It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Cracks in the Facade

page: 15
6
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Yes it is. As I said, it requires victims. Without them it would not be existant.

There are people who want for there to be victims. They are hand-wringers, always looking for those who cannot or will not do for themselves. Without victims, they would have no purpose. They would better spend their time encouraging self-reliance. Instead, they advise on how to live off the rest of society.

And yes, I have been in the dregs. And I pulled myself out of them. Do not take this as a condemnation of those who are truly in need. Take this as a denial of the philosophy that creates a generation of the beholden.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by jsobecky]




posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes it is. As I said, it requires victims. Without them it would not be existant.

There are people who want for there to be victims. They are hand-wringers, always looking for those who cannot or will not do for themselves. Without victims, they would have no purpose. They would better spend their time encouraging self-reliance. Instead, they advise on how to live off the rest of society.

And yes, I have been in the dregs. And I pulled myself out of them. Do not take this as a condemnation of those who are truly in need. Take this as a denial of the philosophy that creates a generation of the beholden.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by jsobecky]


You are so wrong, or so cold. one of the two...without compassion we are no better than our prejudices. Altruism is not a noun, it is a verb. It is inherantly an act of compassion. Victim or not doesn't even enter into it....rather if not for the grace of God, goes I.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Wrong again, grover. Altruism does not equal compassion. And it is not a verb.


al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
dictionary.reference.com...

Notice the emphasis.


compassion

n 1: a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering [syn: compassionateness] 2: the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it [syn: pity]
dictionary.reference.com...

If you kill the host, the parasites die.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Dude, jso...


Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
And what happpens to the species when all the hosts are dead and only parasites are left?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And what happpens to the species when all the hosts are dead and only parasites are left?


I missed that part, how does altruism equal hosts/parasites?

In my opinion, what you seem to be forgetting, is that, like everything in this world, altruism requires balance. You are taking the effects of altruism to one extreme, that of giving to everybody who CLAIMS they are in need.

Altruism in my opinion, should be about giving to people in need so that they can be self-reliant. Just giving a buck to a homeless guy is not truly helping a person. If you are concerned about the welfare of that person, you will not only be concerned about the present, but about the future as well. Therefore, if you were truly practicing altruism, you would help that person become self-reliant, for mind, body and spirit.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by jsobecky
And what happpens to the species when all the hosts are dead and only parasites are left?


I missed that part, how does altruism equal hosts/parasites?

I'm sorry. I thought you read this:


Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.



In my opinion, what you seem to be forgetting, is that, like everything in this world, altruism requires balance. You are taking the effects of altruism to one extreme, that of giving to everybody who CLAIMS they are in need.

And just who decides which claims are valid?

You are not defining altruism. You are trying to promote a feel-good sensation without thinking of the consequences. There is no balance in altruism. You are confusing altruism with compassion.

It's so easy to say "help the needy". It makes you look good, and most people fall for the scam. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support for that feeling. It is unpopular to question it, and questioning it makes one seem to be uncaring. But nothing could be further from the truth.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

and where in that defination does that define altruism as aiding and abiting parasites? And where in that does it say that those needing help are parasites? Nowhere. I feel sorry for you Josbecky, such a worldview is cold and I would assume extremely lonely as well.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobeckyAnd just who decides which claims are valid?

YOU DO! That's the point.


You are not defining altruism. You are trying to promote a feel-good sensation without thinking of the consequences.

The definition for altruism is very broad and abstract. The only way the word makes any sense in daily living is to give it meaning. The definition you brought up is from zoology studies and its usefulness to our discusison is somewhat vague, yet if you pay careful attention to the definition, you will note that it requires the detriment of the individual only as far as aiding the group. An analogy might be soldiers, whereas they sacrifice themselves for the good of the group.

You have this standard vision of how to help people, and that is, to give something to everyone who asks for a handout. You can be said to be guilty of promulgating this way to help people as you share this same vision of "helping the needy." I don't really know what you are asking for here. Why does "help the needy" only have to equate to welfare and other social programs? Why can't "helping the needy" equate to getting them a job or education?

You know why? Because it's much easier to give a homeless man a piece of bread, then it is to right the circumstances that led to his demise. People are too lazy to help in a meaningful way, and that is not practicing altruism. True altruism in the context of our discussion would be to sacrifice oneself so that society has the least amount of needy as possible. That's not going to come through bread handouts either, but from exactly what you've been talking about. What you see as the best way of helping people would, in fact, be true altruism.

Altruism is just a word, and as with all words we attach meaning to it. In this case you have attached your own negative meaning to altruism, because you have a certain vision of what altruism looks like. Altruism is such a broadly defined word jso, that it can mean so many ways of helping others. It's just a matter of what the word means to you.



new topics




 
6
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join