Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Game Design & Concepts » Stop designing games! Or you will be a criminals.

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Stop designing games! Or you will be a criminals.
Mandrake Root Produc
Member #300
April 2000

Quote:

I think you have been misinformed about communism.

Being an ex-registered member of the American Communist Party, I think I would disagree to that.

Quote:

The "communal societies" would trade with resources and products.

Name once where this had worked. Most countries want to exchange money for such things. A communist society can't trade with a global economy that's based on capitilism without resorting to using money. You can't just say "I'll give you x amount of grain for your x amount of oil". And that's assuming that a communist government would produce anything a capitilist society would want or need that they couldn't get from somewhere else without the hassels of dealing with said government.

Quote:

The government would have $100 USD (heh, hopefully more). When they need to import a foreign product, the money can be used to pay for it. Internally, there's some sort of credit system to give "money" to people to buy unneccessary items (the idea is that the government keeps productive people alive. A happy worker is a productive worker; Give the worker "credits" ("money") to pay for entertainment, more food, etc.)

This didn't work for any of the Communes in the US in the 60's and 70's. Why would it work in a large scale government today? Also- by replacing money with credits you still have the spirit of money and exchange. What about each according to his needs? There is no need for entertainment. And why would he have to pay for it, with credits or anything else? Shouldn't it be free as in beer? Shouldn't his clothes and his hospital bills and his food all be provided by the state? Shouldn't he own only government provided shoes and combs, created by government approved workhouses? There wouldn't be any stores in a true communist society. They would go stand in line at the local Ministry of Shoes, fill out the paperwork for a new shoe request and then have the shoes delivered to him.

How would they be able to export anything like this? Or import?

Quote:

The failed attempts at communism? Do take a look at the other factors involved with each attempt.

But there has been NO successful attempt at Communism on a large scale, and only a handful on a small scale (usually tribal or nomadic communities). In fact, looking at the history of the world and societal as well as civilization, Marx had it backwards. Communism is not the last step on the evolutionary ladder of commerce, Capitilism is. If you look at it from a Darwinist perspective (which he did).

There have been lots of successful attempts at Democracy. Going from a perspective of what works it seems that Communism is just another Failed Utopian extreme. In the end, Communism was much more of an opiate for the masses than religion ever was.

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Tobias said:

I'm not. But it is the main factor in capitalist and capitalistoid
(that a word?) societies like ours. Everybody, however, no matter what kind of
society they live in, relies on a basic supply of resources (food, shelter, your
basic needs really), and most people try to make their lives as 'easy' and
'comfortable' as possible, which generally requires more resources. Capitalism
takes this general observation and generalizes it to 'more goods == more
happiness', which implies 'money == goods == happiness', which in turn leads to
the assumption that anything can be expressed as a sum of money.

Yes. You can see the problem, obviously.. it's based off of everybody's happiness. Different people are pleased differently, it's a basic fact. Pleasing ourselves should not be our main goal in life. (Although happiness is important: see sig.)

Quote:

This is another reason why self-regulating communal or communist systems only
work for small groups: the larger the group, the greater the chances are that
there is at least one E-type member.

That's why you should "filter" the incomming people to understand and learn more
about the philosophies behind everything. If they don't understand why it's a communist system, then they shouldn't be let in. (In this instance, my assumption that there are valid reasons, is correct. But I welcome some debates within the issue some other time.)

Quote:

We need to find a balance of the good things in capitalism (innovation,
general wealth) and the bad things (above problems). This is IMO closely
intertwined with democracy in theory and practise.

Yeah, we shouldn't just throw other ideas out the window. ;)

Quote:

Now that I'm on the subject, the study of this field is the branch of
mathematics called `game theory'. Does anyone know any good books on the
subject? I've looked around a bit and what I could find was for the most part
too... erhm... non-technical, if you see what I mean.

No, I don't know any books, but I know a few people that might. I'll have to
remember to ask for you.

Quote:

Yeah, but my point is: Unlike most other entities, humans have the
ability to evaluate their own behaviour (like we just did).

:)
And Calxism is a way to logically generate (completley?) "correct" human behavior.
(These posts have been a shameless plug for an ideology I've recently been introduced to. ;))

Quote:

Communism, in theory, is a beautiful solution. Unfortunately, it requires
each and every member of such a society to be a true communist ("type S
farmer").

And what if it made sense, i.e. could be logically proven, to be a "type
S farmer"? I don't mean just about communism, but any other system that required all members to share the same viewpoints. Those who reject the system wouldn't be allowed in as a citizen (but other ways to get in, i.e. as a contract worker,
could possibly exist).

Quote:

In reality, so-called communist systems have found the need to establish
rather harsh control mechanisms to ensure everybody is a "true communist".
Ironically, this always results in a totalitarian system, the perfect opposite
of communism

Was that a "so-called communist system", or an actual communist system you were reffering to? :)

Quote:

A monarchy (or dictatorship) is a similar solution; if the sovereign is a
social thinker and doesn't take more than he needs, yet carefully guards the
equilibrum by spreading the resources evenly, the system works.

The problem is (1) determining if the "leader" is completley a social thinker, and (2) getting a second leader who is also a social thinker. Among many others.

Quote:

So there's no perfect solution, really.

Not yet; Let us not let that limit us.

Quote:

Being an ex-registered member of the American Communist Party, I think I would disagree to that.

Hm. I disagree? :P (Why'd you stop participating?)

Quote:

What about each according to his needs?

I'll get back to you about this.

Quote:

There is no need for entertainment.

Some people need to be ammused to remain happy. Some.

Quote:

If you look at it from a Darwinist perspective (which he did).

From the viewpoint of "evolution"? We have evolved through intelligence - there's no excuse for us to keep ignoring intelligence, in place for emotional values, when creating a government system.. happiness just doesn't sound like the goal to life. (Your happiness doesn't insure your family's, community's, or (entire) community's happiness.)

Quote:

There have been lots of successful attempts at Democracy. Going from a
perspective of *what works* it seems that Communism is just another Failed
Utopian extreme. In the end, Communism was much more of an opiate for the masses
than religion ever was.

(Sorry to slaughter your text with markup. ;))
Realize that "what works" isn't the best. Just because it works does not mean we
shouldn't attempt to improve upon it or quest for another system. Also, Communism (reffering to Marx), is not what I'm talking about. I hope I'm not, at least. From what I know, it's not a very good system at all.. But still. The ideas of communism, i.e. communal societies, should not be ignored. I hope you agree with me on this one.

Oh boy.

Mandrake Root Produc
Member #300
April 2000

Quote:

From the viewpoint of "evolution"? We have evolved through intelligence

No, from the concept that society evolves like biology. Not our evolution, but the evolution of our society. Have you read Marx?

Quote:

- there's no excuse for us to keep ignoring intelligence, in place for emotional values, when creating a government system.. happiness just doesn't sound like the goal to life. (Your happiness doesn't insure your family's, community's, or (entire) community's happiness.)

And I would rather have my eyes ripped out than be forced to consider the happiness of an entire community above my own. Making choices towards the perceptive happiness of a majority has always proven to lower the quality of life and happiness of that majority.

Quote:

Some people need to be ammused to remain happy. Some.

But not all. You are now looking at the happiness of the individual, which you say shouldn't matter when desiging a government.

Quote:

(Why'd you stop participating?)

Because Communism is a false hope. Because I looked at Communism with a logical eye, rather than one as a twenty something easily influenced by inflammatory manifestos that are written to incite revolution, and saw it wanting. I also saw it as something I wanted no part of.

[edit]

Quote:

The ideas of communism, i.e. communal societies, should not be ignored. I hope you agree with me on this one.

No, actually I don't. Communal societies are throwback to a primitive era. You might as well suggest that we ditch modern medicine in favor of shamanism. Democracy is the evolution of society, and when properly created (with the ability to evolve itself) it can keep moving and keep evolving to fit the needs of a large society.

Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
avatar

Quote:

Was that a "so-called communist system", or an actual communist system you were reffering to? :)

I haven't yet heard of a communist system that would remain stable on a large scale without becoming a dictatorship.
Cuba is officially a communist country, yet some have such a lot more power and wealth than most, that it is de facto a dictatorship. Same goes for all other recent attempts at communism on a larger (read: state) scale (that is, all attempts since the word "communism" was invented). China? Totalitarian. Cuba? Dictatorship. Sovjet Superstate? Totalitarian and corrupt.

---
Me make music: Triofobie
---
"We need Tobias and his awesome trombone, too." - Johan Halmén

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Quote:

No, from the concept that society evolves like biology. Not our evolution, but the evolution of our society. Have you read Marx?

Nay.

Quote:

And I would rather have my eyes ripped out than be forced to consider the happiness of an entire community above my own.

Good, you're obviously not Christian. ;D
The idea is that you wouldn't be forced but would think that it would be the correct thing to do. Then again, this is out of context.. in which situation are you considering the "happiness of the entire community" above your own? But then again, the happiness of an entire community should have no effect - happiness isn't the goal to life... so I don't think you would need to consider it unless somebody has come to you requesting that you stop doing something causing displeasure, i.e. beating them up (heh).

Quote:

I haven't yet heard of a communist system that would remain stable on a large scale without becoming a dictatorship.

Ouch... maybe the communist systems need to stay small and individual? A hundred or two people per commune, all working in a Peer-To-Peer like system?

Mandrake Root Produc
Member #300
April 2000

Quote:

The idea is that you wouldn't be forced but would think that it would be the correct thing to do.

And why, praytell, would I think that without being forced to? If I don't think like that currently, how would you change my mind without forcing your thoughts on mine? Giving me a logical arguement that can't be reputed is a form of force. Changing someone's mind to follow your own way of thinking is a form of force, no matter how you help them see the light. I'm certain most christians don't think they are forcing their gospels upon people, but instead helping them by providing them logic that any reasonable human being will see as being right and true.

BTW, according to google, wikipedia, amazon and every book store I've been trying to get a hold of, Calxism doesn't exist. Is that spelled correctly?

Sepiroth
Member #5,846
May 2005
avatar

Claxism?

Mandrake Root Produc
Member #300
April 2000

/me points at Kanzure's sig

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Quote:

BTW, according to google, wikipedia, amazon and every book store I've been trying to get a hold of, Calxism doesn't exist. Is that spelled correctly?

Yes, it is. I'll e-mail or PM you a link to a PDF "pamphlet". A book is in progress.

Quote:

Giving me a logical arguement that can't be reputed is a form of force.

I suppose it is. I don't like arguments, I prefer debates. ;)

Quote:

And why, praytell, would I think that without being forced to?

Because these topics have something to do with you. Your obviously interested and not just saying "that's a load of hogwash". Surely you could come to a point where you can derive the reasons willingly, instead of through forceful methods (arguments). :)

Plucky
Member #1,346
May 2001
avatar

Quote:

But if there is only one single type E farmer, then the whole system is bound to collapse; there will be more sheep than the grounds can handle, therefor everybody's profit will decrease. At a certain point, the S-farmers' profit will drop below the minimum they need to survive, forcing them to act as E farmers as well. Of course, this will only make the problem worse, and at some point, there will be farmers who cannot survive on their flock. Those farmers will either starve, or leave the town or otherwise disappear from the scene (bankrupt). In effect, wealth is automatically spread unequally, up to the point that there are only one or two farmers left. Only then can the system regain stability, but the outcome is an absolute monopoly, and chances are resources are exhausted before this stadium is reached.
This is another reason why self-regulating communal or communist systems only work for small groups: the larger the group, the greater the chances are that there is at least one E-type member.
Which leads me to the following conclusions:
- Free market is not the answer, but the problem.
- We need sort of a limit to personal income / wealth, say, 500x the average salary (sic!)

Your conclusion that the free market is the problem doesn't follow: you start with a society of Social thinkers. The conclusion that "Social thinking" is to blame actually makes more sense. Instead, start with a society of Egoists with (or without) perfect actions and see where that leads.

Furthermore, the comment about the probability of the presence of an E-type member strengthens the argument that a free market is more the answer rather than the problem.

Again, the conclusion about the need to limit personal income/wealth seem to be founded on the assumption that we start out with an S-type society and that E-types operate perfectly. Sort of a logical fallacy here.

[edit]

Quote:

Doing so, we can draw the conclusion that our "normal" behaviour is undesirable in the long run, and that in order to achieve a stable system, we must establish some sort of control mechanism to prevent the unstable scenario described above. Democracy has failed to do so, although I'm unsure whether this has happened because immanent flaws of the general idea of Democracy, or whether it's because of the bad implementations and / or practical problems.

By "stable system", you seem to be referring to an S-society. Why can't an E-society be stable? Perhaps in an E-society, democracy has been successful in maintaining stability. Perhaps this is why democracy and free market economies tend to be linked.

Mandrake Root Produc
Member #300
April 2000

Quote:

Because these topics have something to do with you. Your obviously interested and not just saying "that's a load of hogwash". Surely you could come to a point where you can derive the reasons willingly, instead of through forceful methods (arguments).

Ah, but what if I don’t come to those reasons willingly? You don’t need to argue to convince people of anything. A well planned debate can eventually corrode a less willful person into agreeing with anything. People, by nature wish to agree with people they like, and can be easily persuaded to do things that they would not normally do simply to make somebody else happy.

This is still force. If you have an agenda it is a form force, whether subversive or not.

Dustin Dettmer
Member #3,935
October 2003
avatar

Kanzure said:

For Microsoft, it was a scheme - apparently when they sold their first OS for a computer manufacturer they didn't actually have the OS made. :P

There was no 'scheme'. They were the middle man. This sort of thing happens all the time. They were in the right place at the right time. This has nothing to do with ridiculous patents.

As a side note this OS was DOS.

Nezic
Member #3,389
March 2003

This post doesn't exactly follow the flow of this thread, since I started writing it last night but got too tired to finish, but I figured I went to all this damn work, so I'll post anyway ;).

Also, sorry for the length, but I think it's an important topic. (but I think I'm now burnt out on making this kind of post for a while)

------------------------------------

The main problem with communism(and why it can't work, in my opinion) is that the farther away from small bands of people living together and the more interconnected society becomes(modern times is a pretty good example of this), the less people are able to keep track of everyone's relative contribution to the group.

To set up the issue, think of two caveman families living together long, long ago. The point of living together would be that both families can benefit mutually working together and achiving more than they could on their own(a non-zero-sum game: basically, when more total 'worth' can be generated with multiple people working together than can be if each act individually). For a simple example, we'll say that working together they can take down bigger animals(more food) than they could alone. Of course, they still do work that could otherwise be done individually, such as forage for food, hunt small game, make tools, etc.

Now imagine the temptation for a family to do one of two things:

1. slack off in their share of the work (we'll say foraging for food), or

2. still forage and hunt small game, but keep some of it hidden from the other family so their own children have more to eat.

This deceitful family still takes their share of the 'communal' food that the other family brings in, but doesn't contribute as much as the other family, which shares equally. Mankind has evolved a pretty good ability to detect when others don't contribute to a supposedly joint endeavor in order to avoid being exploited by this kind of dishonesty. Just think about all the gossip that goes on in modern workplaces about who does or doesn't do what(I've sure seen it).

Fast forward from our cavemen to a more complex culture with lots more people. The natural cheater-detection of people is now much less effective because of the disconnected nature and increased complexity of society, and the specialization of 'job tasks'(baker, programmer, spot welder, car dealer, financier, political analyst, city planner...lots of 'em). Basically the non-zero-sum game of human interaction/cooperation is MUCH more complicated. People never see or know the vast majority of other people involved in the functioning of their socieity, let alone see if someone is cheating the various non-zero-sum aspects of the social system.

Communism makes this natural problem worse by complicating the value of and distribution of goods and services, and putting it totally under central control. The value of goods and services and compensation for work done would be set somewhat arbitrarily by the government and not reflect the eb and flow of the 'real' worth of things as they shift between scarcity and over-abundence or obsolescence(If your skills are in an area that is becoming obsolete, you're going to raise hell to make the govnerment think that it ISN'T obsolete). The control mechanisms in government to adjust and measure the worth of everything would be determined by people who wouldn't have a true feel for the cost of things, or worse, would have a vested interest in getting the value of something raised or lower. And over time, those relatively few positions in the government that have this control over value will learn(or decide) they can exploit the system for their own benefit, or those positions are specifically sought by those who can benefit from holding them. Basically, think organized crime a la Soviet Union

Obviously other forms of economics and government (ie. the united states) aren't immune to these problems either, as they are inherent in any non-zero-sum system. However, Communism/Socialism institutionalizes these problems into the government much more than a democratic/capitalistic system does, which lets people generally control value in a non-centralized way with their own money generated by their own effort.

Think of it this way. Say one of our caveman families IS cheating the other. It may even get to the point where the other family would have been better off if they'd never even lived with the first one to begin with (imagine the freeloading family eating the winter stores of food rather than adding to them). Faced with this kind of situation where the other isn't just 'not contributing', but is actually hurting the honest family, they(the honest ones) could threaten (with violence, say) the freeloaders, or just not live with them anymore.

Today, however, neither are an option. You can't just 'not be apart of' society if you feel that you are getting less than you put in (making it not worth playing the overall non-zero-zum game), and violence isn't an option (unless you're overthrowing the communist system keeping you down ;) ). This is where a system of private ownership is better. Being able to own your own property and choose the best deals offered provides a hedge against people cheating the system.

At the end of the day, everyone is opportunistic in how they deal with society. Any given person has the prepensity to both work with others and try to cheat others (or just get a larger share of the surplus generated by working together with others).

My examples were kind of rough, in particular I didn't really give much of an example of how the total production of two or more people working together can be greater than if each worked individually. But I hope I still got my points across. Also, I've tried to avoid going off into tangents dealing with other aspects of evolutionary psychology--its a pretty complicated topic and I'd do a horrible job explaining much of it :P.

[edit] Oh yeah, wanted to comment that I agree very much with your posts Mandrake.

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Quote:

the less people are able to keep track of everyone's relative contribution to the group.

And thus the horror movies of the societies that keep track of a citizen's every movement. ;D

Quote:

To set up the issue, think of two caveman families living together long, long ago.

Hm.. on a different note, think about what they were capable of doing at that time. They were to pursue their emotional values. We obviously have a lot more options these days, and that does not mean we should follow our primal-instinct. (Be happy all the time, retire early, etc. Whatever. ;))

Quote:

Being able to own your own property and choose the best deals offered provides a hedge against people cheating the system.

I think we could be better off not having to worry about people cheating the system. (And now to make sure only "good" people get into it.. :))

Quote:

Also, I've tried to avoid going off into tangents dealing with other aspects of evolutionary psychology--its a pretty complicated topic and I'd do a horrible job explaining much of it :P.

Are you sure you understand it? I find that I don't completley understand something until I'm able to explain it to others.

Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
avatar

Bryan Bishop said:

And Calxism is a way to logically generate (completley?) "correct" human behavior.
(These posts have been a shameless plug for an ideology I've recently been introduced to.)

Oh Bryan.:'( I just hope you're not being(or already have been) brain washed by some sort of scientology-like organization.
Watch out, be careful and DON'T BELIEVE in ANYTHING THEY TELL YOU.
It will of course all sound logical, reasonable and stuff, but in the end you will be totally burned out, since no human and i mean that: NO human can be satisfied by emulating a machine ordered to behave "correctly".

Bryan Bishop said:

And thus the horror movies of the societies that keep track of a citizen's every movement.;D

If "calxism" is supposed to "logically generate completely correct human behaviour"...then it has to keep track of every citizen's every movement. This is logical. Think about it. You can only calculate, logically derive anything if you're keeping track of all the variables(people in this case) involved in the model as a whole.

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Myself said:

Oh boy.

;)

Quote:

If "calxism" is supposed to "logically generate completely correct human behaviour".

Which it isn't; My hasty descriptions are flawed. Besides, an ideology can't generate nothin'. ;)

Quote:

NO human can be satisfied by emulating a machine ordered to behave "correctly".

Hm, that's a good point: Some people gain satisfaction from their behavior. Interesting. You have to admit that there are behaviors that are good and bad.

Let's get an example going. In this example, the reader (hereforth "you"), has a goal: survive with little to no risk. There is a man with a gun in his hand and points it at you, how about point blank range. And uh, you're tied up to a chair. He asks, "If you say yes, will I still shoot you?". You have to answer either yes or no. The logical solution is to say "no", even though you don't know the outcome of either answer.

When I said "completley correct", I was reffering to choosing the best solution/choice in a situation based on goals guiding the person through life. (Get a house, stay living, etc - but these are too simple of examples.)

Quote:

Watch out, be careful and DON'T BELIEVE in ANYTHING THEY TELL YOU.

I don't "believe in `it`".

Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
avatar

Completely correct human behaviour is only a Point of View I'm afraid. All theories that try to force humans into an ideal model will fail because every person is different.

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Phipps, you have been forced into your society. ;)
You were born, you were taught the language, you were told not to do this and that. Et cetera.
Unless you weren't born and moved on your own decision.
Besides, theories can't force anything. They can provide answers and solutions (that should be tested / examined / etc).

I'm not trying to define current human behaivor. Calxism attempts to define the most appropriate human behaivor, and applying it best that we can to humans.

Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
avatar

Our societies don't try to force only 'correct' action. They allow a broad amount of actions, but even with this many people commit crimes against our societies.

I'm just concerned that you think people can be made 'perfect'. :)

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Quote:

All theories that try to force humans into an ideal model will fail because every person is different.

Quote:

Our societies don't try to force only 'correct' action.

Explain social moores then. Eh?
People conform. People being different has no bearing on the "ideal model" at all. (The ideal model being the one I'm talking about.) We all have the same basic needs - shelter, food, etc. People being different won't change the fact that they need those things.

Quote:

I'm just concerned that you think people can be made 'perfect'. :)

People aren't made, they are grown.

Stop the 'perfect' nonsense. Forget I said 'perfect', ever.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Quote:

And I would rather have my eyes ripped out than be forced to consider the happiness of an entire community above my own.
Good, you're obviously not Christian.

Please don't say things like that. I used to say stupid things like that, and I regret that I can never go back and change what I said.

Quote:

Our societies don't try to force only 'correct' action. They allow a broad amount of actions, but even with this many people commit crimes against our societies.

So they're still dictating what you can and cannot do, therefor telling you the "correct" action.

Quote:

Our societies don't try to force only 'correct' action. They allow a broad amount of actions, but even with this many people commit crimes against our societies.

I'm curious; how can there be crimes in a society that doesn't believe in wrong? Sure, harming another could be considered a wrong, but what if the current society (of an imaginary country) sees it as alright? If you're the one being harmed, you might see it otherwise. But which one is "right" in this case?

That's a thinker (for me) and I look forward to your answer. :)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Quote:

Please don't say things like that. I used to say stupid things like that, and I regret that I can never go back and change what I said.

I meant it in the interest of this conversation/debate. If he was, I'd not bother going on - I've had too many failures explaining these things to Christians in the first place. I'm not going to bother wasting my time. I have things, you know, to do. :P

Quote:

therefor telling you the "correct" action.

(Well, it's actually telling you which actions are not correct, .. but still. ;))

Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
avatar

Chris Katko said:
Quote:

Our societies don't try to force only 'correct' action. They allow a broad amount of actions, but even with this many people commit crimes against our societies.

So they're still dictating what you can and cannot do, therefor telling you the "correct" action.

Everyone has done something illegal at one point. Whether they know it or not, or whether they got caught or not doesn't matter. Therefore, society does not force you to do anything, as people can go against society's rules and still be a part of society. You merely get "corrected" if you're caught (with such correction being no gaurantee that you won't repeat the offending behavior).

People are generally pack animals. They will usually attempt to follow societal standards as it gives them the greatest chance of survival. But humans aren't perfect. Everyone has their own distinct flaws.

--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

Kanzure
Member #3,669
July 2003
avatar

Realize it's not just about what's illegal and legal. Think about the behaivor of the society. What's legal and illegal is a different matter (although close). How do the people view work? Why do some not contribute? Et cetera.

Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
avatar

Bryan Bishop said:

You have to admit that there are behaviors that are good and bad.

I don't have to but i agree. But "good" and "bad" is relative to the point of view.
Simple(even silly) example(i hate making simple examples, as they don't prove anything but this thread is so crowded with simple examples that one more will probably not do any harm):
Starving-man approaches a man with a backpack full of food. Food-man refuses to give any food to starving-man(for whatever reason). Starving-man knocks down food-man, grabs food and runs away. Good behaviour for starving-man(can satisfy a basic need) but bad behaviour of starving-man from the point of view of food-man(probably injured badly, dead in the worst case).

Chris Katko said:

I'm curious; how can there be crimes in a society that doesn't believe in wrong? Sure, harming another could be considered a wrong, but what if the current society (of an imaginary country) sees it as alright? If you're the one being harmed, you might see it otherwise. But which one is "right" in this case?

"right" is always the opposite of "left" per definition of left and right:P
talking, seriously: Humans are gregarious animal(i'm not sure whether my dictionary gets this word right, its supposed to be an animal that lives in herds) they tend to follow the "force of the mass", whatever the majority does, seems right to them and they will follow that behaviour. (Of course you can voluntarily choose to refuse doing what everyone else does, if you know about that, but the "average JimBeam" is not making himself a head on these things.) So if you get beaten up in that "imaginary" society where no one cares::);) it is just right and deserves you well if you don't strike back:-X

Summing these two comments up, leads to the conclusion, people all over the world, every now and then again have drawn and will draw again over and over again:
Everything is relative and everything which is not is merely a question of definition.



Go to: