Conquer Club

What if there is one tribe Population: 1,344,130,000 most don't value human life, outdated brutality is somewhat accepted, near them is a tribe Population: 141,930,000 they have a violent crime problem, a third tribe Population: 528,720,588 part of which owes the first tribe a lot of money, they used to have a huge military but now much of the overall tribe population think fire arms are bad and should be reduced or outright banned?

The problem is basically twofold.

First, the human soul does not exist a priori as postulated by traditional religion, but must be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation.

Second, people aren't wearing enough hats.

Dukasaur wrote:The problem is basically twofold.

First, the human soul does not exist a priori as postulated by traditional religion, but must be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation.

Interesting point. Hadn't thought of it like that before.

Dukasaur wrote:Second, people aren't wearing enough hats.

That's a cool story, /. Yeah, Cracked has some nice articles about very cool people who make this world a better place.

Here are pictures of the beautiful people killed in Boston:

Lu Lingzi:




Krystle Campbell:



Martin Richard:



Finally, something that makes me feel better about our future:

The kid's sign is particularly poignant. If they imprison someone those pictures should be placed in the facility.

I must mention I would be equally disgusted if ugly people were harmed.

Where are the pictures of the unattractive/ugly people who were killed or maimed in those explosions?

This girl was a grad student in Boston. The US is often viewed by Chinese as the land of opportunity, and it's a dream of many to study abroad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... udent.html



The guy in the cowboy hat, Carlos Arredondo, looks awesome. The guy in the wheelchair, Jeff Bauman, is one of the runners in the marathon.

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/what- ... 6622144446

show: Uncensored version of Bauman

john9blue wrote:people are selfish, and people form groups to ensure their own self-interests.

our society isn't becoming "more moral"... we are just getting better at enforcing our collective self-interests. nothing has fundamentally changed about our motivations.

on the contrary, there's also the idea that our increasing access to other people's perspectives had caused us to more often view others as extensions of ourselves, leading to higher empathy... not sure how much merit that idea has, though.

I think you discount the contrary point more than you should.

If you consider the behavior today that most would not only condemn but physically wince at now...much of it, was socially acceptable not so many years ago.

Motivations do change, as people become more educated, and while we hardly liven in a utopia, in many ways, the world is better for many because of much progress. Unfortunately, progress takes change and education, and many resist both, sometimes out of fear, but often simply out of habit, and perhaps most often, because they are corrupt.

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:people are selfish, and people form groups to ensure their own self-interests.

our society isn't becoming "more moral"... we are just getting better at enforcing our collective self-interests. nothing has fundamentally changed about our motivations.

on the contrary, there's also the idea that our increasing access to other people's perspectives had caused us to more often view others as extensions of ourselves, leading to higher empathy... not sure how much merit that idea has, though.

I think you discount the contrary point more than you should.

If you consider the behavior today that most would not only condemn but physically wince at now...much of it, was socially acceptable not so many years ago.

Motivations do change, as people become more educated, and while we hardly liven in a utopia, in many ways, the world is better for many because of much progress. Unfortunately, progress takes change and education, and many resist both, sometimes out of fear, but often simply out of habit, and perhaps most often, because they are corrupt.

the difference is that you believe the change is happening on an individual level, and i believe it's happening on a societal level.

do you really think people are more educated now than they were half a century ago?

john9blue wrote:do you really think people are more educated now than they were half a century ago?

At this point in time, absolutely! And there is a LOT more to be known today. My grandmother can remember a brother of hers handing her a rifle to take with her on a trip out west to "defend herself against Indians". She rejected it, that brother was a tad "slow", but that kind of thinking was not all that uncommon. Think of the internment of the Japanese, etc. Today, we have polarization, but such extreme ignorance is not real common.

The real question is whether that level will continue. When I talk to many conservative Christians, for example, their very facts and understanding differs from what is known and proven. When I talk to avid Tea Partiers, they, too have a very different understanding of the facts, as do some extreme left-wingers and even a few more extreme "civil rights advocates" (put in quotes because they are really substituting oppression of whites for oppression of folks of (an)other color(s) ). These people often have great access to the internet, and I cannot help but think that is part of the problem. The internet in no way makes it easy to distinguish between true, proven facts and things people just wish were true or believe.

john9blue wrote:do you really think people are more educated now than they were half a century ago?

Without question, yes.

PLAYER57832 wrote:When I talk to many conservative Christians, for example, their very facts and understanding differs from what is known and proven. When I talk to avid Tea Partiers, they, too have a very different understanding of the facts, as do some extreme left-wingers and even a few more extreme "civil rights advocates" (put in quotes because they are really substituting oppression of whites for oppression of folks of (an)other color(s) ). These people often have great access to the internet, and I cannot help but think that is part of the problem. The internet in no way makes it easy to distinguish between true, proven facts and things people just wish were true or believe.

I find it telling that you only note "extreme" left-wingers and civil rights advocates while referring to "conservative" Christians and "avid" Tea Partiers. The reality is that this is a problem among all people to a degree, but typically it will be the extreme of ANY group (liberal, conservative or otherwise) that falls most prey to it.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:When I talk to many conservative Christians, for example, their very facts and understanding differs from what is known and proven. When I talk to avid Tea Partiers, they, too have a very different understanding of the facts, as do some extreme left-wingers and even a few more extreme "civil rights advocates" (put in quotes because they are really substituting oppression of whites for oppression of folks of (an)other color(s) ). These people often have great access to the internet, and I cannot help but think that is part of the problem. The internet in no way makes it easy to distinguish between true, proven facts and things people just wish were true or believe.

I find it telling that you only note "extreme" left-wingers and civil rights advocates while referring to "conservative" Christians and "avid" Tea Partiers. The reality is that this is a problem among all people to a degree, but typically it will be the extreme of ANY group (liberal, conservative or otherwise) that falls most prey to it.

LOL.. in this case, you are putting too much emphasis on a quick word choice. I was very much just trying to pick as wide a range of extremists as I could. (ergo the "for example") People tend to quickly understand the reference to conservative Christians and avid Tea Partiers that don't always check facts, but "liberal" is far more vague. Per the civil rights bit.. I was trying to think of a way to specify the very fringe because I am a pretty heavy civil rights proponent, but without naming a specific ethnic group. If there is an issue, it would be that whites who are very, very extreme are quickly labeled "KKK'ers" (or perhaps "Nazis"s) and, its generally understood what that denotes, but even similarly radical groups "of color" don't get such labels. (the modern Black Panther might be close, but I remember the old black panthers).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:When I talk to many conservative Christians, for example, their very facts and understanding differs from what is known and proven. When I talk to avid Tea Partiers, they, too have a very different understanding of the facts, as do some extreme left-wingers and even a few more extreme "civil rights advocates" (put in quotes because they are really substituting oppression of whites for oppression of folks of (an)other color(s) ). These people often have great access to the internet, and I cannot help but think that is part of the problem. The internet in no way makes it easy to distinguish between true, proven facts and things people just wish were true or believe.

I find it telling that you only note "extreme" left-wingers and civil rights advocates while referring to "conservative" Christians and "avid" Tea Partiers. The reality is that this is a problem among all people to a degree, but typically it will be the extreme of ANY group (liberal, conservative or otherwise) that falls most prey to it.

LOL.. in this case, you are putting too much emphasis on a quick word choice. I was very much just trying to pick as wide a range of extremists as I could.

No, I don't believe I am. You specifically used the term "extreme" for liberal groups who may not check facts, but used terms that could very easily be thought of as "not extremist" when referring to more conservative groups.

PLAYER57832 wrote:People tend to quickly understand the reference to conservative Christians and avid Tea Partiers that don't always check facts, but "liberal" is far more vague. Per the civil rights bit.. I was trying to think of a way to specify the very fringe because I am a pretty heavy civil rights proponent, but without naming a specific ethnic group.

I definitely do NOT agree that any average "conservative Christian" is akin to an "extreme individual", though absolutely many are. I definitely do NOT agree that any average "avid Tea Partier" is akin to an "extreme individual", though absolutely many are.

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:people are selfish, and people form groups to ensure their own self-interests.

our society isn't becoming "more moral"... we are just getting better at enforcing our collective self-interests. nothing has fundamentally changed about our motivations.

on the contrary, there's also the idea that our increasing access to other people's perspectives had caused us to more often view others as extensions of ourselves, leading to higher empathy... not sure how much merit that idea has, though.

I think you discount the contrary point more than you should.

If you consider the behavior today that most would not only condemn but physically wince at now...much of it, was socially acceptable not so many years ago.

Motivations do change, as people become more educated, and while we hardly liven in a utopia, in many ways, the world is better for many because of much progress. Unfortunately, progress takes change and education, and many resist both, sometimes out of fear, but often simply out of habit, and perhaps most often, because they are corrupt.

the difference is that you believe the change is happening on an individual level, and i believe it's happening on a societal level.

do you really think people are more educated now than they were half a century ago?

Depends on what you mean by "educated" and on the expanding variety of topics demanding more specialized education.

This guy is pretty awesome!

macbone wrote:This guy is pretty awesome!

Yes he is. And quite the way with words. <laughing>