Guest posts by Kael Hate

25

Religion / Re: Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)

« on: June 23, 2011, 05:44:07 pm »

@Essence

A Question,

If given a choice in a situation multiple times but all variables are always the same, would you ever make a different choice?
If so, what would make you take that different choice considering all variables were the same?

26

Politics / Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

« on: June 23, 2011, 05:39:52 pm »

I am certainly neither misanthropic nor terribly practical (at least my wife assures me of the latter).

But believing yourself to be insignificant isn't a valid reason not to take action.  If you really genuinely believed the words you're saying -- especially if you were as practical as you claim to be -- you would find some form of action to take that would make you a more significant player in that field.  It doesn't matter if the field in question is liberal politico-economics (like me), or some form of arbitrary paraMalthusian population concern -- if you don't believe it enough to act on it, then it's just hot air.

My action is inaction.
I let them die by their own means.
Until I find a method better to create balance, it is the most efficient means I have.
Say its hot air, but the result is what I expect.
What action do you take?

27

Politics / Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

« on: June 23, 2011, 05:30:53 pm »

I know I'm getting repetitive, but again, the rabbit horde is irrelevant. 

Of course humans are in a different social group by default.  That's normal.  But so is any given human being part of at least a few social groups.  If your claim is that you refuse to consider yourself part of ANY social group, I flat out don't believe you.  Humans that don't have any social backdrop for their lives are universally either suicidal or they're sociopaths.

The fact that you believe that the population could do well by reducing it's own numbers is intriguing, but unless you're willing to stand up for your beliefs and act on them by doing some culling yourself, it's merely a psychological game and -- again -- completely irrelevant.

I often get asked that.
But, if I was to take a gun with infinite ammunition and shoot a chinese man (nothing particular against chinese, just an example of a mass population base) every second I would still have not killed enough men, to even stop the growth of the country.
In fact more people die from starvation in that country than I could possibly kill in my lifetime with conventional arms.

Such is that I do not have the resources to make a difference. If I did have a method I would likely use it without question if it could guarantee erasure of humanity. I would not expect you to understand, you likely are not a Misanthrope as I am or have the same measure of practicality as I do.




Lets add to this.
Do you do something if you think it is Immoral?
I am of the belief that any action can only ever be correct at the time of the action. Only afterwards when the results are seen can I decide that my action was not correct because of the light of new evidence but I could not have made a more correct descision at the time.

So if living a life of comparitive luxury when people in a far away nation starve is immoral to you, do you take action to try and solve their starvation? If not and you ignore the situation its not something Immoral now is it?

28

Politics / Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

« on: June 23, 2011, 05:15:55 pm »

DNA is irrelevant, and that's the entire point I'm trying to make.  The selfish gene is a MYTH.

You and I are part of at least one social group -- these boards.  If an outsider came into our group and started attacking you (flaming), I would be heavily inclined to jump to your defense despite almost certainly being completely unrelated to you.

If you and I were in a military unit, a neighborhood, an SCA group, a pinochle club, a Boy Scout troop, or a mutual admiration society -- or a country! -- together, the same rule would apply.  Because humans -- and all other pack animals -- have a biological drive to defend members of their group even at their own expense.  It just so happens that in civilized society, we do so by giving money to those less fortunate than we are, because we recognize that poverty kills.

Is that a moral imperative?  Define 'moral'.

So I guess that is the difference in our perspective.
I don't always consider humans by default part of the same group as myself.

Thus persons not of my group Starving to death is of no concern to me, and choosing not to take any action while living a situation that may be considered luxury in not Immoral to me.
In fact I believe that because of situation lacking culling, and the support or continual allowance of something plausibly considered feral or uncontrolled to grow and take resources will undoubtably create a starvation.

Leave rabbits in a paddock and they will breed until they die of starvation. Would you kill them off? let them die? or do what the protectorates of the world try and do and sacrifice yet more resources to the rabbit horde?

29

Politics / Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

« on: June 23, 2011, 04:57:41 pm »

That's like saying that an alpha male gorilla and a submissive male gorilla from the same pack are different.  It's irrelevant because they're part of the same pack.  There will always be a pecking order within each group, but that doesn't mean that those higher up on the pecking order don't take care of the individuals lower on the pecking order.  Each group -- any and every group -- will have dominant members and less dominant members; in the same way, each group exists somewhere on the pecking order of groups, and groups higher up in the pecking order take care of groups lower on the pecking order.  See: America's foreign aid budget.

Is your DNA the same as mine? or like a gorilla am I going to kill you because your DNA doesn't match mine and to keep a balance between food and growth I would kill you?
Gorillas will kill other primates to keep their resources even tho they are closer genetically than you are to me.
Wolves will cull other packs to keep their grounds their own.
Lions and Bears will even eat their own kin to keep their grounds.

Just because you have a family does not mean we are all the same family.

30

Religion / Re: Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)

« on: June 23, 2011, 04:14:23 pm »

What would you do if I backtraced your IP, found your home, lit it on fie, and then confronted you and told you it was me who did it?

This honestly was a serious question, however, I should clarify it is meant for any who do NOT believe in free will, not just maverixk

What would it matter what I did?
In all likelyhood if you went out of your way to confront me I'd likely murder you.

This is why it matters. You just said youd murder me. I dont blame you. Now, If I really did do that, am I FORCING you to murder me since I know what your response would be, or when the time came, would you still have a choice on what you did? Me burning down your house, even if I know how you are going to react, doesnt force you to react that way.

I didn't say I would, just that I likely would.
Before every moment an evaluation occurs before the next thing happens.
Since we have not yet covered the time between now and then it cannot be known but the result at that time will have already been determined.
Why would the program ever choose a different result if the inputs are always the same?

31

Politics / Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

« on: June 23, 2011, 04:03:36 pm »

I believe that the people of the world need to learn how nature culls populous to balance its resources.

You need to read The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom.  Most insightful, life-changing book ever, and one of the many topics it covers is all about how humans by and large completely misunderstand the ways in which nature culls populous.  The myth of the selfish gene is a myth.  Populations of all kinds at all ranks of nature look out for themselves as a group, not as individuals or by kin selection.

When the leopard approaches, the first gazelle to notice him shrieks and stots in order to alert the rest of the pack, even though by doing so it's putting itself directly in danger by attracting the predator's attention.  The smart thing to do would be to move quietly to the center of the herd and keep grazing, because the chances of the leopard not just taking the nearest one are slim.  But that's not what gazelle do -- they risk their own death to save the herd.

This is true even if the gazelle has no direct kin living in that herd.

All group animals have an instinct for preserving the health, social status, and sanctity of their group.  Humans are no different, we just happen to have invented money, so we use money to accomplish the same goal.  There's nothing the least bit unnatural about it.


@neo: gg yourself! 

When 2 species of a similar nature live in the same environ, the one that is progressively more agressive will force the other weaker or less aware species out of its feeding grounds. It will allow the other group to die to keep a balance of the species group with its resources.

The mistake you are making is thinking that all humans are the same whereas we are not. We are not all the same gazelle or even all of a herd species. Some of us are predators and some of us are graziers. Some of us are symbiotic and coexist with those around us for a better whole like zebras living amongst the buffalo. Some of us are Apex, like sharks we simply devour everything we need to contiinue our existence.

Like spiders we can live together, like spiders sometimes we eat each other.

32

Politics / Re: My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

« on: June 23, 2011, 03:50:56 pm »

I don't even understand why people think abortion needs to be discussed much. Babies are costly, dumb, and loud. Abortion should be mandatory.

Agreed.

and lets trump that with Sterilisation.

lol Kael. I shudder to think what would be done in the name of humanity (or in your name) if you were supreme overlord of the world.  No one would accuse you of being infirm of purpose, though, that's for sure.

Considering that again knowing I am a Misanthrope.

33

Religion / Re: Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)

« on: June 23, 2011, 03:46:03 pm »

What would you do if I backtraced your IP, found your home, lit it on fie, and then confronted you and told you it was me who did it?

This honestly was a serious question, however, I should clarify it is meant for any who do NOT believe in free will, not just maverixk

What would it matter what I did?
In all likelyhood if you went out of your way to confront me I'd likely murder you.

34

War Archive / Re: War #3 - Questions and Answers

« on: June 23, 2011, 08:06:23 am »

Quick question of curiosity:

If underworld were to win the war, and they overthrow the current grand master, what would happen until next war, cuz the underworld general doesn't stay the underworld general, so... what exactly would happen? Or is there some info I'm missing?

No idea. No rule has been previously set.
Warmasters will sort something out if it starts to come about.

35

Politics / Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?

« on: June 23, 2011, 02:29:18 am »

Immoral to me? No.

I believe that the people of the world need to learn how nature culls populous to balance its resources.

36

Politics / Re: My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

« on: June 23, 2011, 02:26:07 am »

I don't even understand why people think abortion needs to be discussed much. Babies are costly, dumb, and loud. Abortion should be mandatory.

Agreed.

and lets trump that with Sterilisation.