Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 184 (381211)
01-30-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by anastasia
01-29-2007 10:55 PM


Re: The same but different?
We have also evolved the ability to realize that we are going to die someday.
quote:
How is that different from;
ana writes:
We have evolved to realize that there is more to life than our body or the visible universe.
quote:
In both cases, we wonder what happens when we die.
The difference is that you are making a claim that there is more to life than our body and the physical universe.
I make no such claim.
Where is the "spiritual awareness detector" in humans?
quote:
The spiritual awareness is the detector.
Huh? This makes no sense.
You said that we 'evolved' a 'spiritual awareness detector', just like we evolved emotions. I can point to the brain structures that produce and regulate emotion. Where on the body is the part that detects the spiritual?
Most higher animals do, indeed, have emotions. Some of the most complex animal emotional lives can be seen, not surprisingly, in our closest relatives, the great apes
quote:
I have animals. I see sympathy-type behaviors. I do not see choices, or guilt over lack of sympathy.
But you do see emotions in those animals, which contradicts what you claimed in your previous post:
quote:
If there is no God, most of these evolved skills have gained us nothing in terms of survival that animals without emotion or free-will, intelligence or awareness have not gained.
Now it seems that you are moving the goalposts.
Remember, ana, that the ability to imagine a God may easily be an artifact of having such large, complex brains
quote:
What does the in-ability to imagine God mean? Small, simple brains?
Pretty much, yes.
Self-awareness and the cognitive ability to plan far into the future is probably neccessary, as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:55 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 62 of 184 (381215)
01-30-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Larni
01-30-2007 4:04 AM


I don't like my wording
Stile writes:
I also don't think I follow evolution-explanations for my morals. I find these explanations very strange, and sometimes even ridiculous.
Larni writes:
Has this position changed? I would say that psychology offers a better explanation than Dawinian Evolution(or the Modern Synthesis) can.
No, my position has not changed, although I do not think my word-choice there is very clear of what exactly my position is. What I wanted to say was that there are some explanations for human morality that stem directly from biological-evolution, and mainly use a survival instinct, or something like that, as a primary driver for why we do good. I do not like these explanations. I don't feel like they explain why I do what I do. However, I do believe that there are natural explanations, mostly having to do with psychology as you suggest, that do explain why I do what I do.
For example, let's take murder again: I do not think murder is wrong because it will reduce the number of people in society and therefore lower our survival-chances. However, I do think murder is wrong because, basically, I've learnt that it makes me feel bad.
Both reasons include only natural reasons, and have no link towards any spirituality that I'm aware of. However, I think the evolutionary "survival-chance" explanation is strange. While I also think that the psychology explanation is more truly-descriptive of my real decision making process.
I sometimes do think that I believe in my own god, but I am convinced that even this strange god of my own is not needed for explaining human morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:04 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 9:09 AM Stile has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 63 of 184 (381219)
01-30-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Stile
01-30-2007 8:53 AM


Re: I don't like my wording
The 'surviaval chance' mechansim is pretty cold and clinical but you can look at it like the 'bare bones' of behaviour.
Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope these bare bones into psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us.
Either way you cut it, it points to a non-divine driver for morality.
What exactly is it that make either of these explanations unfulfilling for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 8:53 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 11:02 AM Larni has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 64 of 184 (381244)
01-30-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Larni
01-30-2007 9:09 AM


Mundane? Yes. Survival-driven? Not convinced.
Larni writes:
What exactly is it that make either of these explanations unfulfilling for you?
quote:
The 'surviaval chance' mechansim is pretty cold and clinical but you can look at it like the 'bare bones' of behaviour.
I understand the logics in why these explanations are provided. But it is unfulfilling for me because I don't use them at all. Or, perhaps I only do not use them conciously at all. If someone says "we find killing to be wrong because it lowers our chances for survival". I just think "No, I couldn't care less about our, or my, chances of survival, that has nothing to do with why I consider killing wrong".
I suppose, I see how it can be a explanation. But, as far as I can tell, it is not my explanation.
quote:
Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope these bare bones into psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us.
I would word this as:
"Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us."
I do not understand why this "survival-instinct" must be at the core. As far as I can tell, my "massive brain with it's bias towards cognition" allows me to over-come, or even ignore my survival-instinct, and use my intellect to decide on what I'm going to do, and what I think is right.
I think killing is wrong because I would not want to be killed. Not because I want to survive, but because I don't think anyone should be able to remove my priveledge of being "alive". ... Huh, perhaps being killed isn't a great analogy because it kind of directly affects survival.
I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped. Not because a rapist causes serious distrust within a social circle (or whatever reason makes sense here) and therefore reduces our survial chances. I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal. And someone being raped is one person forcing themselves onto another, somehow thinking that their needs/wants/desires are more important than another's need/wants/desires to the point of harming them to get what they want. I judge that this particular removal of another's status of being equal is wrong.
My judgement that the action is wrong has nothing to do with anything regarding survival chances. Although the fact that I think it is wrong may very well have a side-affect that it happens to increase survival chances. My judgement was made on an intellectual level, weighing empathic factors, how I would want to be treated, and my assumption that all humans should be treated equally.
I suppose I can see how someone might say that "how I would want to be treated" is directly related to my survival chances. But, I don't see it. I mean, if someone held a gun to my head and said "rape this woman or I will kill you". I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions?
Larni writes:
Either way you cut it, it points to a non-divine driver for morality.
This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 9:09 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 11:52 AM Stile has replied
 Message 67 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 1:03 PM Stile has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 65 of 184 (381251)
01-30-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stile
01-30-2007 11:02 AM


Re: Mundane? Yes. Survival-driven? Not convinced.
Stile writes:
I think killing is wrong because I would not want to be killed.
*cough* survival instinct *cough*
Stile writes:
I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal.
Mate, either way (and at risk of sounding like a broken record) you believe what you believe because of your learning that has taken place throughout your life.
Again: socialization.
If you were bought up to has no respect for life (for example) your predisposition towards empathy would be so stunted and you would have been so concistantly rewarded for behaviour that to our eyes is abhorent that you would concidered murder part of the natural order of things.
Stile writes:
I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped.
This is simply you wanting to protect your self....hmmm where might that drive come from?
Stile writes:
I judge that this particular removal of another's status of being equal is wrong.
It's interesting to note that this sense of another's status does not develope untill we develope 'Theory of Mind' at about 4-5 years old. Bofore that time the brain does not have the capacity to see the world through someone elses eyes.
Stile writes:
My judgement that the action is wrong has nothing to do with anything regarding survival chances.
So you keep saying, but remember that the psychological drives we have include the survival drive, but are not limited to it.
Stile writes:
My judgement was made on an intellectual level, weighing empathic factors, how I would want to be treated, and my assumption that all humans should be treated equally.
As I said the survival drive is the bare bones....note how you have reworded my statement from:
Larni writes:
Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope these bare bones into psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us.
to:
Stile writes:
Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us
What you have done is simplified a tiered construct of morality. You ignore the interplay of evolved wiring and evolved psychology.
The 'evolved psychology' is the intellectual bit you imply I ignore. You empathic weighting stems from (as I said) evolution's hitorical path for humans
I don't ignore it at all.
Stile writes:
I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions?
Because the action of rape would go against your perception of right and wrong that you have learnt. This is self sacrifice that is very important to a society.
But again, you get all hung up on survival and miss the importance of what you have learnt!
My whole point is that you learn these notions of right and wrong!
Stile writes:
This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points.
Again. To reiterate. Survival drive (of individual + society) + learnt responses to stimulus (see classical or operant conditioning) = expressed reaction (psychologically, behviourally and physically).
Take out survival drive and you have not reason for the organism to do anything, we (humans) would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for this drive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 11:02 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 1:01 PM Larni has replied
 Message 69 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 1:32 PM Larni has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 66 of 184 (381266)
01-30-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
01-30-2007 11:52 AM


We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
Larni writes:
Mate, either way (and at risk of sounding like a broken record) you believe what you believe because of your learning that has taken place throughout your life.
Yes. I totally agree with this.
However, it's just easier to say:
I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal.
Then it is to say:
I think it is wrong since the learning that has taken place throughout my life has caused me to understand that, as people, we are equal.
I agree with you on this point. But I'm not going to re-write every sentence with 13 extra words just to explicitly say so everytime. Trust me, if anyone ever asks me "but why do you believe that?" I will go into the same explanation you keep telling me I'm forgetting. I'm not forgetting about it, I'm just condensing it to more-understandable language.
Larni writes:
What you have done is simplified a tiered construct of morality. You ignore the interplay of evolved wiring and evolved psychology.
The 'evolved psychology' is the intellectual bit you imply I ignore. You empathic weighting stems from (as I said) evolution's hitorical path for humans
I don't ignore it at all.
I do not ignore the interplay. I'm over-coming the inter-play you say I use. I don't think I do use it. In fact, I think I go directly against it. I understand that as we evolved, we used these survival instincts to help our society grow and continue to survive and prosper. However, I think we've reached a point where our cognitive abilities have gotten to a level that we don't necessarily respond to these survival instincts anymore. Take this for example:
Stile writes:
I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped.
Larni writes:
This is simply you wanting to protect your self...hmmm where might this drive come from?
But, I'm telling you, this IS NOT me wanting to protect myself. In fact, I also say:
quote:
I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions?
To which you reply with more survival-driven reasons:
quote:
This is self sacrifice that is very important to a society.
And my rebuttle to that is that I would sacrifice the entire society before I allowed something to force me into raping another person. So, how is that important to a society's survival chances?
We're coming down to this:
Larni writes:
My whole point is that you learn these notions of right and wrong!
Which I have stated over and over again, that I totally agree with.
Larni writes:
Take out survival drive and you have no reason for the organism to do anything, we (humans) would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for this drive.
You see this as one thing, one concept. I see it as two, separate and distinct. I agree with your second half, I agree that we would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for our survival drive. Hey, I even agree that we'ed never have evolved into an emotional existance in the first place without our survival drive.
BUT, we are here now. We are now in a cognitive existance. And I no longer need my survival drive (as far as I can tell, anyway). In fact, I can use my cognitive existance to completely ignore and over-come my survival drive. I DO have reasons to do things without my survival drive, and that is my entire point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 11:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 1:24 PM Stile has replied
 Message 78 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:45 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 67 of 184 (381269)
01-30-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stile
01-30-2007 11:02 AM


Re: Mundane? Yes. Survival-driven? Not convinced.
Stile writes:
This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points.
Think about this one more time. If morality is not based on anything except feelings and survival chances, and our feelings about survival chances, and our long-dead recognition of anything involving survival chances, there is really no wrong action. If we want the species to survive, we need only pick one choice of person to save...yourself, or your neighbor.
In almost any situation the right thing to do is to save your neighbor. This is said to be a by-product of our life in societies. Nonetheless, it is way more natural to love ourselves. In Jesus time, when He told the disciples 'love thy neighbor' they had to ask, 'Lord, who is my neighbor?'. Jesus told them not to throw stones, to turn the other cheek, and to love thy enemy. Whoever these people were who wrote the NT, they were not thinking survival, they were not scientists, nor politicians. Do you not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings? That these teachings were not normal in the time of Jesus? and that all of this 'scientific' evidence has been gathered from humans who have already accepted these words of Jesus subconsciously? Why are we looking for reasons for our own morality, when obviously morality has changed? The only thing we have seen is a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'.
We have gone from slavery, which is good for the master, to freedom, good for the slave.
We have gone from rape, good for survival and quite normal, to appreciation of consent.
There are a million such examples. No great prophet has ever preached survival, but love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 11:02 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 2:59 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 80 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:52 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 68 of 184 (381273)
01-30-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Stile
01-30-2007 1:01 PM


Re: We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
Stile writes:
I think it is wrong since the learning that has taken place throughout my life has caused me to understand that, as people, we are equal.
Sure, unless we are an innocent Iraqi, unborn, or a criminal. We still get to decide who is equal, don't we?
If self-sacrifice is VERY important to a society, why do more mothers-to-be not take that little leap of blah blah natural sacrificial instinct and protect their young, the way you would die rather than be forced to rape?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 1:01 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 3:10 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 69 of 184 (381275)
01-30-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
01-30-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Mundane? Yes. Survival-driven? Not convinced.
Larni writes:
Because the action of rape would go against your perception of right and wrong that you have learnt. This is self sacrifice that is very important to a society.
But again, you get all hung up on survival and miss the importance of what you have learnt!
My whole point is that you learn these notions of right and wrong!
I know. And as common as rape is today, I would have to guess we are not doing much teaching. Matter of fact, I don't think we have learned a thing since Biblical times.
This entire topic is a big circle. Rapists have not learned, have a brain mal-function which causes them not to feel empathy, and have only survival drive. Poor things, it is not their fault.
Don't you understand what you are doing? I already told you we have choice, I already told you we have the Knowledge of Good and Evil from God. You are doing such a nice job of explaining how God made this work.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 11:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:51 PM anastasia has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 70 of 184 (381308)
01-30-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anastasia
01-30-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Mundane? Yes. Survival-driven? Not convinced.
anastasia writes:
If morality is not based on anything except feelings and survival chances...
But that's just it. That's what I've been trying to say from the beginning of this thread. I don't think morality is based on only feelings and survival chances. In fact, I don't think morality is based on survival chances at all. I think intelligence is a larger factor. Yes, intelligence evolved and came-to-be because of our ancestors' (pre-human ancestors) reliance on survival chances. But I do not think we continue that reliance now that we have our intelligence.
anastasia writes:
Whoever these people were who wrote the NT, they were not thinking survival, they were not scientists, nor politicians. Do you not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings? That these teachings were not normal in the time of Jesus? and that all of this 'scientific' evidence has been gathered from humans who have already accepted these words of Jesus subconsciously? Why are we looking for reasons for our own morality, when obviously morality has changed? The only thing we have seen is a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'.
I do not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings, only that the two teachings are very similar. I've also heard of teachings from before the time of Christ, in other parts of the world, that are also similar teachings. I've also heard of teachings from places very independant from Christ or anywhere else for that matter, and they too have similar teachings.
I have not seen a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'. I have seen the same battle that goes on today between these two conflicting ideals as has gone on in Jesus' time and even before Jesus' time. Jesus did not create this ideal of 'love thy neighbor'. Although, I will concede that he is promoted that way and it is certainly the popular belief of a majority of Western civilization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 1:03 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 71 of 184 (381312)
01-30-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
01-30-2007 1:24 PM


Re: We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
anastasia writes:
We still get to decide who is equal, don't we?
Yes. And this decision is also based what we have learnt throughout our lives.
anastasia writes:
If self-sacrifice is VERY important to a society, why do more mothers-to-be not take that little leap of blah blah natural sacrificial instinct and protect their young, the way you would die rather than be forced to rape?
A very interesting question. But I'm afraid I'm not concerned with the answer to it in this thread. Since I don't think my morality is dependant at all on the survival of any given society (even my own), the answer will therefore not have any affect on how I see my morality.
However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children, though. I have never seen anything that would make myself think otherwise, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 1:24 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 3:53 PM Stile has replied
 Message 74 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 4:05 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 72 of 184 (381318)
01-30-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Stile
01-30-2007 3:10 PM


Re: We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
Stile writes:
However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children, though. I have never seen anything that would make myself think otherwise, anyway.
You have never seen a girl go out and buy baby items, and then abort her baby because she hates her boyfriend? I have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 3:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 4:02 PM anastasia has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 73 of 184 (381320)
01-30-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by anastasia
01-30-2007 3:53 PM


Re: We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
anastasia writes:
You have never seen a girl go out and buy baby items, and then abort her baby because she hates her boyfriend? I have.
I certainly believe you. This, however, does not phase me in my statement:
quote:
However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children...
I never required that all women act this way. People are different, some are "mal-functioning" as previously described in this thread, others have had non-optimal environments during their main growth and learning phases of life.
Are we on topic? What are we discussing on this line of thought, anyway? ...I find myself without a point I'm trying to make

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 3:53 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 4:09 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 74 of 184 (381321)
01-30-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Stile
01-30-2007 3:10 PM


Re: We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
Stile writes:
Yes. And this decision is also based what we have learnt throughout our lives.
I guess I have learned better than some, then. Yeah for my screwed up mixed up parents. My head still screams when I see loss of innocent lives, and I don't gloat over this country's 'success'.
And yes, 'love thy neighbor' is preached in many ancient religious texts, way before any behavior science tried to claim it was survival instinct. No one has to preach survival as if they were driving a mule. We already have plenty of natural selfishness driving our survival, and plenty of intelligence to make it work. So much for the Bible not being scientific. The ancient Israelites seemed to have the brain already figured out. The said 'we have choice' and we have 'knowledge of good and evil'. They are evolved gifts that God has given us absolutely to help us survive. Any creature which has the intelligence to choose would self-destruct without knowledge of 'right'. That is; spiritually, and physically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 3:10 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nator, posted 01-30-2007 11:34 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 75 of 184 (381322)
01-30-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Stile
01-30-2007 4:02 PM


Re: We've relied on our survival drive all this time, is it still used?
Stile writes:
Are we on topic? What are we discussing on this line of thought, anyway? ...
My point? Reducing men to a lot of mal-functioning animals is pretty much what Hitler did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 4:02 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 4:43 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 77 by RickJB, posted 01-30-2007 4:43 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024