Why should man not be just as cruel as nature?

Apr 12, 2013 12:04 AM

Offline

Mar 2013

287

katsucats said:
Cruelty and pain are subjective.

Conclusion:

That's true, but you can still form an answer from popular belief, regardless. Or, you can form your answer in any belief you want, as long as you explain what kind of situation and environment we should be dealing with while reading your answer.

_____________________________________________________________

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!

Apr 12, 2013 12:12 AM

#52

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16010

blob said:

katsucats said:
Cruelty and pain are subjective.

Conclusion:

That's true, but you can still form an answer from popular belief, regardless. Or, you can form your answer in any belief you want, as long as you explain what kind of situation and environment we should be dealing with while reading your answer.

I actually can't, because equating nature with objectivity, and then assigning it the subjective quality of cruelty is incomprehensible, so any answer I would give no matter the belief is wrong -- the premise is wrong. It would be like trying to divide something by 0.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Apr 12, 2013 12:31 AM

#53

TheOttocrat

Offline

Jan 2012

656

katsucats said:

blob said:

katsucats said:
Cruelty and pain are subjective.

Conclusion:

That's true, but you can still form an answer from popular belief, regardless. Or, you can form your answer in any belief you want, as long as you explain what kind of situation and environment we should be dealing with while reading your answer.

I actually can't, because equating nature with objectivity, and then assigning it the subjective quality of cruelty is incomprehensible, so any answer I would give no matter the belief is wrong -- the premise is wrong. It would be like trying to divide something by 0.

Okay, please just focus on my latest paragraphs then. I do assign it cruelty at one point, but since I make a comparison between it and kindness thus assigning it both qualities it is comprehensible; I'll define them now.

If you need a definition then cruelty would be nature ruthlessly causing pain in man's eyes, and kindness would be preventing this.

Actually, you shouldn't take the question "Why should man not be just as cruel as nature" too literally. It's a quote by Hitler and it's best left to encourage new ideas.

TheOttocratApr 12, 2013 12:42 AM

Apr 12, 2013 12:35 AM

#54

blob

Offline

Mar 2013

287

katsucats said:

blob said:

katsucats said:
Cruelty and pain are subjective.

Conclusion:

That's true, but you can still form an answer from popular belief, regardless. Or, you can form your answer in any belief you want, as long as you explain what kind of situation and environment we should be dealing with while reading your answer.

I actually can't, because equating nature with objectivity, and then assigning it the subjective quality of cruelty is incomprehensible, so any answer I would give no matter the belief is wrong -- the premise is wrong. It would be like trying to divide something by 0.

T3T It could still be interesting to formulate something, though! I can not entirely deny you are right, though. I could always go like :

"Considering cruelty is not subjective, and it was actually objective, by giving it another name and sense : "Why can't humans be just as cruel as a fictional person called, BY CHANCE, God?"
PS : God is really evil... OBJECTIVELY EVIL (shhh), he killed over 50 quadrillion people by making others believe it was nature's fault and made some of them believe they could gain salvation off of him. He's evil, why can't humans be this evil?"

And then you'd go like : "Well well well, good question. I believe humans just can't be as evil, heck, even come close to being as evil as an immortal being that caused deaths all over the world for a couple of millions of years...blablabla..."

:D? Play the game, don't poop the party!

edit : Crap, you beat me to it, Autocrat. (I hope you don't become as "cruel" as Hitler...hahaha...)

_____________________________________________________________

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!

Apr 12, 2013 12:36 AM

#55

katsucats

Offline

Oct 2012

16010

Kindness, too, is subjective; both kindness and cruelty are subjective. Nature being "balanced" is not an objective fact, but subjectively assigned by man.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Apr 12, 2013 1:43 AM

#56

Figma

Offline

Oct 2012

2022

Aren't we already?

example is MAL forums

Alone on a Friday night? Remember that DIO did nothing wrong!

Apr 12, 2013 1:52 AM

#57

Goryo

Offline

Aug 2012

2935

Nature is not cruel, it just is man. You like, totally have to go with the flow.

كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه.

mattbenz99 said:
Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing

Apr 12, 2013 4:08 AM

#58

removed-user

Offline

Jul 2018

564491

TheAutocrat said:
First I'd like to address this: "Because we're better than that"

What does this even mean? Who are we trying to impress? How does acting against nature in the form of imperforate kindness makes us and it "good"?

Try this perspective:

Nature is quite harmonious and balanced till man decides to interfere and change it to suit his needs. Survival of the fittest was the rule even for humans not so long ago, but because man fears death he tries to conquer it.
As far as humans go, survival of the fittest is no longer an issue. Mores the pity. By constantly inundating our species with cures for common ailments which in the past could have been fatal to the weak, we have allowed our children to grow up without basic immunities to those same ailments.

Man in his egotistical sense of domination of the natural world thinks that all things must adhere to his laws. When nature goes against man and his laws, it is considered to be out of balance. The truth is that man is out of balance and nature is trying to re-balance him.

I am aware that nature is neutral and balanced, or we just assume that all things natural are this and do not try to quantify the balance because it is our unquantifiable by our capabilities? It's easy to assume nature is neutral, but you give me more examples of natures benevolence than cruelty and I'll be damned.

The things is, there must be a balance. This question isn't stating that nature is completely cruel or completely unkind. It's saying nature is objective and that we should utilize cruelty for the sake of that and kindness otherwise.

Even if someone was to give me the argument: "Cruelty causes pain and pain is bad"

Well, it is true pain gives us negative emotions by majority, and that would hinder our objectives, however like I said, we should be cruel subjectively to each for the sake of objectivity. I.e. Slavery is productive and perhaps should be utilized whilst the common man should be kind to each other to make people happy.

If we didn't have objective of power to actualize truth, why would pain be considered bad or wrong?

Survival of the fittest has a problem, however. Some people may only be unfit because of their setting, or who they are around. Put the same person in a different situation and they may be able to flourish and contriubute to society. As such, simply depending upon nature to take its course and not helping those in need would take the lives of those who might actually be beneficial for society.

Apr 12, 2013 4:34 AM

#59

Propu

Offline

Jan 2013

428

TheAutocrat said:

katsucats said:

TheAutocrat said:

katsucats said:
Define cruel and define nature.

Nope. It is a valid question by itself.

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.

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.

It's not that I care much about this thread, but what you said here is deeply dissenting with any form of discussion. You ask people to discuss with THEMSELVES, not with the other forum users. It might be more productive (I agree it is), but you only incite the others to formulate their own ideas about the topic and keep them for themselves.

If you elaborated your first post more, the whole topic would be more interesting. I don't care much about it because a topic which has a first post shorter than its title isn't worth my time.

I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!

Apr 12, 2013 4:37 AM

#60

TheOttocrat

Offline

Jan 2012

656

Propu said:

TheAutocrat said:

katsucats said:

TheAutocrat said:

katsucats said:
Define cruel and define nature.

Nope. It is a valid question by itself.

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.

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.

It's not that I care much about this thread, but what you said here is deeply dissenting with any form of discussion. You ask people to discuss with THEMSELVES, not with the other forum users. It might be more productive (I agree it is), but you only incite the others to formulate their own ideas about the topic and keep them for themselves.

If you elaborated your first post more, the whole topic would be more interesting. I don't care much about it because a topic which has a first post shorter than its title isn't worth my time.

Agreed. In future I will at least include something notable in the OP.

» factory selling multifunctional galvanized color spray paint angle steel johonson03891 - 22 minutes ago	1	by Daviljoe193 »» 17 minutes ago
» Favorite evil laugh in fiction Absurdo_N - 7 hours ago	8	by SmugSatoko »» 1 hour ago
» What is the point of participating in the community when the returns are negligible? PostMahouShoujo - Jun 1	23	by PeripheralVision »» 1 hour ago
Poll: » Which is worse, reddit or 4chan. ( 1 2 ) Say-My-Name - Jul 29, 2022	83	by SpiderMiles3523 »» 2 hours ago
» Are video games a waste of time and money?? ( 1 2 ) DesuMaiden - May 27	95	by district_marvel »» 2 hours ago

Why should man not be just as cruel as nature?

More topics from this board

» factory selling multifunctional galvanized color spray paint angle steel

» Favorite evil laugh in fiction

» What is the point of participating in the community when the returns are negligible?

Poll: » Which is worse, reddit or 4chan. ( 1 2 )

» Are video games a waste of time and money?? ( 1 2 )

MoreTop Anime

MoreTop Airing Anime

MoreMost Popular Characters