Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Devling]

Well let's give toady the benefit of the doubt and say he spends more time policing the forum which requires more policing. 

[Descan]

I also mentioned that to him, the two different communities. Didn't think it was important to the current discussion, so I didn't bring it up.

Also, considering that a lot of our members are trickle-downs from the Upper Forum, anything that lessens the bigotry and scumminess of the Upper Forum also affects the Lower Forum.

[freeformschooler]

I haven't seen a "hive of scum and villainy" anywhere on the forums. Upper Forum has people making sarcastic quips about a DF review they don't like written by a girl. Lower Forum has people making sarcastic quips about a Kickstarter about video games they don't like written by a girl.

Yes, the gender distinction became partly the topic in both.

[SalmonGod]

Also, you mean to say that while a cast of people contribute a lot to a thing, but that the overall quality of the thing is determined by many people?
So like a country or government?

Yes, and recall the part where I said that government-like organization is not incompatible with anarchy.

This, oddly enough, reminds me of some stuff in The Prince.

People are fine when they are content. Food, shelter, friends.

But when they lack that, they will try to get those things. Often at any price.

Point is, the natural state of humans is scrabbling to get out of it.
Our environment serves to pacify us.

The ironic thing is most essential things in the world today are scarce because our societal structure forces them to be.  There are several empty homes for every homeless person in America.  We produce enough food that no one should be hungry.  We have the infrastructure to freely educate the world, but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.

If you believe what you've said, then you agree that we should work vigorously to tear down any institution that works deliberately to deny people those essentials.


Two Communities:  I find the upper forum to be less intellectual and mature, but haven't seen much to suggest that it's significantly less friendly than the lower forum.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Only by are environment do we learn the skills necessary to placate our most basic instincts.

Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

We can't? I think that we can. We need only the technology, the will, and the action to functionally eliminate hardships. We are entering an age where our advancement can put the problems we suffered for...well, ever, behind us. I suppose you could counter with pictures of all the Smallpox-laden children of this generation, but you might find that problematic.

Pretty much what bauglir said- we aren't there yet. And IMO it's doubtful we ever will be- finite earth = finite resources. Give it 30 years and we'll be completely out helium, swimming in some kinda fun nosocomial megabug and these oh so convenient long-chain hydrocarbons will be looking for an opportunity to strap a JATO rocket to thair peaked-and-declining-ass.

That is terrible.

thought he was making a joke..

I post in the Upper Forums maybe once every four or five months.

nope he's just a racist

I haven't seen a "hive of scum and villainy" anywhere on the forums.

This guy knows where it's at.

Yes, and recall the part where I said that government-like organization is not incompatible with anarchy.

My lazy self didn't check around enough to read that. Gotta say though, whut?

Mmm, sharing with the world sounds like a perfectly reasonable, just, and fair kind of thing at first. Then you remember the rest of the world has some pretty loopy people in it.
Point: Do we want to share nuclear power tech with north korea? No? What about all the tech leading up to but not including building the reactor? Or perhaps aeronautics? That'll save them 50+ years on their way to a weapon. Where would you draw the line in what we give to whom?

-edit

I find the upper forum to be less intellectual and mature,

It's like the forum's a fruit tree.

[Devling]

Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

I'm unsure if you are making a joke, do to the use of dude.
If you aren't joking then:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Instinct
Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular complex behavior.

How do humans not have this?!

[freeformschooler]

Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

I'm unsure if you are making a joke, do to the use of dude.
If you aren't joking then:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Instinct
Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular complex behavior.

How do humans not have this?!

Reflex vs. Instinct

Though there are arguments that we have instincts passed down from our ancestors that are not reflexive, just stunted.

[Devling]

Okay, other sources?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I'm unsure if you are making a joke, do to the use of dude.

Nope, just friendly.

Definition I was taught of an instinct is: A complex behavior which is innate and must, under normal circumstances, be repeatable with any normal member of the species.

complex behavior- not blinking or eating
innate- unlearned, something we are born with
repeated by any normal member of the species under identical circumstances- yeah

[alexandertnt]

The way we live today is really completely UNnatural, as we have plenty of anthropological proof that the conceptual foundations that civilization functions on, such as property, are completely alien to indigenous ways of life, which as I mentioned before is how the first 98% of human history was lived.  Civilization developed in certain ways according to changes in circumstances, not according to some fact of human nature.

This is simply not true. Many animals form "pacts" and attack other opposing pacts. These pacts are often dominated by an individual that has power over the rest. Birds construct nests which they claim as property and defend from other birds.

We are natural animals, and anything we do can be considered part of nature in the same way birds build nests. So our societies, cities etc are in no way contradictory to nature. Declaring anything to be unnatural is not an argument.

but we know what happened to Aaron Schwartz when he tried to download an academic database for free distribution.

By freely distributing this information, you have possibly allowed another country to further increase their control and restrict your freedom. Whilst I believe in free speech etc, this is not such an unreasonable viewpoint to have, and it is not a one-sided debate.

So restrict Aaron Schwartz's freedom, or risk having your freedom diminished. Because external influences are something that any anarchy could not ignore.

For the record, I am trying to present situations where anarchy would not work. Where limiting someones freedom is simply not a choice and people will have to have their freedom limited in some form and someone is going to have to make that decision. There are quite a number of these situations.

Our own forum is somewhat anarchistic. Toady is admin, but he doesn't do that much in overall policing or rule-making.

The forum is basically an absolute autocratic dictatorship which just happens to have a really nice and lenient dictator. Toady has absolute power over the whole forum and can exercise it at his will. He permits you to post, you have no right to.

If everyone decided to do something with the forum, they could not without Toady.

Humans don't have instincts dude. Choice invalidates them.

Reflex vs. Instinct

"Examples of instinctive behaviors in humans include many of the primitive reflexes, such as rooting and suckling, behaviors which are present in mammals."

Then you remember the rest of the world has some pretty loopy people in it.

An interesting point. What would an anarchist society do when faced with a crazy dictator. This dictator has the advantage of allowing his soldiers no choice in what they are told to do, which results in a much more reliable and efficient millitary.

[freeformschooler]

Definition I was taught of an instinct is: A complex behavior which is innate and must, under normal circumstances, be repeatable with any normal member of the species.

complex behavior- not blinking or eating
innate- unlearned, something we are born with
repeated by any normal member of the species under identical circumstances- yeah

Though, like in one article linked (and like alexandertnt points out above), there is a case to be made for Human babies. Why do they know before they're even able to comprehend their surroundings to breastfeed when given the opportunity? Wouldn't that be a complex behavior? All Human babies seem to do it.

Is that an instinct, or would it also fall under reflex (as they only do it in the presence of the appropriate stimuli)? I realize Wikipedia calls it a Primitive Reflex, but it seems to follow all the guidelines for being an instinct.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

IIRC it's a reflex- put anything near their mouth and they'll latch the hell on.

[Devling]

Well, consider me properly chastised for my lack of vocabulary breadth. 

[PanH]

complex behavior- not blinking or eating

Uh, that's instinct. Eating is a complex behavior (like breastfeed, most babies know how to do that, but some have to learn). Walking is an instinct in most animals (they know how to walk from birth, as opposed to human babies). I think you're mistaken in what a complex behavior is.

[alexandertnt]

Human babies know how to move about in a very similar way to each other without external stimuli. Its not upright walking, but they know how to do it.

Humans, along with other animals (because humans are animals), have instincts. Here is a nice documentry on human instincts