Intelligent argument versus appeal to emotions
Current time: 10-20-2014, 05:59 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: zonsb
Last Post: zonsb
Replies: 18
Views: 3945

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Intelligent argument versus appeal to emotions
12-26-2011, 03:42 PM
Post: #16
RE: Intelligent argument versus appeal to emotions
(12-26-2011 03:16 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  And don't get me started on bug zappers! Tounge

O.M.G.!!! Reading that last line my mind instantly imagined a bureaucrat zapper! Can you picture it? Heart (Close your eyes please, I may have an orgasm!)

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2011, 05:18 PM
Post: #17
RE: Intelligent argument versus appeal to emotions
(12-26-2011 01:07 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  
(12-26-2011 04:35 AM)zonsb Wrote:  Worthy of note is neither the monkey or man freak out when their footsteps crush worms and insects as they walk -- much less when they kill living things to eat.

Not to take umbrage with you, but I think that's just a tendency, not an absolute-- at least in the case of man. I certainly try to avoid being a party to the killing of living things (at least the ones called "animals") by being a vegetarian (and I'd do the same for plants if I could, but you gotta eat something). And I even try to be mindful of not stepping on worms and ants, or even swatting biting mosquitoes, and when I do I actually feel bad about it (but hardly "freak out"). Other than that, I would agree with you.

I think the highly developed bicameral mind of man was mindful of things to the extent of creating external gods of authority. They didn't know their own minds were creating the "voices" -- auditory "hallucinations". The invention of consciousness allowed man to be introspectively mindful of many things. The general things people are mindful of is that they have more than instinct automatically pointing a person in the direction of doing the right thing. Yet man has choice, and realizing that he has choice, man must then decide options other than to automatically react.

Often the first thing that comes to mind is the right thing or right action to take. Especially regards initiatory force. For most people, not initiating force is the default setting. Primarily based on left brain logic. But when the automatic is over ridden the introspection and choice often confirms the automatic left brain logic. For examples, regards the choice of whether to save the drowning person or to initiate force, 99% of the time 99% of people automatically make the right choice based on what they'd be giving up of themselves; loss of integrity and acquire a guilty conscience. The primary motivating factor is introspection. As If to say, If I trespass (ie. initiate force) I'll be giving up too much of who I am. Then comes the left brain logic of self-preservation that says it's dumb to stir up a hornets nest because it invites retaliatory force and bites the hand (human species) that feeds you. With left and right unison, man makes the right choice 99.9% of the time.

If man is the only animal capable of deceiving himself and capable of superstition it's a warped testament of the power of the conscious mind. Despite his most dangerous superstition wherein man is fighting the current swimming upstream, two steps forward then one step backward, as compared to swimming downstream with the current always moving forward, the synergy causes effects that are much greater than the sum of its parts.

Remove the negative -- remove the irrationality, criminality and dishonesty from government -- and people will continue to respect freedom of association -- voluntary association, which is the automatic/default not to initiate force, threat of force or fraud. Having eliminated the negative is when man steps into synergistic coincidence/consistency with his true nature as a creator; a member of society of conscious beings of like-minded people to attract and co-create a seemingly infinite number of life experiences. This is the means that man introspects empathetically with his fellow man. Seeing him as a free individual, not as an external authority by which one gauges ones own actions. In other words, like-minds attract a natural affinity to feeling and thinking how it would be in a like-minded person's shoes. Primarily because they are like minded. I know, DUH. That's probably so obvious.

Cognizant or mindful of life, man in many ways alters nature in order to create life. Certain composts can be brought together that wouldn't naturally be found together, the effects of providing minerals and nutrients to organic plants and animal feed -- grass-fed cattle -- creates many microorganisms to be up-taken by plants that makes the minerals more efficiently assimilated by the human body than taking mineral supplements. How much life does a farm tractor kill in tending to the field?

It's likely in the future, that with nanotechnology, a plant, which is nanotechnology in action, fully developed nanotechnology will be able to replicate the fruit/vegetable of the plant without requiring the plant. Same for meats. But of course, preserving conscious beings that are by nature creators of life and controllers of the laws of nature are highest on the list to be protected.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2011, 07:13 PM
Post: #18
RE: Intelligent argument versus appeal to emotions
"If we were to presuppose that murder, assault, theft and fraud are wrong, why are they wrong?"

Because humans are both inherently social and rational.

My pgp key ID:
0x3E4258F8382DE6D0
available at subkeys.pgp.net (and others)
key fingerprint:
2F0C 4109 C8C3 B8BE E0B9 84DF 3E42 58F8 382D E6D0
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-27-2011, 02:44 AM (This post was last modified: 12-27-2011 03:21 AM by zonsb.)
Post: #19
RE: Intelligent argument versus appeal to emotions
(12-26-2011 07:13 PM)WorBlux Wrote:  "If we were to presuppose that murder, assault, theft and fraud are wrong, why are they wrong?"

Because humans are both inherently social and rational.

Is that your final answer? Big Grin

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)