, @09:03AM
Ha yeah good point!
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:34PM (15 children)
What kind of a stake do you have in your neighborhood. Do you feel a sense of ownership, or are you a tenant. 'I' don't loot or rob from something I am a part of or feel some attachment to, but I can see where people don't feel any sense of responsibility or attachment to say a federally insured bank or a store that belongs to the 'man'. Social isolation or the feeling of being cast out of a community vs. part of the group.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @05:14AM (14 children)
Malcolm X was saying similar stuff 5 decades ago.
He said don't spend your money with the guy who leaves the community at closing time and takes your money elsewhere.
He said start your own business in your own community and patronize other community-based businesses.
Keep your money in your own community.
...then Malcolm got shot dead and others didn't carry on repeating his message or following his advice.
Those who had recordings of his words didn't play them at gatherings or on the radio.
The exception is Pacifica Radio, which has their own recordings of Malcolm's speeches and has those available in the Pacifica Archive.
Pacifica presenter Jerry Quickley makes sure to play samples of one each time a pledge drive comes around.
They're on a thumbdrive with 1400 hours of audio (and a searchable database file) which is offered as a premium to listener-sponsors.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @05:26AM (13 children)
Malcom X was a shit stain. While King was already getting results peacefully, he was preaching hatred, divisiveness, and violence. I mean it should go without saying that he was going to do that in this day and age but they didn't have much experience with Islam in the US back then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @07:55AM
...and, of course, you have the quotes to support your opinion.
Oh, wait.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 22 2018, @06:52PM (3 children)
What a rational and logical explanation without a hint of shit-losing.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @08:25PM (2 children)
Yes. It was. I don't get worked up over Internet arguments. When in the course of your day you read something and think "damn, he's mad", you're simply incorrect.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 22 2018, @10:14PM (1 child)
You're awful defensive for someone claiming to be so aloof...
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:33PM
I'm a chatty bastard. You should know this by now. I reply to most everything unless it's too bloody stupid to warrant a reply or I look at my messages and find several dozen of them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:37AM (3 children)
Whatever you feel about Malcolm X and the black panther movement, social activist or Islamic terrorist, they certainly were targeted by the FBI for prosecution or persecution depending on your point of view. This was the same FBI that was run by a dress wearing pervert named J. Edgar Hoover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover [wikipedia.org]
Between Malcolm X and J Edgar Hoover there lies an ocean of debate and room for more than a few interpretations. I am not old enough to have been around while Malcolm X was around and I was 4 when Hoover died so all I have is a LOT of speculation by many sides on both of them.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:36PM (2 children)
I think I'll judge them both by their speech and actions and be glad they're both dead.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:36PM (1 child)
That is the way it is supposed to work. You read and examine the 'facts' available and come to your own conclusion. Congrats Buzzard you just proved you are more advanced than 85% of humanity who relies on someone else to supply their opinion.
On a side note I'd not be too surprised to find Hoover had his head frozen in hopes that he could come back someday...Ala Nixon in Futurama.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:34PM
Uzzard has yet to provide a quote that backs his (racist) opinions.
Here are some that refute Uzzard's ignorance and prejudice:
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:30AM (3 children)
In case you're interested in actual facts, here's Malcolm X in his own words.
This is the clip I was talking about, this time with a different presenter.
Enrich your own community -- Malcolm X (12:25 - 16:05) [kpfk.org]
A snippet:
Eric Man summarizes 16:05 - 17:20.
(To play what I'm pointing to, you only need 5 MB of the 1 hour, 14 MB file.)
...and Malcolm could just as well have been addressing his remarks to a non-affluent White community.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:06AM (2 children)
Yes, that quote quite nicely makes my point for me. He preached hatred and divisiveness with every breath.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @06:03AM (1 child)
Your only point is the one at the top of your head.
Like I said, he could have delivered the same speech to a group of impoverished, disempowered White people.
The point was community--but you're too prejudiced to see that.
Too caught up in your usual Authoritarian bullshit.
A White dude expressing a related thought:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." --Lyndon Johnson
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:28AM
The point was to create an "us vs. them" mentality. To separate them from the rest of American society. Exactly like predators do when they separate one animal from the herd in order to make catching and eating it easier. If you can't see that having a drastically separate culture within a nation that despises the dominant culture is a path straight to poverty and eventual destruction, there's no teaching you anything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:59PM (15 children)
"Ninety-nine out of a hundred of them won't be able to do it and will lose their shit on the spot"
What do you think the percentage of non-regressive shitheads that would be able to do it?
Keep in mind that most normal people do not get to their positions using rationality or logic.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @12:07AM (14 children)
Depends on which philosophical demographic group you're asking about but I guarantee you every single one of them will do better than the group whose entire political philosophy is based on feelz.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 22 2018, @05:05AM (9 children)
With all your emotional bitching and whining just because you are living in Tennessee and have to pay Mitch's salary while the government is shut down, this is the best you can come up with? There is no such thing as a "philosophical" demographic, and you would know that if you had gone to college, even a little. You are like a child, Molting Buzzard! You think that all opinions are equally valid, and that if someone disagrees with you, they just have hurt feefees. But no, this is not the case. You are so far wrong that it does not make any sense to even try to argue with you. You should notice this, it is a clue. You should get a clue. Oh, and don't listen to that Wormtongue khallow, he will just suck you deeper into the libertariantard dark side.
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @05:16AM (8 children)
Whatever gave you that idea? There's an enormous difference between recognizing someone's fundamental right to believe whatever silly bullshit they like and declaring it to not be silly bullshit. Witness my mockery of you, for instance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 22 2018, @06:23AM (7 children)
Funny, all I have seen so far is you
You have no right to property, Busstard! You are property! I thought your time in the US of A Military would have taught you that you are just Government Issue, and if Uncle Sam needs you, or any of your stuff, for the greater good, well, Uncle Sam is going to get it, one way or another. Do you have a problem with that! Private?!? I thought not. Now drop and give me twenty, dollars.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @11:23AM (6 children)
You want to see people treated like property, have a look at any non-capitalist society. Not giving a fuck about you is the ideal relationship with your government.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday January 22 2018, @08:26PM (5 children)
And this is why you fail, my young pedawan! Just because you are property, does not mean you are owed by an owner! It just means that you cannot own property, in any absolute sense. The Government is not a person, it is the people, the body politic, of which you are a part. So you own yourself, but so does Joe, because no Buzzard is an island, and you should not ask for whom the tax tolls, for it trolls for you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:46PM (4 children)
In fact, every Buzzard is an island. And every aristarchus is as well. Nobody has to experience what you experience, feel what you feel, think what you think (unless you're schizophrenic, of course). It simply is not possible to walk in anyone else's shoes. Thus nobody else is entitled to tell you how you should go about your life.
On the flip side, anyone having ambition to rule over the thoughts, speech, and actions of others is by definition a tyrant and should be put down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:25PM (1 child)
Hmm, OK, I can follow your logic, that one shouldn't talk in a preachy way (although, paradoxically, isn't that exactly what you, in publishing the above sentence, are doing? I suppose it's a bit like copyleft; writing rules to create freedom.)...
Ah, right, so you're advocating physical violence against another "island", are you? Interesting. So, to summarize, certain kinds of talking are not permitted but physical actions that hinder the behavior of another island are fair game. Got it!
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:34PM
Newp. That's me having a conversation. You're free to embrace or reject the ideas at your leisure. There is no coercion involved.
When it interferes with my rights as "an island"? Absolutely. I'll stand for the anthem and salute the flag but I will never, under any circumstances, bend my knee to any man and will take any action necessary to assure my continued liberty.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:29PM (1 child)
Curious, how then could you even know that some other Buzzard or aristarchus island even has the ambition to tyranny, rather than just reaching out for a meeting of the minds with another Liebnizian Monad? Solipcism is self-defeating, Buzz, even is it is correct, and especially if it not true.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:37PM
Simple, tyranny is not defined by anyone's intent. You need not understand them to recognize it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @06:44AM (3 children)
What about fundamentalist Christians?
What about racists (the real ones, not what is defined by the left)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @08:50AM (1 child)
What about people who believe in mass surveillance? What about people who support the drug war? What about people who support the TSA? I could go on and on. Wow, this is starting to sound like a significant majority of the population! To pretend that the problem of people forming beliefs based on emotions primarily exists on one 'side' is nothing but a delusion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @11:25AM
You're indeed correct. And I never said otherwise. What I said is one side's entire platform is based solely on feelz.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @10:50AM
What if someone attacks you with a pointed stick? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90dnUbZMmM [youtube.com] (Self-defense against fresh fruit, Monty Python)
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 22 2018, @06:47PM (3 children)
Making regressive looter shitheads lose their entire mind by asking them to rationally and logically explain their position without trying to claim "muh feelz" as a valid argument.
A goal the journal poster has also failed to achieve.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @08:27PM (2 children)
Ya think? You lot sure were singing a different tune when I made the one word comment "Why". The butthurt was strong with all of you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 22 2018, @10:18PM (1 child)
My lot doesn't even know what you are talking about. I was just thinking that beam in your eye looked awfully painful.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:50PM
Oh, honey... You and a hundred million like you couldn't make my ass slightly itchy, much less get it to pain me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.