The greatest speech ever

[Feelings]

And you are content with this, it doesn't bother you in any way.....why take the time to destroy something as you did , when you can build from it? I guess thats the thinker in you...

What the fucking shit are you talking about? What kind of rhetorical garbage.... what the hell did I 'destroy'? Why are you even viewing my words as a dichotomy between "destroying" and "building"? That frame doesn't even make any sense, and it's rhetorical. So anytime I'm saying anything negative I'm destroying something? Sorry I didn't say nice things, I know you didn't like that, but that doesn't mean you have to vilify what I've said with your rhetoric. It's manipulative and unfair for you to do that.

I never said I was content with human nature. Holy shit do you ever put words in my mouth. I guess that's the "with us or against us" feeler attitude in you. Can't just discuss something without getting personal about it.

 

[Feelings]

Well, if this is something that is against a part of human nature then why are you trying to change it? If your goal is to try and rid humanity of greed then good luck to you because that's a part of the human condition.

Everybody's interests are all equally as important so lets hold of on deciding what's best for others.

People can behave a lot better with proper programming (aka culture).

 

[Feelings]

@Out To Lunch

I agree. There was hardly any substance. The speech was all feeling.
Not only does he contradict himself, but there are logical fallacies in his message, of itself. Humans are merely another species of life on this planet. It is the nature of life to fight, prey on, exterminate and feed on other living beings for its own survival. To say that men, somehow, are left out of the loop that is the very nature of life, is to say that men are above nature. We have not transcended nature, or its laws.

Apparently it's a joke. Boy do I feel like an idiot.

 

[subwayrider]

[MENTION=1798]Out To Lunch[/MENTION]
Well, the only reason I said what I said is because I first saw the video used on the live streaming for my city's Occupy movement. So, on their website, it was meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Forensic1104]

Greed is not part of human nature , it is a learned behavoir, and there for a changable behavoir. A child knows nothing of greed untill he or she sees it through observation of their enviroment. How is it that we can have people who dedicate their lives to giving to those around them if greed is apart of our their nature? There are those who have been shown that greed is acceptable, get what you can when you can and to hell with every one else. If I can change the preceptions of just one person , then I have made a difference that could affect many more over time, and while it may not be an instant change atleast I am striving to better the world and those around me. If we continue to accept the false hood that we are greedy by nature then we shall never improve as a speices.

 

[Forensic1104]

You saw something that you disagreed with and took it apart piece by piece, devaluing it, to justify your feelings on the clip. What did this accomplish? Did the thought or emotion that others or I may have found in connection with the clip even enter in to your choice to dissect the clip and title it as “words that don't seem to really say or mean anything.” Maybe those words have no meaning to you, and you may find them pointless and ignorant, but I do not. I find value in them, and while I can understand your view on the issue as logical and analytical, sometimes I find a connection with the illogical, especially if it creates an emotion.

In addition, if I implied that “anytime” anything negative is presented by you, that you are destroying something, that was not my intentions. A criticism is a criticism, some people choose to express them positively and some choose to express them negatively, either way it is what it is and the method of delivery does not change the purpose of the criticism. There were many things that you said in your dissection that I saw as highly logical and justifiable, but that does not mean I have to like the method of your delivery, I did not find what you said constructive in any way, but that is just my personal “feelings” on your approach. I respect your choice and will not continue this debate any further as I can tell from your use of profanity that I am frustrating you, and for that, I apologize.

 

[Forensic1104]

[video]http://www.5min.com/Video/What-Makes-Us-Different-from-Other-Species-27296671[/video]

 

[Forensic1104]

I'd disagree, the nature of people is selfishness, a child doesn't comprehend the concept of greed, they don't understand social, internal, or ethical boundaries, they learn them, if they're not taught, or acquire discipline of their urges(which even adults find difficult), then they may fall victims of greed.

There is a difference between the concepts of “need” and “greed” If we define the personality through Maslow’s tier then we are in a position of needing the specific requirement. We need food for survival, we need compassion, we need self-esteem, and we need morality. What this teaches us is that if strip away the influence of environment, a human who is considered a blank slate will seek out the items listed in this tear in order, until self-actualization is achieved. At which point all desired needs are meet and until one of the needs is challenged or removed the human will experience contentment. Greed challenges this concept by creating a false sense of need for items that are not essential to survival or to promote oneself through the tier. However, this debate has been going on for years. Are we born a blank slate that is influenced by our environment and genetics or are born with a specific predisposition towards a specific personality? But you have a solid case and will many who agree with your view.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Greed is not part of human nature , it is a learned behavoir, and there for a changable behavoir. A child knows nothing of greed untill he or she sees it through observation of their enviroment. How is it that we can have people who dedicate their lives to giving to those around them if greed is apart of our their nature?. . .If we continue to accept the false hood that we are greedy by nature then we shall never improve as a speices.

1. We are programmed to avoid death by accumulating the necessary resources. We had to collect more food than the next guy before it was all gone in winter to bring back to the cave so the tribe/family would live. This is a form of greed, even if it benefits others in some way. More information here, if you are not familiar with the concept of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

2. A child, by default, wants comfort, warmth, food, etc. regardless of its environment. Is this not a form of greed? The child wants what it wants without considering what it might cost its caregivers. Again, survival impulse and biological imperative. Humans are greedy. That is not intrinsically bad: it creates competition (thus, room for improvement), leads us to innovate, upgrade undesirable situations, and make our lives better.

3. People can give because it makes them feel valued, hence gift-giving at birthdays and holidays (said tongue-in-cheek). This self-pleasing behavior is hardly altruistic yet it does not necessarily damage anyone or anything.

4. It is entirely possible to advance as a greedy species, or no one would be here now. Greed is a necessary "evil" because it creates competition that drives change and potentially improvement (see points 1 and 2). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people choose to pursue self-gain without considering their effect on others.

Need creates greed; this seems to be compounded upon in America, as an example. Not all things desired are needed. Being able to tell the difference is a skill worth learning, yes?

 

[Forensic1104]

1. We are programmed to avoid death by accumulating the necessary resources. We had to collect more food than the next guy before it was all gone in winter to bring back to the cave so the tribe/family would live. This is a form of greed, even if it benefits others in some way. More information here, if you are not familiar with the concept of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

2. A child, by default, wants comfort, warmth, food, etc. regardless of its environment. Is this not a form of greed? The child wants what it wants without considering what it might cost its caregivers. Again, survival impulse and biological imperative. Humans are greedy. That is not intrinsically bad: it creates competition (thus, room for improvement), leads us to innovate, upgrade undesirable situations, and make our lives better.

3. People can give because it makes them feel valued, hence gift-giving at birthdays and holidays (said tongue-in-cheek). This self-pleasing behavior is hardly altruistic yet it does not necessarily damage anyone or anything.

4. It is entirely possible to advance as a greedy species, or no one would be here now. Greed is a necessary "evil" because it creates competition that drives change and potentially improvement (see points 1 and 2). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people choose to pursue self-gain without considering their effect on others.

Need creates greed; this seems to be compounded upon in America, as an example. Not all things desired are needed. Being able to tell the difference is a skill worth learning, yes?

I am familiar with Darwin, but our need to survive cannot be placed in the same category as greed. First, we must define greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. Two men fighting over survival is not greed, but rather the need to survive. A child does not simply want food and comfort, it requires it for survival, and it needs it. A baby does not eat more than it needs; it consumes until it is full and then returns to a state of contentment. I would say that the spirit of competition is not always formed from greed, it can be formed from ones sense of self-determination, which is one of the basic motivational theories, we strive to better ourselves out of a sense of purpose and self-gratification. While some may attach the word greed to the desire to achieve more than another, I think many would suggest that the true nature of competition is to achieve a title of recognition as performing at a standard of excellence beyond the rest of the competition. The point of self-pleasuring I will concede on, but it must be clarified that self-gratification without the acquirement of a tangible object, is different from the self-gratification from acquiring the tangible. Greed is often defined as the need to acquire physical possession, but can be turned into an emotional greed, but this is often viewed as an abnormal behavior, and abnormal behavior is not a part of the ethics of nature, where in, what is natural is good.

 

[Kgal]

ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2011) — A new study presents the first evidence that a basic sense of fairness and altruism appears in infancy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm



ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208155309.htm


Be well.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm

 

[bickelz]

People can behave a lot better with proper programming (aka culture).

True but with things like greed, it only takes one bad egg to spoil the whole basket.

 

[bickelz]

There is a difference between the concepts of “need” and “greed” If we define the personality through Maslow’s tier then we are in a position of needing the specific requirement. We need food for survival, we need compassion, we need self-esteem, and we need morality. What this teaches us is that if strip away the influence of environment, a human who is considered a blank slate will seek out the items listed in this tear in order, until self-actualization is achieved. At which point all desired needs are meet and until one of the needs is challenged or removed the human will experience contentment.

You're going to rely on humanity reaching self-actualization?

I am familiar with Darwin, but our need to survive cannot be placed in the same category as greed. First, we must define greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. Two men fighting over survival is not greed, but rather the need to survive. A child does not simply want food and comfort, it requires it for survival, and it needs it. A baby does not eat more than it needs; it consumes until it is full and then returns to a state of contentment. .

Fat baby says otherwise. And so does the waistline of the US and UK.

 

[Radiantshadow]

I am familiar with Darwin, but our need to survive cannot be placed in the same category as greed. First, we must define greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. Two men fighting over survival is not greed, but rather the need to survive. A child does not simply want food and comfort, it requires it for survival, and it needs it. A baby does not eat more than it needs; it consumes until it is full and then returns to a state of contentment. I would say that the spirit of competition is not always formed from greed, it can be formed from ones sense of self-determination, which is one of the basic motivational theories, we strive to better ourselves out of a sense of purpose and self-gratification. While some may attach the word greed to the desire to achieve more than another, I think many would suggest that the true nature of competition is to achieve a title of recognition as performing at a standard of excellence beyond the rest of the competition. The point of self-pleasuring I will concede on, but it must be clarified that self-gratification without the acquirement of a tangible object, is different from the self-gratification from acquiring the tangible. Greed is often defined as the need to acquire physical possession, but can be turned into an emotional greed, but this is often viewed as an abnormal behavior, and abnormal behavior is not a part of the ethics of nature, where in, what is natural is good.

(Points of agreement are bolded)

Edit: Read a previous post that answered my question.

How to teach a nation, a people, a species to differentiate greed from need? The first easily comes from the second in an era of advanced technology that allows quick indulgences (fast-food, Internet, biased media, etc.) without immediate consequence.

 

[Forensic1104]

You're going to rely on humanity reaching self-actualization?
Fat baby says otherwise. And so does the waistline of the US and UK.

We learn through our environment and I would wager that this is a not an infant, I would also wager that the child’s parents are neglectful, if not overweight themselves. I concur America is full of overweight people, and it has become an epidemic. There are studies that have shown that our genetic make-up is affected by our physical life style and these effects are the passed to the next generation, (like alcoholism, diabetes, and obesity) which could result in the child you see in the picture. This is a recent phenomenon; 50 years ago, this was unheard of. While I cannot doubt the validity of your picture, once the child reaches a specific age when it begins to mimic the behavoirs of those around him, it is up to the parents to ensure that the well-being of the child is maintained, which these parents have failed to do. The argument that we are making is that greed is part of human nature, and with that being said, it is natural, and normal…..does this child look normal? Can you validate this claim for an entire group from such a small sample? According to www.overpopulation.org there are 2.2 billion people in the world under the age of 18.