Griefers at the Engineers

No. No beliefs, understandings based on scientific and demonstrable, objective facts, and principles that are based on reality. I couldn't give two fecal particulates about 'morals'. The moral man is not necessarily an ethical man. You should learn the difference.
imma quote a cool guy k?

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

I mean, that's it, ain't it?
 
imma quote a cool guy k?

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

I mean, that's it, ain't it?
Ya, Carl Sagan would support griefers and psychology as a science. :) hehehe.

Carl was a visionary too, he wanted to make the world a better place, my first and only hero (apart from Christopher Walken)
 
Ya, Carl Sagan would support griefers and psychology as a science. :) hehehe.

Carl was a visionary too, he wanted to make the world a better place, my first and only hero (apart from Christopher Walken)
Griefers? Don't know. That's entirely subjective. But psychology?

Yes. Psychology IS a science, and the only people who think otherwise are scientologists, or people who've fallen for their rubbish propaganda.

Carl did want to make the world a better place, by understanding the reality of it. That includes the reality of species that occupy it. And one of the best tools we have for doing that is evolutionary psychology.
 
Griefers? Don't know. That's entirely subjective. But psychology?

Yes. Psychology IS a science, and the only people who think otherwise are scientologists, or people who've fallen for their rubbish propaganda.

Carl did want to make the world a better place, by understanding the reality of it. That includes the reality of species that occupy it. And one of the best tools we have for doing that is evolutionary psychology.
Yeah, yeah. Next you'll be telling me Xenu was never real.
 
You are correct that selfishness is part of human nature, but by the same token we are also social creatures at our core and taking consideration for other people even when it conflicts with our own self-interest is entirely in our makeup as well. That's the whole basis for the concept of social contract.
Correct.

In my personal experience, people who assume the worst of other people... well, tend to be the worst people. Typically we assume that everyone functions the same way as we do, and quite often, end up being blatantly wrong. There are few universal truths about human behaviour, and one is that any sane person has the need to justify their own actions to themselves. In the case of selfish people, the typical justification is the "eat or be eaten" kind, an assumption that everyone else would behave the same way, given the chance.
 
Yeh, Carl thought humans were doing a greeeat job, yay us, perfection attained, no more kindness or empathy needed in the world. :)
 
Correct.

In my personal experience, people who assume the worst of other people... well, tend to be the worst people. Typically we assume that everyone functions the same way as we do, and quite often, end up being blatantly wrong. There are few universal truths about human behaviour, and one is that any sane person has the need to justify their own actions to themselves. In the case of selfish people, the typical justification is the "eat or be eaten" kind, an assumption that everyone else would behave the same way, given the chance.
Hmmm.... I think this is a false dichotomy. It is actually possible to assume the worst about people whilst also hoping for the best. It's also possible to assume the worst about people as a result of environment. For instance, I lived in a rubbish neighbourhood for a long time, and if you didn't assume the worst about the person knocking on your door, you'd get robbed. Now where I live, I'm happy to leave my front door wide open most of the time, unlocked and allowing the fresh air to flow through the house. I still assume the worst but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong.

The problem here is the word 'selfish' has such negative connotations attached to it. As soon as you start to realise that being selfish can, indeed, be a good thing more often than not, the sooner you'll realise that it isn't inherently good or bad. It's like calling a tornado 'evil', ascribing morality to natural processes.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I don't need a dictionary. And you're wrong.
The dictionary would beg to differ if you would conflate the words persuade and coerce... I'm only trying to help elucidate your point for you.

Is this the sum total of what it boils down to - you just say "you're wrong" and leave it there?

You might try some kind of discussion to prove to me why I'm wrong?

Traditional thinking, I know. What can I say other than I'm a traditionalist?
 
Hmmm.... I think this is a false dialectic. It is actually possible to assume the worst about people whilst also hoping for the best. It's also possible to assume the worst about people as a result of environment. For instance, I lived in a rubbish neighbourhood for a long time, and if you didn't assume the worst about the person knocking on your door, you'd get robbed. Now where I live, I'm happy to leave my front door wide open most of the time, unlocked and allowing the fresh air to flow through the house. I still assume the worst but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong.

The problem here is the word 'selfish' has such negative connotations attached to it. As soon as you start to realise that being selfish can, indeed, be a good thing more often than not, the sooner you'll realise that it isn't inherently good or bad. It's like calling a tornado 'evil', ascribing morality to natural processes.
How do you know a tornado isn't evil? I've seen them looking at me.
 
The dictionary would beg to differ if you would conflate the words persuade and coerce... I'm only trying to help elucidate your point for you.

Is this the sum total of what it boils down to - you just say "you're wrong" and leave it there?

You might try some kind of discussion to prove to me why I'm wrong?

Traditional thinking, I know. What can I say other than I'm a traditionalist?
I loathe traditionalist thinking. Beyond that, I've got nothing to prove to you.
 
Hmmm.... I think this is a false dialectic. It is actually possible to assume the worst about people whilst also hoping for the best. It's also possible to assume the worst about people as a result of environment. For instance, I lived in a rubbish neighbourhood for a long time, and if you didn't assume the worst about the person knocking on your door, you'd get robbed. Now where I live, I'm happy to leave my front door wide open most of the time, unlocked and allowing the fresh air to flow through the house. I still assume the worst but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong.

The problem here is the word 'selfish' has such negative connotations attached to it. As soon as you start to realise that being selfish can, indeed, be a good thing more often than not, the sooner you'll realise that it isn't inherently good or bad. It's like calling a tornado 'evil', ascribing morality to natural processes.
Yes it is possible to assume the worst while still hoping for the best.
However, it is still a person that is assuming the worst and the previous point still stands, whether it is "nurture" or "nature" that you ascribe that to.
Assuming the worst, regardless of whether one hopes for the best or not at the same time is still an indicator of the worst type of person.

The word selfish doesn't come with "negative connotations" either. If it is used to describe a negative behaviour, that is fair game, it is not a connotation that matters, it is explicitly a negative behaviour that is being discussed and the behaviour being negative is the object that should be addressed, not the words used to convey the behaviour.
 
I loathe traditionalist thinking. Beyond that, I've got nothing to prove to you.
Bit disingenuous.
I said prove to me that I'm wrong. Or it didn't happen.
Help me to see, or it isn't able to be seen.

Ergo: you say I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong due to lack of "evidence" that your statement is true.

The traditional part stems from "innocent until proven guilty" or right til proven wrong.

If I'm wrong, then there needs to be evidence for me to hold my hands up and say "fair enough, I was wrong". That's the traditional way, despite your loathing of traditional or otherwise, that won't change.
 
Top Bottom