ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better.

I sincerely wish I could agree, but there are many species for which this is simply not true, and those species do just fine. It all depends on their ecological niche and how well adapted the species is to its environment. The best I can say is that humanity, via evolving sociology, is adapting (albeit very slowly) away from such behavior, and mainly because we've created weapons that are so lethal that we can no longer tolerate our own aggression and stand much of a chance at not becoming extinct. But we've a long ways to go. We are still, AFAIK, the only species that kills its own *for sport*.

quantum_mechani said:
And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.

Alas, "good" and "flawless" are a ways apart. Also, not to be overly cynical, but the main thing which stops even more killing from taking place is a fear of punishment, not a moral or inherent aversion to the act. If we as rational beings had a greater sense of community and responsibility for self and for others there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Society, through various means (of which religion is the most popular, but arguably not the best or most effective) attempts to correct our innate lack of such values by trying to instill them in us, preferably at a young age. That there is still a significant percentage for which such indoctrination fails only highlights just how ingrained our innate (bestial some say) nature really is.

[Arryn]

BigDaddy said:
Actually, I meant you should attack my society and evolution arguements (thats right I'm callin you out).

Why should I attack your arguments? If you fail to make your case then I needn't go through the effort to kick what I consider to be a dead horse. You peddle snake oil, I'm not buying, and I just keep on walking while you attempt to hustle the next mark coming down the road.

Besides, ignoring the absurd is so much more effective.

I'm quite enjoying the discussion with Quantum. He raises *valid* points which merit consideration and debate.

I do admit that your analysis of mass murder was good. Pity you haven't put as much effort into dissecting religion as you did that. heh


Clue: ball's back in your court ...

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

I sincerely wish I could agree, but there are many species for which this is simply not true, and those species do just fine. It all depends on their ecological niche and how well adapted the species is to its environment. The best I can say is that humanity, via evolving sociology, is adapting (albeit very slowly) away from such behavior, and mainly because we've created weapons that are so lethal that we can no longer tolerate our own aggression and stand much of a chance at not becoming extinct. But we've a long ways to go. We are still, AFAIK, the only species that kills its own *for sport*.

Alas, "good" and "flawless" are a ways apart. Also, not to be overly cynical, but the main thing which stops even more killing from taking place is a fear of punishment, not a moral or inherent aversion to the act. If we as rational beings had a greater sense of community and responsibility for self and for others there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Society, through various means (of which religion is the most popular, but arguably not the best or most effective) attempts to correct our innate lack of such values by trying to instill them in us, preferably at a young age. That there is still a significant percentage for which such indoctrination fails only highlights just how ingrained our innate (bestial some say) nature really is.

As you say, whether or not such a mechanism is necessary depends on ecological niche and environment. Nonetheless, I can certainly see the advantage of such built in inhibitions for humans (and in fact many social animals).
It is quite obvious, that whatever causes such aversions, they are not flawless. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is not necessary that they be. Even if they stopped less than 50% of tribe-internal killing, it could still be an advantage.

It does become rather hard to say if it is the sociology evolving, or an actual biological change.

[Kristoffer O]

BigDaddy said:

Of course. I knew that that possibility would be mentioned. I would suggest asking thugs in prison if they where wrong to kill, but I have no idea what they would say. I'm sure, though, that many would say they were sorry that they got caught.

I've visited a prison with a couple of my students and talked to a sentenced murderer. I find it likely that he was sorry that he was caught, but his main concern was some kind of regret. He repeatedly told my students that 'it is very easy to kill a human'. He had a son and wanted a new life outside the prison.

Everyone knows that it is wrong to kill, at least in the eyes of society. Most people understand that if you want to live in it you have to abide by its rules. Most people can also relate to or come up with the notion that you might not want to do to others what you yourself do not want them to do to you. Psychopaths perhaps lack this ability, but can still be taught the implications of not following the rules of society.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

So your arguement is that thoug shalt not kill is modern? I think not. I will attack your arguement directly, and not sidestep or divert.

Maybe you misunderstand my arguement. There is nothing missing. Primate females prefer "nicer" males. This is clearly true of humans as well (though you can argue that women don't like wimps, I doubt you would argue that they prefer thugs to real men). So, nicer males make more babies. Even in todays societies, but then today's society has all kinds of things that don't apply to the evolution arguement.

So, do you believe I can't site research about the primates? Or from the evolution scientists? Or do you simply disagree?

Evolution isn't always about making something more powerful, its often about feathers, hair, intelligence, and parenting.

In typical societies families pass their "values" on to most of their children. Therefore, those activities that promote having children, staying out of prison(or not getting killed), and live longer lives will be promoted by SUCCESSFUL families more often than by other families. I dare say that successful families rarely Kill people, because of its inherent danger, rarely steal things (except for very nice things). And so forth. Until it was understood that stealing and such was bad, because it led to massive death (murder in a small society, but generally not in a family). Societies that are violent to other societies are violent amongst families as well.

Social evolution?

It gets rather sticky, however, to argue either one of these points, because you actually have to argue against both. I looked for and found evidence, and professional opinion. AND my arguement has not been significantly altered.

As far as religion goes, you are quite aware that if you disregard "evidence (and I am using the term loosly)," it is rather difficult to even discuss. If you where willing to discuss probability of the few known things it could get us somewhere, but not far enough. I'm sure you've had this arguement many times and where happy to do so again. No one (except God) is ever going to be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God.

Oh, and you still haven't said anything about my arguements other than that you believe their points aren't valid. So tell me, is it a specific sentence you have trouble with, or just the whole thing.

[BigDaddy]

Kristoffer O said:

I've visited a prison with a couple of my students and talked to a sentenced murderer. I find it likely that he was sorry that he was caught, but his main concern was some kind of regret. He repeatedly told my students that 'it is very easy to kill a human'. He had a son and wanted a new life outside the prison.

Everyone knows that it is wrong to kill, at least in the eyes of society. Most people understand that if you want to live in it you have to abide by its rules. Most people can also relate to or come up with the notion that you might not want to do to others what you yourself do not want them to do to you. Psychopaths perhaps lack this ability, but can still be taught the implications of not following the rules of society.

Thats quite interesting actually. I defends my original preface. More importantly, I want to direct anyone who can't just accept religions as they are to join a philosophy class. Preferably contemporary moral issues. Religion is only as much as you put into it. Oh, and whenever you're in a PHIL class argue with your proffesor whenever you can. I doubt you'll ever win, but maybe, and you'll learn a ton.

[Evil Dave]

I'm not sure why I'm wading into this, but...

Scott Hebert said:

All right. Let's try this. Can you give me PROOF that Julius Caesar ever existed? All you have are stories about him, and maybe a tomb where somebody (who you claim was Julius Caesar) was buried. If you rely on the stories, then you're just 'parroting' things.

Yup, which is why historians don't consider unsupported oral traditions to be very reliable sources of information.

I think I could prove the existance of Julius Caesar, but it would be a slow process, which would have to start with ideas of what you would consider proof of the existance of any historical person or event... and it would be slow 'cause I'd have to bone up on the philosophy of history, which I don't know.

All because I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and has believed for milennia, does not mean that I accept it blindly, or without investigation.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right... are you saying that you've investigated every claim the Church has made, and found them true to your satisfaction, or that you believe only the ones you've investigated?

And may I assume you're aware that Catholic beliefs have changed over the 1800 or so years that the Church has existed?

[Evil Dave]

Scott Hebert said:
Y'know, anyone who can say Blood magic deals with life sickens me.

My hazy understanding is that the real people who practiced blood magic (ie, human sacrifice) believed just that. Apparently, in tropical jungles, people saw new (plant) life rapidly growing on decaying dead things, and concluded that the "life force" was recycled into new living things. I can't remember the intermediate stages of the idea, but the final form was that sacrificing living things -- especially people -- was necessary for the world to keep living.

From that viewpoint, Dom2 has the wrong effects for blood magic. "Real" blood magic should produce effects like nature magic does, but in bursts when blood slaves are sacrificed.

I think the current Dom2 view is essentially that of Christians, in that Mesoamerican and African human sacrificers didn't intend to summon demons or other "unholy" beings, but merely didn't want the sun to go out.

[Saber Cherry]

Evil Dave said:
I think the current Dom2 view is essentially that of Christians, in that Mesoamerican and African human sacrificers didn't intend to summon demons or other "unholy" beings, but merely didn't want the sun to go out.

How silly of you! The Aztecs sacrificed blood slaves, and subsequently, the White Man came from an unknown plane of existance and wiped them out. Just like when you cast Summon Horror carelessly.

[Evil Dave]

Saber Cherry said:
How silly of you! The Aztecs sacrificed blood slaves, and subsequently, the White Man came from an unknown plane of existance and wiped them out. Just like when you cast Summon Horror carelessly.

I assume you're joking around, but that rings a distant bell... Didn't the Aztecs have some prophesy of light-skinned people coming from far away?