"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > 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.

What is called projection? Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
instinctive in all organisms.

>> > 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.

Do a bit of Googling for hardwire, fight or fight, organism, you'll find a
plethora of information that will confirm it for you. Of course since it's
not what you want to hear, you won't do this, you'll invent some ruse like
saying the internet is not a valid source of information.

> First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
> override hardwiring.

What makes you think that being hardwired implies that it can't overriden?
What if two hardwired impulses conflict? We sublimate instinctive urges all
the time.

> Oh, the spoonfed.

There's that knee-jerk rejection of "conventional wisdom" again. Is it a
fear of being uncool, or what?

>> > > 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.

I have never known a person in my life who feared a hit man. What is sad?
People assess realistic risks all the time, like driving too fast, drinking
and driving, skiing out of bounds...

That's not sad, it's smart.

>> > 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.

Where did I use a strawman or an absolute statement as an argument?

> When I make that observation of your statements you
> deny this. HOw interesting is that?

Since it's another example of an unsupported statement by you, not very,
just typical.

>
>> > 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.

Diversion? YOU introduced it, now you refuse to explain what you mean??

> We have been discussing the moral code that is being
> used to declare that vegans are acting immorally.

Yeah, you've been asking cogent questions like "what's the name of the moral
code?" NOT.

> YOu have failed to
> respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
> rule.

You just cobble these question together in the desperate hope that
eventually one will make sense don't you? Does that make you cool?