good enough. but as far as presenting belief as fact, i never did.
rather, i presented the facts that i believe. which brings up the
question of objectivity, which is balderdash. the best we can do is
honestly present our arguments, which are subjectively formed. one who
claims objectivity is engaging in a deception.
not to bring up a recently old argument per se, but haven't you
retreated from the position that to kill is human nature? and where you
stand is not the point, as far as i'm concerned. instead, examine your
own past statements and arguments. i'm perfectly willing to admit my
beliefs, are you? there certainly is a consistent underlying assumption
to your argument. namely, that indeed killing is human nature. now, if
this is your assumption, that killing is human nature (which neither you
nor i can prove), wouldn't it be better to let your premises surface so
that we can both scrutinize such an assumption, or premise, of your
argument? instead, now you say: "i NEVER said people are naturally
savage killers. i'm saying that it's possible that to not kill is a
societal norm, not a natural one."
"it's possible that to not kill is a societal norm...." yes. i too
agree that it's possible. but we were not merely speculating. we had
each taken a side. and this isn't science. there's no need to pretend
that we have no biases. rather, in order to conduct a fruitful
dialectic, let's put our biases on the table. my MAIN assumption is
that murder is an abberation, not a norm. and regarding "to not kill is
a societal norm...", while it is possible, and as long as we are
inferring why not infer that it is a human's nature, that is propensity,
to not kill another human?
and again, i really don't want to go into all that again. instead,
think about assumptions and their conclusions. after all, neither one
of us can know for sure one way or the other what human nature is or
isn't in regard to killing. all we have are experiences, not
knowledge. tell me, what do your experiences support, i mean your
personal experiences? that humans generally kill one another or that
they do not? i've always been interested in how people believe that
they have knowledge. what they really have is experience. furthermore,
they ignore the logical assumptions of their experiences. for example,
a lot of people who watch tv news see reports of murder almost
everyday. yet these murders are relatively few in number as far as the
experiences of the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the
city. so why do they believe that people are natural killers? their
experiences tell them that most people never kill, and that most killers
only rarely kill. it's like religious people who think that there is a
god, or whatever, even though they have never had a single experience to
assume that there is such a thing as god. my experience tells me that
we don't know what comes after death. yet so many people think that
they know.
in fact, even for the murderer, the acts of killing are really so few in
number compared to all the other human interactions during the
murderer's life. now while, i'm sure, you will say that the murderer
would have killed a lot more if given the chance, and that societal
restrictions have been the deterrent, let's stick to WHAT WE KNOW, or
rather what we have experienced. when we do this, we see that while
taking into account what really happens, as best as we can tell, we
deceive ourselves when we only note extraordinary events. like the
hypocondriac who believes that ill health is immanent, people are
hypersensitive to what they believe to notice, rather than what they are
really experiencing. and what is the hypocondriac experiencing? why a
deception. were they to say hey, this whole time i've been thinking
that i'm sick, yet i'm, never really sick. likewise, people think that
"other" people, not themselves of course, are killers. and yet they've
never, or only in a rare, extraordinary experience, seen a person kill
another person.
rather, i presented the facts that i believe. which brings up the
question of objectivity, which is balderdash. the best we can do is
honestly present our arguments, which are subjectively formed. one who
claims objectivity is engaging in a deception.
not to bring up a recently old argument per se, but haven't you
retreated from the position that to kill is human nature? and where you
stand is not the point, as far as i'm concerned. instead, examine your
own past statements and arguments. i'm perfectly willing to admit my
beliefs, are you? there certainly is a consistent underlying assumption
to your argument. namely, that indeed killing is human nature. now, if
this is your assumption, that killing is human nature (which neither you
nor i can prove), wouldn't it be better to let your premises surface so
that we can both scrutinize such an assumption, or premise, of your
argument? instead, now you say: "i NEVER said people are naturally
savage killers. i'm saying that it's possible that to not kill is a
societal norm, not a natural one."
"it's possible that to not kill is a societal norm...." yes. i too
agree that it's possible. but we were not merely speculating. we had
each taken a side. and this isn't science. there's no need to pretend
that we have no biases. rather, in order to conduct a fruitful
dialectic, let's put our biases on the table. my MAIN assumption is
that murder is an abberation, not a norm. and regarding "to not kill is
a societal norm...", while it is possible, and as long as we are
inferring why not infer that it is a human's nature, that is propensity,
to not kill another human?
and again, i really don't want to go into all that again. instead,
think about assumptions and their conclusions. after all, neither one
of us can know for sure one way or the other what human nature is or
isn't in regard to killing. all we have are experiences, not
knowledge. tell me, what do your experiences support, i mean your
personal experiences? that humans generally kill one another or that
they do not? i've always been interested in how people believe that
they have knowledge. what they really have is experience. furthermore,
they ignore the logical assumptions of their experiences. for example,
a lot of people who watch tv news see reports of murder almost
everyday. yet these murders are relatively few in number as far as the
experiences of the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the
city. so why do they believe that people are natural killers? their
experiences tell them that most people never kill, and that most killers
only rarely kill. it's like religious people who think that there is a
god, or whatever, even though they have never had a single experience to
assume that there is such a thing as god. my experience tells me that
we don't know what comes after death. yet so many people think that
they know.
in fact, even for the murderer, the acts of killing are really so few in
number compared to all the other human interactions during the
murderer's life. now while, i'm sure, you will say that the murderer
would have killed a lot more if given the chance, and that societal
restrictions have been the deterrent, let's stick to WHAT WE KNOW, or
rather what we have experienced. when we do this, we see that while
taking into account what really happens, as best as we can tell, we
deceive ourselves when we only note extraordinary events. like the
hypocondriac who believes that ill health is immanent, people are
hypersensitive to what they believe to notice, rather than what they are
really experiencing. and what is the hypocondriac experiencing? why a
deception. were they to say hey, this whole time i've been thinking
that i'm sick, yet i'm, never really sick. likewise, people think that
"other" people, not themselves of course, are killers. and yet they've
never, or only in a rare, extraordinary experience, seen a person kill
another person.