| Define cruel and define nature. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Nature includes animals and I'm pretty sure we are animals.... |
| Speaking of rationalizing... |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
| imo : The only people who would be fine in a world where murder&harm are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. |
GhostonyApr 11, 2013 8:22 AM
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Ghostony said: imo : The only people who would be fine in a world where murder&harm are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. It seems you have a misconception about sado-masochists. |
bergil said: Ghostony said: imo : The only people who would be fine in a world where murder&harm are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. It seems you have a misconception about sado-masochists. Yeah Ghostony didn't mean to talk about you. But seriously, nature in itself has no sapience so it isn't culpable for its actions. By the way, this is the part where TheAutocrat starts spouting an entire essay of refutation and doesn't say anything with 98% of his words. At some point we'll probably get some others here uselessly trying to talk sense into him followed by a mod locking this topic after X number of pages. Just nod your head and smile... |
 |
| What do you mean? Human society in itself is a miniature of 'chains of nature'. Thus its condition is not less cruel or merciful than those of wild animals. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| Because all man should be kind and loving to all his fellow man. What does the merciless wrath of nature have anything to do with how man acts and the morality behind man's actions? |
TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Nature is not cruel. At least that's what I'd say.. |
TheAutocrat said: So your question is either:katsucats said: Webster's provides your validation.TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. A. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing? B. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the external world in its entirety? And the answer is: A. Man must be as disposed to inflict anything as the inherent constitution of himself. B. The external world in its entirety includes man so it is impossible for man to be disposed to inflict as much of anything than a larger category which is inclusive of man. And since those definitions were plucked right out of the Webster dictionary, you have no possible rebuttal. Good day. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Man is cruel, not nature. |
Idle_HandsApr 11, 2013 6:16 AM
| Konbu is important |
| I'll add something to contribute to this thread: Lotka-Volterra equation. The economic or resource 'predation' in human society strongly resembles predator-prey interactions found in the wilds. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| Because we're better than that. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| The reason why we should be better than nature is because modern society would not be able to operate if this was the case. We would find it incredibly hard to progress as a species if laws were nonexistent. Animals of course murder, steal and rape, not something we should wish to allow for the reason I listed above, among others. |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:22 AM
| Who's to says that man isn't as cruel as nature already? |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:22 AM
 |
TheAutocrat said: katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. Webster's provides your validation. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. Webster's definition of 'cruel'. Webster's definition of 'nature'. I've highlighted the definition I assume OP is referring to. Answer: The natural world is not predisposed to inflict pain and/or suffering. It is merely an accidental byproduct, like everything else in the universe. Whether or not mankind should or should not be be considerate of the subjective suffering of other creatures is an irrelevant question as there is no such thing as objective value. One is not better than the other. Not suffering is not better than suffering. |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:24 AM
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
| Why is this even a discussion, we are just as cruel as nature if not worse, nature is neutral and does what is best, we do what is in our best interests and say fuck you to the rest of the world, even to our own kind. I don't think nature could top that. Not sure if that is even on topic, the thread title gave me a headache and it is late.. but w/e. |
 |
| what do you mean by nature? man is part of nature, unless you have some specific definition of nature that you want to use. and are you trying to say that it is possible for a concept such as nature to be cruel? by cruel do you mean something like "predilection for inflicting suffering, pain, etc" or simply "relentless, brutal, etc" in any case, this is a vague question. also, the only way you can argue this is by bringing subjective value into the discussion. last time i heard we dont know of any objective value lol |
| is this another dumb thread of defining something for 15 pages lmao and then categorizing and breaking down cruelty and nature into linguistic sub atoms |
| Man are cruel, watch the news. |
 |
| anyways op is leaving himself to such stupid derailings because the question is stupid and vague |
Zeally said: is this another dumb thread of defining something for 15 pages lmao and then categorizing and breaking down cruelty and nature into linguistic sub atoms Zeally said: I'm surprised we haven't seen essay arguments yet.anyways op is leaving himself to such stupid derailings because the question is stupid and vague Alright my answer? QueenJenny said: Because we're better than that. |
| Game Theory! Ok, so basically life is made of continuous and indefinite interactions between beings, but more importantly genes in the form of "prisoners dilemmas". These are specifically non-zero sum games where each party can choose to cooperate or defect. there are 4 possible outcomes: If both parties cooperate they will receive a mutual benefit of decent worth. Now there are the two possibilities were one party chooses to cooperate, but the other chooses to defect. In these scenarios the defector stands to gain greatly from their deception completely at the cooperators expense (the fools payoff). Then of course there is the situation were If both parties defect they will both lose to some degree, but it will not be as bad for either as long as they aren't caught in the fools payoff. So logically the best move is to defect. If you open yourself up to a cooperation you might end up getting the fools payoff which is way worse than the double defection situation and hey you might even get lucky and reap the highest benefit. However, when the game is repeated an indefinite number of times (almost any interaction in society and nature can fit this model, so it happens a lot!) Strategies which favor fairness (willing to cooperate first vs. trying to deceive as much as possible) and forgiveness (willing to cooperate if a previously deceitful opponent tries to cooperate) statistically seem to work out best. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ308/tesfatsion/axeltmts.pdf |
MyLonesomeCowboy said: Game Theory! Ok, so basically life is made of continuous and indefinite interactions between beings, but more importantly genes in the form of "prisoners dilemmas". These are specifically non-zero sum games where each party can choose to cooperate or defect. there are 4 possible outcomes: If both parties cooperate they will receive a mutual benefit of decent worth. Now there are the two possibilities were one party chooses to cooperate, but the other chooses to defect. In these scenarios the defector stands to gain greatly from their deception completely at the cooperators expense (the fools payoff). Then of course there is the situation were If both parties defect they will both lose to some degree, but it will not be as bad for either as long as they aren't caught in the fools payoff. So logically the best move is to defect. If you open yourself up to a cooperation you might end up getting the fools payoff which is way worse than the double defection situation and hey you might even get lucky and reap the highest benefit. However, when the game is repeated an indefinite number of times (almost any interaction in society and nature can fit this model, so it happens a lot!) Strategies which favor fairness (willing to cooperate first vs. trying to deceive as much as possible) and forgiveness (willing to cooperate if a previously deceitful opponent tries to cooperate) statistically seem to work out best. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ308/tesfatsion/axeltmts.pdf And what's all that got to do with this thread? |
TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
TheAutocrat said: I see that you've reiterated what I've already done. Why even bother starting a discussion if you're afraid of being criticized for your ideas? You might as well just stand on the sidelines and watch the big boys talk.katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: So your question is either:katsucats said: Webster's provides your validation.TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. A. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing? B. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the external world in its entirety? And the answer is: A. Man must be as disposed to inflict anything as the inherent constitution of himself. B. The external world in its entirety includes man so it is impossible for man to be disposed to inflict as much of anything than a larger category which is inclusive of man. And since those definitions were plucked right out of the Webster dictionary, you have no possible rebuttal. Good day. Ah but I do, katsu... You see, you only gleaned some things my comment denoted. I said "If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome." See it now? Tut, tut, "bad day" for katsu-chan? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Vinter said: Now I agree with you here Vinter, but we shouldn't be so quick to jump into asshole mode. Think Hanasaku Iroha baby, Hanasaku Iroha.QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. |
 |
bergil said: Ghostony said: imo : The only people who would could have the possibility to be fine in a world where murder/harm inflict suffering(and be inflicted upon) are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. It seems you have a misconception about sado-masochists. Fixed? I'm basically just saying a person would either have to not have feelings or enjoy pain; to even consider the idea of cruelty being not a bad thing in general. |
GhostonyApr 11, 2013 3:49 PM
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
| Humans have minds. Nature doesn't. Humans can use their minds to be good people and create morals. Nature can't. So why should humanity act like nature? Humanity can be good, so why not be good? |
Vinter said: QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. I was making a joke :P. You might've missed this thread. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| Are you implying that humans should be less cruel? ^^ |
 |
DarChronicle said: Are you implying that humans should be less cruel? ^^ Me? I didn't know it was an implication, but that's basically what I think. I think humans should try their hardest to be as kind, nice, and nonviolent as possible. Humans should use their power of having morals. |
TrishaCatApr 11, 2013 4:05 PM
QueenJenny said: Vinter said: QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. I was making a joke :P. You might've missed this thread. Ah, so it's Nicole I should be quoting. xD |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
| because if you play with fire, you'll get burned. Nature is much more crueler than man and as humans, most of us stand no chance against large animals. |
. |
bergil said: MyLonesomeCowboy said: Game Theory! Ok, so basically life is made of continuous and indefinite interactions between beings, but more importantly genes in the form of "prisoners dilemmas". These are specifically non-zero sum games where each party can choose to cooperate or defect. there are 4 possible outcomes: If both parties cooperate they will receive a mutual benefit of decent worth. Now there are the two possibilities were one party chooses to cooperate, but the other chooses to defect. In these scenarios the defector stands to gain greatly from their deception completely at the cooperators expense (the fools payoff). Then of course there is the situation were If both parties defect they will both lose to some degree, but it will not be as bad for either as long as they aren't caught in the fools payoff. So logically the best move is to defect. If you open yourself up to a cooperation you might end up getting the fools payoff which is way worse than the double defection situation and hey you might even get lucky and reap the highest benefit. However, when the game is repeated an indefinite number of times (almost any interaction in society and nature can fit this model, so it happens a lot!) Strategies which favor fairness (willing to cooperate first vs. trying to deceive as much as possible) and forgiveness (willing to cooperate if a previously deceitful opponent tries to cooperate) statistically seem to work out best. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ308/tesfatsion/axeltmts.pdf And what's all that got to do with this thread? Uh it's a highly mathematical and scientifically reasoned argument for why humans should not be cruel. Duh. |
MyLonesomeCowboy said: If only real life were as neat...Uh it's a highly mathematical and scientifically reasoned argument for why humans should not be cruel. Duh. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| In my eyes man is already as cruel as nature. |
 |
MusicalWonders said: because if you play with fire, you'll get burned. Nature is much more crueler than man and as humans, most of us stand no chance against large animals. large animals the largest animal where i live is a black bear and you can easly beat thoes to death with a baseball bat(trust me on this one) |
Lord_JoshuaApr 11, 2013 11:14 PM
| dont ask questions, just do answers |
| Cruelty depends on one's view of the world. Morals passed down through generations make us believe humans around the world are cruel and put on a fake mask to act kindly next to their peers. Humans, "bad" or "nice", it all depends on their background. Nurtured the "bad" way, they are confronted to see the world differently than another nurtured in a "nice"/favorable environment. Nature is not acting, it is simply reacting. Humans are the same. We are given a fake sense of "free will", believing we have the choice to decide what we do, contributing to the definition of what cruelty really is : starting by being out of the norm. For instance, it is cruel in many people's eyes to punish a crime with death, even if the crime was meaningless, but go back in the past to find out it was not cruel at all with the same circumstances (aside from the law). Does time magically turn events less cruel? Logically, it doesn't. Nature can't be cruel and, by that conclusion, humans can't be either. Considering we all react due to a reason; may it be the environment, the past, the encounters, the flaws of birth, everything is explainable. To be just as cruel as nature means not being cruel at all, which is impossible if your standards for cruelty is performing acts of "evil" or inflicting crucial damage to one's emotions. Had humans been able not to perform "cruelty" would be "cruel" in itself. Sometimes forcing yourself to do something you can't might inflict more damage than it should. In a society where cruelty is almost non-existent, any fragment of madness will be considered cruelty. Humans are in need of defining right and wrong, to demonstrate who is superior, who to trust, who to live up to. Without "cruelty", if it was possible, humanity could not live. Conclusion: edit : TheAutocrat, have you ever considered watching Psycho-Pass? I think you fit Makishima Shougo's personality quite well. I wonder where you acquired all of that knowledge to refute others around you, in an antisocial manner, being 1 year younger than me. I actually have a tendency to feel bad about you, sorry (I was not trying to insult you, for the record). |
blobApr 12, 2013 12:00 AM
| _____________________________________________________________ Come visit the Rec club! Everyone gets confused as to what they want to watch or read next. :T Here is the Official Rec Club list of Recommendations! |
| Cruelty and pain are subjective. Conclusion: |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Are you Caucasian???? I am btw...DesuMaiden - 8 hours ago |
13 |
by SnipeStrike
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» would you rather sleep in a room filled with 1k mosquitoes or have a horse take your virginity?707supremacist - Yesterday |
30 |
by xMizu_
»»
31 minutes ago |
|
» Advices & Words of WisdomLongnines - Apr 10 |
16 |
by xMizu_
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a deep sleeperST63LTH - 2 hours ago |
6 |
by deg
»»
37 minutes ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - Apr 25 |
25 |
by fae
»»
41 minutes ago |