Another Waco?

[Plissken]

Even bad mothers have Civil Rights, until they're proven to be criminal, at least. For now, I'm assuming that the DA office understood the challenges this case was going to bring, and thought that the risk was worth it (ie - that they've got some real strong evidence to present). If they don't...

[Cail]

Oh, I know. But the argument that they'll probably make is that the mothers were either criminally negligent or brainwashed.

[Plissken]

Both are pretty good arguments.

[Cail]

They sure are.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR Said:

If you were put a bunch of toddlers, with minimal or not instruction on an island, provide them with barely enough food to get by, you would soon find that the strong would steal food from the weak in order to establish dominance, particularly when they grew old enough to reproduce. The strong would deny the weak mating privileges, and would murder the weaker to enforce this. Look at standard chimp behavior (no bonobo chimps, they are a somewhat different matter), look and most primate behavior.

What we consider "culture" and "consience" grew of certain gatherings of people being more successful than others. No hard wiring, just gradually learning. Without the reinforcement of cultural mores over time, this so called consience would dissolve.

Look and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

RR-- your examples are humans in crisis mode. Barely enough food. Limited mating possibilities. In that mode, anything goes -- Therefore, it is irrelevant to this question. It is well known morals and conscience break down when self survival is in danger. People will go against any taboo when they have to survive. You seem to think my position is that conscience would override survival behavior. I never said that. I even allowed it could be reprogrammed, as we know it can. My conscience wont allow me to steal if I have another way to get resources, but if I am starving or my family is in danger, I will definately steal. This doesnt prove in any way that one came before the other.

BTW: Did you even read the links? I have provided some hard theory and research by people a lot smarter than you and I (or at least who have advanced degrees in genetics) behind my position.

What we consider "culture" and "consience" grew of certain gatherings of people being more successful than others. No hard wiring, just gradually learning. Without the reinforcement of cultural mores over time, this so called consience would dissolve.

Darwin disagrees with that statement. You must have missed that point in my references.

you called my opinion and position b#llsh!t. ( I didnt appreciate that. I would never call your argument BS, its rude.) So I provided some research, three links in fact, to back it up. I think Darwin qualifies as an expert, yes?

So far, I only see your personal opinion behind yours. If you are going to call BS on my position, please at leave have enough courtesy and respect to put forth a relevant argument based on something other than your personal opinion.

I'll apologise for the term "BS flag", as it was not meant to be a personal insult, just a holdover phrase from "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club".

Be that as it may, what I read from your links did not change my opinion, but essentially re-enforced it. Over the 10's of thousands of years, there have been too many different definitions of moral, immoral, right and wrong, for there to be much if any reliance on a "genetic consiense". This consience as you call it, appears to be the innate desire to feel pleasurable emotions from the group. If the group likes to torture others in order to be entertained, then one's consience will not be disturbed by this act, in fact, not participating in the torture my actually prick your consience, whereas one from a culture that looks upon torture as abhorant would more than likely feel the pricks of consience from such an act.

[iQuestor]

RR said

I'll apologise for the term "BS flag", as it was not meant to be a personal insult, just a holdover phrase from "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club".

thanks, RR. I appreciate that!

Be that as it may, what I read from your links did not change my opinion, but essentially re-enforced it. Over the 10's of thousands of years, there have been too many different definitions of moral, immoral, right and wrong, for there to be much if any reliance on a "genetic consiense". This consience as you call it, appears to be the innate desire to feel pleasurable emotions from the group. If the group likes to torture others in order to be entertained, then one's consience will not be disturbed by this act, in fact, not participating in the torture my actually prick your consience, whereas one from a culture that looks upon torture as abhorant would more than likely feel the pricks of consience from such an act.

Well, I can find many quotes where darwin and others specifically state evidence (of course, there is no proof possible) that conscience and moral development is made at least partially from natural selection and evolution rather than all learning. Darwins arguments directly address how morals and conscience can be overridden by extremes and survival modes and sex.

So, I will respectfully say again that your argument that conscience and morality is strictly learned is based soley on your opinion, and that there is a lot of research by relevant experts that support my position that is at least partially evolutionary.

thanks

[Rawedge Rim]

RR said

I'll apologise for the term "BS flag", as it was not meant to be a personal insult, just a holdover phrase from "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club".

thanks, RR. I appreciate that!

Be that as it may, what I read from your links did not change my opinion, but essentially re-enforced it. Over the 10's of thousands of years, there have been too many different definitions of moral, immoral, right and wrong, for there to be much if any reliance on a "genetic consiense". This consience as you call it, appears to be the innate desire to feel pleasurable emotions from the group. If the group likes to torture others in order to be entertained, then one's consience will not be disturbed by this act, in fact, not participating in the torture my actually prick your consience, whereas one from a culture that looks upon torture as abhorant would more than likely feel the pricks of consience from such an act.

Well, I can find many quotes where darwin and others specifically state evidence (of course, there is no proof possible) that conscience and moral development is made at least partially from natural selection and evolution rather than all learning. Darwins arguments directly address how morals and conscience can be overridden by extremes and survival modes and sex.

So, I will respectfully say again that your argument that conscience and morality is strictly learned is based soley on your opinion, and that there is a lot of research by relevant experts that support my position that is at least partially evolutionary.

thanks

Opinion based on several decades of observation, and not a few books. I really could care less if half the world wants to deny that a tiger exists, if it sits in front of me, then I have to believe the evidence of my senses, (at least until the guys in the white coats come along and take me away )

[iQuestor]

RR said

I'll apologise for the term "BS flag", as it was not meant to be a personal insult, just a holdover phrase from "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club".

thanks, RR. I appreciate that!

Be that as it may, what I read from your links did not change my opinion, but essentially re-enforced it. Over the 10's of thousands of years, there have been too many different definitions of moral, immoral, right and wrong, for there to be much if any reliance on a "genetic consiense". This consience as you call it, appears to be the innate desire to feel pleasurable emotions from the group. If the group likes to torture others in order to be entertained, then one's consience will not be disturbed by this act, in fact, not participating in the torture my actually prick your consience, whereas one from a culture that looks upon torture as abhorant would more than likely feel the pricks of consience from such an act.

Well, I can find many quotes where darwin and others specifically state evidence (of course, there is no proof possible) that conscience and moral development is made at least partially from natural selection and evolution rather than all learning. Darwins arguments directly address how morals and conscience can be overridden by extremes and survival modes and sex.

So, I will respectfully say again that your argument that conscience and morality is strictly learned is based soley on your opinion, and that there is a lot of research by relevant experts that support my position that is at least partially evolutionary.

thanks

Opinion based on several decades of observation, and not a few books. I really could care less if half the world wants to deny that a tiger exists, if it sits in front of me, then I have to believe the evidence of my senses, (at least until the guys in the white coats come along and take me away )

so Darwin carries no weight whatsoever with you?

[Avatar]

He was a naturalist, a biologist and a geologist, not an anthropologist or sociologist.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

RR said
thanks, RR. I appreciate that!
Well, I can find many quotes where darwin and others specifically state evidence (of course, there is no proof possible) that conscience and moral development is made at least partially from natural selection and evolution rather than all learning. Darwins arguments directly address how morals and conscience can be overridden by extremes and survival modes and sex.

So, I will respectfully say again that your argument that conscience and morality is strictly learned is based soley on your opinion, and that there is a lot of research by relevant experts that support my position that is at least partially evolutionary.

thanks

Opinion based on several decades of observation, and not a few books. I really could care less if half the world wants to deny that a tiger exists, if it sits in front of me, then I have to believe the evidence of my senses, (at least until the guys in the white coats come along and take me away )

so Darwin carries no weight whatsoever with you?

I'm gonna back pedal just a bit, and say that I think we are referring to different things.

You are basically saying that the human "mind", for want of a better word, has what amounts to a built in consience, or as I now think you mean, a part of the brain or mind that can be used to influence the actions of people towards "good". (Again, many of these words I'm using may not be the best ones, but at the present, they are the only ones I can come up with, at least until I hit submit and walk away )

I'm going to semi-agree with you. However, that part of the "mind", that you call consience, is essentially a blank slate, until someone, over time, writes on that "consience", what constitutes bad, and there for evokes a "guilty" feeling, and "good" or "indifferent" which doesn't.

The human brain, I believe, only comes with about 3 instincts,

1. To suckle
2. Avoid pain
3. Embrace pleasure

Morality, and ethics, are not instinctive. They are learned behaviors, and what defines good morality and good ethics are different between cultures, and don't necessarily remain stagnent. Consience is driven by morality and ethics. A couple of centuries ago, killing a dog, or any other animal that was no longer useful to you, would not have raise a qualm of consience. Bear baiting with hounds, etc. was considered entertaining (as with some people now with dog or cock fighting). When people were to be executed, people used to gather the family together, pack a picnic basket, and have a family "watch the felons get hung" day. All of these things would appall most people today.

[iQuestor]

RR said:

I'm gonna back pedal just a bit, and say that I think we are referring to different things.

You are basically saying that the human "mind", for want of a better word, has what amounts to a built in consience, or as I now think you mean, a part of the brain or mind that can be used to influence the actions of people towards "good". (Again, many of these words I'm using may not be the best ones, but at the present, they are the only ones I can come up with, at least until I hit submit and walk away )

I'm going to semi-agree with you. However, that part of the "mind", that you call consience, is essentially a blank slate, until someone, over time, writes on that "consience", what constitutes bad, and there for evokes a "guilty" feeling, and "good" or "indifferent" which doesn't.

I think you may be correct. though we may not agree on all of the finer points.

I do think the human mind has evolved a hard wired set of responses that guide the person as they mature into what they feel is right and wrong. I think that many of these rules develop internally during infancy before the child has developed the ability to speak or interact at a high level.

I cannot deny society and other pressures do affect ones judgement or actions, and I beleive to a large extent they either reinforce those rules or over write them. Circumstances and other factors also play a role.

Also, lets not forget someone can kill and still feel guilty as hell. A conscience just guides you in what you think is right. it doesnt stop you from doing wrong. it just makes you feel bad when you do.

good post, RR!

[Avatar]

Good posts both of you. Me, I think those rules only develop as people teach them to you.

A child that was never socialised is not going to share because it has no conception of the supposed "good" of doing so.

--A