egafd.com

".......we will have to agree to differ".

This is a concept that is more often than not, unnacceptable to some folk on this forum, who seem to have to relentlessy bludgeon their opinions into their opponents until they simply give in through sheer boredom!

Without the concept of, "Agreeing to differ" democracy could not exist. The Houses of Parliament would be simply a massive boxing ring, with MP's from both side beating each other up until the strongest side won.

Both Stalin, Hitler and every other dictator in history, has rejected the concept of "Agreeing to differ".

Dictators must always have the last word!

human beings are animals, we're not 'extra special' despite our own arrogant beliefs that we are. A human being is of no huge benefit to the natural world as a general rule.

Also killing is ingrained in our nature, its a natural occurence that we have decreed as being unatural in a society which we have artifically created. Therefore the state killing someone isn't wrong but interestingly technically speaking neither is the original killing. If you take a naturalist view that is.

[quote]human beings are animals, we're not 'extra special' despite our own arrogant beliefs that we are.[/quote]

We're special in that we have the ability to empathise with others. We have the ability to see things from someone/thing else's perspective. Without this theory of mind morality wouldn't have evolved.

[quote]Also killing is ingrained in our nature, its a natural occurence that we have decreed as being unatural in a society which we have artifically created.[/quote]

I don't think so. If killing was ingrained in us from the beginning the 'thou shall not kill' rule would never have been thought up. And even if it was thought up, who'd have adopted it when killing felt so natural?

[quote]Therefore the state killing someone isn't wrong but interestingly technically speaking neither is the original killing.[/quote]

Not wrong naturally, but morally it is. And as I pointed out above, morality comes from theory of mind; the ability to empathise and see the world through someone else's eyes changed how we behaved to others.

Killing may be part of nature but nature has no conciousness. We, and thus society, does.

[quote]Dictators must always have the last word![/quote]

I agree. And those last words are usually 'kill him'.

Hand-wringing liberals...gotta love 'em! !hump2!

~We're special in that we have the ability to empathise with others. We have the ability to see things from someone/thing else's perspective. Without this theory of mind morality wouldn't have evolved.~

can't disagree with this but it still doesn't make us superior beings, how does that benfit nature as a whole? it doesn't it's only of use when dealing with other human beings.

~I don't think so. If killing was ingrained in us from the beginning the 'thou shall not kill' rule would never have been thought up. And even if it was thought up, who'd have adopted it when killing felt so natural?~

As individuals, certainly we don't all feel the urge, but as a species its all we've even done since our creation, today in a modern world, more wars are being fought than ever before in the name of this that and the other. that will never change - fact, unless re-programming of our genetic make-up takes place in the future which I couldn't rule out.

As for thou shalt not kill, so someone thought it up, and? its not like billions have payed any attention to it over the centuries. And thats based on an religious thought, which arguably is itself nothing more than a made up superstition. But religion is another argument.

On morality I take your point again, but whilst being a state of mind and thus arguably a naturally occuring process, at the same time morales differ from culture to culture, race to race and religion to religion and not everyone within said culture/race/religion conforms to whatever morality is in place at the time.

Furthermore morality is an ever changing sense. Morales 100 years ago were wholly different to what we view as the norm today, 500 years ago different again and no doubt in the future they will have changed again so we can't ever say that our set of morales are right we can only believe they are. They're as fickle as fashion

[quote]can't disagree with this but it still doesn't make us superior beings, how does that benfit nature as a whole? it doesn't it's only of use when dealing with other human beings.[/quote]

To be fair I didn't say human beings were superior beings. We're superior in many ways but also inferior in others. My point is purely about the rights and wrongs of killing, from a human perspective.

[quote]As individuals, certainly we don't all feel the urge, but as a species its all we've even done since our creation, today in a modern world, more wars are being fought than ever before in the name of this that and the other.[/quote]

Actually, it isn't. Wars are generally fought by the few, at the behest of even fewer. And even then one side is more than likely forced to kill in order to defend themselves. Most people who kill during conflicts do so not because they like killing, or that it somehow feels natural, but because they think it's the only way to achieve some goal or other. The majority of people don't like killing (either killing others or just having others be killed in their immediate vicinity) and this is why whenever their is a war you get people in their thousands (sometimes millions) trying to escape that region. If killing was ingrained, as you say, surely there'd be millions flocking into war zones so they can all have a pop!

[quote]As for thou shalt not kill, so someone thought it up, and? its not like billions have payed any attention to it over the centuries.[/quote]

Actually, they have. Who are the 'billions' of killers? We only have 7 billion people on the planet now and there may not even be a million actively killing people. Even if there were, at present, 1 million people trying to kill others, that doesn't mean they're enjoying it. Even if 70% are in fact revelling in slaughtering other human beings, that's still only 0.01% of 7 billion. I'm comfortable in calling that a minority. 'Thou shalt not kill' is a general rule for all cultures I know of and, it seems, of 99% of people keep to it. If killing was genetically ingrained somehow, like eating and sex, I'd expect much more than 0.01% of people making up excuses to kill others (and that's people who kill because they think they have cause to kill, like for a religion, power, land or political doctrine.) The ones that kill just because they enjoy hurting others, or they're at least apathetic to others' pain, like the two in the story this thread is based on, must be an even lower figure. Of course, my 0.01% figure is just a rough estimate. Maybe it's as high as 1%....maybe 2%. Still, killing is a minority pastime, thankfully.

[quote]On morality I take your point again, but whilst being a state of mind and thus arguably a naturally occuring process, at the same time morales differ from culture to culture, race to race and religion to religion and not everyone within said culture/race/religion conforms to whatever morality is in place at the time.[/quote]

This is true. Still, all cultures look upon murder as wrong. This isn't an idea that came to being in one place and spread around the world, from culture to culture, though. This rule came about separately around the world, on numerous separate occasions. Consider the eye of a fly, to that of a fish, and again to that of a land mammal. It has evolved more than once, with slightly different designs which is evidence that if you place an animal in a place where there is light, there is a good chance eyes will evolve, given enough time. How many species do you know that go about their business in the daytime that have never developed eyes? Similarly, how many human cultures haven't developed the general rule that killing/murder is bad/forbidden? I can guarantee that if we could get a few thousand children, young enough to be untainted by social rules and pressures, and place them in some sort of city on the moon, if we returned a thousand years later they'd have some sort of rule forbidding indiscriminate murder and torture. We're social apes and thus have a tendency to congregate together and care for each other. It's these traits that are ingrained, not a lust to kill.

Yes, one of the key components of a dicatorship is the blatant misrepresentation of the views of anyone who opposes them.

Here is a boringly, repetitive example of such misrepresentation.

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=236086&t=236042

Then if anyone attempts to counter the endless, repetitive assaults on benefit scroungers living the "life of Riley" made on this forum and in the overwhelmingly Tory run media, those who oppose these views get described as wanting to "relentlessy bludgeon their opinions into their opponents".

Clearly, self awareness is not your strong point, Jim.

Cheers
D

Some of you people really REALLY have a fixation on coming online and finding people to wish death upon. Such a sad life to live but I guess it's your choice.