john42t

There can be. As I said, I think the abolitionist movement was irrational. [EDIT: I said "owing slaves", not "owning", in case there was some misunderstanding again...]

Ok, since me made so much progress in the other thread, here's another try: I don't talk about psychology. I talk about values in the Randian sense. Bees have those. That is what they "want": They "want" to live, or, more exactly, they "want" their queen to have healthy, successful offspring. Social, as opposed to eusocial, animals "want" to have that healthy offspring themselves. Values are a property of life forms, to which there is ultimately only two choices: survival and death.

Ok, then a lot of the misunderstandings are now cleared up. I would not join the IDF with this picture of it in mind. (I don't know enough about it to judge it myself, but I fear it might be true.) Owing slaves makes no sense to me and I would not getting anything out of it to fight at their side.

This is surprising. Aren't you the one feeling guilt about their sacrifice? Now you're saying they are slaves? Okay... I think I totally misunderstood you. You think soldiers are slaves and you feel you *owe* them? You think you *owe* slaves? Is that it? I already typed "Is this related to anything discussed earlier?" (I was even kind of angry.) But now I see how it fits together for you: You make a connection between the private slaves of young America and the soldiers of the IDF, right? And the corollary you draw is that you ask yourself whether you would have free your (personal) slaves, right?

My mother had a lot of work with me. She provided for me, etc. I can't see how that's not similar. She pursued her values, I pursue mine. Can't see what the slaves issue has to do with this.

What's not the same as what?

Maybe I'll make a video/text about this later. For now, I don't think we're getting anywhere.

So am I. I'm also happy that my mother gave birth to me. Or that trees produce oxygen.

I would have made them an offer for freedom as soon as I believed I profit more from their independent mind than their mere physical labor. Anything else would be altruism, the motivation of the (leftist) abolitionist movement.

The last two points in that list have nothing to do with eusociality. What I meant in the social vs eusocial aspect of the discussion is that eusocial animals do not belong in the category of social animals. That's where they are if you look at wikipedia, but that's wrong. social->individualist eusocial->collectivist Eusocial animals *sacrifice* for the sake of the state, as only their queen can reproduce. Social animals don't sacrifice for the sake of the state, as they can reproduce themselves. That's why you always have to exclude eusociality when you speak about social animals - otherwise you get some smart ass pointing out: "But bees are altruist! They are social animals!".

No, that's not where the confusion lies. That's another source of confusion, but not the one we just tripped about. Name one social animal that is not an "individualist" (other than man, who sometimes is and sometimes is not). And don't you dare to name bees! :-)

I still don't understand what this popular definition of induction is. Can you spell that out for me? And Karl Popper was part of this re-defining effort?

That's why I excluded the eusocial ones to make it clear what I mean.

Yes it is German for me, interesting. Localized internet is often very annoying.

No, it doesn't . For if you test this premise of yours, you get the result that all social animals are also individualists. Since this is not the case, the premise must be wrong. Which social animals (except the *eu*social ones, which I don't think you meant) are not individualists? They are all pursuing their *own* values, sacrifice only happens in the case of kin-selection, which, apart from eusocial species, is almost entirely directed towards offspring. The kind of tribalist sacrifice that human beings show, to identify with the clan, the city or the state, is a phenomenon non-human animals don't show. Non-human animals are (eusocials excluded) truly individualist. The confusion is between individualist in the Randian sense (pursuing ones values) and individualist in the mystical sense (loners). Would you say that Merekats are less individualist than eagles? If that's the case, it just shows that the mystics have attacked the right concepts: I can't even communicate with you properly. I'm pretty Randroid in the sense that I think it's all about concepts and mystical corruption thereof. In a clean, well-defined language none of these things would be worth talking about.

This is so great. Sounds good to me. [...] Do you speak German or how did you have a fitting piece like this at hand?

This is so great.

Yes, the everyday meaning is the collectivist one. [EDIT: This fact alone is an example of neo-mystical corruption - you can't argue indvidualism any more without sounding like a loner.]

The social in social animal belongs conceptually to indvidiualism. The social in social democracy belongs conceptually to collectivism. There's a reason why the mystics destroyed language.

Really? What are your sources?

Didn't know about this. It's plausible that they shouldn't be on the same side, McCain is pure establishment. But what did they do? And do you know why McCain picked her in the first place?

In most of the Western countries I think it's much better to be accused of crimes against humanity than rape. Quite clearly Serbian war criminals rank higher in public esteem than rapists, as even those cynical enough not to care about a woman's feelings would probably despise the primitive motive of that crime. Here's where I believe you're coming from: There has been a shift (in Germany, I'm not sure about the US) away from believing every woman who cries rape. More and more people seriously consider that a woman might be, (shudder, could it be?) either outright lying, or, another typical case, after having enjoyed (maybe rough) sex for years she cries rape in hindsight because now he dumped her for another one. Now, all of a sudden, it was all psychological and physical abuse and she only didn't dare to protest. In public opinion, these things don't qualify as rape anymore (or at least the Zeitgeist is turning strongly). Examples of that pattern are Julian Assange (Sweden) and Joerg Kachelmann (Germany). But for the man who jumps out of the bushes the cries for a hanging are as loud as ever - so maybe you're not talking about that case?

In a nutshell, Buddhism teaches us that to pursue values is bad (Lobha), that defending oneself is bad (Dvesha) and that if you don't realize this, there's something wrong with your brain (Moha). The last thing is extremely important, because without an attack on reason itself, somebody might be wondering if Buddhism is a belief system by and for idiots. But the last point will induce enough self-doubt in him to prevent that. That's why virtually all Buddhists are losers. (That's how you troll properly - I've got to post this somewhere else for better fireworks...)

I think I know what you mean, it's what I called Kantian idealism in my earlier post. Fairness exists: In situations where you have to pick sides between friends who are fighting, when you're an employer and have to pick the right candidate. You do not enlist *because otherwise you rely on others*. That's the wrong reason, it's a collectivist reason, as you correctly say. If you do it for that reason, you'll become one of those who resent those who evade the service. If you do it because it means something to you, you won't mind the "free riders". Every people defending their freedom, as Israel does today, has naturally a strong collectivist component striving to intimidate the fence-sitters. It doesn't invalidate the cause, but it invalidates the intimidation. Israel will not stand and fall with military force alone. There are many other battles to fight. Chose one you care about, and if you think your dreams have nothing to do with the freedom of Israel, you are likely to be wrong. Observe how all the entrepreneurs who brought about the internet were interested in their selfish ends, yet the internet is Israels greatest hope: It turns the Zeitgeist aways from the scewed picture the leftist media painted. Altruism is evil, always.

Those theories come from those observations, yes. [EDIT: Actually most of them only what I called the primary cause, the wealth/apart/selfish bit.] Which is probably why you believe that I'm anti-semitic. Actually, I believe there's hardly a tradition with a similarly high heroes per head count than that of Judaism.