SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Sep 13 2009 Posts: 19

Syd Lexia wrote:

Tyop, there is a huge difference between living in a pack and living in a soceity. A pack weeds out its weaker members. A pack is based on strength. It competes directly and violently against other packs for resources. Society is a subversion of this. The members of society who would do well if we still operated around a pack mentality are punished by society; they're called gangs. Society hunts them, and then kills or traps them.

Humans are well versed in competing "directly and violently against other packs for resources".

Humans are not the only species to form a "Society". Bonobos have been observed helping injured and hadicapped Bonobos.
Some species of bat will regurgitate food to other weak and sick bats, at a cost to themselves.
Another example is animals that adopt orphans, sometimes of a different species even.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 08:15 am

@RogueShenanigans - You obviously seem to be debating an entirely different issue. I am not debating religion itself, I am debating religion's influence on morals. There is a big difference, although I'm not sure you can recognize it. My argument is not defending or condemning religions, it is making the point that morals are changed by them and the views at the time, whether for good or bad. Christianity was mentioned in both examples only because that was the religious influence that prompted a large moral shift in both societies. I am also making the point that religious views can be used to promote war if an influential leader changes that religion's message. That in itself demonstrates how religion can shift a society's morals. And the "They would view you as wrong" comment in your response demonstrates that you recognize a religious influence on morals as well.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

SpraCoalee wrote:

@Doddsino
How many credits did you need to graduate? We need 24 in order to pass.

I believe it was 24 for me as well, which was raised that year, then dropped back down 2 years later. They're trying to make it 18 credits...which is just absolutely absurd. What kind of an education is that?

Joined: Sep 13 2009 Posts: 19

@jackfrost - My argument in that post was that religion builds from morality rather than vise versa. (My overall point being that values and morality can exist very easily without religion) People imprint thier own values onto a diety and in turn these values must be correct because they are what thier God would have wanted. Westbro Baptist's do not hate gays because they are Christians, these kids do not need Christianity to make them decent.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 29 2009 09:37 am

Quote:

these kids do not need Christianity to make them decent.

Who's arguing that? Of course they don't. But they need something. Religion provides that something. And when it's not provided, you need to learn it from somewhere. Parents aren't teaching it. So they get it from other places.

Personally, I think a large part of it is that the modern generation of parents (who probably grew up religious) are not only not teaching their kids the values they grew up with, they are actively teaching that religion is wrong, because that's what they believe. But one of the things Christianity teaches is to honor and respect your parents. And people are surprised when they don't?

Posted: Oct 29 2009 09:45 am

Doddsino wrote:

SpraCoalee wrote:

@Doddsino
How many credits did you need to graduate? We need 24 in order to pass.

I believe it was 24 for me as well, which was raised that year, then dropped back down 2 years later. They're trying to make it 18 credits...which is just absolutely absurd. What kind of an education is that?

The only reason I think they would lower the credits unless the school was performing poorly on the ACT's or the school as a whole wasn't doing well academically. A couple of my friends who don't go to my school have that set up, they show up whenever they want, turn in work half finished, and if the teachers giving them shit, they just up and walk out.

We need alot of things done/fixed in this country and everybody's gotta do their part, it's the only way things can get better, that whole fingerpointin' stuff is tierd and doesn't solve the probelms this & future generations will face.

Also we gotta do somethin' with kids who are getting kicked out and expelled, just kickin them out doesn't sovle a problem, you're just creating one.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 29 2009 09:52 am

This thread is going all sorts of interesting and fun places. I approve.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 10:01 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

This thread is going all sorts of interesting and fun places. I approve.

I'm scared. Kirby

Joined: Sep 13 2009 Posts: 19

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote:

these kids do not need Christianity to make them decent.

Who's arguing that? Of course they don't. But they need something. Religion provides that something. And when it's not provided, you need to learn it from somewhere. Parents aren't teaching it. So they get it from other places.

Personally, I think a large part of it is that the modern generation of parents (who probably grew up religious) are not only not teaching their kids the values they grew up with, they are actively teaching that religion is wrong, because that's what they believe. But one of the things Christianity teaches is to honor and respect your parents. And people are surprised when they don't?

I get where you are coming from, I have already admitted that the use of supernatural agents watching them helps keep the unbalanced in check, however it cannot alter the motivations, merely help control people (to whatever end) using the idea of punishment. I do think however that a child should not have a religion chosen for them before they are of able mind to view it critically.

I have never really come across people actively teaching their kids that religion is wrong, however I live in the UK where most worship very passively if at all.
My own upbringing up to the age of 12 was Christian (Mother was heavily Christian) and any changes in behavior before and after the end of that upbringing I just put down to puberty.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

SpraCoalee wrote:

Also we gotta do somethin' with kids who are getting kicked out and expelled, just kickin them out doesn't sovle a problem, you're just creating one.

Community service

The problem is that the fucking parents always side with the kids, even if their children are felons, then they make a huge fuss about how their baby got suspended.

I only got suspended once for fighting, and if it happened again, I wouldn't be able to graduate with my class, which I wasn't going to risk. The kid I fought, ended up getting suspended again...sucks for him.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 11:26 am

Doddsino wrote:

SpraCoalee wrote:

Also we gotta do somethin' with kids who are getting kicked out and expelled, just kickin them out doesn't sovle a problem, you're just creating one.

Community service

The problem is that the fucking parents always side with the kids, even if their children are felons, then they make a huge fuss about how their baby got suspended.

I only got suspended once for fighting, and if it happened again, I wouldn't be able to graduate with my class, which I wasn't going to risk. The kid I fought, ended up getting suspended again...sucks for him.

Community service? How about "get a fucking job"? Honestly, I don't think 99+% of people who get expelled have no business graduating anyway. Their diploma will simply be a means of pushing them through the system and making them someone else's problem. Of course, we're becoming a welfare state so anyone who's expelled will just think they can live off the government for free rather than thinking "Wow, I fucked up my chance at bettering myself. Guess it's off to the coal mines!"

Posted: Oct 29 2009 01:30 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Tyop, there is a huge difference between living in a pack and living in a soceity. A pack weeds out its weaker members. A pack is based on strength. It competes directly and violently against other packs for resources.

RogueShenanigans already addressed most of what is wrong with this, so I'll just add some more empirical data about altruism in animals.

As has already been mentioned Bonobos have been observed helping other injured or handicapped Bonobos. Certain monkeys warn their conspecifics about intruding predators through alarm cries, even though they are endangering themselves by drawing attention to their location. We know of similar behavior among birds. Chimpanzees have experimentally been shown to exhibit the same spontaneous behavior of helping others as young children do. Dolphins help other dolphins who are too weak to get to the surface by pushing them up so they can breathe. Elephant matriarchs often protect their herd by exposing themselves to danger. Whales have frequently been observed supporting other sick or injured whales and refusing to leave their side. The list goes on.

All of these are examples of behavior that, if we encountered it in humans, we would call 'moral'. Yet these are animals that have no culture, no religion, no government and not the slightest idea what the meaning of "social contract" would be. They behave this way because in their environment it is evolutionary advantageous and has increased the survival chances of their species as a whole. Morality does not at all run counter to evolution - at least not as long as your understanding of evolution isn't limited to the simplistic idea of "survival of the fittest".

Joined: Feb 16 2008 Posts: 832

Doddsino wrote:

Being out of school now, I actually think that a longer day would possibly do us better. They're cutting down the number of credits it takes for you to graduate, which I find absolutely ridiculous since I had enough to graduate when I was a sophmore, and now they want to lower it more! The learning curve is so low, I can't believe how ridiculous it is. And the more you take away, the lazier you get.

On the other hand, if you look at Japenese students, you also see a high suicide rate...competition is THAT strong.

I don't, they don't pay teachers nearly enough. Also! Japan apparently has better teachers then America. When I was in sixth grade we had an exchange student who went to my school and the public district school (she was like 20), she always said it was weird how the teachers in the public districts just seemed to be there for the money, not the kids.

Also, in my school it's only 20 credits to graduate, but you have to pass a mandatory test. If you don't, no diploma.

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

This is more geared to the first post

Todays fads are vamp(I blame twilight), emo, and scene

There all different names for the same bullshit with the exception of emo's cutting themselves.

The tight ass pants are from emo's who are trying to act heterosexual. Emo stole it from the skaters who wore them because it helped them skate better.
Emo girls...well they just look like guys half of the time

Scene kids are emo's who won't cut themselves but like the gay ass hairstyles and tight pants

Vamp...now that's just all kinds of fucked up

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

joshwoodzell wrote:

The irony is at least one person commenting on this thread is under 21. Rolling Eyes

I beg to differ. The age for entering adulthood in my country is 18.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 03:41 pm

[quote="Doddsino"]

SpraCoalee wrote:

Also we gotta do somethin' with kids who are getting kicked out and expelled, just kickin them out doesn't sovle a problem, you're just creating one.

Community service

The thing of it is, your parents are always gonna side with you regardless, you could bitch smack a teacher right in front of them and on your way home (depending if your arrested) they'd be like "well I never liked his ass anyway..." basically excusing you for it, but maybe that's their parental instinct coming in at the wrong time.

I was in a serious situation where a kid asked me did I or anyone else I knew wanted to buy a sawed-off shotgun right in the middle of class, at first I thought the kid was joking, but he was dead serious, the next period, cops came and got us and questioned us. I told them my story, he told his he got kicked out, he didn't have a shotgun but he did have a diver’s knife or whatever so he's fucked his life up over something stupid.

The community services sounds like a good idea, because you give their ass something productive to do, you keep them out of trouble (real community service, not that pick up trash shit) and hopefully they'll get something out of it, but that's when they themselves are gonna have to grow up and decide what they want to do with their life.

So the moral is basically teachers have to want to teach and stop just passing students, students are gonna want to learn, and parents got to step their game up.

Now for the original topic, to be honest that whole skinny jeans stuff doesn’t do nothing for me, People (especially parents) need to realize that your kids are going through shit that actually fuckin matters, and all your worried about is why they wanna wear skinnny jeans.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 03:59 pm

wow this thread took off.

wasnt it just a rant about tight jeans at first?

Posted: Oct 29 2009 04:20 pm

Finding a few minor exceptions to the rule does not prove that morality is an evolutionary construct anymore than a platypus proves that all mammals should lay eggs, or that humans would lay eggs if given the choice.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3475

So, Syd, what are you saying exactly?

Posted: Oct 29 2009 05:04 pm

Couldn't you say that all female mammals could lay eggs just most choose not to because they would lose them? Joking aside, once the "social contract" begins, thats when the morals start to be created. Man A: Hunts, Man B: Cooks Man C: Protects, they don't fuck with eachother because they now rely on eachother. Not relying on them they could give two shits what happens to the others.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 05:35 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Finding a few minor exceptions to the rule does not prove that morality is an evolutionary construct anymore than a platypus proves that all mammals should lay eggs, or that humans would lay eggs if given the choice.

These are not minor exceptions, but examples of a well-established evolutionary mechanism called kin selection, which refers to the selection of animal behavior that favors the survival and reproduction of conspecifics, even if such behavior occurs at the cost of lowering your own chances of survival and reproduction. When exactly such behavior is selected for is governed by Hamilton's rule, which states that selection will occur when the fitness gain of the receiving animal times its genetic relatedness to the acting animal exceed the reproductive cost of the actor.

This is really all you need to select for altruistic behavior in nature and therefore give rise to the very beginnings of human morality.

Posted: Oct 29 2009 06:07 pm

So... How 'bout those kids?

Posted: Oct 29 2009 06:12 pm

ToGdor wrote:

So... How 'bout those kids?

Those tight pants will likely make them unable produce offspring, so natural selection saves the day once again.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 29 2009 07:04 pm

I think what Syd means "natural selection", not "evolution". Civilization and society run counter to the idea of natural selection, the idea that only the toughest and most fit will survive to reproduce, and that the beneficial genetic mutations they carry will be passed on to future generations.

Society protects both the strong and the weak. This means the weak get a chance to contribute to the gene pool, and negative mutations will be passed on. The species will evolve, but in a different way.

Behavior that promotes the welfare of a group is not counter to natural selection, since a group may very well be the best way to survive and thrive. Society, however, goes to extreme lengths to protect the rights of those that would be lion chow in the wild. It runs counter to natural selection.

Joined: Sep 13 2009 Posts: 19

UsaSatsui wrote:

I think what Syd means "natural selection", not "evolution". Civilization and society run counter to the idea of natural selection, the idea that only the toughest and most fit will survive to reproduce

Tyop wrote:

- at least not as long as your understanding of evolution isn't limited to the simplistic idea of "survival of the fittest".

Whoops!