Your stance in the political spectrum

[Teh_Ephy]

being far-left is very hard.

Secular progressives are going to rot in hell for hastening the deterioration caused by the stagnation of human evolution, and just because there aren't many of them doesn't mean they don't have better lawyers than everyone else.

"We aren't going to allow tag in this school because it's too competitive. Non-sectarian superior entities typically known as gods know that we aren't handicapping our special children by sheltering them from even the knowledge of things that actually happen in the real world, and they're going to do swell when they hit the real world with its nasty 'competition' because they're special and great and they're all going to be astronauts and doctors when they grow up."

Yes it would be very nice if socialist/communist theories worked, but they don't. I'm all for helping the poor, I've worked in soup kitchens and shit and I've seen how bad it is, but if you cannot trust the government in general, why would you trust them to run EVERYTHING? I don't trust the government to run everything, I know that they're generally corrupt and too set in their ways.

Unfortunately, that's how it is. Wouldn't it be great if power didn't corrupt? Also, that is a reason why anarchy isn't necessarily bad; there is no inherent power with precedence over other powers, and so there is less corruption.

Most people who actually believe in far-left views are either delusional or incredibly stupid. [Hippie loser with piercings says drilling is bad for polar bears]

Also what made me lol even more, was the fact that where the drilling would be was in the middle of an ice wasteland that isn't inhabitable by any animal, be it caribou or polar bear.

A somewhat sadistic view on it is that if they really cared for the environment, they would do it to force the wildlife to evolve faster, by introducing a sudden and adverse change in the environment. Or, how can they really care about the environment when they eat all the plants?

 

[Arvedui]

You are officially now my 2nd favorite person on this site. 2nd only to brad.
I'll use numbers to break down what I'm going to say.. mostly cause I'm lazy and don't feel like quoting

1.) Oh noes! How dare kids be competitive and try to be better at something!@1! Everyone has to be the same!!!!!!!!
2.) The problem I see with anarchy is that it is just that, Anarchy. True no one person would be in power, and that's fantastic, but people still need rules. Without rules or terms or conditions, or whatever the fuck you want to call them, people need them. There was a philosopher (I forget the name.. he was pro-dictator) that said that people are stupid, they need to be led. Though I disagreed with how to lead people, what he said was true.
3.) One of my favorite episodes of Futurama is the episode with the Dark Matter tanker and the spill it creates on Pluto, Episode "the Birdbot of Ice-Catraz". Well my favorite quote from that episode is the crazy hippy guy saying something along the lines of "No no, please don't clap, everytime you clap you're killing thousands of particles, which one day could grow into a fungus someday, so give a much more particle friendly thumbs up" (very badly paraphrased.. couldn't remember if it was particle). Anyway, the point is that environmentalists are too caught up trying to save the planet from the evils of humans that they don't realize that nature got along fine before us, and will get along fine after us.

 

[Hakeem]

The problem I see with anarchy is that it is just that, Anarchy. True no one person would be in power, and that's fantastic, but people still need rules. Without rules or terms or conditions, or whatever the fuck you want to call them, people need them.

No matter the government, people do not cease to be people. We may not have laws in an anarchy, but there's still society.

 

[DrazharLn]

Secular progressives are going to rot in hell for hastening the deterioration caused by the stagnation of human evolution, and just because there aren't many of them doesn't mean they don't have better lawyers than everyone else.

"Secular progressives" have nothing to do with a discussion on personal political belief. I don't call you all fascist capitalists because you voted for the right do I?

Or, how can they really care about the environment when they eat all the plants?

I do hope you are joking when you say that about them eating all the plants. Eating plants is a much more sustainable way of feeding the world as you waste much less energy. I think you're joking here, so I wont elaborate further.

A somewhat sadistic view on it is that if they really cared for the environment, they would do it to force the wildlife to evolve faster, by introducing a sudden and adverse change in the environment.

Perhaps we should attempt to save the world we live in first instead of trying to modify it to suit our needs. As to the hippy girl, she was obviously misinformed or naiive. That does not mean that Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth are intrinsically flawed organizations.

Let me reiterate my personal views, I don't believe that the USSR or the Chinese did communism right. I don't think you can force a country to change like that effectively. You would need to build a communist state a from the ground up, from a blank slate.
I do believe there are a lot of people who believe in political ideas simply because they are radical, the punk character in Persepolis is a very good image of such a person.

As I said, I'm a Menshevik, I don't believe the world is ready for communism, so I support center left ideals. For example: the welfare state in Britain [even if its creators are now misguidedly dismantling parts of it] and the far superior one in the Scandinavian countries.

 

[brad.dude03]

But even if Communism does work right... the whole idea is just... UGH. You spend every waking moment of your life slaving away for someone else. You have the right to live your own life, so why should you be working for the good of someone else? There's a difference between making selfless actions in your life and being foolish.

 

[DrazharLn]

Like work?
My view would be that skilled workers would be rewarded with less menial tasks and more intellectual tasks most of the time. So there would be an emphasis on personal advancement. You would also have advantages: free healthcare, education, housing, food etc.; public services like transport swimming baths, computers [I think some kind of distributed computing network would be best, reflects the political ethos better]. You also have a highly distributed government, this makes decision making slower but limits any one persons power over the group.
As to corruption, I have no answer. But capitalist states have corruption too, I'm sure there are safeguards one can implement to limit it.

 

[Masiah]

I believe in a combination of anarchism (Abolishment of all government only to believe in human innate capability of living in community) and socialism.
The personal gain and wellness is a consecuence of the correct building and wellness of society, which must be based on human nature.
Capitalistic societies turn humans against others in an endless race of obtaining goods, fact that does not allow human nature to take control, so a reeducation and a social reestucturation is required in due to free human's nature.

But even if Communism does work right... the whole idea is just... UGH. You spend every waking moment of your life slaving away for someone else. You have the right to live your own life, so why should you be working for the good of someone else? There's a difference between making selfless actions in your life and being foolish.

About comunism, the whole idea is not to work for SOMEONE but work for the COMMUNITY, and so benefiting everyone. This is the main error that my nation falled into for nearly 70 years: people should had to work for the benefit of society, forgeting about themselves, but they worked either for their survival (that were indeed hard times) or to please their leaders to improve their situation.

 

[DrazharLn]

You put it well Masiah, in Communism you work for the community. How do you intend to have socialism if you have no government to regulate? Socialism works through taxes etc, you don't have that in anarchy.

 

[Masiah]

I meant getting anarchism's idea that humans are good by nature and use that idea as a base for a society. Leaders and governments are needed at some points in community.

 

[DrazharLn]

Would you lean to highly independent governments for each community or would you support a national government?

[edit] Also, what do people think of nation groupings like the EU and the USA, should the individual states/countries have self determination [old term for independence] or should they be ruled by a central government?

 

[brad.dude03]

I KNOW how Communism works, but I don't see the point of it. I want to live my life FOR MYSELF. I don't want to be a slave to the community. I want to work for my good.

 

[Masiah]

Highly independent governments are not advisable because they would be the cause of margination and national separation, but national governments have been proved quite inefficient too.
My idea is the creation of governments only in necessary cases (e.g. natural disasters, wars (which should be prevented by the awekening of the human nature), etc) but other minor social decision should be taken by pure democracy: each citizen with proved rational thinking (no age requirements) should be able to vote.

Brad, accepting different political ideas is greatly influenced by personal feelings and/or ideas. What you think might be wrong, other people may think it is the perfect solution. This is why politics is such a fuss lately. A wise leader should be able to listen and apreciate all opinions and find the one that benefits everyone.

 

[Zombie]

brad, you're the ultimate capitalist.

 

[DrazharLn]

The NewScientist had an article a while ago on political tendency linking to genes.

What do people think of the superstates: the USA and the EU, should the states/countries be largely independent [EU] or should they be ruled centrally [USA]?

 

[brad.dude03]

brad, you're the ultimate capitalist.

I'm not even though. I dislike large greedy corporations, whos ultimate goal is only to make money. I don't like war. I don't think that war for profit is acceptable at all. But like I said, I'm a Centrist. I'd fully support social programs if they worked. But they don't. The sad fact of the matter is that most of these people on our social programs are just leeching from us. Getting enough money that they can live on it, instead of starting to rebuild their lives.

I KNOW people that live on welfare. There are some really good people out there that need help. But then there are others that abuse the system.

 

[Masiah]

The main difference between different nations are the cultural bases on which they are built, which I value as useless - In the end we are all human.
Slight differences divide us one from the other. Take for example the spanish tradition of kissing cheeks as a greeting when a man meets a woman or viceversa. It may be interesting, amusing, but socialy it has no value or benefit. It only provides a light but present support to nationalism, which is pure nonsense. In the end, we should be one nation in all the Earth, with society built by human nature ( so laws nor ethics don't prevent us from being free) and (as I said before) global government only established when needed, and all other minor decision taken by pure democracy.
By this I mean I do not really support USA's nor EU's system.

Brad, I'll put you with social pessimists...

 

[brad.dude03]

I don't like that thought at all either. People, bodies of people, states, countries, everything, have a right to be different. Instead of being molded into one giant grey blob of people that act the same, share the same culture, habits, accent, etc.

And that's flawed from the start. There will always be differences between people, and these tiny differences, large in number, will escalate things to the point where a single-bodied world is impossible. It's like chaos theory. Prediction is impossible because microscopic conditions cause inconsistancies that cannot be accounted for. Same deal here.

 

[Masiah]

I never meant it to be "a grey blob" unless human nature wants that. I mean society like something that is built completaly from human nature, whatever it is. It can end up being a a rainbow coloured blob, following your metaphore.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes but I don't think human nature is the same throughout. Yes, we all have the most basest of instincts hardwired into our DNA, but after that, the small differecnes grow larger and larger. Outside factors influence the way that people behave, so society on one end of the world would still be very different from society on another end, like it is now.

 

[Masiah]

Thats what I mean by reeducation. The culture we had have untill now has been proved wrong in many aspects. We should abandon it and create one which reflects 100% the original human nature, not the one influenced by previous culture.
I criticise our actual culture so much because I have seen multiple times that is prevents us from doing what we really want to, under the fear of being called "unethical", "amoral", "badly educated" and similar things.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, but sometimes the things we really want to do aren't because of human nature, but rather warped reflections of other things. Often times if we want to do something that isn't accepted by society, it's for a good reason.

 

[DrazharLn]

reflects 100% the original human nature

I don't buy that line. You need to make a new Culture, but retain the differences between peoples, differences are what make us what we are. Also, you need to go forwards not backwards. The past made us what we are now, but it should not form what we will be, that way leads stagnation.

 

[Masiah]

It's not about forgeting about the past, it's about stopping and reconsidering what is apropiate and what isn't. We made quite a long way to here, no point in forgetting everything.
I completaly agree with you Drazhar, stagnation is the last step before destruction in society.
(Idealisation - Creation - Stagnation - Destruction)

 

[DrazharLn]

I am perhaps amoral by that standard as I support Genetic Modification [of Humans], transhumanism, chimeric modification etc etc. In short I think technology should be used to enhance humanity, if we ever get to space then societies will be isolated in a way like never before, I can see these changes occuring then, perhaps earlier for the less obvious ones.

 

[Masiah]

That is one of the points I wanted to mention: modern morality is an impediment for the development of science, so I still agree with you Drazhar.
About living in other planets, the only way to mantain some similarities between one planet and and an other is to base society on the basic human nature, which will be essentialy conserved.

 

[DrazharLn]

modern morality is an impediment for the development of science

My point exactly

I think this topic needs new blood.

 

[Arvedui]

Oh yes I agree, Communism is the best system of government! Take Stalin's communism for example. Any of those "rebel rouser's" were swiftly taken of! Everyone must be the same. Except of course those at the top of the government who steal all the wealth and live in opulence whilst the rest of the population starves. But hey, who cares? They have no chance of moving up the social ladder to become something better.
/Sarcasm

 

[DrazharLn]

Please read my previous posts, I don't believe that communism was practiced in the USSR for a start. They had what's known as State Capitalism. I have also said that I don't think the world is ready for communism yet, I think that a vast increase in automation is necessary so that most tasks in the communist group are interesting enough. I have also outlined how power would be distributed to help prevent such a situation as in Russia.

 

[Arvedui]

Let me reiterate my personal views, I don't believe that the USSR or the Chinese did communism right. I don't think you can force a country to change like that effectively. You would need to build a communist state a from the ground up, from a blank slate.

As I said, I'm a Menshevik, I don't believe the world is ready for communism, so I support center left ideals. For example: the welfare state in Britain [even if its creators are now misguidedly dismantling parts of it] and the far superior one in the Scandinavian countries.

But there is no "blank state" anymore. Your ideas are decent enough, but so incredibly flawed. How would you get a blank state? Where would you get the people? The people of Russia have already lived under czars, Communist dictators, and whatever the fuck you want to call your current democracy, because it certainly is NOT democracy.

Humans are humans. They do not want to live under strict rules and guidelines. Do you learn history? Do you know why the American colonies rebelled against the British? Or do you even know why the first colonials came to North America?

For Freedom. They fought and died for their right to freedom. Whatever it is that you think of America, I don't care, but the founding Fathers and the Colonials before them wanted and needed freedom. People do not, do not, do not like feeling like they are controlled. That is exactly what ANY form of Communism, Socialism, Marxism IS. Complete and utter control by the government.

Disagree as you will, but history has shown us that I'm right.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

"Secular progressives" have nothing to do with a discussion on personal political belief. I don't call you all fascist capitalists because you voted for the right do I?

Forgive the misunderstanding, but I am talking about American secular progressives (not just people who are a bit farther-left than most) who are raising their children with the belief that they are all special, and can basically have anything they want handed to them on a silver platter if they want it bad enough, as opposed to reality requiring them to work hard. Tag is not allowed in some schools because it is "too competetive", they jump imaginary rope in gym/P.E. because some kids aren't as coordinated as other kids. Can you sincerely say that those people are not going to burn in hell for almost literally shooting their children in the knees with regard to the real world, for creating the most selfish generation you've ever heard of and never wanted to?

I do hope you are joking when you say that about them eating all the plants. Eating plants is a much more sustainable way of feeding the world as you waste much less energy. I think you're joking here, so I wont elaborate further.

Yes, it was a joke. I'm fully aware that the same amount of land can be used to feed more people by raising plants than with animals.

Perhaps we should attempt to save the world we live in first instead of trying to modify it to suit our needs. As to the hippy girl, she was obviously misinformed or naiive. That does not mean that Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth are intrinsically flawed organizations.

But you can bet eco-terrorists are. Like, setting turkeys free from a turkey farm, and letting them roam straight into a highway; even without the highway, it's not like they know how to find food for themselves anyways.

As I said, I'm a Menshevik, I don't believe the world is ready for communism, so I support center left ideals. For example: the welfare state in Britain [even if its creators are now misguidedly dismantling parts of it] and the far superior one in the Scandinavian countries.

I am of the belief that humanity will never be ready for a true communism, because people always want the most amount of money/whatever for the least amount of effort. Communism facilitates that rather easily, unfortunately.

The personal gain and wellness is a consecuence of the correct building and wellness of society, which must be based on human nature.

Human nature is selfish. Who that selfishness extends to can range from one person to a whole town, but people are selfish, placing themselves and their group before others.

Capitalistic societies turn humans against others in an endless race of obtaining goods, fact that does not allow human nature to take control, so a reeducation and a social reestucturation is required in due to free human's nature.

If humans weren't so human, a true capitalism would work just as well as a true communism; in the former, everyone gets what they work for; in the latter, everyone is absolutely equal.

That is one of the points I wanted to mention: modern morality is an impediment for the development of science, so I still agree with you Drazhar.

As a matter of fact, you're thinking about conservative morality, which is in fact old and not new.

Oh yes I agree, Communism is the best system of government! Take Stalin's communism for example. Any of those "rebel rouser's" were swiftly taken of! Everyone must be the same. Except of course those at the top of the government who steal all the wealth and live in opulence whilst the rest of the population starves. But hey, who cares? They have no chance of moving up the social ladder to become something better.
/Sarcasm

That's a dictatorship. The reason you're confused is that most communisms are enacted by dictatorship governments, while ironically, true communism would need to be a democracy.

But there is no "blank state" anymore. Your ideas are decent enough, but so incredibly flawed. How would you get a blank state? Where would you get the people?

Survivors of a nuclear holocaust. srsly

Humans are humans. They do not want to live under strict rules and guidelines. Do you learn history? Do you know why the American colonies rebelled against the British? Or do you even know why the first colonials came to North America?

Puritans moved to America because they were being persecuted, actually.

For Freedom. They fought and died for their right to freedom. Whatever it is that you think of America, I don't care, but the founding Fathers and the Colonials before them wanted and needed freedom. People do not, do not, do not like feeling like they are controlled. That is exactly what ANY form of Communism, Socialism, Marxism IS. Complete and utter control by the government.

The freedom of one person infringes upon and impedes the freedom of another. Laws are voluntarily enacted to ensure that freedom of all persons is minimally limited. If everyone chose to work for the benefit of others, than a communism or socialism would work flawlessly. Too bad people are people, like you've said.

Disagree as you will, but history has shown us that I'm right.

No, history has shown us that humans are humans and that you will continue to be right until humans can stop being assholes. But basically, yeah, you're right.

P.S: *pant* *wheeze* What a wall of text...

 

[Arvedui]

Puritans moved to America because they were being persecuted, actually.

Was talking about the Jamestown area. And Freedom from persecution is still freedom. Semantics doesn't matter.

P.S: *pant* *wheeze* What a wall of text...

not as bad as some others I've seen.

Other than that 1 thing, I agree.

 

[Masiah]

Being selfish is not part of the real human nature, because humans are social animals, they need to live in groups to survive and in such groups there is no place for selfishnes.
Selfishnes is consecuence of capitalism and it's influence: it makes people competitive, and so each one wants to defend what they own.

 

[Arvedui]

No. Selfishness is part of human nature. It's not because of capitalism. If there was no selfishness why would the pharaohs want pyramids? Why would Kings want monuments?
For selfish reasons. Capitalism is based on the idea that anyone can succeed. It's inherently individual. Look at some of robber barons from the 1800s-1900s. Most of them were poor people with amazing business sense who worked their way to being some of the most powerful people in the world.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Being selfish is not part of the real human nature, because humans are social animals, they need to live in groups to survive and in such groups there is no place for selfishnes.
Selfishnes is consecuence of capitalism and it's influence: it makes people competitive, and so each one wants to defend what they own.

Did you not hear me say that selfishness can extend beyond one's self? Regardless, that's a load of crap. The deepest, oldest instinct is greed created from the need to survive. Being a social animal means that that greed extends beyond the individual to a number of other individuals, but greed is greed is greed. Greed isn't necessarily bad, and in some cases is both good and necessary, but there is always greed. If you take a psychology class, you learn that very young children can only see things from their own perspectives. They quite literally cannot think about what they are doing to someone else and imagine how they would like it if that same act were done to themselves, whether that act is good or bad. That's not the typical selfishness you are thinking of, but it still is selfishness. Also, you yourself provided evidence of altruism being selfishness: humans are social animals, they need to live in groups to survive. Helping others helps yourself. I am not saying that all humans are greedy and selfish and would choose themselves over everything else, but humans are selfish.

Alright, here's a nasty curveball, and I expect you to swing: If you had to choose between your own life, and the life of someone you knew absolutely nothing about; whether they were important, whether they were useless trash, how many close friends they have (or don't), the size of their family; you would choose yourself, right? You have no reason not to. Or, let's say that you know that the other person holds the exact same consequence within the world as you do. You now have even more reason to choose yourself, because you would most likely rather burden people you don't know with a death, than burden your own friends and family.

Non-harmful selfishness is the status quo.

 

[Hakeem]

Humans are not selfish.
Selfishness is a quality of life, that extends to humans as well.
However, humans are the single most selfless animal on Earth.

But as Teh_Ephy said, selfishness can extend beyond a single person.

---

You know what's wrong with communism?
It tries to fix a problem that does not exist.
People, down in their DNA, want to help each other, so as hard as you may try to not help people, you probably are in one way or another.

People inherently work for the good of the community, communism tries to fix this.

 

[Arvedui]

I've just been rereading the past couple pages, because I sorta just glazed over it before (I had just woken up when I read them)

I believe in a combination of anarchism (Abolishment of all government only to believe in human innate capability of living in community) and socialism.

That made me die a little inside. Do you know what socialism is? No I don't think you do.

Highly independent governments are not advisable because they would be the cause of margination and national separation, but national governments have been proved quite inefficient too.

Oh yes let's get rid of everyone who wants to be independent! How dare they!

Yes but I don't think human nature is the same throughout. Yes, we all have the most basest of instincts hardwired into our DNA, but after that, the small differecnes grow larger and larger. Outside factors influence the way that people behave, so society on one end of the world would still be very different from society on another end, like it is now.

How dare you make sense in this thread, gtfo!

Thats what I mean by reeducation.

Yeah for some reason I don't trust that statement. The last time I remember anyone mentioning reeducation 67% of the Jewish population of Europe ended up dead.

They had what's known as State Capitalism.

No, what they had/have was/is Communism. Though their form of Communism is a perversion of Marxism. Russian/Chinese Communism can be defined as a lot of things: evil, Marxist, totalitarian, whatever you want, but it is in no way Capitalism. In Capitalism, the individual rules. In Capitalism companies and people gain money for themselves and not the government.

Humans are not selfish.
Selfishness is a quality of life, that extends to humans as well.
However, humans are the single most selfless animal on Earth.

I'm sorry I have to disagree. Humans are selfish and I don't believe it's a quality of life. People always think of themselves first and others second. It's as Teh_Ephy said, if you have a chance to save your life, or that of a stranger who has the same abilities/flaws/whatever as you, you're going to save yourself.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I'm sorry I have to disagree. Humans are selfish and I don't believe it's a quality of life. People always think of themselves first and others second. It's as Teh_Ephy said, if you have a chance to save your life, or that of a stranger who has the same abilities/flaws/whatever as you, you're going to save yourself.

And it's the same with every animal on Earth. Therefore, it can be deduced that it's a quality of life. The will to survive and compete when necessary is found in all life.

 

[Sansui]

It would be selfish to sacrifice yourself to save someone that is equal to you in every way, think about the friends and family you hurt by ending your life for someone else.

The Unselfish thing would be to continue living as the person in need of being saved would be selfish as well to let you sacrifice yourself for them.

 

[Hakeem]

It's as Teh_Ephy said, if you have a chance to save your life, or that of a stranger who has the same abilities/flaws/whatever as you, you're going to save yourself.

Except, as much as some of you might not want to admit, as it's something that's supposedly makes you inferior in some way, there are people who would choose the other person to live. Any other animal chooses themself, as would many humans, but there are some people who would choose the other person to live over themselves.

We are the animal that is least selfish. Selfish though we way be.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I myself am not so sure I would pass on the opportunity to die doing something useful, because I probably wouldn't otherwise, except that's a selfish reason for letting the other person live. :/

 

[DrazharLn]

I myself am not so sure I would pass on the opportunity to die doing something useful, because I probably wouldn't otherwise, except that's a selfish reason for letting the other person live. :/

I agree with Teh_Ephy, you only get one chance at death, you might as well make it one to remember. I personally hope that I would sacrifice myself for some schmuch about to get killed, realistically however, I would probably only do so for a close friend or family member.

They had what's known as State Capitalism.

No, what they had/have was/is Communism. Though their form of Communism is a perversion of Marxism. Russian/Chinese Communism can be defined as a lot of things: evil, Marxist, totalitarian, whatever you want, but it is in no way Capitalism. In Capitalism, the individual rules. In Capitalism companies and people gain money for themselves and not the government.

I reply with:

[State Capitalism] This term is also used by some heterodox economists to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by a state in a capitalist way, even if such a state chooses to call itself socialist.[3] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in the latter sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is a country where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.

Original link here

I agree with Hakeem, all life on this planet is selfish, our sole purpose is, after all, to reproduce and spread our genetic code. To do that we need to selfishly hoard what we need. However, altruism has evolved in some species, like ours, this makes us much less selfish as we strive to help one another. Furthermore, our society makes us selfless through its demands upon us. Thus, humans are selfish, however they are not as selfish as other creatures.

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Anarchy in the USA! =D

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I agree with Teh_Ephy, you only get one chance at death, you might as well make it one to remember. I personally hope that I would sacrifice myself for some schmuch about to get killed, realistically however, I would probably only do so for a close friend or family member.

It helps if you've been bred as hopeless a cynic as I have.

I agree with Hakeem, all life on this planet is selfish, our sole purpose is, after all, to reproduce and spread our genetic code. To do that we need to selfishly hoard what we need. However, altruism has evolved in some species, like ours, this makes us much less selfish as we strive to help one another. Furthermore, our society makes us selfless through its demands upon us. Thus, humans are selfish, however they are not as selfish as other creatures.

The deepest, oldest instinct is greed created from the need to survive.

That humanity is more selfish than people think has been agreed upon for the past page, and that humanity is less selfish than most animals for one post less.

Anarchy in the USA! =D

Don't you just love it when people contribute absolutely nothing?

 

[DrazharLn]

I forgot to mention, Arvedui, you seem to believe I live in Russia, I'm British, living in Britain. I have no connection to Russia, I've never been there. I have however studied Russia in WW1 [when the Bolsheviks gained power] and the Cold War.

[edit] I felt left out, you carried on the thread without me

 

[Masiah]

Arvedui, don't dare to compare me with Hitler! 2 million citizens from the city where I was born died to stop him! Don't you remember Stalingrad's battle?! All of my Grand-grand fathers died to defend the city! The rest of my family had to suffer the consecuences of that! And you compare my ideas to his?! I would never allow another purge!

Edit: And somehow I do know what the socialism is...

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Masiah, he's not comparing your values with Hitler's, he's comparing the means.

 

[Arvedui]

Arvedui, don't dare to compare me with Hitler! 2 million citizens from the city where I was born died to stop him! Don't you remember Stalingrad's battle?! All of my Grand-grand fathers died to defend the city! The rest of my family had to suffer the consecuences of that! And you compare my ideas to his?! I would never allow another purge!

not once did I say you were hitler, I said that the term reeducation reminded me of what hitler did.


and DrazharLn, I got you messed up with Masiah

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Except, as much as some of you might not want to admit, as it's something that's supposedly makes you inferior in some way, there are people who would choose the other person to live. Any other animal chooses themself, as would many humans, but there are some people who would choose the other person to live over themselves.

Even so, their ultimate motive is to feel better about themselves. Helping people is just a tool for doing so. There's no such thing as a purposeful unselfish action. We're all in life to make ourselves feel good. How we go about doing so is a matter of personality and intelligence.

 

[Moontraveler]

I'm in the "I think both sides are complete and total ****ing morons" side,

 

[Voidwalker]

Communism sank my country near total social annihilation and utter economic destruction for an entire decade. Also, it was during during a socialist government that my country obtained a nice 2000% inflation rate. By the way, ever heard of Sendero Luminoso? Imagine an Al'qaeda that dresses in red and hides among mountains and jungles instead of deserts.