Topic: I believe all life is evil. - page 3. (Read 3724 times)
The whole "You can't act altruistically because no matter what act you take it is selfish in some way as evidence by the fact that if it wasn't you wouldn't have taken that action!!!"!"!"! argument is just lazy.
This was a bit hard to understand what you mean, since I wasn't going in that direction.I was in no way suggesting that people can't act unselfishly. I was stating my view point.
Where did you come up with that from my post?
Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback?
So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?
What if I don't get this feeling at all?So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?
Where is my payback then.
I sometimes look at the situation and decide whenever to help the individual or not. I help more often strangers, since I don't really need payback and can't judge if they deserve it or not.
And, as an aside, not always but often times we do act in the self interest of others without the expectation of even good feelings as a reward. Because, you know, we aren't 100% rational robots programmed to always act in our own self best interests. For example, the guy who got gunned down in some bus shooting while acting as a human shield for someone else (some other random rider, not a family member) during the shooting.
Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback?
So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?
What if I don't get this feeling at all?So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?
Where is my payback then.
I sometimes look at the situation and decide whenever to help the individual or not. I help more often strangers, since I don't really need payback and can't judge if they deserve it or not.
Rich BTC guys don't give us free coins in giveaways, another demonstration people is apathetic and evil and selfish. It's all over.
BiPolarBob and CoinPrincess(88 sign campaign) are close to giving away free coins, with their great deals.
In the model which he mistakenly calls a law, that "good feeling" is considered looking after yourself. The supposition is that you will help those who you perceive as most like you. By helping someone else, you are helping yourself. It's very Kantian in the circular dependencies.
To add onto that... That is a good explanation for how evolution has reinforced social animals like us to act altruistically at times. It isn't really a good argument that we aren't acting altruistically. 
In the model which he mistakenly calls a law, that "good feeling" is considered looking after yourself. The supposition is that you will help those who you perceive as most like you. By helping someone else, you are helping yourself. It's very Kantian in the circular dependencies.
Quote
And the attempt to rid us of evil is stupid.
I agree, evil should be embraced at a subjective level. This helps combat identify with your shadow material.Quote
Goodness comes from cooperation amongst evil.
What does this mean? or did you mean to say "cooperation [with] evil."Quote
2 wrongs make a right.
Explain. Capitalism works better than communism, because capitalism accounts for the evil selfish nature of humans. Communism expects all people to be good non-evil people, even the people who run the government, which is not the case. Of course, I'm not saying pure capitalism/communism works.
Fuck what I said about two wrongs make a right. I meant 2 evil ppl cooperate to achieve a common goal. Cooperation is the 'right'. If all the people in the world (selfish evil ppl) would work together, the world would be a better(right) place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price
Quote
Other work in evolutionary theory
Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[7] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith.[11] Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.
Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling (each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the further genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.
Helping the homeless
As part of an attempt to prove his theory right or wrong Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings causing him to fall into depression.[citation needed]
He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.
Death
Unable to prove his theory right or wrong Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague W.D. Hamilton.[12] Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.
Dude killed himself after trying to prove his theory, and you cannot do TRULY selfless things for people when there is no payback for you. Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[7] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith.[11] Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.
Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling (each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the further genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.
Helping the homeless
As part of an attempt to prove his theory right or wrong Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings causing him to fall into depression.[citation needed]
He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.
Death
Unable to prove his theory right or wrong Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague W.D. Hamilton.[12] Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.
All life is evil, because all life is selfish. Our greatest evils are sex and apathy.
Sex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
Sex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
Not many people realize and understand things like this.
You are soooo GOOD!
Rich BTC guys don't give us free coins in giveaways, another demonstration people is apathetic and evil and selfish. It's all over.
I like the yin-yang symbol concept. Good & Evil working in tandem, not against each other. I believe all humans are inherently selfish, a vice. And the attempt to rid us of evil is stupid .Goodness comes from cooperation amongst evil. 2 wrongs make a right.
I always thought of yin yang symbolizing the non-dual (which can include good and evil but not limit itself to it.) I'm not saying you're wrong but your explanation is partial.Then you deny a lot of developmental psych evidence. I believe people are selfish in 1 of 4 ways. They care about their way of life, their possessions, their reputation, or their emotions. The last two is what we consider unselfish.
Not sure what you mean by shadow material.
Hi dank.
What happened with your main account?
What happened with your main account?
All life is evil, because all life is selfish. Our greatest evils are sex and apathy.
Sex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
1. Admit evilSex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
2. /self
It's two wrongs...make a right.
All life is evil, because all life is selfish. Our greatest evils are sex and apathy.
Sex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
1. Admit evilSex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
2. /self
It's two wrongs...make a right.
Quote
And the attempt to rid us of evil is stupid.
I agree, evil should be embraced at a subjective level. This helps combat identify with your shadow material.Quote
Goodness comes from cooperation amongst evil.
What does this mean? or did you mean to say "cooperation [with] evil."Quote
2 wrongs make a right.
Explain. I like the yin-yang symbol concept. Good & Evil working in tandem, not against each other. I believe all humans are inherently selfish, a vice. And the attempt to rid us of evil is stupid .Goodness comes from cooperation amongst evil. 2 wrongs make a right.
I always thought of yin yang symbolizing the non-dual (which can include good and evil but not limit itself to it.) I'm not saying you're wrong but your explanation is partial.Then you deny a lot of developmental psych evidence. Jump to: