I would have to say that paganism is getting more mainstream. Most bookstores have a large section dedicated to "spirituality" (while in the past it would have been labeled "Occult"). Most of the books there are soft sells for alternative religions and range from basic introductions to How To manuals. I believe the U.S. Army has even included training on Wicca for their chaplains.

People living in the bible belt might not realize it, but there is an acceptance of paganism that wasn't there 25 years ago.

So far, I have found it ridiculously easy to meet and talk with people.

Wow, I really don't know where to begin with this. How about economic?

-- During both WWII and Vietnam, troops were drafted. While this does not suggest that no one volunteered, it does show that your argument that troops are only there for the money is dubious at best.

-- After 9/11 the military had a surge of volunteers. Now, when unemployment is high, jobs are scarce and trust in the governments motives is low, enrollment is down. Again, this casts doubt on your argument.

--To suggest that only idiots join the military is both baseless and inflammatory.

--You state there are no patriots. Maybe there are no patriots where you come from, but where I live there are many. The number of men and women who have lost their lives and body parts to save their fellow soldiers is staggering. As are the number of men and women who have been killed fighting for what they believed in.

-- My previous example showed that EVEN THOUGH troops were scared and in fear of their lives they did not shoot.



It must be wonderful to live in a delusion this deep. But it would be interesting to see how you reconcile this quote with your previous quote:




In any event, my statement still stands. Troops in life and death situations found themselves unable to fire their weapons until they were trained to by-pass thinking and to run strictly on a stimulus-response basis. To me this shows that at some level your ethics will continue to shape your actions even in a life and death situation.
Additionally, I would say that in specific cases our society reinforces that behavior. Whenever someone risks their life to save another's our society heralds them as heroes.

Last time I saw a girl and tried to pet her lil' Muffy I ended up in handcuffs.





That was kind of fun.

At the risk of being berated, allow me to offer this small piece of information.

During World War II, the United States Army gathered combat information to determine how effective their troops were. They found out that contrary to personal recollections, more than half of their infantry troops fired their weapons less than reported with a substantial number never firing at all.

They concluded that there was something keeping the soldiers from firing when they should have been. In response they altered their training techniques.

Using Skinner's ideas, they started to train troops using pop-up silhouettes. This developed a stimulus-response reaction that bypassed thinking. It was successful and in the Vietnam action troops fired their weapons far more often.

However, the larger picture should also include examining the after effects. Soldiers returning home generally have a higher incidence of suicide then the general population. In fact, the suicide rates among Iraqi War vets are higher than they have ever been. It seems that these young men and women have an extremely difficult time reconciling what they experienced with peace time life and vets often express extreme guilt over war time actions.

While life and death situations are a rarity for most of us, perhaps it is too simplistic to assume that ethics and morality are situational.

Would never dream of doing that. I think it best if I back out of this thread.

Peace.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sentiment. However unconditional love means to love me without condition. That means that no matter what I do, you will love me exactly the same as you do right now.

If I lie to you or steal from you or threaten your children or get you fired, you will love me exactly as you do right now. If I donate a kidney to save your child's life or give you $100,000 or inspire you to create a work of art... you will love me exactly as you do right now.

I would prefer that you love me for who I am and what I do. I would rather be loved less when I disappoint someone and show that I am not the person they thought I was. I would rather be loved more for being a good man.

In short, I would rather be loved for who I am and the things that I do.

So, if you love me enough to respect my wishes... do not love me unconditionally.

Thank you

Please do not love me unconditionally.

I think it kind of works like this...

Survival is the primary task of the individual. The better one is at surviving, the more time (also a resource required for survival) and energy one has. Therefore, any advancement or technique that increases survival efficiency is a value.

If this is true, then cooperative action is a value. Hence, rules of behavior that aid cooperation are beneficial. Slavery is one example of a technique that would increase survival efficiency, but when compared to others (such as team work where each member benefits) it is not as effective. I think that is one reason why more complex social structures move away from slavery and serfs. In fact, I believe that the complexity of a society is limited by the rules of interaction of its members. (NOTE: I think that complexity might not be the best word to use here since some societies have very complex rules to justify why one group has more value than another....maybe productivity or efficacy would be better words)

So with the previous discussion of ethics in mind we get:

Life aims to survive.
We must decide what is right or wrong for that survival (ethics)
We must apply those ethics to a variety of situations.

If ethics/morality is the determination of right and wrong/good and bad for survival, then everyone must utilize ethics whether they are part of a group or not. If the primary question is: "What is good or bad for my individual survival?" the answer might very well be: to work cooperatively with others. Hence, rules or "rights" would be used to govern those interactions.

Maybe someone else has a better response since mine is pretty much entrenched in my own view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdASTkfi91E

Someone who is overly EMOtional and fixated on the darker aspects of existence to the point that they become a parody.

Wow, can't believe I didn't see this thread earlier. I am posting mainly to make sure that it stays in "My Topics" even though some of the ideas presented are making me cringe.

As a side note... The US is not capitalist society. It is a mixed economy with elements of both Capitalism and Socialism. To be purely capitalistic the government would have to remove itself from interfering with the production and distribution of wealth/goods as well removing itself from interfering with private property.

Dude, roll with the psychotics. It is fun to play with their delusions.

Well, I suppose it has a lot to do with your definition of "interesting"

*quickly grabs the popcorn before it is all gone*

1 box of condoms
1 dozens donuts
1 fishing pole
1 bag of flour

Ninjas are pretty bad azz with a pen.

so be it

As far as my understanding of instincts, I do not believe that animals have a choice when it comes to specific survival behaviors. They have a biological imperative which locks out choices.

Polar bears don't have a choice to hibernate nor do they have to be taught how to do it. It is an instinct designed to aid their survival by lowering their metabolism for a period when food sources are scarce.

Why not simply migrate? It has to be more than their size since larger animals migrate to follow food sources. However, it is part of their yearly cycle. Polar bear females mate, increase their body mass while food is plentiful and then hibernate during gestation, giving birth before emerging.

The existing behavior makes sense and it works. But were a particularly smart polar bear figure out a better way of doing things, their biology would still restrict them.

Herd behaviors are compulsions. If you were an antelope in a herd that needed to cross a crocodile infested river, would you not consider slipping to the back of the pack to cross last?? I would. The members in the front get pushed in because them members in the pack are only aware that they MUST GO THAT WAY.

Heat is a biological compulsion to mate, they are slaves to their metabolism. [I think] that if specific factors are missing, such as a drought, females will not enter heat but if all the factors are present they do.

Animals engage in rigidly controlled conflicts. They move through specific stages and give specific signals depending on the threat. They do not have to learn these behaviors, they are hardwired in. A mongoose will ALWAYS kill a cobra because cobras ALWAYS follow the same patterns.

I am not an animal expert, but it seems to me that if members of the same species engages in the same behaviors without having to be taught those behaviors, and they repeat them flawlessly; then those are instincts and freewill is absent.

This is not to say that other behaviors are not learned, they are. Hunting in particular must be learned. Certain socialization skills must be acquired as well.

Where the line is drawn, I am not sure. How much of animal behavior is compelled by instinct or how much is learned I don't know. I am not even sure if some of what I mentioned is completely factual (e.g., I know from experience that migratory birds like ducks who are fed all year long will break their migratory patterns). But I am of the opinion that freewill is all or nothing [not completely sure about this point either].

Humans do have stimulus-response behaviors, but they can be over ridden consciously. They do occur when the reptile brain doesn't give the higher level brain time to function. But given time choice is allowed. When startled a person will recoil in defense until the information is processed and a conscious choice is made. Sometimes fear paralyzes the ability to make a choice and that can lead to lethal results.

Just me thinking out loud. If I have gotten anything wrong or if anyone can clarify or rebuke any of my statements I would appreciate it. My knowledge on the subject comes strictly from having Animal Planet on in the background. :)

hmmmmm

OK, all life forms have a desire to continue as a commonality. But humanity has a choice as opposed to animals who have instinct and plants who have biology.

Animals do not choose their migratory patterns or cycles, their mating seasons or conditions, hibernation schedules or rules for determining social order. Instincts erase choice as they are biological compulsions.

Humanity, absent instincts, relies on conscious choice and intellect to survive. Man chooses to live or die, reproduce or not, relocate or shape their environment. I think that maybe I should have represented it as a primary choice instead of a desire...