posted April 20, 2012 08:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane
I believe why you're in disagreement with others is that you have a radically different view of good so that only people like Mother Theresa can live up to it. I'm sure even many who insist people are inherently good would agree that people aren't saintly, and also that good people meet their obligations which means they have to take care of themselves and their loved ones as they're obligated to before looking to the rest of the world. And people like me (who doesn't define people as inherently good, but not inherently bad as you do either) would say that virtue carried to extreme (and you seem to define "goodness" as virtue taken to an extreme) becomes vice (ie, self-destructive).

---

No, that's where the fundamental disagreement is. There is enough food in the United States alone to provide every man, woman and child with 3,000 calories daily, which needless to say is MORE than enough. There is enough food and water to go around without being self-destructive. Obviously not enough to go around while maintaining the creature comforts of a first-world living standard. If a concerted effort were made for the entire world to share, no one would have to starve. But people are not willing to give up the "necessities" of iPhones or vehicles to ensure that children don't starve and people in low-lying areas don't systematically get destroyed by the effects of climate change. It's as simple as that.

People are inherently self-interested, which is why I do not believe they are good. Do you deny that people put themselves and their own interests first? Heck, it's so bad that we are willing to sacrifice even our OWN descendants for the comforts of today. It's coded into our DNA. The "mama bear" instinct to protect one's young only applies to one's genetic posterity. It's glorified narcissism. True altruism and selflessness is the majority of mankind putting aside Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (at least the top portions that say "self-actualization") and the primal drive to reproduce and then secure the offspring to ensure our genetic posterity makes it to the next generation in favour of helping those that are not kin, except in the sense that they are also human (or even raising them in place of reproduction). I'm not saying that it never happens, I am saying that it's rare, too rare to consider mankind in all to be "good." Those are just examples. But typically, when men are willing to lay down their lives for a cause greater than themselves, it's after cultural indoctrination and it's in the midst of violence and war, wherein the goal and the intent was actually survival and to kill the other guy. Rarely is it true "self-destruction," where a man voluntarily gives up everything including his life and lets another man take his place in the world. Come on, now. People aren't designed that way, and that's not at all what I meant.

posted April 20, 2012 08:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

Most of us would like to tell ourselves that we're inherently good while we sit on the computer all day kissing our own as*es and not helping anyone else

---

Plenty of people here help others whenever they can - some of them even extend themselves beyond the board, and offline.

la-di-da.

posted April 20, 2012 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
But I am curious, have you ever seen the movie The Invasion or (much, much better) ever read Hosts by F. Paul Wilson? If so, what did you think of the virus that was destroying individuality but at the same time was creating a world without poverty or need or rape or any selfishness whatsoever? After all they were so selfless and devoted to a better world to the point they didn't hesitate to die or kill loved ones who couldn't be assimilated, and in the book Hosts one character even slits her own throat just to infect as many others as possible, thus her death creating several new hosts to replace her. Also, do you think these 2 stories are proof that people are inherently bad that they would see a world of unity and selflessness as the stuff of horror?

---

I haven't heard of either one but the whole violence-and-vulgarity-as-entertainment thing, well, that's just part of human nature. I'm not exempting myself from it. I like a good bloodbath as much as the next person. American Horror Story is my favourite show, in fact. I like to sit around on the internet scratching my a** (lol), revel in my first-world excess, be almost entirely self-absorbed 100% of the time and then convince myself that going down to the food bank once a month, having a few physically unappealing friends and trying to keep the f-bombs to a minimum makes me a good person. I don't understand how anyone could take my statements so personally or feel that I am deliberately "trying to ruin their day." That's probably just more self-absorption, which is natural, of course. I am just explaining my point of view, which is what I see as reality. If you don't like it, you're welcome to discard it. (That last statement wasn't directed at you in particular, Pixie, I'm just speaking in generalities).

posted April 20, 2012 09:14 PM            

I want to add that I do also make a point to educate them, with studies, links, etc. so that they're learning something instead of just being ridiculed for their meanspirited comments. However, I know from experience that the dispensing information alone is just not effective enough. Humans respond well to something that leaves an emotional imprint. Humiliation works well to this end. So, if you can educate someone while simultaneously shaming them for the illiterate manner in which they expressed their bigotry for example, you've succeeded in teaching them AND discouraging the behaviour/bullying in the short term by way of intimidation. I wish it wasn't as effective a strategy as it is, but educating someone about the genetic origins of homosexuality (for instance) while mocking their stupidity for not having known that already and for spelling half of their idiotic comments like backwoods trash seems to work far more effectively than simply educating them alone. It's also helpful to post links to the psychology of sexual repression of one's homosexual fantasies and how this has been known to manifest in fervant homophobia. When that ceases to be the case, I'll stop doing it.

posted April 20, 2012 09:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
The movie "In Time" is a pretty good metaphor for how people are. They make it fantastical with the privileged being immortal and the poor literally having to "buy time" once they go past the age of 25, and if they run "out of time," they literally collapse and die. At one point Justin Timberlake's character says, "Nobody should be immortal if even one person has to die before their time." I find this to be true, but do you see people being willing to give up their modern creature comforts, give up their excesses of food, give up their electronics, their indoor plumbing (if necessary), give up their cars, etc. etc. to ensure that the very poor have enough of everything? (In other words, no greed, EVERY LIVING PERSON ON EARTH has just enough to survive?) F**k no! That will never happen. People shut their eyes and ears and try not to think about the Chinese children making their Nikes in sweat shops. No one cares enough about other people en masse to sacrifice their own personal comfort. (That's also the purpose of the movie "The Box.") Humanity are really just glorified animals with bigger brains. Are we capable of altruism? Sure. Our big brains have a reward system, after all, that makes helping people (or at least, telling ourselves that we are) feel good for us (so again motivated by self-interest). Certain individuals make this their "personal high" and I commend them for it. But most of us are attuned to chasing dopamine highs instead, especially in the first world. It's a conscious decision to get your personal reward from helping others so that's why I applaud those people regardless. But they are definitely in the minority. And we also can't discount those who help others out of material self-interest (tax breaks, political gain, to get a date, etc.)

Most of us would like to tell ourselves that we're inherently good while we sit on the computer all day kissing our own as*es and not helping anyone else

---

I'm not saying this to be 'smart' or anything, but how exactly would giving up comforts and luxuries realistically help poor people?

It's the same issue that I have when people go on and on about food waste. We can't literally ship food to people quick enough to get it from rotting. It would go bad by the time it got where it needed to go, especially after customs.

posted April 20, 2012 09:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Mmmhmmm. Constant passive-aggressiveness and condescension are definite evidence of purity of character (gives thumbs-up sign). If only we could all be such virtuous people

---

posted April 20, 2012 09:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lonake:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
[b]Mmmhmmm. Constant passive-aggressiveness and condescension are definite evidence of purity of character (gives thumbs-up sign). If only we could all be such virtuous people

---

quote:

---

After boasting on LL about how you'd induce miscarriage by self abuse if you ever fell pregnant, and calling a member retarded (prefacing it 'with all due respect' - yea right), and saying everyone can go f**k themselves, I am surprised that you'd have the gall to take this stance. You are [b]no one to throw sh!t at me when you are obviously covered in it.[/B]

---

My comments about self-induced miscarriage are subject to your ever-ready judgment now too, eh? Unsurprising. Tell me, do you you judge all women who've had an abortion or just the women who say they would have an abortion when it helps you look down your nose, your favourite hobby?

posted April 20, 2012 09:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
I'm not saying this to be 'smart' or anything, but how exactly would giving up comforts and luxuries realistically help poor people?

It's the same issue that I have when people go on and on about food waste. We can't literally ship food to people quick enough to get it from rotting. It would go bad by the time it got where it needed to go, especially after customs.

I hate to be 'ignorant' or whatever, but I'm honestly asking for clarification.

---

posted April 20, 2012 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lonake:
I am an LL member like anyone here. If you throw crap at me you better be doing it from a high tower. And you plainly don't reside there.

---

posted April 20, 2012 09:40 PM            

Consider your last post a warning.

posted April 20, 2012 09:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Aquacheeka, please tone it down. You are articulate enough to get your message out without being rude.

Consider your last post a warning.

---

posted April 20, 2012 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lonake:
Call up my character & you risk your own being called into question.

---