Why do we form societies?

how didt hat prove your point many corperations lobby to getlegislation that works in their favor to stomp out competition.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

edited 25th Nov '12 3:27:07 PM by JosefBugman

Really? Here we ahve some really damn goodprivate regulatory and information agencies such as Underwriters Laboritories and the American Beverage Association.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

@tnu; if you're not going to try to understand, I'm not going to keep trying to explain. Just please re-read the last couple of pages of posts and try and see if you can work out where we're coming from.

This is established economic theory. You don't get to contradict it arbitrarily, just as you can't decide the laws of physics don't apply to you.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

There's a reason Economics is the "dismal science". None of its models are very optimal or comfy.

But they are based on precedent and "most-likely" cases. Which is more reliable than not knowing what you're doing.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

edited 25th Nov '12 3:29:06 PM by JosefBugman

tnu, in one of the earliest pages in this thread, you said humans should not exist. I'd like to debate that for a moment.

First of all, let me offer my personal opinion on the definitions of 'right,' 'wrong,' 'evil,' and 'should.' I'm a strict science guy; natural selection dictates my arguments. To me, something is only 'wrong' if it's going to kill us, directly or indirectly. And I mean 'kill us,' as in, cause the extinction of the human race. Example: Hitler was 'evil' in the sense that he was purposefully committing genocide.

In my opinion, society is 'right.' I don't use those terms much, but it's what I think. Long ago, in our caves or out in the forest or whatever we used to do long ago, we decided to try something new. We decided to try banding together, to form a society. In my opinion, because society still exists after all these years, it is 'right.' Under this logic, a totalitarianism-based society would theoretically be 'right' if it kept us alive for thousands of years. When it comes to the long-run, humanity's survival as a species, morals do not matter. We can only begin worrying over people's rights (an invention of society, mind you) when we are safe enough to no longer worry about our species' survival. Society got us into that position long ago, and thus we've been able to come up with these fictional things you call 'rights.'

My argument is simple. Society is right because it hasn't gotten us killed. Humans should exist because humans do exist. If a species is able to survive Hell and back, then that species should exist. *

Furthermore, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to convince you of anything besides your current views. You've kept this thread going for seventeen pages. This is why this thread should exist (to keep people discussing societies in general), but this argument should not. If neither party is willing to compromise, then there should be no further conflict. Just agree to disagree.

..but then again, I'm not a good debater as far as I know.

tout est sacré pour un sacreur (Avatar by Rappu!)

@Josef: But again, precedence helps.

Also, economics does help to a certain degree in forward planning. John Maynard Keynes certainly put forward a lot of useful ideas which came in handy following World War 2.

edited 15th Apr '11 9:00:48 AM by DanEile

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

Uh......This is just this is depressing. Why isitimpossible? Why do we need big brother here? if that's what is nessecary to survive and cope i'm not sure how to justify it.

edited 15th Apr '11 9:03:27 AM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Ah, now "Big Brother" levels of government interference are another matter entirely. There I'd be prepared to agree with you. Ever read 1984?

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

I'm working on it actually getitng there but I have along reading list to go through. and i'm working on picking up Fahrenheit 451

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

edited 25th Nov '12 3:32:01 PM by JosefBugman

It's immensely unnerving, but an amazing book. There are one or two eerie parallels between recent governments and the government in the book, but obviously it's exaggerated beyond belief for satirical purposes.

edited 15th Apr '11 9:06:31 AM by DanEile

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

Honestly I think you can't exaggerate this shit. that is the honest way I feel about the state. if you give thema single inch they will go a whole mile.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

tnu, based on the first post, it seems you're against societies in all forms. Seriously? I think it's already been mentioned that humanity can't get very far without forming societies. People wouldn't have major farming and stuff, no division of labor. Humans would still be gathering roots in the forest if they didn't form societies.

Aside from that stuff, humans also have a need to combat loneliness. More people means more company, and (I guess) a better chance of finding somebody who can truly understand you.

*

something

Well i've yet to be convinced taht society can exist without opression, bigotry, ineqauality, et cetera.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Believe me, you can. Just wait until you read it.

edited 15th Apr '11 9:11:28 AM by DanEile

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

edited 25th Nov '12 3:32:18 PM by JosefBugman

Agreed.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

Frankly I've cometojust calling every Republican and Democrat over here a member of "The Party"

Josef: I've read up on this stuff before but remembering the fine poitns isanother matter entierly my retentionskillsarn'tw hat they used tob e and i'm ability toform decently worded arguments as well has been failing honeslty everythigns going down the crapper.

edited 15th Apr '11 9:15:23 AM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Even if it can't, it's better than the alternative. Or if it isn't, you're free to leave society and go live in a cave.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

tnu-"Living Text is a horrible philosophy for understanding a document. A document that can mean anything means nothing the constitution is the foundation for everything else. If we ignore it we are completely destroying the country if we want a change it will get a Supermajority and be amended."

Yeah, I have to say I find strict "constitutionalism" very unconvincing. I'm really more of a No Treason type.

edited 15th Apr '11 9:24:01 AM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Where is that quote from, out of curiosity? I'd be interested to know because in Irish law, the Constitution is usually read pretty strictly, except where an additional meaning can perhaps be interpreted given sufficient passage of time. That's what the "Living Document" argument means in this jurisdiction.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

edited 25th Nov '12 3:44:59 PM by JosefBugman