Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Wes4747

Outlawing faith

1,022 posts in this topic

13 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

This is far too simplistic a view. Emotions are entwined on a fundamental level and our definitions are poor attempts to separate them. 

There is no need for us to discuss this topic further, I now understand your position and we'll endlessly disagree.

You have moved away from the original argument we were having, you ignore the contradictions I point out and offer no explanation. You barely address a single question I ask but rather shift the goalposts to suit your argument.

All of this is a shame because our views on many things align quite nicely. Where we differ is in how the mind really works. I've experienced things you have not and this is why I know you to be wrong in this regard. This is just like you with your God connection and psychic powers. You say I can't understand because I haven't experienced them, well, you need to apply this same logic to yourself.

 

 

 

I do not see myslef as shifting position but others as misunderstanding my responses and indeed altering the nature of the original proposition.  
my god connection and psychic  powers have less to do with this issue than basic human psychology and cognitive processing, which as it happens i actually have a university degree and post graduate diploma in, and 40 years of on the job experience 

You can OBSERVE the electrochemical response typifying a response like anger or hate or fear In a brain   And you can measure the connective response of the body to the brain's  cognitive awareness, and construction, of fear or anger or hate  as the body responds with chemical and other changes,  to the brain's evolving electro chemical  state.

The abilty to control emotional responses is not a god given power it is an evolved condition of the human mind caused by the evolved connection between mind and body. i began practising this about 3 years of age,  for a personal reason i dont want to go into again  God never entered my mind at that age  i knew that humans choose the emotional states they experience, as i had observed my parents, and others, abilty to do so,  and so i simply decided i would always have conscious control of every emotional response to every stimuli i encountered, to ensure i never hurt another person by losing control . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30 September 2017 at 6:08 AM, Wes4747 said:

Should all things requiring faith be outlawed? I will make my case.

All cults rely on faith. Cults are like drugs and.... Drugs are bad... Um kayyy?

All religions rely on faith and.... Religions cause divisiveness, wars and pass out judgements among "the others" to ensure divisiveness. Oh and the uh-faith healing deaths.

The lottery... Should potential players be asked upon buying the ticket whether they are playing for fun, or faith in knowing they will win. The latter seems to blow more grocery money.

In love. Faith and hope that that special someone will love the faithful one back, usually get crushed leaving the faithful devestated and potentially suicidal. If not homicidal. If its love, ya dont need faith.

What good is faith? Who does hope help? 

Religions don't cause wars, bankers and politians do. Religion may be used as a tool for either good or bad, but that all depends on the strength of the individual practitioner, their morals and ethics, wisdom and compassion. It has nothing to do with faith, ignorance is the problem here.

Anybody guilable enough to buy a lottery ticket expecting, knowing, that they are going to win is setting themselves up for a fall/fool. Hopefully experience will set them straight.

I have a faith in Love born of personal experience and a common sense.  

I have a faith in Humanity, in our collective future working together.

I also have a faith in God.

The point is, my faith helps me overcome lifes difficult moments. It helps me to see the good, the positive, the way out of suffering. So instead of trying to ban faith, lets try to enlighten folk with wisdom and compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

How do you nurture faith and to what end, if any at all? 

How does it help you with the uncertainty, the unknown, the unanswerable, for me it has been easier to accept the unknown, the uncertainty, and the unanswerable. It seems natural to not have an adgenda ( just meaning in this case a preference on what may or may not happen on something I can't know while living). 

I overlooked your first question. I immerse myself in the Faith of others, as disparate and unique as I can find. I stand in the light of the Grace they bestow upon others and are, thus, bother humble and exalted. Understand, this is from my personal perspective, not a sermon, not a preaching not an attempt to proselyte. If there is a God, it matters not if you know Him or believe in Him/Her, however one is comfortable relating to their creator, as long as that Creator, that God, believes in you. How do I know this? I don't.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Grandpa Greenman said:

That is just BS, Walker.  Our brains, for one thing, react to stimulus before we even know we are reacting to it.  My guess is you have never cared for a person with dementia.  .I have three times over, plus having a disease of the central nervous system myself.   I have often wonder how people who think we are nothing but soul explain dementia.  When people get dementia their whole personality changes. I had a neighbor couple, the wife was as sweet as she could be. After she got alzheimer's she completely changed.  They went for a walk past my house every morning, but one day she decided she did want to go for a walk and turned on her husband, it took two of us to pull her off him.  He ended up having to put her in a nursing home that could handle violent patients.  I sat with him one evening while he tried to understand why the loving wife was gone and who had taken her place. His christian faith didn't hold any answers for him.   

No it is complete truth. it is physically impossible for something to react before it is stimulated. We might argue about the nature of the stimulation or the nature of the brain's subconscious compared with conscious response times, but it is impossible to react to something you are unaware of 

LOl  ^6 years caring for two people 24/7 with increasing dementia until the y could not even eat unassisted  (technically alzheimer's but still classed as a form of dementia)  until both died at home with us  And during that time a LOT of intensive study on the causes effects and ways to manage the disease.

You have just described both my parents in law  but i don't get your point or your argument  You are making mine for me. Once we lose a conscious connection with our mind and our sense of self awareness we lose the qualities and abilities that  I am talking about which is why i often preface my remarks with things like " adult"  or a " functioning mind "    While technically  still human and just as much, loved pop and mum, were no longer functioning human beings  They didn't know who they were, where they were, or how to control bodily functions.  Try living for 6 years with people you love, who dont know who each other is, and yes can be either violent or dangerous, through  simple forgetfulness; washing them toileting them feeding them. Calming them, trying to keep them happy and content and with some stimulation and enjoyment. When we put them into a home  for  a short respite the y came back black and blue  were tied to beds or chairs   and on a couple of occasions escaped  out a window because there was not one on one supervision of them,  so we looked after them without respite,  with a couple of hours a week in house help, to let us both get out together for an afternoon

 

What have i missed that you are annoyed about.    The human soul is our self aware consciousness We grow and evolve it from birth or even before in the womb and we grow it through life, shaping it for good or evil.

When we die it also dies and if we are brain injured or have end stage dementia then we can lose our soul before our body dies  In my reckoning, dad still had his soul when his heart gave out, and he died in his sleep but by the time mum died, in a much less aware condition, she no longer had her soul. It had gone with her self aware consciousness, leaving an empty, but still living, shell.  

 

Ps these were the words i used intha t post 

 

 EVERY adult, functioning, human has the physical abilty to control,their body by application of mind, will and discipline   

  Alzheimer's/dementia suffers are no longer functional and are arguably no longer "human"   In a similar way, neither are very young children fully functional because their brains and minds have not yet matured just a s an older person's may deteriorate below a functional capacity   You can tell when a person is not functioning as an adult because others restrict its abilty to act independently  . 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

How do you nurture faith and to what end, if any at all? 

How does it help you with the uncertainty, the unknown, the unanswerable, for me it has been easier to accept the unknown, the uncertainty, and the unanswerable. It seems natural to not have an adgenda ( just meaning in this case a preference on what may or may not happen on something I can't know while living). 

Hi Sherapy.

Personally I nurture faith by putting it to the test, or applying certain ideas and strongly held beliefs anytime I find myself facing a tough decision or a difficult moment. Or seeing what transpires when I lack the moral fortitude.

So my belief systems are being reinforced and redifined and fine tuned almost constantly, yet there are a few ideals that are fundimental. The belief and faith in Love and Freedom for example are in my opinion crucial for humanities evolution.

As for uncertainty, the unknown and the unanswerable, I guess these are the mysteries of life. We can look at these with fearful eyes or we can rise to the challenge! Personally I like to play this game with as much skill and verve, love and laughter as possible, setting a new "personal best" whenever possible. One level of attainment simple becomes the foundation for our next build.

And it is OUR build.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I gave up on this thread long ago. Just stoppin' in to see what's up.

I honestly don't know why you and people like jmccr8 and Sherapy spin your wheels like you do, but I commend your commitment.

It comes from a passion for debate combined with a love for the medium. 

The virtual world allows opportunity for discussion with people I would never usually meet.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's a hypothetical discussion on Faith meaning it's permutations are endless.

It's a hypothetical discussion on outlawing faith. If it was just a discussion on faith I'd agree.

Those permutations have become endless only since we strayed from topic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker

I am using my phone so I can't break down your post to address specific comments at this time.

Rape, murder and pedeofilic acts are committed by conscious intent and do not fall into the qualities of animal instinct which is more reactionary. The above stated crimes require reasoning and selection of victims and mode of  employment  these deliberate rationalizations. If you are interested the books that I read were written by John E Douglas who started the profiling of these serial offenders while working for the FBI. Your assertion that in modern times that animal instinct is not needed is lacking because it is adaptive to the environment that we live in, instead of predictors we become aware of traffic, the movement of overhead cranes at work the smell of chemicals and the sounds of tools all part of our survival instinct.

In so far as me not wanting to understand read what we have been discussing for the past year through different threads that this subject continues to arise in. When you said students you were a teacher so if they were your peers then you should have identified them as fellow students, none the less I still find your claim suspect. If these boys had beaten all the other boys in your school/neighborhood and this was your first experience of defending yourself after having been bullied and being fearful then what you have written doesn't ring true. I am surprised that he would have been gracious enough to have given you the time to tell him how you were going to use that pencil or took it away and made you eat it first, he was an experienced fighter and had likely been threatened by more intimidating foes than you.

What we are discussing is knowledge gained through experience and reading, if it will help you understand I will post pics of my work and you can explain to me how you could do that work of the same quality with just reading a book.

Understand that I did study drafting and did read and still do to augment my physical skills. I did not pursue a career in drafting because I don't like sitting at a desk day after day and enjoy making things with my hands. I can go to work  wearing cutoffs and a suntan an breath fresh air and don't have to go to the gym to workout. For me it's a win win situation and I apply the same learning process in all areas of interest the combination of physical experience and reading.

Whether you think that you have more experience than me is a pointless distraction from the discussion, I have always told you that we live in different environments with different interests and that there are some things that I will not discuss through this medium. You don't need to complete because that is not why I am here as I am very confident in who and what I am and for me based on my environment many of the things you claim are straight up laughable so if you don't want to get called on it stick to the topic.

jmccr8

No. Rape murder and  paedophilia are basically our animal instincts. You see the same behaviours as the norm among other primates Only human self consciousness and the consequent establishment of rules and laws for living together   prevent humans from acting just like all other primates, and make us think of these acts as wrong 

Now when you talk about crimes NOT based on instinctive behaviours but upon conscious and deliberate schemes like killing for power or wealth  or using hurt for control, then you are right. THOSE sorts of crimes would continue, but they actually make up a small percentage of serious crimes  Most acts which do harm happen when people lose their temper or lose control of their body's reactions  or allow instinctive desires to overcome the mental controls our societies expect us to maintain. 

The responses required to traffic are not the same as those required to a predator .The problem is that, indeed ,we often react in the same way. So we kill someone who cuts us off in traffic, just as we might kill a predator in the jungle  And basically the old responses are TOO primitive. They are not adapted or successful enough to help us in a modern society  We still need things like self awareness and heightened threat awareness but we must evole more efficient and skilled reponses .  ou nminds are much more effective protectors than our biological responses  We can even plan ahead for any threat rather than wait for it to eventuate 

I was not aware tha the boys had been beating up other boys otherwise i would have positioned myself better eg not entered a confined space without an authority figure present   Maybe the y had kept it quiet or maybe i was among the first i can only go by  wht the y said which was "look don't take this personally. We haven't got anything against you but we are picking a fight with every guy in the class to establish the hierarchy of authority" (and no the y didn't use quite those words but i understood them)  

They were not expert fighters. The were a year older than me, a foot taller an d much more aggressive  but not skilled or trained With a years training i could easily have incapacitated both of them 

And  no, a person can't react against something they do not expect    A year later i   had the abilty and skill to have picked up a pencil from  the desk and pushed it into the brain through the eye  By then  I knew a couple of  nerve strikes that would have immobilised an arm  by then i was also proficient in a number of weapons and carried for example half a dozen throwing stars with me to school     I would happily have used any of these things  so to protect myself but the knowledge and ability to do it, meant i never had to,  I could have damaged their knee areas badly enough for them not to walk.  When it happened i was more worried about later consequences if someone got hurt.  So, for example, i only hit them on the body so i wouldn't mark their faces.They of course were throwing punches right into my face. A year later I would have been prepared   to explain my actions and happy to justify any damage i did.  For example my wife and i had a strategy worked out if we were attacked in our home, well away from  any assistance,  based on our state's laws. It was to shoot to kill any intruder who,  after one warning did not cease to be a threat to our safety eg continued to advance on us or refused to drop a weapon )   And THEN fire a second shot into the ceiling  so we could claim we had fed a warning shot   We are allowed to use lethal force if we believe our lives are at risk and so we had to feel that the y were.  The difference from then on was in my mental  state . It would not have worried me for a second to kill an armed aggressor because i had examined my value lines and worked out an optimal constructive action for my wife and myself, and how to prevent harm to us, as victims of aggression..     There would be no fear involved, no anger  or hate towards the other person, but no guilt or remorse, either because our actions would have been ethically correct. .

. Of course i would never  have  admitted this after the fact, if it had occurred, but when i said i would kill a a person i meant it  (a s far as i can tell)   Rather than be hurt /killed or allow another to be hurt by an aggressor I would have no qualm no hesitation and not a seconds delay in carrying  out a strategy i had planned, worked through, and practised many times. it might involve pulling a heavy object down of a wall smashing a glass window or using an object as a weapon    And i think even the biggest bullies somehow sensed this. Unless they killed me first i would have killed them (not in anger, but from logic and a sense of doing right )    Once they realised this, It became a matter of cost benefit, where the cost of attacking me was much greater than any benefit  (of course being who i amm not many people ever had a reason to physically attack me,once i got through middle school and male testosterone settled down a bit 

I agree about our experiences but it has always been you criticising my abilty to understand because you say i dont have the life experiences to understand  For me, reading and viewing give me the same understandings, knowledge and abilities as doing  and always have, but i KNOW that is not true for everyone Not everyone starts to read aged 2 and spends hours every day reading .   

  ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No. Rape murder and  paedophilia are basically our animal instincts. You see the same behaviours as the norm among other primates Only human self consciousness and the consequent establishment of rules and laws for living together   prevent humans from acting just like all other primates, and make us think of these acts as wrong 

 

  ..  

You dont think that rape and murder and pedophilia are wrong, and its the fact that we have manmade laws against this behaviour that makes us think its wrong??

You may have your animal instincts but I am a human being and I hold myself to a higher standard than apes and monkeys. 

I can forgive and befriend and even love my enemy, its possible. This isn't something you see too often within the animal kingdom. Human beings have free will, we are capable of amazing things if only we aim high enough.

And believe me, it isnt manmade laws that prevent me from this kind of extreme behaviour, its the fact that I have a heart, empathy and compassion, a sense of right and wrong.. I don't want to cause anybody any harm, physical pain or mental anguish.

And by the look of all the rapes, murders and pedophilia in the world today, the law isn't stopping anybody else either. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

Dont get me wrong Walker, i learn much from you and you are a constant reminder to myself to reassess when i am getting too confident... Or cocky in life...

Humility is key to communication, i did not mean to offend.

Thats ok. To me false  humility is as bad as false pride.

Both are dishonest and both misrepresent the truth about oneself. I am not humble, but neither do I feel pride, except in accomplishments achieved with discipline and effort 

A person should try to be just who and how they are, and not anything more or less  They should always be open and honest about themselves, both TO themselves and to others.  A lot of people dont have the confidence or self esteem, however, to show themselves as proudly as they should, and deserve. And there are some who enjoy putting others down, and so some feel safer underplaying their abilities, skills and achievements, so that they are not targeted. 

I never compare myself, for better or worse, with others, only with how much i can do  now, compared with how much i could do in the past, and how much i hope to do in the future. Ie i judge myself against myself .and my potential.  It is why i am better in sports and games which are individual challenges, rather than team games  

I am not sure than anyone can get too confident or cocky. iI s not in my nature but i see others who sometimes appear to, and come a nasty cropper.  . 

It would not occur to me to do this, as it would lead to a less successful outcome than an accurate judgement of my capabilities.  For example i once did an 8 mile swim. I was pretty sure i could do it from the mainland to an offshore island because i had swum nearly as far while skin diving and spear fishing,  but i had a couple of mates in a dinghy with an outboard motor accompany me.  To do otherwise would have been cocky and over confident,   despite my ability, because one cant foresee all possibilities. When i was younger i would often push myself to my limits in many endeavours but i always  tried to take precautions in case i had overestimated my abilities       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

You dont think that rape and murder and pedophilia are wrong, and its the fact that we have manmade laws against this behaviour that makes us think its wrong??

You may have your animal instincts but I am a human being and I hold myself to a higher standard than apes and monkeys. 

I can forgive and befriend and even love my enemy, its possible. This isn't something you see too often within the animal kingdom. Human beings have free will, we are capable of amazing things if only we aim high enough.

And believe me, it isnt manmade laws that prevent me from this kind of extreme behaviour, its the fact that I have a heart, empathy and compassion, a sense of right and wrong.. I don't want to cause anybody any harm, physical pain or mental anguish.

And by the look of all the rapes, murders and pedophilia in the world today, the law isn't stopping anybody else either. 

Perhaps i am not clear but i thought i wrote exactly the opposite to this.

In humans, rape murder and paedophilia are wrong because of our self aware consciousness  which informs us they are harmful.

However in other primates there is nothing wrong with these behaviours. They are  evolved to make the primate species stronger and improve its chances of survival.  Something humans have superseded with knowledge and technology.  Because we think they are wrong for us, we construct laws based on that belief but we don't have laws judging or punishing other primates who forcefully have sex, who kill their rivals, and who have sex with the young  They know no better and thus cannot be judged.. 

Your empathy  compassion  and sense of right and wrong a re products of your self aware consciousness, Otherwise all those other primates would have the same senses   We make the laws and enforce them BECAUSE we know right from wrong.

True not everyone needs those laws, but many do  There are still plenty of people who kill, rape, abuse, enslave, etc DESPITE the laws, but the laws provide a basis for action, justice, retribution and  restoration. Without the laws,  and an a  judicial and enforcement regime, there would be nothing to prevent people from doing great harm, EXCEPT for the strength of individuals who opposed them.

The laws, the fear of consequence , and the success of law enforcement, prevents millions of crimes from happening, which otherwise would, due to human nature   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Well done my friend, well done. A simple like of this does not suffice, I had to quote it as well.

And to @Mr Walker, Your comments on rape and pedophilia are deplorable. You should be ashamed. I'm glad you showed me who you truly are.

I can't help it if you can't read.

  Rape killing   etc are hold overs from  instinctive evolved primate drivers built into primates to promote fitness of the species  They are not bad or evil in other primates  BUT humans see the harm they do and the hurt We also have evolved better ways to strengthen our gene pools and to ensure our survival.

We don't require the dominant male to kill off all rivals and their young and impregnate every female he can hold by force so that the physically strongest and fittest genes survive in the tribe or troop . 

My entire time on UM has been about pointing out how humans can evolve past the ape behaviors by taking control of their thoughts and actions, and using discipline and will to behave in more positive ways.  What on earth did you THINK i was saying?  Our self aware consciousness, both enables us to see and feel harm to others, from our actions, but also to have a conscience and feel guilt. We KNOW why it is wrong to kill a rival male take a woman by force or rape or kill a child This knowledge forms the basis of our laws and why we control the behaviour of people by laws and punishments

Mind you in my life time, in many jurisdictions, a man could escape punishment for murder if he killed  his wife's lover in a 'fit of passion"  Luckily we have evolved better laws since then with the realisation that, what ever the circumstances, we can rightly expect people to be able to control and discipline their behaviours.  . 

Ps i am confused. WHAT post are you referring to here?   i went back over the previous few pages before your post and couldn't see ANY comments which might offend referring to these topics except for me explaining how non human primates do all these things and it is not wrong for them to do it.

It is wrong for us to do these things because we know and understand their effects on other humans, and also we no longer are  driven by such pure biologically imperatives but by laws rules and social conscience

No one is going to hold a great ape morally or legally  accountable when it kills its rival and kills all the young from its rival, and then forces  all the females to have sex with it   It has no choice because evolution has shaped it do do this, to spread the genes of the most powerful male in the group through as many females as possible . .  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Perhaps i am not clear but i thought i wrote exactly the opposite to this.

In humans, rape murder and paedophilia are wrong because of our self aware consciousness  which informs us they are harmful.

However in other primates there is nothing wrong with these behaviours. They are  evolved to make the primate species stronger and improve its chances of survival.  Something humans have superseded with knowledge and technology.  Because we think they are wrong for us, we construct laws based on that belief but we don't have laws judging or punishing other primates who forcefully have sex, who kill their rivals, and who have sex with the young  They know no better and thus cannot be judged.. 

Your empathy  compassion  and sense of right and wrong a re products of your self aware consciousness, Otherwise all those other primates would have the same senses   We make the laws and enforce them BECAUSE we know right from wrong.

True not everyone needs those laws, but many do  There are still plenty of people who kill, rape, abuse, enslave, etc DESPITE the laws, but the laws provide a basis for action, justice, retribution and  restoration. Without the laws,  and an a  judicial and enforcement regime, there would be nothing to prevent people from doing great harm, EXCEPT for the strength of individuals who opposed them.

The laws, the fear of consequence , and the success of law enforcement, prevents millions of crimes from happening, which otherwise would, due to human nature   

No Mr Talker, you wasnt very clear. Nevermind, its all good.

So what actually prevents crime is our true Humanity, our true Human Nature.

We think that laws are needed because humanity need guidance, a carrot and a stick, yet once the law tells us we cannot do a thing, paradoxically, thanks to free will and this idea separateness, some folk will be tempted by money, fame, power, selfishness and ignorance in general.

What actually prevents millions of crimes is an understanding or at least an inkling of who we truly are in Reality. Which is a perfected micro-image of God and That Essential Flame of Divinity that burns within us all. 

Everything else, all that is wrong within us comes from a feeling, a notion of separateness. You and I and the Demiurge and God are in a very Real sense One. The sooner we recognise this the sooner we will experience it, and boy, will that be some celebration!!!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I do not see myslef as shifting position but others as misunderstanding my responses and indeed altering the nature of the original proposition. 

I can and have pointed out exactly where you shifted your position. Can you do the same for me?

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

my god connection and psychic  powers have less to do with this issue than basic human psychology and cognitive processing,

Please can you explain this more clearly? 

You claim yourself to be psychic, to have had your neurochemistry altered directly by God, that you are able to talk to God and get responses, that you read a million words a week, that you are in complete control of your emotions and that you are a normal functioning human being and therefore your reasoning applies to everyone. Is this statement correct? If not please correct it.

I don't know about you but when I look around the world these are not normal things that people claim. So making these claims and proclaiming them to be normal at the same time just doesn't wash. 

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You can OBSERVE the electrochemical response typifying a response like anger or hate or fear In a brain   And you can measure the connective response of the body to the brain's  cognitive awareness, and construction, of fear or anger or hate  as the body responds with chemical and other changes,  to the brain's evolving electro chemical  state.

We can observe it but this does not mean we fully understand it. In fact the brain is one of the universes greatest mysteries and to believe you fully understand it's workings is plain wrong. 

For example, we can stimulate a fear response in someone's brain without them being consciously aware of the cause. This is done with an invisible, undetectable by the conscious mind, electromagnetic field. 

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i would always have conscious control of every emotional response to every stimuli i encountered, to ensure i never hurt another person by losing control

Yet you were caught speeding 3 times. Were you deliberately speeding, and thus consciously endangering yourself and others, or was it subconscious and occured while your consciousness was 'elsewhere'?

You have also hit people and no matter how you look at this it is an act of violence, even in self defense. Performing any act of violence, according to you, is a loss of self control. If you are being threatened then learn how to disable your opponent without risking their health.

What you seem to ignore is that brain chemistry, and your ability to control it, links directly to your environment and your physical well being. Your mind, body and environment are the 3 factors that drive behaviour, not one or the other. It is fine for you to say it is possible to control everything because you live, work and exist in an environment that allows you to do so. If I removed you from this environment and put you under extreme mental and physical duress eventually your willpower would fail and your mind would break. Everyone has a breaking point. Once this point has passed who is responsible for their actions? Why do we have laws regarding temporary insanity and diminished responsibility if this is not true? How can mental torture exist if we all can simply 'unthink' it? Even someone of sound mind and body can have temporary lapses in conscious control. 

So tell me, when you made the statement that all people can control all emotions in all situations (given a healthy mind and body) do you still stand by this? If you do, then please explain why you discount the fact that environmental factors play a huge role in our biochemistry and our ability to control it?

 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No it is complete truth. it is physically impossible for something to react before it is stimulated. We might argue about the nature of the stimulation or the nature of the brain's subconscious compared with conscious response times, but it is impossible to react to something you are unaware of 

LOl  ^6 years caring for two people 24/7 with increasing dementia until the y could not even eat unassisted  (technically alzheimer's but still classed as a form of dementia)  until both died at home with us  And during that time a LOT of intensive study on the causes effects and ways to manage the disease.

You have just described both my parents in law  but i don't get your point or your argument  You are making mine for me. Once we lose a conscious connection with our mind and our sense of self awareness we lose the qualities and abilities that  I am talking about which is why i often preface my remarks with things like " adult"  or a " functioning mind "    While technically  still human and just as much, loved pop and mum, were no longer functioning human beings  They didn't know who they were, where they were, or how to control bodily functions.  Try living for 6 years with people you love, who dont know who each other is, and yes can be either violent or dangerous, through  simple forgetfulness; washing them toileting them feeding them. Calming them, trying to keep them happy and content and with some stimulation and enjoyment. When we put them into a home  for  a short respite the y came back black and blue  were tied to beds or chairs   and on a couple of occasions escaped  out a window because there was not one on one supervision of them,  so we looked after them without respite,  with a couple of hours a week in house help, to let us both get out together for an afternoon

 

What have i missed that you are annoyed about.    The human soul is our self aware consciousness We grow and evolve it from birth or even before in the womb and we grow it through life, shaping it for good or evil.

When we die it also dies and if we are brain injured or have end stage dementia then we can lose our soul before our body dies  In my reckoning, dad still had his soul when his heart gave out, and he died in his sleep but by the time mum died, in a much less aware condition, she no longer had her soul. It had gone with her self aware consciousness, leaving an empty, but still living, shell.  

 

Ps these were the words i used intha t post 

 

 EVERY adult, functioning, human has the physical abilty to control,their body by application of mind, will and discipline   

  Alzheimer's/dementia suffers are no longer functional and are arguably no longer "human"   In a similar way, neither are very young children fully functional because their brains and minds have not yet matured just a s an older person's may deteriorate below a functional capacity   You can tell when a person is not functining as an adult because others restrict its abilty to act ind

MW, you are misrepresenting dementia on two levels one: it has nothing to do with a soul ( this is a religious projection) and two: it isn't diagnosed "by telling a person isn't a functioning adult because others restrict its ability to act independently."

At no time does a human lose their dignity, worth or value as a human no matter how sick they are according to dementia/Alzheimer's certification (which I hold ) along with the experience of caring for a person with early stages vascular and alcoholic dementia complicated by borderline personality disorder, yet my case was not the norm it had special circumstances. 

Dementia is an umbrella term used to diagnose symptoms depending on what type points to the parts of the brain affected and symptoms expressed ( cognitive impairment, reasoning, memory loss) for ex: vascular dementia affects cognitive functions and memory due to constricted blood vessels often caused by strokes or mini strokes over time, maybe even going under anesthesia repeatedly in a short period of time. Alzheimer's is the disease which is progressive over time where the person will loss all ability to control themselves, emotionally and otherwise, personality can change, they can become really difficult or nice, or stay the same, they are no longer ambulatory they won't even swallow or be able to understand how to go to the bathroom it is far beyond incontinence. 

You can't diagnose a person either, neither can I -- you can observe they have symptoms that are not the norm and then encourage them to get a diagnosis from a neuropsychologist, neurologist, or primary care physician. 

Forty years of teaching isn't saying much when you post your google summary as a fact. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No. Rape murder and  paedophilia are basically our animal instincts. You see the same behaviours as the norm among other primates Only human self consciousness and the consequent establishment of rules and laws for living together   prevent humans from acting just like all other primates, and make us think of these acts as wrong 

No, they are considered pre-meditated acts because the offender calculates and acts out with intent, therefore, they are conscious in nature. The comparison with primates or other animals is not relevant and this has been heavily debated in the past and you alone hold this position. there are instances of killing that are not premeditated and they are a minority and they are under different classifications. With rape and sexually abusing children, you would need to give citation that this is not a conscious and deliberate act as to date there have been no cases reported in courts that show otherwise.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The responses required to traffic are not the same as those required to a predator .The problem is that, indeed ,we often react in the same way. So we kill someone who cuts us off in traffic, just as we might kill a predator in the jungle  And basically the old responses are TOO primitive. They are not adapted or successful enough to help us in a modern society  We still need things like self awareness and heightened threat awareness but we must evole more efficient and skilled reponses .  ou nminds are much more effective protectors than our biological responses  We can even plan ahead for any threat rather than wait for it to eventuate 

Once again you have wandered off base and ignored what is said to you, the instance of traffic had nothing to do with killing anyone and yet you turn it into pure and absolute bs. When we walk down the street our senses make us aware of our surroundings without us having to focus on it that is our animal instinct and you know that this is what I am referring to. We don't have to train ourselves to be aware it is our nature although I can see an exception to the rule for some or better one individual, and yes that exception would be you based on past conversations about how you had to train yourself to do things that most of us are naturally born with.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i

 

 

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I was not aware tha the boys had been beating up other boys otherwise i would have positioned myself better eg not entered a confined space without an authority figure present   Maybe the y had kept it quiet or maybe i was among the first i can only go by  wht the y said which was "look don't take this personally. We haven't got anything against you but we are picking a fight with every guy in the class to establish the hierarchy of authority" (and no the y didn't use quite those words but i understood them)  

They were not expert fighters. The were a year older than me, a foot taller an d much more aggressive  but not skilled or trained With a years training i could easily have incapacitated both of them 

7

This is not what you described in the post that I responded to and you are aware of this, I didn't say they were expert I said experienced, so I stand by my statement. Now you don't know if you were their first or last this is just you trying to keep face by changing your story to fit the rebuttal. If you were the first and had deterred them then they were not all that to start out with given that you had no experience and had been bullied and were fearful by your own admission. they chose you because you were known to be easy pickings because of your history in the neighbourhood. If you had faced them down then they wouldn't have gotten the rep they did and that you claimed here.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And  no, a person can't react against something they do not expect 

Of course, they can, that is how animal instinct works and why we as a species is here to debate it.:lol:

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

A year later i   had the abilty and skill to have picked up a pencil from  the desk and pushed it into the brain through the eye  By then  I knew a couple of  nerve strikes that would have immobilised an arm  by then i was also proficient in a number of weapons and carried for example half a dozen throwing stars with me to school     I would happily have used any of these things  so to protect myself but the knowledge and ability to do it, meant i never had to,  I could have damaged their knee areas badly enough for them not to walk.  When it happened i was more worried about later consequences if someone got hurt.  So, for example, i only hit them on the body so i wouldn't mark their faces.They of course were throwing punches right into my face. A year later I would have been prepared   to explain my actions and happy to justify any damage i did.  For example my wife and i had a strategy worked out if we were attacked in our home, well away from  any assistance,  based on our state's laws. It was to shoot to kill any intruder who,  after one warning did not cease to be a threat to our safety eg continued to advance on us or refused to drop a weapon )   And THEN fire a second shot into the ceiling  so we could claim we had fed a warning shot   We are allowed to use lethal force if we believe our lives are at risk and so we had to feel that the y were.  The difference from then on was in my mental  state . It would not have worried me for a second to kill an armed aggressor because i had examined my value lines and worked out an optimal constructive action for my wife and myself, and how to prevent harm to us, as victims of aggression..     There would be no fear involved, no anger  or hate towards the other person, but no guilt or remorse, either because our actions would have been ethically correct. .

This is just more self-justification and may or may not be true, based on our discussions over the last 10 months I find it less than accurate and I have said that this is not a competition and that you should stick to the subject as this is not what the original discussion is about. as for the last part about home invasion hmm well you have said that you would with deliberation and pre-meditation kill someone which is saying too much in public and I have no doubt that you have expressed this many times in coffee shops or other conversations over the years so whether you said anything after the fact or not you have already established witnesses as to your nature and likely find to your surprise that you would be convicted of voluntary manslaughter which just proves my point about fiction fantasy and fact.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course i would never  have  admitted this after the fact, if it had occurred, but when i said i would kill a a person i meant it  (a s far as i can tell)   Rather than be hurt /killed or allow another to be hurt by an aggressor I would have no qualm no hesitation and not a seconds delay in carrying  out a strategy i had planned, worked through, and practised many times. it might involve pulling a heavy object down of a wall smashing a glass window or using an object as a weapon    And i think even the biggest bullies somehow sensed this. Unless they killed me first i would have killed them (not in anger, but from logic and a sense of doing right )    Once they realised this, It became a matter of cost benefit, where the cost of attacking me was much greater than any benefit  (of course being who i amm not many people ever had a reason to physically attack me,once i got through middle school and male testosterone settled down a bit 

So if you would never admit it why should I believe your assertion that you wouldn't hurt someone.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I agree about our experiences but it has always been you criticising my abilty to understand because you say i dont have the life experiences to understand  For me, reading and viewing give me the same understandings, knowledge and abilities as doing  and always have, but i KNOW that is not true for everyone Not everyone starts to read aged 2 and spends hours every day reading

We did have a discussion about early memory and you argued quite avidly that memories from that age were not possible so why should I accept your now revised position?

 

Walker, you have not responded to my question, do you want me to post pictures of my work and show me work of the same quality that you have personally done with reading books alone and no physical experience of I look forward to seeing how you can. And remember that I did clearly state that I have studied drafting and augmented myself with reading. If you do choose to show your work it should be as diverse as the pics that I provide from several different skills that I have gained over the years.

jmccr8

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, Sherapy.     Thank you.  :wub:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grandpa Greenman said:

Well said, Sherapy.     Thank you.  :wub:

Some people are not suited to work that requires empathy, compassion, or emotional labor.

Unfortunately, we have these types as teachers and caregivers. 

 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Some people are not suited to work that requires empathy, compassion, or emotional labor.

Unfortunately, we have these types as teachers and caregivers. 

Well that sums up the Abrahamic God quite well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats ok. To me false  humility is as bad as false pride.

Both are dishonest and both misrepresent the truth about oneself. I am not humble, but neither do I feel pride, except in accomplishments achieved with discipline and effort 

A person should try to be just who and how they are, and not anything more or less  They should always be open and honest about themselves, both TO themselves and to others.  A lot of people dont have the confidence or self esteem, however, to show themselves as proudly as they should, and deserve. And there are some who enjoy putting others down, and so some feel safer underplaying their abilities, skills and achievements, so that they are not targeted. 

I never compare myself, for better or worse, with others, only with how much i can do  now, compared with how much i could do in the past, and how much i hope to do in the future. Ie i judge myself against myself .and my potential.  It is why i am better in sports and games which are individual challenges, rather than team games  

I am not sure than anyone can get too confident or cocky. iI s not in my nature but i see others who sometimes appear to, and come a nasty cropper.  . 

It would not occur to me to do this, as it would lead to a less successful outcome than an accurate judgement of my capabilities.  For example i once did an 8 mile swim. I was pretty sure i could do it from the mainland to an offshore island because i had swum nearly as far while skin diving and spear fishing,  but i had a couple of mates in a dinghy with an outboard motor accompany me.  To do otherwise would have been cocky and over confident,   despite my ability, because one cant foresee all possibilities. When i was younger i would often push myself to my limits in many endeavours but i always  tried to take precautions in case i had overestimated my abilities       

See.... This is a great example. Thanks for making my point.

Again, apologies if I offended.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

I can and have pointed out exactly where you shifted your position. Can you do the same for me?

Please can you explain this more clearly? 

You claim yourself to be psychic, to have had your neurochemistry altered directly by God, that you are able to talk to God and get responses, that you read a million words a week, that you are in complete control of your emotions and that you are a normal functioning human being and therefore your reasoning applies to everyone. Is this statement correct? If not please correct it.

I don't know about you but when I look around the world these are not normal things that people claim. So making these claims and proclaiming them to be normal at the same time just doesn't wash. 

We can observe it but this does not mean we fully understand it. In fact the brain is one of the universes greatest mysteries and to believe you fully understand it's workings is plain wrong. 

For example, we can stimulate a fear response in someone's brain without them being consciously aware of the cause. This is done with an invisible, undetectable by the conscious mind, electromagnetic field. 

Yet you were caught speeding 3 times. Were you deliberately speeding, and thus consciously endangering yourself and others, or was it subconscious and occured while your consciousness was 'elsewhere'?

You have also hit people and no matter how you look at this it is an act of violence, even in self defense. Performing any act of violence, according to you, is a loss of self control. If you are being threatened then learn how to disable your opponent without risking their health.

What you seem to ignore is that brain chemistry, and your ability to control it, links directly to your environment and your physical well being. Your mind, body and environment are the 3 factors that drive behaviour, not one or the other. It is fine for you to say it is possible to control everything because you live, work and exist in an environment that allows you to do so. If I removed you from this environment and put you under extreme mental and physical duress eventually your willpower would fail and your mind would break. Everyone has a breaking point. Once this point has passed who is responsible for their actions? Why do we have laws regarding temporary insanity and diminished responsibility if this is not true? How can mental torture exist if we all can simply 'unthink' it? Even someone of sound mind and body can have temporary lapses in conscious control. 

So tell me, when you made the statement that all people can control all emotions in all situations (given a healthy mind and body) do you still stand by this? If you do, then please explain why you discount the fact that environmental factors play a huge role in our biochemistry and our ability to control it?

 

 

 

If you point out where you believe i have shifted a position i will point out where you have misinterpreted  my  belief or position.I KNOW i am consistent in my mind so there is some other problem  it may go to another question you have here.

Eg You confuse conscious and deliberate violence chosen for a purpose with violence caused by lack of control . I have said consistently that my problem is with people who lose control of their behaviors not just anger but others. Dealing with people who pla violence or crime is another issue and requires other  solutions  This debate is about the abilty of a human to be in conscious control of their emotions and thus their behaviours.  "Good" people do terrible things without meaning to, because the y loose control. This is different to choosing to do evil.

here is a sentence where you totally misundertsand me 

Performing any act of violence, according to you, is a loss of self control.

No.Quite the opposite. Violence can be used to serve ethical and rational purposes It is sometimes necessary or unavoidable  I explained that, ethically to me, overwhelming force is the correct response to  a real threat to myself or someone i love or am responsible for.  The difference lies in motivation I t is not moral to initiate violence for no reason it is perfectly ethical to use violence to negate a threat to an innocent person. if you have told a person to stop and that the y might be hurt if the y continue and the y continue then that is their choice and their consequence   The same applies to nation states 

Also I AM a normal functioning human  My ability to control my emotions and behaviours has little to do with god. i developed those skills myself as a young person when i was a secular humanist and atheist because i had a rational and reasonable reason to want to do so   My point here is that all normal functioning adults have the potential and abilty to control emotions and discipline their behaviours just as the y can all learn to wak talk and read.  There is nothing within us tha t prevents us form learning this abilty 

Taking your point about electro magnetic forces  if these cause a neurological fear response in people (which I have never experienced and thus cannot verify ) then the mind can be trained to know and recognise a fear response from any source even an unknown one and respond consciously by eliminating the fear .   I imagine this would be true for chemically induced fear responses as well. These would be harder to control than responses we subconsciously construct but the process would be the same  Take conscious control of the cognitive process and reroute the mind.

We are gaining a better  understanding of the brain all the time, and the mind is a product of the brain and of its own evolved self awareness and self direction  You dont need to know everything about a computer in order to operate one, and if you are the artificial intelligence within the computer then you already have some understanding of your connection to your host.

 I  have never claimed to be perfect or to have perfected this process of control.

Speeding  3 times in 50 years and  over 1.5 million kilometres of travel is acceptable for me . Once i was trying to get my elderly mother to a grand daughters wedding Once i was trying to get home in time for my own birthday party and once i was  not concentrating enough Now that we have cars with speed controls i just set them and there is no problem.

  Unlike some, i took responsibility for my own errors, thanked the police for their diligence, and in one case even went into the local office to commend the officers attitude and professionalism to his superiors.

I dont believe that external factors need override internal control. it is not my experience that this is true The mind has the capacity to override the body and when trained to do so, can do so, until the body physically fails 

And there is no evidence that under extreme danger or stress my will power breaks or my instincts take over. Exactly the opposite actually  In the face of death and danger, my mind speeds up and looks for strategies to escape it runs through environment, threats,  resources available,  outcomes of  different strategies etc  working out the optimal actions for me   I've faced imminent death  a surprising number of times and never once lost control of my mind or body .I will probably die sometime while my mind is still trying to save me   a human mind can do a lot of thinking in a few seconds and many dangers give you more time than that to respond to   

However you are correct in that the brain may physically deteriorate under extreme and prolonged conditions and thus the mind will also cease functioning effectively, and i covered this in my post. At that point the mind is no longer functioning   and all of my comments are in regard to a properly functioning mind.

Insanity by definition is a non functioning mind.

So yes given a healthy mind and body, functioning to its normal potential,  environment cannot  compel a mind.  Only when the environment causes the mind to become NON functioning does our ability to use conscious control cease to be effective

if your mind  and body are healthy and functioning properly then what do you see as having the power to  control you  so that you cannot exercise conscious control of your thoughts and behaviours  Not saying you always will do so because concentration and awareness of the moment is not always perfect,  but what would prevent you from doing so, if you consciously chose to?        

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

See.... This is a great example. Thanks for making my point.

Again, apologies if I offended.

No offence taken.

  I stand by the post and it is an open and honest assessment of my views about myself  Why would i be offended when you accept it as  typifying me. It does.

The difference is that i see this as a good thing eg  I see false humility as lying and misleading.  I know who, and what, i am, and it fits who and what i want to be,  and who and what i was raised to be. It has made me happy, successful, loved and  respected throughout my life, so why change because a few posters on a forum don't like it ? (my persona) 

My question would be; what is it about your own upbringing and your own values about character etc which cause you to see my stye as negative, and anything in that post as being negative or opposed to your own values and beliefs?

Do you actually see some specific virtue in humility? What is it, and how is it being honest?

How can people know who anyone truly is, if they  have a front, either of humility or bravado, designed to keep others  happy and make themsleves more likeable?. .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

MW, you are misrepresenting dementia on two levels one: it has nothing to do with a soul ( this is a religious projection) and two: it isn't diagnosed "by telling a person isn't a functioning adult because others restrict its ability to act independently."

At no time does a human lose their dignity, worth or value as a human no matter how sick they are according to dementia/Alzheimer's certification (which I hold ) along with the experience of caring for a person with early stages vascular and alcoholic dementia complicated by borderline personality disorder, yet my case was not the norm it had special circumstances. 

Dementia is an umbrella term used to diagnose symptoms depending on what type points to the parts of the brain affected and symptoms expressed ( cognitive impairment, reasoning, memory loss) for ex: vascular dementia affects cognitive functions and memory due to constricted blood vessels often caused by strokes or mini strokes over time, maybe even going under anesthesia repeatedly in a short period of time. Alzheimer's is the disease which is progressive over time where the person will loss all ability to control themselves, emotionally and otherwise, personality can change, they can become really difficult or nice, or stay the same, they are no longer ambulatory they won't even swallow or be able to understand how to go to the bathroom it is far beyond incontinence. 

You can't diagnose a person either, neither can I -- you can observe they have symptoms that are not the norm and then encourage them to get a diagnosis from a neuropsychologist, neurologist, or primary care physician. 

Forty years of teaching isn't saying much when you post your google summary as a fact. 

 

 

 

 

 There is no soul in a religious sense.  Humans construct the religious idea of a soul from  our awareness of ourselves,

  I have always explained that to, me the, human soul or spirit is a product of our consciousness it is what allows us conscience empathy love and hate   guilt etc  Thus humans DO have a real soul there is just no evidence that  it is immortal or transferable without advanced technologies 

And as usual yo misunderstand and misrepresent my comments  While a human being is always worthy of love and dignified treatment, clinically there is a time when a person (young or old) cannot be allowed independent action of body because their mind is no longer capable of safe and rational thought and action. Thus very young children and advanced dementia patients are treated similarly With love and dignity but with removal of authority and autonomy  for their own behaviours

And yes both academically and personally i am well aware of the different forms and stages of dementia including, specifically, alzheimer's You don't look after two people with advancing altzheimers  whom  you love deeply  all by yourselves  for 6 years without learning the theory and practice of all aspects of these conditions

The definition I gave was from the professionals and you can hear it from them in the field or read it in various papers.  it is used clinically to decide when a person can continue to live indlendenty alnd when they require either in home care or institutionalisation  We were not prepared  to put my parents in law in a home  and so cared for them  until they died.   before this happened there were a number of lengthy  assessment by a variety of professionals   both for our parents best interests and for our own legal protection For example we had complete power of attorney etc so we could make decisions about medical care  and access finances for them  This could only be done BECAUSE the y were clinically assessed as incapable of making their own decisions and living safely by themselves

The criteria for this assessment was,   were our parents able to live autonomously in safety, or not .  It was not based on specific medical conditions, but on practical observation of their mental state  and behaviours  eg if left alone would the y continue to eat  regularly, could they find their way back home if the y left it to go shopping  Could they  safely operate stoves or other  equipment .     

What google summary?     

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a subjective experience, faith, per se, is outside the boundaries of law enforcement. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

No, they are considered pre-meditated acts because the offender calculates and acts out with intent, therefore, they are conscious in nature. The comparison with primates or other animals is not relevant and this has been heavily debated in the past and you alone hold this position. there are instances of killing that are not premeditated and they are a minority and they are under different classifications. With rape and sexually abusing children, you would need to give citation that this is not a conscious and deliberate act as to date there have been no cases reported in courts that show otherwise.

Once again you have wandered off base and ignored what is said to you, the instance of traffic had nothing to do with killing anyone and yet you turn it into pure and absolute bs. When we walk down the street our senses make us aware of our surroundings without us having to focus on it that is our animal instinct and you know that this is what I am referring to. We don't have to train ourselves to be aware it is our nature although I can see an exception to the rule for some or better one individual, and yes that exception would be you based on past conversations about how you had to train yourself to do things that most of us are naturally born with.

 

This is not what you described in the post that I responded to and you are aware of this, I didn't say they were expert I said experienced, so I stand by my statement. Now you don't know if you were their first or last this is just you trying to keep face by changing your story to fit the rebuttal. If you were the first and had deterred them then they were not all that to start out with given that you had no experience and had been bullied and were fearful by your own admission. they chose you because you were known to be easy pickings because of your history in the neighbourhood. If you had faced them down then they wouldn't have gotten the rep they did and that you claimed here.

Of course, they can, that is how animal instinct works and why we as a species is here to debate it.:lol:

This is just more self-justification and may or may not be true, based on our discussions over the last 10 months I find it less than accurate and I have said that this is not a competition and that you should stick to the subject as this is not what the original discussion is about. as for the last part about home invasion hmm well you have said that you would with deliberation and pre-meditation kill someone which is saying too much in public and I have no doubt that you have expressed this many times in coffee shops or other conversations over the years so whether you said anything after the fact or not you have already established witnesses as to your nature and likely find to your surprise that you would be convicted of voluntary manslaughter which just proves my point about fiction fantasy and fact.

So if you would never admit it why should I believe your assertion that you wouldn't hurt someone.

We did have a discussion about early memory and you argued quite avidly that memories from that age were not possible so why should I accept your now revised position?

 

Walker, you have not responded to my question, do you want me to post pictures of my work and show me work of the same quality that you have personally done with reading books alone and no physical experience of I look forward to seeing how you can. And remember that I did clearly state that I have studied drafting and augmented myself with reading. If you do choose to show your work it should be as diverse as the pics that I provide from several different skills that I have gained over the years.

jmccr8

No point in responding to alt of this because your understanding of what is real and actual is so difernt to my own  

Yes humans are conscious of their behaviours AND the effects they have.  Other primates are not  OTHERWISE we would hold them to account a s we do humans    Thus the comparison is  directly relevant WHy is it rape or murder with a human and not with another primate? Because we made it so, for conscious and logical  reasons.

No an animal or a person cannot react prior to  detection of a threat.  They might have patterns of behaviour like birds and fish moving in groups and erratically but to respond to any environmental factor you must first be aware of it in some way.  That is the deiinitionof repsonse  

Premeditated murders assaults etc are in the minority in most jurisdictions Most occur because a person loses control of their behaviours    but i agree the law treats premeditated crimes differently and rightly so.

i disagree. While awareness of environment is always a useful instinct  the older instinctive responses to danger are not . Life in a city is not life on a savanna and life in the city requires a more intellectual and conscious response to dangers eg identifying them before they are encountered taking proactive measures,  visualising escape strategies, considering  optimal responses. You can't react to a mugger as you would to a tiger. And of course we trianoursleves to be aware of environment Instinct is too limited.

"observation, analysis, extrapolation (prediction)  and action  All things my dad taught me when hunting in the bush.   

I never changed my story i have answered a question you asked i simply don't know where i was in the pecking order and how many if, any, others the y beat up.  Neither do i know or could know then how experienced they were More than me for sure as the y went straight for my face while i was hitting them in the body.  One complication was that one of them was the son of my father's boss and i was always worried what might happen if my father found out what had happened  

I was answering a specific query from you when i provided the extra detail.

it is really irrelevant what you believe but you wont understand me unless you accept that i ALWAYS tell the truth about myself as best as i can know it.

You can go back 14 years over my posts and see i have told these stories of my childhood before. They are not suddenly inserted here to add to this debate They helped form who and what i am as a person and even why my avatar is what it is.

why assume i remember reading aged 2   I dont really.  My parents and grandparents told me ( and anyone who would listen)  how i picked up reading by watching the words as they  read to me every night before bed. i was reading simple sentences by the age of two  In my twos i was reading simple children's books unassisted.  And by  the age of 5 i was reading the daily paper and teenage books .

Not sure what pictures you would mean but I have very few pictures surviving, of myself       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.