But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?
A quick google search turned up http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/v/virus.htmThe study of viruses is known as virology, and those who study viruses are known as virologists. It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms.
Most virologists consider them non-living, as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life.
They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms.
A primary reason is that viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolise on their own - characteristics of all living organisms. http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...viruslive.htmlViruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell Perhaps see also http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ses-alive-2004http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...ems-130227.htm |
|
|
|
Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback?
So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?
What if I don't get this feeling at all? Where is my payback then. I sometimes look at the situation and decide whenever to help the individual or not. I help more often strangers, since I don't really need payback and can't judge if they deserve it or not. The whole "You can't act altruistically because no matter what act you take it is selfish in some way as evidence by the fact that if it wasn't you wouldn't have taken that action!!!"!"!"! argument is just lazy. |
|
|
|
|
And, as an aside, not always but often times we do act in the self interest of others without the expectation of even good feelings as a reward. Because, you know, we aren't 100% rational robots programmed to always act in our own self best interests. For example, the guy who got gunned down in some bus shooting while acting as a human shield for someone else (some other random rider, not a family member) during the shooting.
|
|
|
|
In the model which he mistakenly calls a law, that "good feeling" is considered looking after yourself. The supposition is that you will help those who you perceive as most like you. By helping someone else, you are helping yourself. It's very Kantian in the circular dependencies.
To add onto that... That is a good explanation for how evolution has reinforced social animals like us to act altruistically at times. It isn't really a good argument that we aren't acting altruistically. |
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._PriceOther work in evolutionary theory
Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[7] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith.[11] Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.
Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling (each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the further genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.
Helping the homeless
As part of an attempt to prove his theory right or wrong Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings causing him to fall into depression.[citation needed]
He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.
Death
Unable to prove his theory right or wrong Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague W.D. Hamilton.[12] Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless. Dude killed himself after trying to prove his theory, and you cannot do TRULY selfless things for people when there is no payback for you. Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback? So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it? |
|
|
|
All life is evil, because all life is selfish. Our greatest evils are sex and apathy.
Sex is evil, because it creates life, and all life is evil.
Apathy is evil, because ignoring the plight of your fellow man is evil.
Taking life is not evil, but the way in which you take it is. Taking life in apathy is evil. Sometimes taking life is necessary to avoid apathy, like euthanasia.
1. Admit evil 2. /self It's two wrongs...make a right. |
|
|
|
Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US. Suggesting that China is aligned against us is to ignore their economic dependence on us. It's Russia which is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant. In fact, if they didn't have a veto in the security council the country would be about as important as India. I would look at Russia as being more similar to Pakistan. Both countries are driven by severe paranoia, and they both have nukes. |
|
|
|
They need to categorically separate themselves from any military action in a very public way, then make the easy case for the financial oppression Israel is carrying out. Palestinians are their own worst enemy, and they just don't get it. I disagree. What Israel is doing is inexcusable. And here you keep treating them as one group. They aren't. Hamas is self interested. No surprise there. We can either accept that reality and move forward with talks realizing this or we can never have peace. So far Israel has opted for the latter. To this I would respond that you should check around for what various people interviewed in Gaza had to say about the public executions. They make my case. Obviously there are many differences within any group. But on this, they are the victims of their upbringing...including schools and culture. They say the wrong things. Israelis do the same things, but media generally makes the Israelis who are into the violence look like the rare loon. |
|
|
|
As far as the OP goes though; Hamas and other Palestinian Gaza factions have announced a ceasefire. We'll see what Israel has to say about it. In either case it depends on talks that will take place in a month on prisoner releases and a port construction and I doubt they will go well.
The ceasefire looks like a complete cessation of hostiles At least for now the war is over and can be considered finished but what goes on in the shadows and who creates the next hotspot or triggers the next event is uncertain, but at least their is a return of an unsteady peace in the Palestine. The deal depends on good faith negotiations concerning the release of prisoners and coastal access which there is little precedence of Israel ever honestly engaging in (not without very heavy US pressure and even then only in limited terms). That may or may not be a deal breaker to the point of initiating rocket attacks (it usually isn't right away). Hamas will likely NOT be the first to fire rockets, that would likely be third party Palestinian militant factions (as per usual) which I suppose is the same thing since it all gets blamed on Hamas anyway. In fact, Israel rarely keeps ceasefire agreements very long outside of military action clauses. It knows that in terms of PR people only care about physical attack conditionals as they relate to ceasefires, not to the actual letter of the actual ceasefires as they relate to say, the fishing restrictions, or the opening of crossings. Well for Hamas they need time to find funding for more rockets and to re-arm themselves. For Israel well they got the bloodbath they wanted and left Hamas from their perspective in a much weaker position politically and militarily as they still hold all the cards, destroyed their tunnel system and bombed the crap out of their buildings while portraying them as terrorists to the mass media. After the already damaged infrastructure got destroyed, Hamas and the Palestinians will also need to rebuild and restore the buildings that were obliterated in their latest spat, so they could both use the ceasefire. That said between those two countries they are always at a boiling point so while this one may be silent for now its only a matter of time before it'll get hot again since its ongoing like it did a few years ago and will again a few years from now. _ Hamas, though badly battered, remains in control of Gaza with part of its military arsenal intact. Israel and Egypt will continue to control access to blockaded Gaza, despite Hamas’ long-running demand that the border closures imposed in 2007 be lifted. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-hamas-says-longterm-truce-agreed-with-israel-9691910.htmlWe also have to keep in mind that Hamas only has so much control over third party militant groups. It isn't a federal government, it is more of a confederacy here with Hamas just being the strongest and primary service provider of the strip. So when things get bad due to the blockade and other issues, Hamas ability to reign in these groups weakens. You mentioned the Qassam Brigade, but that is just the group that Hamas has the MOST control over because it is actually headed by Hamas, whereas the others are not. They don't actually need control, they just need to condemn it. It may be a bit late for Hamas, though. I don't think he could do worse. And if done properly, it could work quite well. Surviving the change would be pretty difficult, of course. Unfortunately, saying this doesn't really accomplish much. And it's a horrible way to start negotiating any reduction in violence. |
|
|
|
Israel is trolling the Palestinians by goading them into a violent, albeit pointless response, then sitting back and saying "see, they're all terrorists". The violent response is unbelievably stupid and can't win. They are simply massively outgunned. Right, but they goad them by blatantly violating the terms of the ceasefire and threatening to destroy them anyway by doing so. Hamas as two options in that case: 1.) Disappear 2.) Launch rockets and fight in the hopes of forcing a reprieve through new ceasefire terms and international attention. A third option is to condemn all violence. Israel cannot really go all offensive if they have no cover of rocket fire or kidnappings or whatever to make it look good. |
|
|
|
|
Which is why I circle back to saying a strong business leader is probably the best solution at this point. They need to categorically separate themselves from any military action in a very public way, then make the easy case for the financial oppression Israel is carrying out. Of course, that person would probably be executed by some group with links to Hamas. Probably call him a traitor like those people they executed a few days ago.
Palestinians are their own worst enemy, and they just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
As far as the OP goes though; Hamas and other Palestinian Gaza factions have announced a ceasefire. We'll see what Israel has to say about it. In either case it depends on talks that will take place in a month on prisoner releases and a port construction and I doubt they will go well.
The ceasefire looks like a complete cessation of hostiles At least for now the war is over and can be considered finished but what goes on in the shadows and who creates the next hotspot or triggers the next event is uncertain, but at least their is a return of an unsteady peace in the Palestine. The deal depends on good faith negotiations concerning the release of prisoners and coastal access which there is little precedence of Israel ever honestly engaging in (not without very heavy US pressure and even then only in limited terms). That may or may not be a deal breaker to the point of initiating rocket attacks (it usually isn't right away). Hamas will likely NOT be the first to fire rockets, that would likely be third party Palestinian militant factions (as per usual) which I suppose is the same thing since it all gets blamed on Hamas anyway. In fact, Israel rarely keeps ceasefire agreements very long outside of military action clauses. It knows that in terms of PR people only care about physical attack conditionals as they relate to ceasefires, not to the actual letter of the actual ceasefires as they relate to say, the fishing restrictions, or the opening of crossings. It all gets blamed on Hamas because Hamas seems to accept liability. For example, according to NPR, A senior Hamas leader has said the group carried out the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teens in the West Bank in June — the first time anyone from the Islamic militant group has said it was behind an attack that helped spark the current war in the Gaza Strip. It goes on to attribute it further to the al-Qassam brigades, but basically indicating they are essentially the same group. I haven't heard any denials, although perhaps you have? Israel is trolling the Palestinians by goading them into a violent, albeit pointless response, then sitting back and saying "see, they're all terrorists". The violent response is unbelievably stupid and can't win. They are simply massively outgunned. |
|
|
|
I really think you're dreaming. Haha, I wrote the above before I even read this. I guess I don't understand what you think I am dreaming of. You seem to keep assigning these expectations to me that I don't have. It's more of a figure of speech. I doubt you hold extravagant expectations, but many people do. I will say that anyone who believes the American people, who adore Kim Kardashian, Honey boo boo, and Paris Hilton will engage in the critical thinking required to overcome historical preference for Israel IS dreaming. |
|
|
|
Just the name Hamas is poison, mostly because they are dumb enough to make extreme statements and do extremely disturbing things...then admit to it. The Hamas name is poison because people don't understand what Hamas is and Hamas is terrible at PR when it comes to western populations, but then again, their PR efforts aren't focused on US populations, but on Arab and Muslim populations. Let me put on my great Carnak hat... Israel will accept it, and within a week both sides will be saying the other side broke it. But Hamas will be the first to send rockets. Yes, I'm prescient. |
|
|
|
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Co...-Israel-371952And this is why I believe Hamas is going to continue to look like mindless killers to the US. Some of them are mindless killers; the question is why. Disliking Hamas shouldn't blind people to everything else. I know it can, but only because people want to be small. Again, you are suggesting that Palestine...more specifically Gaza, is of enough importance to Americans in general to spend the time to consider the frankly complex issues that are behind the fighting. The same people who think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Honey_Boo_Boo is worth watching. I really think you're dreaming. Just the name Hamas is poison, mostly because they are dumb enough to make extreme statements and do extremely disturbing things...then admit to it. |
|
|
|
|
This is all bullshit and greed. Corporations in America HAVE recovered from the Bush era economic collapse. The only people still hurting are the working class and the poor, and that's neither because of the basic economy or because of US taxes - it's because of corporate greed. You want to reduce US corporate taxes even more? Fine. I'd support that - IF in the same bill, tax penalties for US corporations who offshore and tariffs on imports from any country whose treatment of workers is even worse than ours are included.
|
|
|
|
I am, once again, struck by the stunningly low caliber of the rightwing mind. Nobody with an IQ over 30 could read Williams' words without laughing at their simplistic moronicity.
I am always stunned by the people who believe that someone should not be allowed to pass on their accumulated assets to whomever they please. It really is nobody's business, unless of course you're a democrat who has a totalitarian inside, screaming to get out. And yet Dr. Williams is a highly regarded economist, commentator, and scholar, while the one sneering is an internet nobody who relies on insults and attacks in lieu of an argument. |
|
|
|
|
I am, once again, struck by the stunningly low caliber of the rightwing mind. Nobody with an IQ over 30 could read Williams' words without laughing at their simplistic moronicity.
|
|
|
|
But thank you for distracting a thread intended to point out the difference in response on American politics to your own private bete noirs. I hope to return the favor to you someday.
In other words, you can't dredge up a reply, no matter how weak! Here's another one trick pony, this time the anti-American is an American.... Washington Threatens The World http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39372.htmBy Paul Craig Roberts Ask yourselves, when has Washington told you anything that was not a lie? You remind me, of that British prince quoted by Tacitus saying to the Roman Senate, "You make a desert and call it peace." As though what he said mattered to those charged with the destiny of western civilization. I'm sure the Roman Senate would have agreed with my response to he and thee: "You'll get over it." |
|
|
|
Since your sources conflict regularly with intelligence sources, I'm going to have to go with the professionals, rather than journalists with axes to grind and income to get from their followers. I don't see Assad disputing it to any great degree, pretty much all the world, except for you, is convinced that he is the one who pulled the trigger, so I'm just not worried about your take on who is particularly responsible for the attack on Ghouta..
Of course you can believe the American intelligence community, they always tell the truth. What interviews with Assad have you seen? He has denied it often enough in non-American media. A variety of American official lies.... A Redundant Presidential Ritual U.S. “Humanitarian” Bombing of Iraq: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39371.htmBy Glenn Greenwald The U.S. military is not designed, and is not deployed, for “humanitarian” purposes? Do you think you impress anyone by forwarding links of people who criticize America? I criticize this nation for far more purpose than you or your band of merry bros could ever hope to do with your pipsqueak whinings and moanings. To me, you are just gnats to be waved aside. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
