In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
just going off the scale.

Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)

> >> > 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?