Keep on shooting at those 'copters

[Suave]

eagle if it wasn't for human nature none of us would be here. Babies and pregnant mothers can't feed themselves.

[CyranoAH]

“No man was ever more than about nine meals away from crime or suicide.”
- Eric Sevareid

[eagl]

Suave,

The mark of "civilization" is that the individual people themselves have internalized the need to place certain needs of the society above their own needs.  This is a truly human survival trait, because when civilized behavior is the rule, it allows a line of victims to ALL be airlifted to safety instead of them ALL perishing because one impatient retard took a shot at the rescue chopper, driving it away before it could help anyone.

Heck if I was in that crowd, I'd get a group of other "civilized" people together and tear the shooter to shreds before he could drive away any more rescuers.  That's how society works together in the face of adversity, and it's based on a set of moral rules that must stand in the face of strong instinctive urges that you might also call "human nature".  Society lets us work together and prosper in the face of human nature, and a society without a common moral background seems to fall to pieces when stressed.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by eagl
Society lets us work together and prosper in the face of human nature, and a society without a common moral background seems to fall to pieces when stressed.

Here's the question though... can a society gain a common moral background without religion?

[eagl]

Cyrano,

I was educated out of that idea.  It takes only a few years as a kid in the boy scouts, or 3 weeks in a survival school, to make that kind of statement totally untrue and irrelevant.  You've got the "city slicker" quote of the century right there, and the Americans with families who migrated coast to coast 2 centuries ago in search of better lives would by and large scoff at the idea that people could be so fragile.  It's only the soft and protected who crumble so easily.  Just ask Lance Sijan (or any Vietnam POW survivor) or the defenders of the Alamo.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the question though... can a society gain a common moral background without religion?

Obviously yes. Without a common moral background humans wouldn't have even been able to rear offspring. And thus wouldn't have progressed to inventing an alphabet. Antisocial (criminal) behavior and law predate history.

[eagl]

Ah Suave, but those early societies were often held together by a strong headman with great personal physical power and a shaman to keep people's minds on spiritual things.  The oral tradition pre-dates written records, and those traditional stories were of gods and fantastic spiritual beings and events.  Where there was culture, it was kept by the headman's strength (or a council of elders who kept certain survival secrets to themselves) and the spiritual belief structure they all shared.  That's called religion.  Any non-believers either pretended to believe or were driven out because a non-believer is disruptive to the society and culture.

We have many freedoms and a source of American power is our incredible diversity, but pull a bit on the thread and that diversity will cause the civilized fabric to unravel when enough "non-believers" place themselves over the common good and take part in violent counter-productive behavior that drives away efforts to restore civilization to the disaster area.  I'm not sure it matters if the "belief structure" is based around god or based around the US constitution.  A violent looter clearly has internalized neither belief structure, and is therefore a dangerous disruptive factor working directly against the reconstruction of the threatened society.

Even the Islamo-fascists see this...  Why do you think they hate us so much?  They have always recognized the danger presented by allowing in people who have not internalized the need to preserve the structure of their society, and they have reacted violently.  I don't think that's a good justification for terrorism, but guess what - except for a few separatist rebel groups, you didn't see armed tsunami victims shooting at the relief workers even though their conditions were as bad or worse than ours.

[Suave]

If that were true eagle we wouldn't be able to observe societies similar to our own in the rest of the animal kingdom. Whales and wolves don't tolerate antisocial behavior either.

[eagl]

Maybe the reason we can't talk to whales is that we don't know what god they believe in?  I remember more than one sci-fi story based on that general premise...

Seriously, outsiders in those animal societies are likewise shunned so they don't destroy the group.  Look at how runts are universally treated, especially in animal species with strong group social dynamics.  They are either killed outright or banished.  The runt brings down the group as a non-believer *could* bring down a human society in a crisis.

Again, "non-believer" refers to a detachment from whatever moral fabric binds that society, whether it's religious or not.  The concept of the melting pot society used to be the American belief, but as evidenced by the utter breakdown in NO compared to the strength of character demonstrated after the New York terrorist attacks, the persistence of the non-believing multi-cultural apologists (the ones who say savages living in mud huts have societies equal in all regards to any other modern society) is shattering our unity of purpose and action.

[Charon]

Heck if I was in that crowd, I'd get a group of other "civilized" people together and tear the shooter to shreds before he could drive away any more rescuers. That's how society works together in the face of adversity, and it's based on a set of moral rules that must stand in the face of strong instinctive urges that you might also call "human nature". Society lets us work together and prosper in the face of human nature, and a society without a common moral background seems to fall to pieces when stressed.

Absolutely. Those very traits are what made the earliest civilizations possible, for that matter the earliest wandering tribes possible, at the earliest days of paganism if not before. But I disagree (and know from your last post that you don't make this point) that a specific set of religions -- as Seagoon seems to believe -- are responsible for morality in the world and that an atheist is devoid of natural compassion, morality or empathy.
 
You can be taught respect and feel compassion without Jesus, and I believe some degree is purely ingrained human nature -- instinctive in "most" people but obviously not in some. And I don't believe there is any more proof that it took a creator to put it there than any of the other possibility.

Obviously, many are not raised with the same human values most of us hold dear -- either through a lack of parenting, a poisioned culture or, for that matter, proper religious values (and a true acceptance of those values). And the inner trait, natural or put there by some power, is obviously weak in some. There are those that have had a perfectly moral upbringing, parents and church and good communities yet start killing prostitutes about the time they get their first car.

Before you think I'm overreacting on the religion thing, how many of you would like to be told that the only reason you behave in a moral manner is because you fear going to hell if you don't? Without that fear of hell you'd be looting and raping and killing. You trade your selfish earthly temptations for big-picture selfishness (not that I believe that for a second).


Charon

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Simaril, take a gun course. Learn how to handle a weapon safely, confidently. Learn the difference between an automatic and a semi-auto. Educate yourself by direct exposure to the weapons and the folks that understand the balance between capability and need.

It'll open you eyes. And you'll sleep better, even without owning a weapon.

Thanks. I dont own a gun, and havent considered it seriously; I've seen a lot of accidental stuff through my work, mostly from properly stored and managed weapons being misused by kids who figured out access. I've also had a close friend's dad, who was a collector and very good shooter, commit suicide after refusing depression treatment for a couple years -- giving me a close up look at the family devastation that brings. I understand the arguments for possession, and anarchy of this kind makes me think about it more -- but I dont know if I'm ready.



And I have to give a big thanks to those on this board -- the civil discussions have been great. I always thought "anarchism" meant opposition to all governmental structure; I've learned that it can also mean voluntary association of individuals who chose to cooperate.


In that sense -- a question for anarchists

How does a voluntary association deal with tragedy of this scale? How could a neighborhood -- the largest unit of people who could know each other and voluntarily cooperate -- recover without a large governmental structure to support it?


And how would such loose associations manage to avoid the danger of anarchism, where power goes to the strongest and most ruthless association regardless of its morality?

[Hangtime]

i wonder if the passengers leading the counter attack on the hijackers of flight 93 were religionists.

not intended as a slam. just an observation. religious (insert yer favorite denomination here) tend to be pacifists and are not the folks that make the diffrence when a snap decison to fight, to defend, to take immediate, certain deadly action in a cusp is required for survival.

It's been my experience that religious folks tend to sob, wail, bury their faces and heads in the sand, pleading for divine intervention or guidance while others unhindered by religious taboos and indoctrination act.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Simaril, you want to know how?  Just look to the western US in the 19th century.  Without recourse to Law, the settlers there made their own.  And they enforced it with guns.  They held it until Law could be established, and then they gave over its care to appointed and elected officials.

Point being, when there is no recourse to a higher authority to take care of you and enforce the "rules" that makes society tick, people of good conscience must be able to step in and take up the slack in the reins.  Thats what the 2nd amendment to the constitution is all about.  Its not just about a militia to be called up in times of war.  Its about times like this when there IS NO GOVT. within easy reach, and men rule by force.  Freedom is never free.  Someone will always have to be willing to stand between the wolf at the door and those who cannot defend themselves.  Usually its the police, or the National Guard, or sometimes the Army.  Someday, the only one left might be your neighbor.

Soon, order will be restored, those who want to leave will be evacuated, and this will end.  Until then, my prayers are with every soul in that toxic dump of a swamp, especially the ones who stayed because they couldnt leave someone else.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Simaril
Thanks. I dont own a gun, and havent considered it seriously; I've seen a lot of accidental stuff through my work, mostly from properly stored and managed weapons being misused by kids who figured out access. I've also had a close friend's dad, who was a collector and very good shooter, commit suicide after refusing depression treatment for a couple years -- giving me a close up look at the family devastation that brings. I understand the arguments for possession, and anarchy of this kind makes me think about it more -- but I dont know if I'm ready.

You don't strike me as weak or unbalanced individual. Handling and learning the mechanics of a firearm is not going to contaminate you. I'm not advocating that you own a weapon. I'm advocating that you become intimately familiar with the more common types so that you may better understand the actual reality of their existence and operation in a first person situation. I humbly submit that you are unqualified to pass judgement on firearms untill you are competent with one.

Originally posted by Simaril
How does a voluntary association deal with tragedy of this scale? How could a neighborhood -- the largest unit of people who could know each other and voluntarily cooperate -- recover without a large governmental structure to support it?

And how would such loose associations manage to avoid the danger of anarchism, where power goes to the strongest and most ruthless association regardless of its morality?

History demonstrates that an armed society is a polite society. It becomes something else when only one group or element has the guns. Government's job is what again?

A voluntary association faced with a disaster does not destroy itself.. it's survival mechanism is not to stand on a corner waiting for the 'government' to tend to their welfare. They tend to their welfare themselves, or they do not survive.

We're seeing the results of the welfare state now in NO.. tell me. If you had a kid, needed food and water, were stuck in a dead city, tell me; would YOU sit on your wide fat welfare plumped bellybutton and just wait for the government to save yer nikes and bling-bling bag?

[DREDIOCK]

Tell ya what. While I've always been in strong support of the right to own guns. I dont own one.
I've always felt that while I dont own a gun I want to be able to have that right, that choice to own one if I desired or ever felt the need.

After watching whats going on in the news I am very strongly considering getting one now.
Stopping and thinking a disaster like that be it  by nature or terrorist attack or some other unforeseen event could hit any of us anywhere at any time.

As I am watching the various news programs. A man killed and left for dead on the side of the road. Rescue workers getting hijacked. Gunmen running around the streets shooting people and just taking what they want. A cop being shot in the head. A national guardsman killed by gunmen and more I am reminded of my fathers saying of "when the government cannot protect the people. The people MUST be able to protect themselves."

I've always felt that for all their good intentions. The government isnt really able to protect me other then to respond to something after its already happened.

This shines an even brighter light on it.
In times like this. in situations like this as we see the government is entirely unable to protect the people.
Many of these people already have and more will die due to the fact they are unable to protect themselves against roving bands of gunmen.

Course having a gun is by no means a guarantee of surviving. But it does help even the odds somewhat. And If it were me I'd at least want the fighting chance of going down swinging instead of cowering