In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
> from
> > > harm. That is innate.
> >
> > We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> > about death.
>
> False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
> rudimentary organisms and plants.

That is called projection, Dutch -- although various disciplines have
different words for the same process.

> > If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> > describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> > requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> > situations contrary to our 'wiring'.
>
> Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
> tradeoff.

Having you accept responsibility for your statements is likely an
impossibility. We were just discussing hardwiring which you were asked
to support. You failed again to support your contention with any
reasoning.

First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
override hardwiring. Oh, the spoonfed.

> > > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
> flawed
> > > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
> drive
> > > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
> artifacts
> > > is wrong.
> >
> > LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> > paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> > that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> > likely to happen.
>
> Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
> point.

Well, what is my risk of having a hitman hired to kill me. I'm
estimating a number that is closest to zero. What is your view of
rational assessment of risk to me of a premeditated murder involving a
hitman? To see adults so fearful is quite sad.

> > All harm is not bad.
>
> That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
> absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

Odd. I used the same format that you use and then you call it a strawman
and an absolute. When I make that observation of your statements you
deny this. HOw interesting is that?

> > As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> > to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> > can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.
>
> Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .

Another diversion. We have been discussing the moral code that is being
used to declare that vegans are acting immorally. YOu have failed to
respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
rule.