Conquer Club

I'm bored. So, from a CC players perspective, do you think that people have intrinsically good or bad tendencies?

good post, homey. but since you're bored, i'll muddy the waters....what is "good" or "bad?" if we're talking about personal morality, what is the standard, where are the lines?

I've seen a lot of evil in this world and I have seen a lot of good. I find it unfair to characterize the human race as either one of the two.

Nephilim wrote:good post, homey. but since you're bored, i'll muddy the waters....what is "good" or "bad?" if we're talking about personal morality, what is the standard, where are the lines?

What, are you saying that not everybody has the same ethical standards as myself?

In that case, maybe start at the Golden Rule? Do people (assuming that they have a conscience) tend to reciprocate actions with consideration to how their actions will effect other people? And then, are they more likely to positively or negatively influence others?

I think this could be justified as a good question well if your a child wondering if your going to be like your drug addicted parent lol

My opinion on it is you are what you want to be ... I mean you get what hand you get its either bad ok or good you deal with what you got and do what you got to do to be what you want to be... Failures only have excuses...

I know that determining the moral inclinations of people in general isn't realistic. I wish it were though!

I guess the question could be: Do pepole tend to be optimists or cynics?

Well of course someone who grew up with a crack head for a mother, or was beaten ,im sure they have a a chip on there shoulder thinking the world owes them something. Thats why the world we live in is so cruel ....

The world we live in is not cruel because of crackhead mamas - they don't run the show. The world is cruel because the rich, pampered elite teach their children that the world owes them something.

People are inherently neither. No shades of grey, they're true neutral.

It is only when the person begins to interpret sensory data that they shift towards one side of the abstraction.

I tend to agree with VT here, and seemingly in other areas as well.

People simply arent anything when they first start off, the process of socialization is what makes us what we are. Or perhaps to be more precise, socialization is the only thing that we can actually study to be able to determine how an individual may mature. There may be some intangible element, but its beyond our scope to recognize.

Vt called it sensory perception, id just chime in what they are perciving are the mulitudes of different things that make up the socialization process.

Look at Ying and Yang, Perfect example of people

I think that was Chang and Eng.

Ehriggn wrote:http://www.vhemt.org/

That is some pretty intriguing stuff..

active members are vegans and communists mostly. nothing against that myself.
now that you've seen the site, your likely to notice bumper stickers and shirts and stuff from that "organization" and recognize them!

People learn from example, bad people usually raise bad kids, it all depends on how the kids think the world is like, and what they are told is right, and which they decide is right

b.k. barunt wrote:The world we live in is not cruel because of crackhead mamas - they don't run the show. The world is cruel because the rich, pampered elite teach their children that the world owes them something.

this is so very true too

People are inherently violent, thats all I can say.

In my experience, when we are born as kids, we start off selfish. Not bad for it's own sake, but bad in wanting our own benefit and not caring about the welfare of others. As we grow up, we (hopefully) learn better, and begin to treat other people as being valuable as well. Still, when all is said and done, I find people still tend to instinctively be selfish first, and selfless second. We may help others, but it's generally out of our excess and "leftovers", it is rare for people to truly sacrifice their own benefit for someone else's. It happens of course: parents routinely give up their own time and money for their children, and so forth.

So in summary, I think we are born selfish, but as we grow up we develop a conscience, discover the value of other people, and learn the benefits of co-operation, and at the point we are faced with the choice to live either way.

Edit:
I should note that I believe we also have an inborn sense of morality, that tells us some things are wrong. That said, it appears to me that we often pick selfishness over morality, unless external factors, such as punishment or social stigma motivate us to do otherwise.

If we dedicate our lives to self exploration and individuality the world could be a wonderful place, it is when we restrict ourselves according to society or what we are taught that we begin to supress our natural instinct of exploration and understanding that we begin to have problems. Leading to temper tantrams and bursts of rage, along with authoritarian systems and follow the leader. Fear of self is what causes us to behave badly. Our true essence tends to be positive unfortunately this can only come by knowing ourselves so that we can be more compassionate of others. Glasnost Vs. Conformity.

I believe VT said it more eloquently then I

Anarchist wrote:If we dedicate our lives to self exploration and individuality the world could be a wonderful place, it is when we restrict ourselves according to society or what we are taught that we begin to supress our natural instinct of exploration and understanding that we begin to have problems. Leading to temper tantrams and bursts of rage, along with authoritarian systems and follow the leader. Fear of self is what causes us to behave badly. Our true essence tends to be positive unfortunately this can only come by knowing ourselves so that we can be more compassionate of others. Glasnost Vs. Conformity.

I believe VT said it more eloquently then I

Pardon my french, but that sounds like bunch of emo/hippie BS.

I never asked you to agree with me, just dont ask me to agree with you.

Discovering it as an individual its actually a combination of Mormonism,Buddhism,Tantric,Hindu,Hippy,Psychology, and God knows what else. All of it says pretty much the same thing only in different languages.

Alright, well you don't have to agree with me, but please do hear me out.

The trouble with your philosophy is that it's overly idealistic. You're proposing a world where there's peace and love and happiness all around. You're further presuming that submitting to our base instincts (exploration is only one of those- other, more feral, and less appealing ones exist as well) is a good thing.

Finally, you're proposing that civilization as it has been for several thousand years crumble. The trouble with that proposal is that it's going to take nothing less than a nuclear apocalypse for that to happen.

Extreme ends often require extreme means, which is why I have a problem with extreme idealism.

My two cents on anarchy, hippie-ism, etc.

My turn,

What you are forgetting is that this is done on the individual level, Meaning one man cannot save the world(ghandi,Jesus,etc..) he can only save himself.

You pointed out earlier that infants are naturally selfish, but later are Taught to put others first,while some remain selfish and ussually end up abusing those who are not.
if everyone were selfish they would not be interested in "protecting" others from their own actions, this is not to say that if I were to see a small child crying that I would not try to comfort her. Im pointing out that I cannot force her to be comforted she can only allow herself to be.

An example of this is Christians who feel it is their responsibility to convert the world in order to save us from the punishment of hell, if they were more concerned about saving themselves they would be less annoying and intrusive to all of us.Without resorting to brainwashing and manipulation in order to obtain their objectives.

This is not something everyone is willing to do, but to those who are open to it end up better understanding themselves and those around them.

Forgot to touch on your apocalypse,
What is required is a simple change in our school of thought

Nuclear war could be the trigger, so could a economic collapse,
global warming, or the return of some holy being. How is irrelevant, it is inevitable. Changes in philosophy have occured countles times throughout history and they will happen again.

Extreme Means are due to lack of insight into the root of the problem.
Take the war on drugs an utter failure that has done more harm then good, a simple education on the negatives and positives would leave the choice to the user with a better understanding-no control involved.

A revolution does not require bloodshed, just a mass movement of people no longer willing to accept the system. Take the end of capitalism for instance violence is not required, all that needs to happen is financial collapse. There are many ways that this may occur, we are on the verge of a collapse due to unequal distribution of wealth as we speak. Not to forget the resources and overpopulation factors.