Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
Ah, but see therein lies a problem, I believe in human nature, I don't believe that we are "predisposed" or "our environment" is 100% fully responsible for who we are. So if I can't make my arguments from my beliefs.... you win the debate by default and don't have to answer any of the questions that the opposing view put forth..... how fucking clever.
|
Separate fact from belief. If you have no facts to argue with, what are you posting? Opinion? This isn't a theological or metaphysical debate. This is about actively seeking to end war. In the real world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
If it were, genetic, environmental, etc.etc. (whatever you want to claim); the same drugs would affect everyone the same. You can have identical twins, who have shared every experience of their lives together smoke weed, do coke, take a xanax, etc. and have totally different reactions. Sooooo why is that? Identical twins have pretty much the identical genetic makeup, and sharing the same experiences takes the environment factor out also... so what is the answer that makes this happen? HUMAN NATURE, FREE WILL, INDIVIDUALITY, whatever you wish to call it.
|
Identical twins aren't actually identical. It's a generalization based on the phenotype. Each of two twins may have a different reaction, but it's not God or human nature that determines that. You don't have to be a doctor to get that, but I'm sure people on TFP with more expertise in human biology can confirm what I'm saying.
BTW, twins to tend to have similar reactions to medications. I know that because Several of the classes I took to get my degree went into twins studies in psychiatry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
We have emotions, we are a species that we may try to control emotions and come up with 99 million excuses as to why we feel certain ways, but if it is not an individualistic choice, then everyone would eventually feel the exact same about everything. This isn't even true with siblings, let alone any number of random people in a group.
|
Pan, I can respect that you're very smart when it comes to a lot of things. As a matter of fact, I'd say you were probably smarter than I am on average. I don't think you quite understand the way psychology works, at least in the context you're presenting. I mean absolutely no disrespect, you're a stand up guy who I proudly call friend, but you can't make up psychology as you go. I took years of my life to intensely study psychology, and I still don't know most of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
You can collect a group of 100 random people, sit them down and show them Annie Hall (as an example). Now, from that group you may reason certain percentages will feel certain ways, but chances are you will not even guess 10% accurately as to who felt what about the movie, who slept through it, who ate more popcorn, who didn't truly pay attention and so on. You cannot guess because of HUMAN NATURE and FREE WILL.
|
I also don't know exactly how black holes form, but I can give you my sincere assurances that it has nothing to do with human nature. If I had backgrounds on each of those people, how can you claim that I'd only get 10%? Do you have actual studies to cite? Or is this all hypothetical studies carried out in your mind? Do you realize what you're communicating by stating hypothetical studies as fact?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
To disregard them and to try to explain them away is ludicrous, lazy and IMHO, trying to be someone who believes since they know what makes humans tick (so to speak) they can poo-poo anything and control mankind. Trying to explain away man's emotions as genetics and environment is to say we have no souls, we have no spirits we are just neurons reacting in certain ways. Sorry, don't believe ya. But I am so glad that the government has been training our psychologists and psychiatrists to believe this. Makes helping the individual almost impossible at times. But makes the makers of Benzodiazapines, Prozac, Seraquel, etc, much, much richer.
|
Lazy is using a vague term and ending the conversation there. Souls were the explanation for sentience and intelligence before philosophy and science got to work on explaining them. The government doesn't train psychologists or psychiatrists. We're trained at universities by people who are experts on the subjects.
Psychology and psychiatry are sciences. They are as reliable as any other science. In all sciences there are exceptions to rules. That's normal. That hardly proves the metaphysical, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
Sorry, man is not GOD and man will never be able to control others... Hell the people who claim environment and genetics, I know have a hard time with their own self control.
|
Man is not god, but neither is god. I control other people all the time. If I ask Jerry in accounting to fix the insurance numbers because they look wrong, he does it. So far as control in the context in this thread: I'm not talking about forcing peace. I'm talking about getting everyone on the same page; we should strive for peace. If all 7 billion people decided that, on their own, this thread wouldn't look so crazy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pan6467
BTW, if you go by "academic merits" you can come up with answers to everything you wish to..... theoretically... however, put into real life and upon the grand stage you will never get the results you hypothesized. Again, human free will, individuality, nature, spirit will prevail. What you profess as "antiquated, vague.... (was obsolete in there also?)" will basically always bite you on the ass, when you profess that it doesn't exist for one reason or another.
|
Again with the metaphysics. Free will only requires a capacity for rational deliberation. Individuality is the fact that it's impossible for two people to have the exact same genetic makeup and environment. Nature...well we all have covered human nature. Spirit is religious or metaphysical. What I profess as antiquated is in fact antiquated and still has no place in the real world. If you want to have a philosophical debate, I'll meet you in tilted philosophy. This is politics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Wait... you are saying that things like desire for things, such as better more fertile lands, resources such as oil, gold, food, pretty wenches for better bred offspring have no bearing to warring peoples whatsoever?
|
Of course they do, but to explain those wants away as 'human nature' is too simplistic for discussion. As we've seen it's starting to break down our progress in this thread.