|| Replies ||

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Don’t worry they don’t, and I’m already a few yards ahead of you on the not talking about anymore...

User	Blue Monk | 2007-06-26 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"I am right and everyone else is wrong." Some are worthy of hearing that statement and others are not. Choose for yourself what category you fall in. Objectivity - portended by many, mastered by few. We could as soon catch a rainbow as be truly objective about anything. Even a toothless lion serves to roar and thus he may yet serve a purpose. Words alone may build a bridge to peace, or to war. At what end of the spectrum are your own?

User	WolfStar | 2007-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I’ve noticed, Outlaw, that you have attempted to end this thread several times. The beauty of this forum is that discussions stay alive as long as we are willing to discuss them. If you have no interest in discussing this topic anymore, then you are not obliged to defend yourself against perceived "attacks." You cannot "close" a thread. Once the topic is out there, it belongs to everyone. I want to clarify that my intentions are not malicious and I apologize if my arguments appear to be personal attacks.

User	mae | 2007-06-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The word interpret has in NO way any link to having studied something, and I give you the definition from my vernacular in this case: 1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable. So you are going to try to explain something, provide its meaning to others, without having studied the data at all? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in this by saying that I could have been wrong about your studying the subject, but you have erased that benefit yourself. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who will not even read the collected body of evidence on a subject yet makes definitive statements contradicting that evidence, because that’s the way they want it to be. mae

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Sorry, here’s a damn site if you can’t believe me without some kind of reference Mae, as for the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The word interpret has in NO way any link to having studied something, and I give you the definition from my vernacular in this case: 1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable. 2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable. 3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution. 4. to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one’s own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man. 5. to translate orally. And Excuse me for being skeptical about a domain we’ve yet to explore because we’ve yet to completely understand our own minds. And wolfstar, I bet you understand my frustration - it may not have been what I was looking for, but hell you offered - and I bet faith is of lack in my world. Ghetto backwash of a minority, leaves me with a great educational system you know? I’ve realized that I am my own demise in this respect and this domain, because I’ve met another person who can well think like I can, even to an extent go beyond me; he’s just too cynical about my caring, much less it mattering for us to carry on a full conversation. And to be honest, that’s what brought this whole thing up and made me think: Why on earth do the people that CAN speak chose not to? I just figured with this debate I might find out... but instead I’ve been presented a few attacks, and basic common sense we’re taught in .. 6th grade? Which why I say and said, this thread is done.

User	WolfStar | 2007-06-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Wolfstar, I underline a few of your words: "shouldn’t appear"... You know what that means in our modern time right? Close to nothing, because people have the liberty and feel encouraged to doubt whatever they can - be that useful or not, because to them specific holes that they can see MUST be bad." There is nothing wrong with doubt. If you doubt, it is the first step into actual original thinking. I believe that one should consider all matters with a certain degree of doubt. It keeps your mind and ideas fresh; one should always question. I understand your frustration with people who doubt and do not listen; it is an experience common to us all. But if the doubt and apathy you see in modern man is enough to prevent you from telling people what you believe in, then perhaps your convictions are not as strong as you believe they are; just as you would like others to bear your opinions with patience, you must bear with their natural resistance to new ideas. Both you and your audience have to grow up and adjust --- not just them. ?Now tell me, what purpose does it serve if say in a classroom, a place of learning, you state your opinion clearly, knowing that the teacher doesn’t agree, to only come upon the realizations that the students don’t give a damn; half weren’t paying attention and the other half had it all go over their head. What purpose does speaking up serve in that situation?" Outlaw, I am a high school student. I face the very situation you speak of EVERY DAY. I know your frustration. I have come to the conclusion that even if the majority do not listen and others do not understand, this is no reason to silence myself. I have faith that this is not true in every situation. Even if there is just one person in the room is interested in what I’m saying, even if they don’t understand it, it is worth it to share any enlightenment I can with this person. If you do not speak, no one else has the OPPORTUNITY to learn about what you believe, regardless of whether they care or understand. By not speaking, you eliminate any possibility of someone learning something new. By not leading, you indirectly contribute to the stagnation and apathy you see around you. Do not lose faith in people, no matter how easy as it is to write others off as ignorant and not worth your time; cyncism, if too far advanced, becomes a loss of humanity, a disregard for other people that leads only to bitterness, mistrust, and hopelessness. "Or in the case of an argument of opinions? Like for example me and mae, what on earth is the reason for our debating? Society builds it into people to stand by their opinion, so do cultures and religions and other things that, when you begin on opposing sides, you always end on opposing sides. What does speaking up in our case bring to the table?" Be open to other ideas. You argue that at the end of the day you believe as you believe and nothing you say makes a difference. But is this always true? Do you live by the belief that pride compels you to stand by your opinion instead of having the humility to let others’ opinions be validated? I am a person of strong convictions, but I still find balance and insight from others’ opinions. By saying that an argument of opinions goes nowhere, you are exhibiting the same closed-minded behavior you find yourself so frustrated with. How’s that for ironic?

User	mae | 2007-06-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"And as for your proof, it all falls down to interpretation really. They believe as professionals that a certain aspect of an animals life is like so, doesn’t mean I agree, much less understand it that way. Until we get into their heads, and thoughts, and motivations it will always fall down to how you interpret it - and so now I get that we just disagree on that." If this is your general attitude, Outlaw - that even in the face of the opinions of many people who have devoted their lives to this study, you just don’t want it to be that way, so you are going to "interpret" data in your own way (use of the word ’interpret’ would indicate that you’d studied the data. I don’t think that is the case, but perhaps I’m wrong.) - then perhaps it would be better for you not to speak up. mae

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Mae, if you do something wrong several times and apologize once.. it isn’t proper in my book, but again this falls to judgment and perception and blah blah... And the reason why I brought up the humans being the only animals to do something wrong just because is that... People we say horribly mean things and say it was to see if they could do it BASED on their liberty. Is this true? Or did they merely just want to say something mean, for the sake of that being their opinion, and therein for no reason really? I do believe we should speak up, but where in this liberty do we establish the difference between it being a liberty and it being abusive? If evolution in a positive manner is presented as one path, how are we to find that path if we know it, yet allow ourselves to diverge in so many other negative senses. And as for your proof, it all falls down to interpretation really. They believe as professionals that a certain aspect of an animals life is like so, doesn’t mean I agree, much less understand it that way. Until we get into their heads, and thoughts, and motivations it will always fall down to how you interpret it - and so now I get that we just disagree on that. Wolfstar, I underline a few of your words: "shouldn’t appear"... You know what that means in our modern time right? Close to nothing, because people have the liberty and feel encouraged to doubt whatever they can - be that useful or not, because to them specific holes that they can see MUST be bad. Now tell me, what purpose does it serve if say in a classroom, a place of learning, you state your opinion clearly, knowing that the teacher doesn’t agree, to only come upon the realizations that the students don’t give a damn; half weren’t paying attention and the other half had it all go over their head. What purpose does speaking up serve in that situation? Or in the case of an argument of opinions? Like for example me and mae, what on earth is the reason for our debating? Society builds it into people to stand by their opinion, so do cultures and religions and other things that, when you begin on opposing sides, you always end on opposing sides. What does speaking up in our case bring to the table? What purpose did the dannish cartoon’s serve? Or tabloids? Celebrity magazines? Media that doesn’t provoke any thinking whatsoever, but presents "facts" and possible theories. Liberty of speech has become such a superfluous idea nowadays that I wonder, in that situation that you do speak up in, to what extent does it really make a difference? Democracy is in turn a bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy is within an individualistic society; that alone limits the amount of difference one person can make. Of course one can rally up a whole population to try and make a difference, but all this must be done within the conforms of the laws of that given country, and let’s not forget... Your opinion has to be openly agreeable with, if not you won’t be able to make a big enough difference, or one at all. "...it is realistically impossible to hope that everyone will find your opinion agreeable." -Wolfstar In any case, I think this thread is closed...

User	mae | 2007-06-24 |
Subject	untitled
Message	And you aren’t apologizing properly. What? Oh good grief! Outlaw, you need to read Wolfstar’s first post a couple of times - and then read it again. Do I think nature is imperfect? Absolutely. I can’t think of a single person who seriously studies nature that doesn’t. I know one no one save you who says that nature is perfect and that animals do things only out of survival. In fact, I’ve given you several websites that state just the opposite. But, in my mind, that has nothing to do with whether we should speak up concerning issues. How can our world be improved if, in the face of injustice, we say nothing? mae

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	You’ve basically just spoken up to say we shouldn’t be speaking... Good point.

User	WolfStar | 2007-06-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Well then don’t. It’s very simple. Explain that your intent is to give the issue more dimension. You shouldn’t appear condescending if you can communicate humbly and respectfully, a skill taught in kindergarten but seldom taken seriously until later life, if at all. And if at this point your listener is still put off... then there’s nothing you can do about that. Even at the risk of negative reaction, speaking your mind is important. Those of us who have a voice should value it and use it often and well. There are so many out there who are not heard at all, whether silenced by intimidation or by force. There will always be someone who takes things the wrong way. You should consider how your audience is receiving your information, but it is realistically impossible to hope that everyone will find your opinion agreeable.

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	come off as**

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	But helpful in whose perspective? I could be attempting to help somebody and come off and condescending...

User	WolfStar | 2007-06-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	In my opinion, one should always speak up, not necesssarily to pass judgment on others or to prove who is right or wrong, but because multiple perspectives are important to any issue. The problem with speaking up to prove others wrong is that you’ve immediately alienated your audience by rejecting their ideas (and sometimes, with enough arrogance, you even manage to offend their intelligence). If you speak to be helpful and constructive, and with the purpose of adding perspective to the situation, then your imput is valuable and worth hearing.

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Sorry for the late reply Mae, I lost track of ES and the debating threads. I say that no other animals or creature are known to do wrong or evil things just because they can because we’ve asserted them the impossibility of doing so; everything in nature is a part of nature and boils down to survival of the fittest. We as intellectual superiors have deemed ourselves apart from them in aspects of Ethics and Morals. Therein lies the impossibility. And when I said you weren’t looking at the whole picture, I meant you weren’t looking at what I was saying/am saying for what it is. In our arrogance we’ve alloted ourselves the possibility of doing mean things for the simple purpose of exploiting our freedom by OUR standards. We’ve also limited creatures such as squirrels and monkeys from doing the same in that they are always and simply trying to survive, as a part of nature, as the fittest. I never argued that animals can’t do horrible things (and that’s what you’re missing as far as the missing the whole picture comment went), arguing such a thing would be absurd. So, do you understand once again what I’m saying? And don’t bother apologizing for the sarcastic slip... I’ve obviously been annoying enough to entail it... And you aren’t apologizing properly. Again, I do not know, I only reason. To say, nobody can really know anything comparatively between us and animals yet when it comes to all the things ranging in thinking//morality/ethics because we aren’t even sure whether or not animals think (At least in a similar manner as us). You’ve also failed to respond to his reasoning:"if we argue that animals can be the source of mean acts without any purpose beyond simply being able to do so, why not argue that nature isn’t perfect...." Do you think nature is, in it’s own (by this I mean beyond human beings) imperfect?

User	mae | 2007-06-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Outlaw, I’d like to apologize to you. I, who decry the use of sarcasm, used it in my post to you. I’m very sorry. I don’t like it any better when I use it than when anyone else does. mae

User	mae | 2007-06-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	And, Outlaw, why do you say I’m not looking at the "whole of the picture" if I pick out mean and evil? That was your terminology. I’m looking at the picture you painted. If it’s not the whole picture, then what would you have us look at? This is what I was saying, Outlaw. You are not giving us a premise that we can understand all at once and logically debate. You tend to change the rules as you go and then argue against something that wasn’t in debate before. Pray tell, what is the whole picture? It also doesn’t sound as if you’ve availed yourself of the websites I put up. Perhaps I’m wrong and you know more than the most well-known anthropologists of the last two generations. mae

User	mae | 2007-06-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Yes, Outlaw, I understand what you’re saying. My question to you is, upon what do you base such a romantic notion of nature? How do you know - repeat, KNOW - that no creature in nature, even apes, can or do commit "mean" acts just because they can? If it is in our genetic code somehow, to do such things, why can’t it be in a lower animal’s genetic code? I’m asking how you can know because you are making an unequivocal statement, no ifs or maybes to it. mae

User	Outlaw | 2007-06-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	that rape CAN’T** Creature’s*** (I’m tired.. sorry for the typos)