Are people basically good?

[ding]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

The least amount of suffering for whom?

If a mother sacrifices her life to save her child, the child does not suffer - except of course for the loss of its mother - but the mother suffers greatly. So in this case that which was good actually caused a great deal of suffering. Of course, you could argue the mother may have suffered more if she did not sacrifice her life and that may be correct. Which leads us to the root cause of good... selflessness. That which is good is selfless.

Otherwise we get into competing suffering which leads to the rule of capture which we all know is not good.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

The least amount of suffering for whom?

If a mother sacrifices her life to save her child, the child does not suffer - except of course for the loss of its mother - but the mother suffers greatly. So in this case that which was good actually caused a great deal of suffering. Of course, you could argue the mother may have suffered more if she did not sacrifice her life and that may be correct. Which leads us to the root cause of good... selflessness. That which is good is selfless.

Otherwise we get into competing suffering which leads to the rule of capture which we all know is not good.

tl, dr

 

[ding]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

I'd run away if I were you too.

 

[ding]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

The least amount of suffering for whom?

If a mother sacrifices her life to save her child, the child does not suffer - except of course for the loss of its mother - but the mother suffers greatly. So in this case that which was good actually caused a great deal of suffering. Of course, you could argue the mother may have suffered more if she did not sacrifice her life and that may be correct. Which leads us to the root cause of good... selflessness. That which is good is selfless.

Otherwise we get into competing suffering which leads to the rule of capture which we all know is not good.

tl, dr

You misspelled it was above your capacity to understand.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

I'd run away if I were you too.

i know thats how you have to see things, ding..but in the past you were proven to misunderstand thee most basic concepts of logic and once cornered...you lash out

youre not worthy of debate, youre a waste of time.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

The least amount of suffering for whom?

If a mother sacrifices her life to save her child, the child does not suffer - except of course for the loss of its mother - but the mother suffers greatly. So in this case that which was good actually caused a great deal of suffering. Of course, you could argue the mother may have suffered more if she did not sacrifice her life and that may be correct. Which leads us to the root cause of good... selflessness. That which is good is selfless.

Otherwise we get into competing suffering which leads to the rule of capture which we all know is not good.

tl, dr

You misspelled it was above your capacity to understand.

and now comes the lashing out


good. you deserve it

 

[ding]

​

To translate this G.T.
YES the natural and universal laws are by definition INDEPENDENT of Western/Judeo-Christian expression.
Or else that is dependent on man made religious language and culture, which isn't universal and isn't the pure laws themselves.

But what is MEANT by the Western Civilization being dominant:
1. the Constitution made STATUTORY or PUT INTO WRITING
the universal principles of natural laws governing all humanity.
People USE American historic language for "due process" "equal protection of the laws"
"free exercise of religion" "separation and balance of powers" "no taxation without representation"
"Consent of the Governed" etc etc
to DESCRIBE the universal "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS"

NOTE: If you want other cultural terms for these things, YES you can look into
Native American sources of the Confederation of States concept that US govt is based on,
and even Muslim/Mohammad teachings of natural laws of democracy that predated the US laws
and Constitutional language for these.

What the dominance points to is that the Constitutional language is
more universally and commonly cited as the best way to express these concepts.
Perhaps more liberals would respond to the Muslim or Native American way
of defending democratic principles, but the US cultural language of the law
using the Constitution is historically and globally recognized worldwide
as established institution and principles.

2. The Bible PUT INTO WRITING the spiritual laws that
Jews Christians and Muslims commit to follow as their authority by conscience.

This is a dominant LANGUAGE and authority by which
these tribes rebuke and enforce common standards among their MEMBERS.

in short G.T.
we have church laws and we have state laws.
The Constitution serves as the standard for democratic principles
for the STATE, to CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST ABUSES
using COMMON LANGUAGE that everyone can learn to defend their rights.

The Bible serves as the central authority for people of
faith to CHECK AND BALANCE and rebuke in cases
of abuses of church or religious authority.

And G.T. America has been dominating in public and global policy
because we are built on both church and state authority
and standards of checking BOTH religious and political authority
against abuses. The Bible is used to hold religious groups
members and leaders to their own policies and correct abuses.
The Constitution is used to hold political groups and govt
to their own policies to correct abuses.

So that's why these two STANDARDS OF LAWS
are predominant. One is to check the church functions
and institutions against religious abuses. One is to check
govt and public policies against abuses of political power.

The Constitution and the Bible happen to put into writing
what are universal principles, laws and process.

G.T. it is an important point that the process of democracy
to reach lasting Peace and Justice is independent of language
in the Bible and the Bill of Rights/Constitution. But these tools
happen to CAPTURE the language of the laws in ways that
more people are able to use to organize agreements in order to correct wrong
to establish "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Peace and Justice for All"
which is what the Bible teaches as the authority under Christ Jesus for all humanity.

Whichever LANGUAGE you use for these laws and Concepts,
they are still universal. But yes, the American tradition of invoking
the Constitution and the Bible is predominant in forging agreement on the laws.
and that is credited to "Western" civilization and culture.

The Biblical Laws are not uniquely good, and are in many cases bad.

You can't be expected to understand a faith that is not your own.

 

[ding]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

I'd run away if I were you too.

i know thats how you have to see things, ding..but in the past you were proven to misunderstand thee most basic concepts of logic and once cornered...you lash out

youre not worthy of debate, youre a waste of time.

Seems to me you are full of bias and hold grudges. I take things on a case by case basis. I evaluate what is before me, not what is in the past.

 

[ding]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

The least amount of suffering for whom?

If a mother sacrifices her life to save her child, the child does not suffer - except of course for the loss of its mother - but the mother suffers greatly. So in this case that which was good actually caused a great deal of suffering. Of course, you could argue the mother may have suffered more if she did not sacrifice her life and that may be correct. Which leads us to the root cause of good... selflessness. That which is good is selfless.

Otherwise we get into competing suffering which leads to the rule of capture which we all know is not good.

tl, dr

You misspelled it was above your capacity to understand.

and now comes the lashing out


good. you deserve it

That didn't make any sense at all.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

I'd run away if I were you too.

i know thats how you have to see things, ding..but in the past you were proven to misunderstand thee most basic concepts of logic and once cornered...you lash out

youre not worthy of debate, youre a waste of time.

Seems to me you are full of bias and hold grudges. I take things on a case by case basis. I evaluate what is before me, not what is in the past.

you preach sophistry when folks simply dont take you seriously

youre an obsessive, do you think i havent read all the personal insults you fling in this forum to taz, hobelum, many others....after you tried decrying personal insults(from moi)?

Its alright, ding. the answer is because you are fake, and insecure. Its why I dont take you seriously.

 

[ding]

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

I'd run away if I were you too.

i know thats how you have to see things, ding..but in the past you were proven to misunderstand thee most basic concepts of logic and once cornered...you lash out

youre not worthy of debate, youre a waste of time.

Seems to me you are full of bias and hold grudges. I take things on a case by case basis. I evaluate what is before me, not what is in the past.

you preach sophistry when folks simply dont take you seriously

youre an obsessive, do you think i havent read all the personal insults you fling in this forum to taz, hobelum, many others....after you tried decrying personal insults(from moi)?

Its alright, ding. the answer is because you are fake, and insecure. Its why I dont take you seriously.

You are accusing me of what you are doing.

I have provided a position based on logic and facts. Instead of refuting the central point using logic and facts. You dismiss it by attacking my character. You are operating at the lowest level of the pyramid.

 

[G.T.]

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

I'd run away if I were you too.

i know thats how you have to see things, ding..but in the past you were proven to misunderstand thee most basic concepts of logic and once cornered...you lash out

youre not worthy of debate, youre a waste of time.

Seems to me you are full of bias and hold grudges. I take things on a case by case basis. I evaluate what is before me, not what is in the past.

you preach sophistry when folks simply dont take you seriously

youre an obsessive, do you think i havent read all the personal insults you fling in this forum to taz, hobelum, many others....after you tried decrying personal insults(from moi)?

Its alright, ding. the answer is because you are fake, and insecure. Its why I dont take you seriously.

You are accusing me of what you are doing.

I have provided a position based on logic and facts. Instead of refuting the central point using logic and facts. You dismiss it by attacking my character. You are operating at the lowest level of the pyramid.

 

[ding]

GT believes that when I say that successful behaviors naturally lead to success I am just saying a slogan. I'm not. There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. Successful behaviors are functional advantages. Failed behaviors are not functional advantages. Successful behaviors are selected because they naturally lead to success. So while GT says he believes in socio evolution, he ridicules it by calling successful behaviors slogans.

 

[G.T.]

Seems clingy and gross that a guy that I've expressed to, on probably 20 or more occasions now, that I have no interest in discussing any serious-level topics with continues to try to bait a discussion with me with the "ohh youre running!" tactic like a 4 year old..

It's totally normal, after being told so many times....to show the need to just have to try. Its that ding spirit. Keep at it!

 

[ding]

Successful behaviors are behaviors of virtue which are the greatest organizing principle of men and women.

Failed behaviors are behaviors which are devoid of virtue.

Virtuous behaviors lead to peace and harmony in society.

Behaviors devoid of virtue lead to disorder and chaos.

So the standard of goodness cannot be just anything we want it to be. The standard of goodness is independent of what man desires it to be and can be known through the outcomes that those behaviors produce; namely peace and harmony or disorder and chaos.

 

[G.T.]

out come the o.c.d. slogans by ding

 

[ding]

out come the o.c.d. slogans by ding

So then you don't believe that successful behaviors like thankfulness, honesty, selflessness, etc, naturally lead to success?

Are you saying that these are not socio evolutionary learnings from our experiences?

 

[G.T.]

out come the o.c.d. slogans by ding

So then you don't believe that successful behaviors like thankfulness, honesty, selflessness, etc, naturally lead to success?

Are you saying that these are not socio evolutionary learnings from our experiences?

Im saying that triggering your autism is not a virtue; therefore, I am being unvirtuous

 

[ding]

Would we expect a society which values murder, cowardice and stealing to be long lived and successful? Would anyone define those behaviors as good? Or expect that society to be peaceful and harmonious?

 

[ding]

out come the o.c.d. slogans by ding

So then you don't believe that successful behaviors like thankfulness, honesty, selflessness, etc, naturally lead to success?

Are you saying that these are not socio evolutionary learnings from our experiences?

Im saying that triggering your autism is not a virtue; therefore, I am being unvirtuous

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

Who triggered who here?