john wrote:
"are you saying that if something is in "our nature," social influences
don't
have an effect on it? Might it be that those who do kill are closer to
human
nature than those of us who follow the social rule to not kill?
john
solipsist9@xxxxxxx"
"p.s. just because killing is our nature, it doesn't follow that each of
us
would kill or want to kill regularly. why is it that our natural sexual
desires or drives are controllable but one that tells us to not kill is
not?
it could be that we are, by nature, designed to kill but have "learned"
to
control this instinct."
My answers: firstly, i'm saying that social influences are "effects"
of human nature. humans are social creatures. secondly, while human
instincts are managed by societal hierarchies this fact does not in any
way make your point. sex drives are instinctual. no one has a drive to
kill. people MAY decide to kill. people must learn to kill, not vice
versa. people are not trained to be sexual. can you think of a reason
why this is so? if you can, then you're on the right track.
killers must learn to kill; military training has to teach soldiers to
be killers. nobody is a natural born killer. nobody hits puberty and
turns into a killer. think about: how many people have to be trained
not to kill? and i don't mean this mamby-pamby "killing is wrong",
which is meant for the people who have learned to kill and the people
who might learn to kill. i mean training. TRAINING! people are told
not to have sex, yet they do it a lot. people do not kill a lot.
compare the number of times that you've had sex with the number of times
that you've killed.
we are animals, but not ALL animals are killers. how many people are
threatened and run, flee. some people DECIDE to kill. but people
decide to do things all the time, e.g. drive a car, parachute, learn the
tango. none of these things are instinctual just beacause we happen to
do them. and there are a lot more people who decide to do these very
things (well, except for parachuting) than there are people who decide
to kill.
john wrote:
"are you saying that "not killing" might be an habitus? this is
conclusion
that logically follows from your argument.
john
solipsist9@xxxxxxx"
answer: no your conclusion does not logically follow from my
argument. by my saying that killing is a disposition of habitus is to
say that killing is an inculcated behavior, i.e. not instinctual. how
can you possibly deduce from this argument that "not killing" is a
disposition of habitus? in fact, here's the quote of my statement that
you're referring to: "habitus is an amaglem of inculcated dispositions,
not a nature...." for you to conclude that habitus includes "not
killing" is to say that we must inculcate people with non-murderous
tendecies.
do you really believe that children must be taught not to kill? or
teenagers, must they be taught not to kill? and the same for adults?
have you been taught not to kill? have people actually had to sit you
down and say don't kill? are you saying that it is your nature to kill,
and that you actually had to be forced, to be taught not to kill? do
you know what "inculcate" means? it means that a behavior must be
carved into your way of thinking and acting. it is a form of
discipline. do you really believe that people must be trained to not
kill? and i ask you again: what about feral children? they grew up
independent of society, i.e. they had no social training. yet no feral
child has ever been reported to be the savage killer that you claim
people naturally are.
mitch: natural born non-killer.
"are you saying that if something is in "our nature," social influences
don't
have an effect on it? Might it be that those who do kill are closer to
human
nature than those of us who follow the social rule to not kill?
john
solipsist9@xxxxxxx"
"p.s. just because killing is our nature, it doesn't follow that each of
us
would kill or want to kill regularly. why is it that our natural sexual
desires or drives are controllable but one that tells us to not kill is
not?
it could be that we are, by nature, designed to kill but have "learned"
to
control this instinct."
My answers: firstly, i'm saying that social influences are "effects"
of human nature. humans are social creatures. secondly, while human
instincts are managed by societal hierarchies this fact does not in any
way make your point. sex drives are instinctual. no one has a drive to
kill. people MAY decide to kill. people must learn to kill, not vice
versa. people are not trained to be sexual. can you think of a reason
why this is so? if you can, then you're on the right track.
killers must learn to kill; military training has to teach soldiers to
be killers. nobody is a natural born killer. nobody hits puberty and
turns into a killer. think about: how many people have to be trained
not to kill? and i don't mean this mamby-pamby "killing is wrong",
which is meant for the people who have learned to kill and the people
who might learn to kill. i mean training. TRAINING! people are told
not to have sex, yet they do it a lot. people do not kill a lot.
compare the number of times that you've had sex with the number of times
that you've killed.
we are animals, but not ALL animals are killers. how many people are
threatened and run, flee. some people DECIDE to kill. but people
decide to do things all the time, e.g. drive a car, parachute, learn the
tango. none of these things are instinctual just beacause we happen to
do them. and there are a lot more people who decide to do these very
things (well, except for parachuting) than there are people who decide
to kill.
john wrote:
"are you saying that "not killing" might be an habitus? this is
conclusion
that logically follows from your argument.
john
solipsist9@xxxxxxx"
answer: no your conclusion does not logically follow from my
argument. by my saying that killing is a disposition of habitus is to
say that killing is an inculcated behavior, i.e. not instinctual. how
can you possibly deduce from this argument that "not killing" is a
disposition of habitus? in fact, here's the quote of my statement that
you're referring to: "habitus is an amaglem of inculcated dispositions,
not a nature...." for you to conclude that habitus includes "not
killing" is to say that we must inculcate people with non-murderous
tendecies.
do you really believe that children must be taught not to kill? or
teenagers, must they be taught not to kill? and the same for adults?
have you been taught not to kill? have people actually had to sit you
down and say don't kill? are you saying that it is your nature to kill,
and that you actually had to be forced, to be taught not to kill? do
you know what "inculcate" means? it means that a behavior must be
carved into your way of thinking and acting. it is a form of
discipline. do you really believe that people must be trained to not
kill? and i ask you again: what about feral children? they grew up
independent of society, i.e. they had no social training. yet no feral
child has ever been reported to be the savage killer that you claim
people naturally are.
mitch: natural born non-killer.