The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by jwb

In my experience most suburban white men fall in that category

Most suburban white men wont **** a black woman?

[Chula Vista]

So, are we all doomed?

[The Batlord]

You'll be dead before global warming really destroys modern civilization but your kids might have a hard time. I figure I have an aces wild history of heart problems in my family that will take me out with how I live my life so if "we" is me and you then we're probably fine.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You'll be dead before global warming really destroys modern civilization but your kids might have a hard time. I figure I have an aces wild history of heart problems in my family that will take me out with how I live my life so if "we" is me and you then we're probably fine.

So FINE = DEAD?
Cool!

Have you watched 'Upgrade' yet? Looking forward to your review.

[Psy-Fi]

Zimbabwean girl, 11, says she wrestled crocodile & gouged out its eyes to save 9-year-old friend

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Psy-Fi

Zimbabwean girl, 11, says she wrestled crocodile & gouged out its eyes to save 9-year-old friend

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Pragmatism doesn't even work though. All societies eventually disintegrate due to the unforeseen consequences of their pragmatism (often because their pragmatism caused significant ill will in the people who brought about their downfall) and inside of those societies pragmatism causes stratification and misery. The way it always ends up working for dumb humans due to short term "best we can do" dip**** logic that ignores actual longterm planning is a cycle of growth and collapse.

I mean.. what is the alternative that supposedly works better than pragmatism? To the extent that every society runs into problems based on pragmatic decisions, that's probably mostly true only because pragmatic decisions are necessary and thus ubiquitous in all civilizations. It's not like idealism has a much better success rate.

Originally Posted by elphenor

I think the capacity to form morality is biological but nobody can say how much of our morality is biological

or how much of human behavior isn't determined by societal influence

I think the entire social dynamic which leads to social norms and influence is largely derived from biology in some sense - the fact that the tribe was fundamental to our evolution puts an inherent premium on us to function within our tribe/society.

Part of cooperating and forming groups means adopting social norms within said group. That's where the inclination for social norms and influence ultimately derives from. Because a group is hardly going to be truly cooperative and cohesive without a basic set of common rules group members are expected to abide by.

I'm not making any statement about how any societal norm is "justified" based on the biological pressures that drive it. That's called the naturalistic fallacy.

But it is complicated. If you accept that cultures are different and each develop their own norms based in their own set of circumstances mixed with chance... Then condemning a culture for their norms is basically ethnocentrism. I.E. you're holding them to the standards of your own norms and thus declaring those norms in some way superior. Which in a way I think is fine. As long as you know that's what you're doing.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by jwb

Condemning a culture for their norms is basically ethnocentrism. I.E. you're holding them to the standards of your own norms and thus declaring those norms in some way superior.