"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > perspective.
> >
> > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
from
> > harm. That is innate.
>
> We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> about death.

False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
rudimentary organisms and plants.

> If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
tradeoff.

> > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
flawed
> > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
drive
> > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
artifacts
> > is wrong.
>
> LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> likely to happen.

Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
point.

> All harm is not bad.

That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

> As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
> from
> > > harm. That is innate.
> >
> > We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> > about death.
>
> False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
> rudimentary organisms and plants.

That is called projection, Dutch -- although various disciplines have
different words for the same process.

> > If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> > describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> > requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> > situations contrary to our 'wiring'.
>
> Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
> tradeoff.

Having you accept responsibility for your statements is likely an
impossibility. We were just discussing hardwiring which you were asked
to support. You failed again to support your contention with any
reasoning.

First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
override hardwiring. Oh, the spoonfed.

> > > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
> flawed
> > > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
> drive
> > > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
> artifacts
> > > is wrong.
> >
> > LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> > paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> > that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> > likely to happen.
>
> Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
> point.

Well, what is my risk of having a hitman hired to kill me. I'm
estimating a number that is closest to zero. What is your view of
rational assessment of risk to me of a premeditated murder involving a
hitman? To see adults so fearful is quite sad.

> > All harm is not bad.
>
> That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
> absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

Odd. I used the same format that you use and then you call it a strawman
and an absolute. When I make that observation of your statements you
deny this. HOw interesting is that?

> > As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> > to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> > can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.
>
> Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .

Another diversion. We have been discussing the moral code that is being
used to declare that vegans are acting immorally. YOu have failed to
respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
rule.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
[..]
>> > > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
>> > > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
>> > > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
>> > > > perspective.
>> > >
>> > > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
>> from
>> > > harm. That is innate.
>> >
>> > We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
>> > about death.
>>
>> False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
>> rudimentary organisms and plants.
>
> That is called projection, Dutch -- although various disciplines have
> different words for the same process.

What is called projection? Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
instinctive in all organisms.

>> > If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
>> > describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
>> > requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out
>> > harmful
>> > situations contrary to our 'wiring'.
>>
>> Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
>> tradeoff.
>
> Having you accept responsibility for your statements is likely an
> impossibility. We were just discussing hardwiring which you were asked
> to support. You failed again to support your contention with any
> reasoning.

Do a bit of Googling for hardwire, fight or fight, organism, you'll find a
plethora of information that will confirm it for you. Of course since it's
not what you want to hear, you won't do this, you'll invent some ruse like
saying the internet is not a valid source of information.

> First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
> override hardwiring.

What makes you think that being hardwired implies that it can't overriden?
What if two hardwired impulses conflict? We sublimate instinctive urges all
the time.

> Oh, the spoonfed.

There's that knee-jerk rejection of "conventional wisdom" again. Is it a
fear of being uncool, or what?

>> > > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
>> > > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
>> flawed
>> > > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
>> drive
>> > > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
>> artifacts
>> > > is wrong.
>> >
>> > LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
>> > paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
>> > that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
>> > likely to happen.
>>
>> Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
>> point.
>
> Well, what is my risk of having a hitman hired to kill me. I'm
> estimating a number that is closest to zero. What is your view of
> rational assessment of risk to me of a premeditated murder involving a
> hitman? To see adults so fearful is quite sad.

I have never known a person in my life who feared a hit man. What is sad?
People assess realistic risks all the time, like driving too fast, drinking
and driving, skiing out of bounds...

That's not sad, it's smart.

>> > All harm is not bad.
>>
>> That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to
>> assert
>> absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.
>
> Odd. I used the same format that you use and then you call it a strawman
> and an absolute.

Where did I use a strawman or an absolute statement as an argument?

> When I make that observation of your statements you
> deny this. HOw interesting is that?

Since it's another example of an unsupported statement by you, not very,
just typical.

>
>> > As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
>> > to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
>> > can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.
>>
>> Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .
>
> Another diversion.

Diversion? YOU introduced it, now you refuse to explain what you mean??

> We have been discussing the moral code that is being
> used to declare that vegans are acting immorally.

Yeah, you've been asking cogent questions like "what's the name of the moral
code?" NOT.

> YOu have failed to
> respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
> rule.

You just cobble these question together in the desperate hope that
eventually one will make sense don't you? Does that make you cool?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> [..]
> >> > > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> >> > > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> >> > > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> >> > > > perspective.
> >> > >
> >> > > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
> >> from
> >> > > harm. That is innate.
> >> >
> >> > We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> >> > about death.
> >>
> >> False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
> >> rudimentary organisms and plants.
> >
> > That is called projection, Dutch -- although various disciplines have
> > different words for the same process.
>
> What is called projection? Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
> instinctive in all organisms.

Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
just going off the scale.

Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)

> >> > If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> >> > describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> >> > requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out
> >> > harmful
> >> > situations contrary to our 'wiring'.
> >>
> >> Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
> >> tradeoff.
> >
> > Having you accept responsibility for your statements is likely an
> > impossibility. We were just discussing hardwiring which you were asked
> > to support. You failed again to support your contention with any
> > reasoning.
>
> Do a bit of Googling for hardwire, fight or fight, organism, you'll find a
> plethora of information that will confirm it for you. Of course since it's
> not what you want to hear, you won't do this, you'll invent some ruse like
> saying the internet is not a valid source of information.
>
> > First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
> > override hardwiring.
>
> What makes you think that being hardwired implies that it can't overriden?
> What if two hardwired impulses conflict? We sublimate instinctive urges all
> the time.
>
> > Oh, the spoonfed.
>
> There's that knee-jerk rejection of "conventional wisdom" again. Is it a
> fear of being uncool, or what?
>
> >> > > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> >> > > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
> >> flawed
> >> > > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
> >> drive
> >> > > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
> >> artifacts
> >> > > is wrong.
> >> >
> >> > LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> >> > paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> >> > that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> >> > likely to happen.
> >>
> >> Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
> >> point.
> >
> > Well, what is my risk of having a hitman hired to kill me. I'm
> > estimating a number that is closest to zero. What is your view of
> > rational assessment of risk to me of a premeditated murder involving a
> > hitman? To see adults so fearful is quite sad.
>
> I have never known a person in my life who feared a hit man. What is sad?
> People assess realistic risks all the time, like driving too fast, drinking
> and driving, skiing out of bounds...
>
> That's not sad, it's smart.
>
> >> > All harm is not bad.
> >>
> >> That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to
> >> assert
> >> absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.
> >
> > Odd. I used the same format that you use and then you call it a strawman
> > and an absolute.
>
> Where did I use a strawman or an absolute statement as an argument?
>
> > When I make that observation of your statements you
> > deny this. HOw interesting is that?
>
> Since it's another example of an unsupported statement by you, not very,
> just typical.
>
> >
> >> > As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> >> > to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> >> > can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.
> >>
> >> Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .
> >
> > Another diversion.
>
> Diversion? YOU introduced it, now you refuse to explain what you mean??
>
> > We have been discussing the moral code that is being
> > used to declare that vegans are acting immorally.
>
> Yeah, you've been asking cogent questions like "what's the name of the moral
> code?" NOT.
>
> > YOu have failed to
> > respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
> > rule.
>
> You just cobble these question together in the desperate hope that
> eventually one will make sense don't you? Does that make you cool?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> instinctive in all organisms.
>
> Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
> just going off the scale.
>
> Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
> threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)

Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your carefully
groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
> >> instinctive in all organisms.
> >
> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
> > just going off the scale.
> >
> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>
> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your carefully
> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.

Indeed. Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
unlikely to be different.

What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the likelihood
of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
act more likely to happen?

Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of us.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> >> instinctive in all organisms.
>> >
>> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter
>> > is
>> > just going off the scale.
>> >
>> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
>> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>>
>> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
>> carefully
>> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
>
> Indeed.

Then stop trying so hard.

> Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
> unlikely to be different.

Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.

> What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the likelihood
> of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
> act more likely to happen?

Absolutely incoherent.

> Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
> reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
> chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of us.

All righty then...