I was approached on my way into Walmart today by some kid asking for Hurricane Katrina donations. I replied, "Sorry kid, I don't support hurricanes.", and walked inside.
What I should have said was, "Sorry kid, I don't support hurricane RELIEF.", because I don't. In fact I do not support any form of charity. I do not feel bad about not caring about affairs that do not concern me directly, and thus do not donate. I believe my only obligations are to my friends and family
The individual's responsibility is to himself, the government's responsibilty is to the people. If they need me for hurricane relief, the government will MAKE me help out.
An interesting ideal, but mine is somewhat different.
I constantly get into affairs that are not my business, often even when no one asked me to "help" :D.
You see, the ideal of only helping out those in your immediate family is the same philosophy that, according to the evidence we currently have, doomed the Neanderthal. They too were very close nit tribes that only cared about their immediate concerns. Humanity on the other hand evolved a useful trait in which we care, by our nature, about ALL other humans, even if we have not met them.
Several thousand years later, we are doing very well for ourselves, and the neanderthals... not so much. Many of the things that have lead to our long term survival can be directly linked to the desire to help any and all humans even if we do not know them. For example, well, scientific inquiry. It's hard to say how Galileo would have benefited himself or his own friends by his actions of challenging the church's ideas. "And yet, it moves." However, we can certainly say how well it has suited US, and the majority of people. Most scientific studies are the same way. The average scientist isn't exactly rich. The average pseudoscientist however does VERY well. The difference? The true scientist seeks the truth even at their own expense knowing that lying to others will just do a great amount of harm. The pseudoscientist selling "healing crystals" and writing books on nonsense doesn't care about anyong but themselves and their immediate families. However, this does a great harm to the people at large, seperating them from money while at the same time fostering a very damaging way of thinking.
So no, I do not share your ideal.
You know what else the neandethals didn't have that we do? Abortion, weapons of mass destruction, child pornography, Seth Green, AIDs and mass genocides. Look at where not having these thing got them...
As for Galileo and other nonprofit scientists being selfless is a matter of perspective. Perhaps Galileo wanted fame or noteriety or he hated the church. Perhaps Galileo did not want to feel the guilt of just letting things be. Not dealing with guilt can be a benifit, not a very good motive to you or me, but perhaps it was enough for Galileo. Another matter of perspective are these "psuedoscientists". I am sure they believe nothing of what they teach and are trying to turn a quick buck, spreading their ideas to as many as they can in hopes of nuturing pain and false hope. You know who else thought like that? The church about Galileo.
We as a civilization have evolved enough that we can place the welfare of our species into the care of an entity called Government. It is Government's duty to ensure the longterm survival, so that we are left not caring about matters beyond us, but rather with matters that deal directly with us. I got in a fight at work. Should the goevernment care about that? No. War in Libya. Should I care about that? No. That's the way it should be.
It's a good thing not every feels that way, as organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army, which are at this very moment sheltering and feeding refugees, would not exist.
If Red Cross or Salvation Army weren't sheltering and feeding refugees, someone else would. Their involvement is arbitrary. And if you are going to say "what!? no one else would, thats why they are needed."
If the Red Cross could not raise enough funding to support itself from donations, it probably wouldn't go under. It would appeal to the Government, who would then aid it or if it were to shut down, the Government would create a task force to fill the void. Either way the job is going to get done, and I don't have to care.
I didn't appreciate this comment either
Quote: It's a good thing not every feels that way
Let's try not to get personal, buddy *pushes GR harshly indicating that things could escalate quickly if GR were to keep up personal attacks*
I feel the need to apologize. I suppose I read a tone in your post that may or may not have been there. I am just itching for a heated debate, that I am chomping at the bit for a fight.
*punches baby in it's soft stomach* try punching a baby, they can't tell on you, so it's like a free hit.
Back to the topic...
Indeed, we have a lot of bad things, some of which was in that list.
What do the neanderthals have? Well, they have some skeletons in our museums...
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Charity is a good thing, if you actually care about other humans...
If you're saying that it doesn't directly affect you then you obviously don't drive. If you did, you'd see just how much Katrina has raised gas prices.
Charity doesn't prevent hurricanes. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
Besides what do gas prices have to do with anything we were talking about. I believe your comment belongs in the forum two threads over and fourth post on your left.
Also, if charity did affect gas prices, I would be spending money (donating) to save money (lower gas price). Better off not donating, and getting same amount of gas, that way I'm positive my donations don't get mismanaged or get alotted for aministration funding.
I know, the most important person to anyone is themself... but that doesn't mean that helping others is irrelevant. It just requires realizing that since as humans we can think, we should use that thought... animals wouldn't help eachother. People do, because we have intelligence... sure it's not used all the time but it's there. People recognize the fact that all people are human and decide that all human lives have worth (hopefully!), so we say "it is good to help others". It's done because it's fair, because it's the right thing, because being so selfish that you refuse to help others when you can isn't right...
There are some animals that will give their lives to save the herd, I don't remember which ones though.
It IS good to help others. I am just saying I should not feel obligated to help anyone. If I saw a man dying of a knife wound on the street, of course I am not going to ignore him and walk by, that would play on my conscience too much. I help the people I benifit most from, like frends and family. I don't concern myself with people who have no impact in my daily affairs whatsoever. I have faith the Government can handle those people.
Right and wrong are relative terms. Do cannibals think by practicing their religion that they are doing wrong by killing and eating men, women and children? Are they wrong? Would it be wrong for you to kill and eat men, women and children?
Quote:Are they wrong? Would it be wrong for you to kill and eat men, women and children?
Yes.
Quote:Do cannibals think by practicing their religion that they are doing wrong by killing and eating men, women and children?
No.
By that logic, you can do whatever you want as long as you believe it's right. I don't go in for moral relativism, so in this case they're wrong.
The point I was trying to make is society decides what is right and wrong. You say cannabalism is wrong because you were raised by society to believe that. If you were raised by a south american tribe that does practice cannabalism, you would think it's perfectly acceptable.
You might argue cannabalism is wrong whether you believe it is or not. But there is no absolute right or wrong, it is all a matter of relativism and perspective. It is impossible to claim our society's concept of right and wrong is absolute and true, because right and wrong is an evolving concept.
Society prevents me from doing whatever I want. This is why I get flak for not giving two shits about Katrina.
But if there's no right or wrong then how is it wrong for me to condem the practice of cannibalism? Answer me that, philosophy!
It's not wrong in the sense that it's morally wrong for you to condemn cannabalism. It's wrong for the same reasons 2+2=5 is wrong. Deciding for yourself what the absolutes are isn't possible, because your enviroment and how you were raised has an impact on what you believe.
Cannablism is still wrong.
The better society decides that there is a worth in a human life and that doing things to improve people's lives is good... I wouldn't say that there is one absolute morality -- morality is what we decide it is -- but there definitely are better and worse moral systems, and cannibalism is near the bottom... and your "I won't help people unless they directly impact my life" isn't too high on the list either.
I agree, more than less, with Mr. A Black Falcon here. Humans are at the very top of the evolutionary pyramid... there's no more need for the primal survival instincts that are behind war and destruction. We should devote our time to benevolence, helping out our fellow man, and restoring nature to a more pristine state.
person A: I agree, let's unify the world and make it into a more perfect place. And I have a plan to do it.
person B: I don't like your plan, it takes too long/isn't feasible
person A: Well, your plan isn't any better, I've seen it and there are too many holes.
person B: Ok, ok, let's compromise and make a better plan that we can both agree on.
person A: Agreed.
person C: I don't want a part of either of your plans, I don't like change. And forcing me to change will force me to revolt.
Side note: Homo Sapien Sapiens (humans) are not the top of the evolutionary pyramid. You are forgetting Homo Superiors (mutants) and Homo Ultimos (god/man hybrids). And then of course you need to factor in beings that are unassociated with our pyramid, and have their own completely independant from ours (extraterrestrials and extradimensionals)
CoconutCommander Wrote:Besides what do gas prices have to do with anything we were talking about. I believe your comment belongs in the forum two threads over and fourth post on your left.
A major oil refinery located in the disaster area was destroyed (or at least disabled) by Katrina. Thus, gas prices have raised to account for the loss of the refinery.
Logic can't provide what is moral, but it CAN tell you what is and is not contradictory to your own personal motives.
If your motivation is to live, and your reasoning is because you want to, there is this to consider. Other humans, from what we can tell, have their own self awareness. They too are motivated to live, most of them, and some may very well have that reasoning. Logically, you must extend to them the same rights that you extend to yourself.
Regarding cannabalism, well eating a human after they are already dead is personal preference. Killing someone TO eat them however does not take into account their own viewpoints, which logically are as valid as the one doing the eating. What I am suggesting here is that no matter the situation, even if "put to a vote", if someone does not want to be killed and eaten, and by the same token you yourself would fight tooth and nail not to be eaten, then logically it becomes immoral to eat the other person.
That is, if you even care about logic at all.
There is a very simple principle here, the principle of life ownership.
If you submit that you own your own life and have a right to it and no one can ever take away that right, all or in part, you must logically extend that same right to every other person on the planet. This must be maintained until sufficient evidence shows that other humans do not have self awareness and that you and you alone are the one that does. I can tell you right now that's not the case. At the very least, I do too.
Now then, as to the issue of helping total strangers, you are not obligated to help them by that logic. However, if you value supporting your own life, then you will at least humor what evolution has to say on the matter. So far, evolution seems to favor species that show compassion for their own kind. Thus, by serving the total stranger, you in turn serve your own needs.
However, if you do not value your life, and your end goal is in killing yourself or wandering as a ghost that doesn't care if it lives or dies, then never mind what I said. A totally different strand of logic will aid in those endevours.
Aren't most "mutants" inferior, genetically? I mean, x-men aside, most mutants I've seen have amazing super powers like gaping infectious growths with openings to the brain or the lack of most of their skeleton.
I agree with what most of what you had said, DJ, up until you mentioned helping other people.
First let me say that cannabalism was just an example I used to help illustrate paradigms and point of views. I in no way condone cannabalism and it would be silly for me to argue in it's favor any furthur.
Now as for helping people in favor of aiding evolution, you make me bring up another thought.
Quote:So far, evolution seems to favor species that show compassion for their own kind.
That may have applied in the past but evolution is defunct and obsolete in today's world. Mankind has reached the point where we will no longer evolve on a significant scale. We have developed the capacity to adapt our enviroment to suit our needs, rather than the other way around. And now that evolution is dead, it is not neccessary for me to look out for the welfare of our species. I agree it is important that we do not totally ignore the plight of mankind, but rather we entrust it into the care of the Government which, by the way, is still evolving. I do not need to help people I don't know.
Quote:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by CoconutCommander
Besides what do gas prices have to do with anything we were talking about. I believe your comment belongs in the forum two threads over and fourth post on your left. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A major oil refinery located in the disaster area was destroyed (or at least disabled) by Katrina. Thus, gas prices have raised to account for the loss of the refinery.
Quote:Charity doesn't prevent hurricanes. I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
How is helping other people out (Charity) going to affect this situation?
Quote:Also, if charity did affect gas prices, I would be spending money (donating) to save money (lower gas price). Better off not donating, and getting same amount of gas, that way I'm positive my donations don't get mismanaged or get alotted for aministration funding.
And I don't have the luxury of going down there and rebuilding the damn refinery, not that I would anyways.
Homo detrimento (effed up mutants) are a step down on the evolutionary pyramid. I apologize, I didn't make the distinction between muties before.
I disagree... I think that evolution favors domination and cruelty. Examples:
Cats are comparatively highly intelligent, and there's always a dominant male... the others, male and female, wait their turns. The dominant male is always the strongest and most suitable to pass on its genes, so the females will go for him. The weaker genes fizzle out. The same is true in apes, and humans. Good-looking, intelligent people are the strongest specimens, thus they are what people look to reproduce... likewise, very short, very tall, very fat, powerfully ugly or very stupid people, providing inferior genes, never reproduce and die out. Or, they reproduce, and produce inferior offspring, and only manage to drag out their eventual oblivion for another generation.
The moral of this story is BE DOMINANT!
We haven't raised gas prices to raise charity money for the hurricane victims. Is that what you thought? Now with the refinery lost, demand is now greater than the supply, thus, the price shoots up. It's just simple economics. It wouldn't matter if the hurricane destroyed it or if it got blown up or something. The gas prices are the result of the hurricane, but not to help the victims.
Darunia Wrote:Cats are comparatively highly intelligent, and there's always a dominant male... the others, male and female, wait their turns. The dominant male is always the strongest and most suitable to pass on its genes, so the females will go for him. The weaker genes fizzle out. The same is true in apes, and humans. Good-looking, intelligent people are the strongest specimens, thus they are what people look to reproduce... likewise, very short, very tall, very fat, powerfully ugly or very stupid people, providing inferior genes, never reproduce and die out. Or, they reproduce, and produce inferior offspring, and only manage to drag out their eventual oblivion for another generation.
Darunia has such a sunny outlook on life, doesn't he?
You are speaking of lions Darunia, not all cats. Most cats are solitary animals.
Further, it is questionable as to whether or not the male lion is the leader of the pack or just a selected guardian by the female hunters. The male lion, due to that mane, isn't very suitable for the ambushes needed to hunt, and as such the only role it plays is in guarding the herd from scavengers. Further, if the male lion becomes too weak to carry out this role, often it is kicked out and replaced by the next big thing.
Capt'n, you misunderstand the nature of evolution if you say it "no longer applies". Evolution is just a process wherein those things that live continue to live and those things that die before getting a chance to reproduce will not be able to pass on their genes. Even in today's society, that is true. While the traits that allow most humans in a 1st world country to pass on their genes may be different, mostly social, they still exist. Evolution is not "dead".
Can any of you claim that what I said is untrue, though? I didn't say it was a fairytale, I only said it would be the truth.
DJ, lions or cats aren't the point... the point is survival of the fittest. It's been textbook science for 100 years.
I believe I was arguing as much myself. It's just that many different traits can allow for survival. Sheer strength is only a positive trait in those instances where it is a positive trait. ... I know, but that sort of obvious realization is the sort of thing most people seem to miss.
Think of evolution as a sort of energy flow. The path of least resistance, so to speak. Whatever offers the least resistance is the path that will be taken. For example, animals will tend to live in the areas that most favor their own survival simply because that offers least resistance. The greater resistance of surrounding areas forces them out via death. Brutal domination only raises chances of survival in very limited instances. The best tactic most animals have is to stay out of the way of the rest of them. If you get in a lot of animal's way, eventually they will take the path of least resistance. That will either be getting out of your way so you no longer have their utility to your advantage, dying so you no longer have the advantage of their servitude, or becoming stronger than you, at which point you will KNOW the fear you have met out lo those many years.
What I'm saying is this. What grants the best chances of survival change. There's no absolute. However, yes the strongest genes that grant survival are the ones most likely to be passed on.
And no, intellect interfering makes no difference in this process. In that case the traints that become the most valued are determined by us, but the same rules apply. For example, dog breeding. In this case, the traits promising the best chances of survival are the cutest and saddest puppy dog eyes, the most playful without being destructive, and so on. Suddenly, the traits that would lead it to survival in the wild are no longer important. Evolution still happens, but as traits like being able to breathe well are no longer critical, dogs like the pug come into existance.
And so, it comes back to this. The path of least resistance, the path where the "energy flow" of evolution tends to flow to the easiest for our species to keep on going, is simply one of helping out total strangers. By helping them out, they continue to exist in spite of themselves, and thus humanity sticks around a bit more.
Yes, but none of that implies that the individual has to be the one that helps. And that is what i am arguing.
Indeed, by the same token a single individual littering doesn't really matter. A single individual voting or not voting is irrelevent. It's really the stacked and combined effort of individuals that has any merit in most cases.
And yet, that's the point. These people at the mall asking for donations aren't ordering you to donate. If you don't like that they are asking you, tough, they are asking everyone, not just you, because whenever a single person does donate, it adds a bit to the total amount of donations. There are enough humans running around willing to donate that eventually it adds up to a very large amount.
No you don't HAVE to, but it seems that you were arguing at the start of this thread that you were vehemently opposed to helping out strangers completely. It didn't seem like you had something against being FORCED to help, I can see that. From what you said, you seem to find it out and out wrong or at least stupid for ANYONE to help people they don't know.
Quote:Indeed, by the same token a single individual littering doesn't really matter. A single individual voting or not voting is irrelevent. It's really the stacked and combined effort of individuals that has any merit in most cases.
Litter and voting are different than from what I am arguing. I am arguing that I do not have to help other people because we have someone doing that for me already. The government. The government. The government.
At the mall, ask me to donate. I am going to say no. I do not have to and I do not want to. Nobody else should feel like they have to donate or support charities either. You are better off using that extra pocket change and putting it in your ass (gas tank).
Now that we established why I don't support charities let me throw this at you. You are set in your faith (assuming), and someone from an alternate religion than yours approaches you and tries to "open your eyes" to the "truth". How do you feel? A little violated (assuming). Well, that is exactly how I feel when people accost me at Walmart. I feel uncomfortable and even violated sometimes.
It shouldn't be a matter of "having to" help people, it should be a compassionate act of humanity that compels you to help your fellow man.
It would seem you actually think donating the money is out and out useless.
Maybe I am ignorant of something here (wouldn't be the first time, poor buffalo...), but is the government really fully capable of aiding all these people without any sort of negative consequences? While they can do a lot, aren't they limited? I'm not donating the money in the hopes they will use it to buy helicopters and rescue people. I donate with the hopes that the money will be used to help people rebuild their homes. Insurance money will play a part, and the government can give money towards this as well, but it may not be wise to put the country into even further debt if we can avoid it.
Do you truly believe a donation to be utterly worthless? Is everything that this money would go to something they are going to get anyway?
I submit that just because someone is already doing something doesn't mean they can't use our help, but I may be ignorant of exactly how much capability the government has. Is this whole "national debt" thing just an illusion and ultimately meaningless?
Okay, that said, people are going to ask if you would like to donate. You are free to say no. If they hound you beyond that, you are fully in your rights to demand they stop. However, they have every right to just ask if you would like to donate. It's how they get those donations, asking.
But, again, I have never took the time to really take a long hard skeptical look at the nature of fund raising for those in such situations. I have taken such a look at the organizations in seeing how much of the money actually gets to those in need, but not at the actual act itself. I will submit that in cases like poverty stricken countries full of starving people, agricultural reform is actually of the highest priority, but that doesn't mean that, in the mean time, a handout won't do some small good.
You shouldn't rely on the government to do EVERYTHING, becuase it simply can't.
You also shouldn't hope for it to do nothing, because it can do a lot of good in the proper circumstances... but yes, it can't do EVERYTHING, so you shouldn't assume that you are exempt from caring... yes, one anything isn't hugely important, but the aggregate of all those one people are what make up our society, and it'd be a pretty bad place if everyone thought that charity was bad.
If everyone had my mindset and thought the Government would take care of charity, it would be forced to. Not as many people have the faith I do, though.
Well exactly what backs this up? How exactly would they do the job if they do not have the resources to do it?
Quote:How exactly would they do the job if they do not have the resources to do it?
DJ, did you just ask me to revise the national budget? They would allot themselves the resources if pressured into doing so.
They'd just charge you more in taxes to make up for what people didn't donate to charity groups.
Alot it from WHERE? GR mentions one possible source, the citizenship, but do we really want to force such a situation? Imagine if you will the victims needing to pay these taxes only for that to be fed right BACK to them, in due time. Doesn't that seem a little pointless when a little charity saves everyone a lot of work?
As far as "revising the national budget", I don't ask you to do that, but if you are going to make the claim that the government can do EVERYTHING for us and we don't have to do anything, ever, then you better be able to back it up, which may or may not include a plan for revising the budget.
So, I must ask, where do they get the funds? Where do they get the manpower, in fact? The government does not have infinite cash nor infinite means.
So then, rather than continuing to state what you believe, back it up with some evidence here.
$10 billion for hurricane cleanup, it's just the start of the amount of money that will be needed, and now's a good time to continue to cut taxes? Disgusting...
I see, what is the estate tax anyway? I'm not familiar with it. Is it just a tax on land over a certain value?
DJ i think you are a little too pragmatic to accept anything at face value, and thats your deal. The Government has the capacity to adjust itself to overcome any obstacle. For instance, how did we come up with the resources and manpower to fight WW2? declaring total war and firing up a national draft. The Government has all these answers, I don't. The problem is there are too many people like you who feel that we should take matters into our own hands. Right now the Government is sitting back and watching fools like you do it's job for them. Stop donating. This will pressure the Government into making the neccesary changes and getting the job done. Quit being the Government's patsy and make them do what they were designed for.
As for taxing versus donation. It's the same thing. Except with donating, there is a possibility the required funding will not be raised. Im not too excited about paying taxes but I will if it's required from me.
