16 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHumans cannot obtain what they want without the cooperation of other humans. They know this. We also have empathy towards our fellow man as do the higher social animals. Put both of them together and human nature is peaceful and cooperative. You know as well as I do that every human engages in peaceful cooperation with other humans hundreds of times a day but apparently rather than believing your own eyes and experiences you have chosen to believe some snake oil salesman.
As a rule human prefer peace, however, human nature also seeks their own selfish pursuits at the same time. Therefore, those that may get in the way are then dealt with accordingly which may include sacrificing the peaceful ideal.
So do you think a man like Hitler was basically cooperative and peaceful? Maybe he was just misunderstood?
As I said, you can list everybody with cancer but that does not show that our nature is to have cancer. Your reasoning is fallacious.
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyAll higher social animals engage in cooperative behavior; there is nothing unique about Man as far as that goes.
I believe that man underwent a process of evolution overseen by God and then when man physically met God's criterea he then breathed into him the essense of what distiguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. So yes, I do believe the account in Genesis but I don't interpret it the same way that you and others may.
I don't think blaming the state for ...[text shortened]... ch oppression and even why man feels the need to dominate and rule over others via the state.
"Man" does not feel the need to dominate and rule over others though some men do.
16 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWe have all had our mini wars, so to speak. What is the difference other than size and scale? In fact, we have all at times contributed to oppression to others. Have you never lied to someone? Have you never stolen from anyone etc.? It is our nature and we ALL do it at some point or another.
As I said, you can list everybody with cancer but that does not show that our nature is to have cancer. Your reasoning is fallacious.[/b]
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou are basically confused over what human nature is; understandable because you never bothered to study these things since someone told you that human nature is evil.
We have all had our mini wars, so to speak. What is the difference other than size and scale? In fact, we have all at times contributed to oppression to others. Have you never lied to someone? Have you never stolen from anyone etc.? It is our nature and we ALL do it at some point or another.
Wiki gives a good, basic definition: Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is, believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts.
All cultures condemn the acts you mentioned. Virtually all persons know that such acts are wrong and try consciously to avoid them. How then can such unusual acts be the defining part of our nature? Of course they can't; if people generally acted in such ways humanity would have ceased to exist long ago. Aberrant behavior, even if engaged in rarely by everybody, is not our "nature".
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyPlease review what you actually claimed:
So you have never oppressed another human being? You have never tried to dominate over another human being? You are better than those that do?
Therefore, we must look at mans nature as the reason for such oppression and even why man feels the need to dominate and rule over others via the state.
Personalizing the discussion again? Fine; I and most everybody I know feel no need to "dominate and rule" over others.
16 Nov 07
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo takes someone like OJ Simpson for example. What if he is a good father to his children? Should he be defined as a murderer rather than a good father or vise versa? Of coarse not. I suppose you could define him as both a murderer and a good father, however. Perhaps a fatherly murderer? 😛
How then can such unusual acts be the defining part of our nature?
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodey1) If someone acts like a good father, than you can "define" him as a "good father";
So takes someone like OJ Simpson for example. What if he is a good father to his children? Should he be defined as a murderer rather than a good father or vise versa? Of coarse not. I suppose you could define him as both amurderer and a good father, however.
2) If someone murders, you can "define" him a murderer.
Which of the 2 above do you consider more consistent with "human nature" as defined by wiki?
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderSo by your reasoning we should refer to OJ as a good father rather than a murderer because he is more consistently a good father than a murderer?
1) If someone acts like a good father, than you can "define" him as a "good father";
2) If someone murders, you can "define" him a murderer.
Which of the 2 above do you consider more consistent with "human nature" as defined by wiki?