Go back
Consecutive sentences?

Consecutive sentences?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's how you and other humans evolved: to feel better when you do things for other humans even if the doing of said thing is of no tangible benefit to you. That is altruism.
I should have made a separate post this is debunked in my edit above.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
I do those things and others because of how they make me feel, thus it is not altruistic.

Edit: ...and generally I expect something in return in the order of aknowledgement i.e. a smile or 'thank you' if that aknowledgement is not forthcoming then that person is not likely to receive the same coutesy next time. A tr4ade is made, not an altruistiuc sacrifice.
People are found to behave (somewhat) altruistically even to complete strangers they don't expect to meet again (standing up in a bus being a good example). This behaviour is particularly prevalent in societies with strong social security systems, because these societies tend to be more individualistic, thus favouring altruism towards strangers as opposed to altruism towards family or friends.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
People are found to behave (somewhat) altruistically even to complete strangers they don't expect to meet again (standing up in a bus being a good example).
haha "(somewhat)" Here I'll reword your post>

Approximate people are approximately found to approximately behave approximately generally in the vicinity of atltruistically even to approximate complete approximate strangers etc.....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
I should have made a separate post this is debunked in my edit above.
Hardly; your edit is a disingenuous rationalization. As KN points out, we do many acts of kindness to strangers with no expectation that we will ever encounter them again. And if you are really asserting that before you open a door for someone you are thinking "If I open this door, I'll get a thank you, so therefore I'm engaging in a trade" you're either A) Dishonest or B) Just plain weird.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Such acts, usually in less extreme form, are performed every day by virtually every human. If you've opened a door for someone or given up your seat on a bus to someone else, you've engaged in behavior that refutes the assertion Wajoma made in his post.
Matt C assumed responsibilty for setting off the grenade in the first place, guess that's going to be a hard one to prove with your beloved statistics, a questionaire isn't going to cut it D, we'll need to set up an experiment using live grenades, going to be difficult for the recruiters to find people to partake, even when people do respond to polls it is only representative of people that respond to polls and the sampe is already slanted.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Hardly; your edit is a disingenuous rationalization. As KN points out, we do many acts of kindness to strangers with no expectation that we will ever encounter them again. And if you are really asserting that before you open a door for someone you are thinking "If I open this door, I'll get a thank you, so therefore I'm engaging in a trade" you're either A) Dishonest or B) Just plain weird.
Plus no more beating around, do people love others as they do themselves?

Do you love your nieghbour as yourself just because he's the dude next door (taking the neighbour thing literally)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Matt C assumed responsibilty for setting off the grenade in the first place, guess that's going to be a hard one to prove with your beloved statistics, a questionaire isn't going to cut it D, we'll need to set up an experiment using live grenades, going to be difficult for the recruiters to find people to partake, even when people do respond to polls it is only representative of people that respond to polls and the sampe is already slanted.
Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
You have a read:

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293464511&sr=8-1

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
You have a read:

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293464511&sr=8-1
No thanks, I'm not really into religious scripture.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No thanks, I'm not really into religious scripture.
Even more virulently anti religion than anything to come out of Dawkins or Hitchens in recent years.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Even more virulently anti religion than anything to come out of Dawkins or Hitchens in recent years.
Ironic, isn't it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ironic, isn't it?
I've yet to read anything that would be defined as irony in Rand, so no IMHO it is not.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
I've yet to read anything that would be defined as irony in Rand, so no IMHO it is not.
The fact that most of her main characters are heirs whose families made their fortune on stolen land is extremely ironic.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The fact that most of her main characters are heirs whose families made their fortune on stolen land is extremely ironic.
OMGWTFBBQ more people rich off of stolen land LOLOLOL musta been because of guns germs an Steel or such hahahahaha after all looka HOW GREAT the rest of mexico/central/south america is where the land wasn't stolen giggidy giggidy goo

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
looka HOW GREAT the rest of mexico/central/south america is where the land wasn't stolen giggidy giggidy goo
Er... it was stolen. By the Spaniards!

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.