Conquer Club

Anarchist wrote: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.

No I didn't.

Though I agree with that statement to a certain extent, and a VERRY certain extent.

I think that infants are selfish at first because they're brains haven't developing cognitively yet. The psychologist Kohlberg (think he was the one, anyways) agreed with me. They are not so much taught as much as simply developed. Morality is a fairly inborn trait, in the opinions of many psychologists, it just takes awhile for the brain to cognitively develop to achieve its final stage of unconventional morality.

Anarchist wrote:if everyone were selfish they would not be interested in "protecting" others from their own actions

That might be one effect of universal selfishness, but another would be disregard for one's own actions in relations to other. If everyone was completely selfish, as you're suggesting, what's to stop anyone from killing each other to get what they want? What you're proposing is a very Darwinistic society in which the strong survive and the weak die, like animals. I like to think we're a bit above that level.

Anarchist wrote: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.

An oft-cited example. And one that Jesus Himself pointed out. "You hypocrites! Remove the wooden beam from your own eye before you remove the splinter from your brother's!"

Anarchist wrote: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.

I'd be more than willing to be absorbed in myself and be totally selfish for the rest of my life. That is, if I didn't have a moral problem with doing so.

Anarchist wrote:Changes in philosophy have occured countles times throughout history and they will happen again.

Point out to me one example of an event which completely revolutionized morality. Revolutionized as in... turned it completely around.

Anarchist wrote:Extreme Means are due to lack of insight into the root of the problem.

But they're necessary. For what you're proposing to be accomplished (i.e. a return to the feral instincts and selfishness of our neanderthal ancestors) we'd literally have to blow ourselves back to the stone age.

Anarchist wrote: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.

Economic factors have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're proposing a shift in the human psyche. It would take a helluvalot more than another economic crash to do that.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Anarchist wrote: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.

I'd be more than willing to be absorbed in myself and be totally selfish for the rest of my life. That is, if I didn't have a moral problem with doing so.

*whistles and cheers*

I love the way you put that. Plus I agree with the sentiment as well...
Being selfish is quite easy. Every dictator, thief, telemarketer and so forth out there does it without thinking. For that matter, we do the same (to a point) when we protect ourselves from the above.

We have an inborn desire to look out for #1. We also have an inborn conscience that tells us this is wrong. What we do is the result of which of these two motivations we choose to accept...

Anarchist wrote: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.

I am curious: why?

If the goal is to be selfish, what would it matter to you if she cries or not? Or for that matter, if she runs in front of a speeding car, or whatever else? On the other hand, if you feel it is best that this child should be protected, then how is that different from protecting anyone else?

On an unrelated note, I agree with you that if we dislike something about the world, the best place to start is by changing ourselves, not by trying to change others. People are remarkably resistant to enforced change!

Sorry to bring up an old thread but...

Anarchist, how much acid have you done?

I really miss Anarchist's arguements, not like I read them, but it's nice to know someone is arguing about ways of life and such and not just religion.

Where are they, anyway?

I posted this in the "Is there a Universal Good and Evil" thread, but that discussion took a different turn, so I transport it here.

I have found that the answer is in the first few chapters of Genesis (surprise, surprise)

There are 2 basic facts about man(kind): We are, 1. Created in the image of God, and 2. fallen into sin.

Being created in the image of God, we are capable of great goodness, beauty, creativity, wisdom, love, integrity, generosity, compassion, courage, self-sacrifice. All characteristics of God.

Being fallen into sin, the basic motivation for most people most of the time will be selfishness: what's in it for me. Note that I said neither "all people" nor "all the time".

Yes, in a sense this is just another way of saying the platitude: "there is good and bad in everyone", but it's a bit more specific, and, I believe, much more helpful in understanding how and when each is, and will be expressed.

If they have a choice between good and bad, they will usually go with bad. Therefore, most people are bad.

Take me for example, being bad feels good for me. So I do bad stuff just for the heck of it. I don't go murdering people or stealing cars, but yeah, I have reckless behavior. Reckless behavior that hardly ever winds me up in trouble. So I keep doing it.

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

Take a look at the halo topic. Those folks are EVIL!
I would destroy halo if I ran the corporation...

No you wouldn't, it makes too much money.

MeDeFe wrote:No you wouldn't, it makes too much money.

Let us take a look at it all from all the way back to third gen consoles.
NES basically proved its worth with approximately 1000 or so games and made a lot of good games with decent challenge.
Xbox series seems to have made basically most of its stuff from one series being halo
The Wii (Which I so happen to own) seems to bring some good challenge back and also includes GC controller compatitability.
What did Xbox and PS folks do (The makers of the console)? They used the same controller.
Personally, Nintendo > all to summarize it.
Go ahead! sentence me to the guillotine and whatnot! I keep true to the gaming corporation that made great success (NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube to Wii)Over sony's playstation (Playstation, Playstation 2, playstation 3) Over whoever makes xbox and the xbox 360.

NESconqueror wrote:Xbox series seems to have made basically most of its stuff from one series being halo

And why kill the cash cow then?

Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

I don't understand how you can put down the "BEST SELLING GAME OF ALL TIME"

Or wait, no, that's Halo 2, not Halo. My mistake. All Halo acheived is the SECOND BEST SELLING GAME OF ALL TIME!

So yeah, two games so far in Halo series, and they're both the top selling games ever. They definitely suck.

sharrakor wrote:Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

That is a really stupid thing to put someone on your ignore list for.

The1exile wrote:

sharrakor wrote:Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

That is a really stupid thing to put someone on your ignore list for.

Thanks for saying that for me. saying that is perhaps more primitive than a PROKARYOTE. (Feel free to ask what a prokaryote is)

NESconqueror wrote:

The1exile wrote:

sharrakor wrote:Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

That is a really stupid thing to put someone on your ignore list for.

Thanks for saying that for me. saying that is perhaps more primitive than a PROKARYOTE. (Feel free to ask what a prokaryote is)

Being annoying is a perfectly acceptable reason to be put on ignore list in my book. It wasn't just for that specific post.

And I'm really impressed by your cover-to-cover knowledge of the dictionary. Yet hurtful at the same time. I've never been so insulted in my life.

sharrakor wrote:

NESconqueror wrote:

The1exile wrote:

sharrakor wrote:Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

That is a really stupid thing to put someone on your ignore list for.

Thanks for saying that for me. saying that is perhaps more primitive than a PROKARYOTE. (Feel free to ask what a prokaryote is)

Being annoying is a perfectly acceptable reason to be put on ignore list in my book. It wasn't just for that specific post.

And I'm really impressed by your cover-to-cover knowledge of the dictionary. Yet hurtful at the same time. I've never been so insulted in my life.

You sir I thank for the dictionary compliment, but the annoying thing is perhaps the nastiest thing you ever said outside of the halo board garbage! This is WAR.

NESconqueror wrote:

sharrakor wrote:

NESconqueror wrote:

The1exile wrote:

sharrakor wrote:Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

That is a really stupid thing to put someone on your ignore list for.

Thanks for saying that for me. saying that is perhaps more primitive than a PROKARYOTE. (Feel free to ask what a prokaryote is)

Being annoying is a perfectly acceptable reason to be put on ignore list in my book. It wasn't just for that specific post.

And I'm really impressed by your cover-to-cover knowledge of the dictionary. Yet hurtful at the same time. I've never been so insulted in my life.

You sir I thank for the dictionary compliment, but the annoying thing is perhaps the nastiest thing you ever said outside of the halo board garbage! This is WAR.

I wasn't complimenting you about the dictionary thing. It was sarcasm.

And if you want war...Well, just to tick you off, I won't give it to you.

Feel free to make a topic about me in flame wars if you want, though. I might even join in the fun.

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?

Bad = Crossword Puzzle Map & people who play it

Good = Everything else

sharrakor wrote:

NESconqueror wrote:

sharrakor wrote:

NESconqueror wrote:

The1exile wrote:

sharrakor wrote:Congratulations, you are now on my ignore list, NESConqueror.

That is a really stupid thing to put someone on your ignore list for.

Thanks for saying that for me. saying that is perhaps more primitive than a PROKARYOTE. (Feel free to ask what a prokaryote is)

Being annoying is a perfectly acceptable reason to be put on ignore list in my book. It wasn't just for that specific post.

And I'm really impressed by your cover-to-cover knowledge of the dictionary. Yet hurtful at the same time. I've never been so insulted in my life.

You sir I thank for the dictionary compliment, but the annoying thing is perhaps the nastiest thing you ever said outside of the halo board garbage! This is WAR.

I wasn't complimenting you about the dictionary thing. It was sarcasm.

And if you want war...Well, just to tick you off, I won't give it to you.

Feel free to make a topic about me in flame wars if you want, though. I might even join in the fun.

You asked for it! *Smashes Sharrakor with a spiked club*
GET OUT OF MY SIGHTS YOU PRIMATE.

daddy1gringo wrote:There are 2 basic facts about man(kind): We are, 1. Created in the image of God, and 2. fallen into sin.

Being created in the image of God, we are capable of great goodness, beauty, creativity, wisdom, love, integrity, generosity, compassion, courage, self-sacrifice. All characteristics of God.

First of all, facts doesn't mix well with religion.

Second of all, God is also capable of wrath (as demonstrated by every chapter in the Bible ever, most notably the demise of the Egyptians), which is a sin, making God a hypocrite of his own rules.

unriggable wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:There are 2 basic facts about man(kind): We are, 1. Created in the image of God, and 2. fallen into sin.

Being created in the image of God, we are capable of great goodness, beauty, creativity, wisdom, love, integrity, generosity, compassion, courage, self-sacrifice. All characteristics of God.

First of all, facts doesn't mix well with religion.

That's your opinion.

unriggable wrote:Second of all, God is also capable of wrath (as demonstrated by every chapter in the Bible ever, most notably the demise of the Egyptians), which is a sin, making God a hypocrite of his own rules.

Where do you get that God ever said it was sin to get angry? The "seven deadly sins" which include "wroth" are not in the Bible. They're a medieval tradition. Anger at injustice is a virtue. And, yes, that is another good quality of his that we are capable of because we are made in his image. Aren't you?

daddy1gringo wrote:

unriggable wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:There are 2 basic facts about man(kind): We are, 1. Created in the image of God, and 2. fallen into sin.

Being created in the image of God, we are capable of great goodness, beauty, creativity, wisdom, love, integrity, generosity, compassion, courage, self-sacrifice. All characteristics of God.

First of all, facts doesn't mix well with religion.

That's your opinion.

It's as much an opinion as the idea that gravity keeps me on my feet.

unriggable wrote:Second of all, God is also capable of wrath (as demonstrated by every chapter in the Bible ever, most notably the demise of the Egyptians), which is a sin, making God a hypocrite of his own rules.

Where do you get that God ever said it was sin to get angry? The "seven deadly sins" which include "wroth" are not in the Bible. They're a medieval tradition. Anger at injustice is a virtue. And, yes, that is another good quality of his that we are capable of because we are made in his image. Aren't you?

It just seems strange that so many people would think that such blind anger against an entire civilization is something that a good, beautiful, creative, wise, loving, integrity (adjective), generous, compassionate, courageous and self-sacrificing God would do.

disclaimer: the following should be taken together with a dose of humor!
overly serious reactions may receive a stern glare!

unriggable wrote:First of all, facts doesn't mix well with religion.

Second of all, God is also capable of wrath (as demonstrated by every chapter in the Bible ever, most notably the demise of the Egyptians), which is a sin, making God a hypocrite of his own rules.

Holy freaking logic holes Batman! This opportunity to poke holes in other holes is simply too fun to pass up! (how would that work anyways? and if I did it in the dark, would it be a black hole?)

unriggable wrote:Second of all, God is also capable of wrath (as demonstrated by every chapter in the Bible ever...

Every chapter? I'm going to take it on faith that you checked every single one to be sure? (I had my doubts, but you said "ever" for emphasis, so I am confident you did! I am curious however, how he managed to demonstrate his wrath in the long lists of ancestors and so forth...perhaps he's being wrathful upon the reader by boring us? No, wait, that doesn't work, cause he didn't force us to read it...anyways, I eagerly await your explanation!)

Also, since I was guilty of wrath just this last week, perhaps you could help me out: where does it say that wrath is a sin? 'cause you know, if I sinned, it might be best if I was aware of it...

Having had my fun, I should point out I partly agree with you: it makes sense for God to be capable of wrath. There are times when anger is appropriate: for example, injustice should make us angry.

I particularly like the grand sweeping generalizations btw.

unriggable wrote:First of all, facts doesn't mix well with religion.

Apparently facts don't mix well with pot-shots at religion either?

unriggable wrote:...most notably the demise of the Egyptians), which is a sin, making God a hypocrite of his own rules.

Personally, I thought the most notable display of God's wrath in the bible was at the end, where he lets humanity get quite close to self-destruction, but that's just my opinion!

On the bright side, if your logic had more holes than daddygringo's, does that make you holier than thou?

Sorry, this post simply had way too many opportunities for puns to resist! If I offend, I humbly apologize.

When all is said and done, my post of course proves nothing about religion either, which itself proves something: that most arguments about religion (on both sides of the fence) are really people picking apart each other's presentation, without actually addressing the facts themselves. And that is a pity.

Have a great day!

unriggable wrote:It just seems strange that so many people would think that such blind anger against an entire civilization is something that a good, beautiful, creative, wise, loving, integrity (adjective), generous, compassionate, courageous and self-sacrificing God would do.

Hey, I think you bring up a good point here. That said, lets break it down, and discuss the situation...

-the nation of Israel is being kept as slaves
-this slavery extends to the point of the Egyptians attempting genocide (killing all the male firstborn, with the idea that the entire race would die out in a generation)
-God sends an emissary (Moses), who asks the Pharaoh to let them go peacefully (with not so much as a slap on the wrist for attempted genocide)
-scratch that. Initially, he doesn't even ask to have them let go - he simply asks that Pharaoh give them some time off for a religious festival in the desert (which admittedly could have been code for "an excuse to run away!")
-to back up his claims of being God, God does some minor miracles, then sends plagues, initially just inconvenient ones to make his point - the river turns to blood briefly, frogs, flies, etc.
-Pharaoh actually promises to let the Jews goes, but renegs on his promise
-God ups the ante, and begins to do property damage (killing animals and plants), and the Egyptians still won't let the Jews go

pausing for a moment: we could take this chance to blame Pharaoh alone, and say his people were innocent victims. That said...if his people *knew* that there is a God, and he wanted the Jews free (and by this point, the evidence was awfully strong!), I think their loyalties should clearly lie with God, not Pharaoh, right? If nothing else, you'd think someone would at least assassinate the Pharaoh out of simple self-defense of their country. So I'm not feeling too sympathetic to the "innocent victims" claim personally... so, continuing on...

-God ups the ante, and eventually, ends up killing off the Egyptian firstborns. The Jews are set free, and then shortly after, Pharaoh changes his mind and decides to commit a quicker genocide, and kill them with his army.

Let's summarize:

-the Egyptians are committing genocide via baby-killing (Pharaoh gave the order, but his people are party to this, doing the killing - we're talking thousands of deaths here, so the whole country is in on it!)
-God asks them to stop. Nicely. They tell him where to go.
-God asks them to stop, does some major miracles to prove his credibility. This time they lie to him, then tell him where to go.
-God asks them to stop, and dishes out some discipline. He kills off their plants and livestock. (and because he's being nice, he does this a little at a time, to give them a chance to reconsider) Same thing, lies and telling God off.
-God kills off their firstborn. They let the Jews go, then reconsider and decide to commit genocide instead.
-God wipes out the Egyptian army

total death count, if the Egyptians had their way: one nation wiped out
total death count, God's way: one nation loses their firstborns, plus their army. Did I mention that their deaths were purely optional, but they *insisted*, after being told *exactly* what the consequences would be in advance?

Blind rage? Sounds to me like God was being a lot more merciful to the Egyptians than they deserved. If I were him, and I was faced with the same situation, I think I'd have written them off early on and simply wiped them off the map. The first attempted genocide might not have been enough, but in any case, I don't think I'd let them give me the finger for 10 plagues in a row... maybe 3 tries and they're out? The good news is that apparently God is much nicer guy than I am!

So, to sum it up, it looks like your description of God was dead on: "good, wise, loving, integrity, compassionate, and self-sacrificing" are all traits I'm seeing in this story...

unriggable wrote:It just seems strange that so many people would think that such blind anger against an entire civilization is something that a good, beautiful, creative, wise, loving, integrity (adjective), generous, compassionate, courageous and self-sacrificing God would do.

...you know, I tried to find the word you're looking for, and I couldn't find it either! I'm guessing it doesn't exist, which seems wrong somehow! Maybe we should coin one? "integrious?"

Go in peace!

NESconqueror wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:No you wouldn't, it makes too much money.

Let us take a look at it all from all the way back to third gen consoles.
NES basically proved its worth with approximately 1000 or so games and made a lot of good games with decent challenge.
Xbox series seems to have made basically most of its stuff from one series being halo
The Wii (Which I so happen to own) seems to bring some good challenge back and also includes GC controller compatitability.
What did Xbox and PS folks do (The makers of the console)? They used the same controller.
Personally, Nintendo > all to summarize it.
Go ahead! sentence me to the guillotine and whatnot! I keep true to the gaming corporation that made great success (NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube to Wii)Over sony's playstation (Playstation, Playstation 2, playstation 3) Over whoever makes xbox and the xbox 360.

MEGA QFT!