With all due respect, I just don't understand how or why you are a supporter of Congressman Paul with the thinking you possess, WilliamC.
Well let's see if we can reach some sort of mutual understanding, yes?
This "rEVOLution" we're engaged in assumes some things that I feel contradict your worldview. If we are nothing but animals evolving in nature, then what's wrong with the "stronger animals" (those empowered in our government presently) controlling the lives of the "weaker animals" through laws and legislation that ultimately come from "electro-chemical processes of the brain?"
Because we humans have evolved a brain that allows us to look far beyond the present and contemplate the future consenquences of our actions. Personally, I have no such desire to control the lives of others. Do you?
Since I do not have these views, I am opposed to those who do. Are you?
If we all are animals, then why shouldn't a "pack of animals" (corporations) use their money and power to take over the territory of other "animals" (you know, those "wild beasts" over there in the Middles East whose electrical-chemical synapses in their brain have deemed them as "Muslims")?
Because it is immoral to steal? I don't need religion to tell me I don't want my property stolen, therefore I can empathize with others when their property is stolen. Even if I am part of the "pack" doing the stealing, so long as this type of behaviour is allowed or encouraged there is nothing to prevent the "pack" from someday turning on me.
Besides, I've never claimed that Muslims are any more or less "wild beasts" than anyone else. Do you?
After all, these "pack of animals" are only living by "survival of the fittest."
Methinks you have a different understanding of "survivial of the fittest" than I.
Survivial of the fittest is a tautology. Those that leave the most descendents in the next generation are more fit. For humans, those who leave the most children after they die win, in an evolutionary sense.
No need to automatically assume violence. Sometimes peace and cooperation is a better mechanism for ensuring survivial of your progeny. Nature doesn't care though, all that matters is who has the most children, and grandchildren, and so on.
If we are all animals, then why should us "apes" follow a "stupid piece of paper" called "the Constitution" which doesn't necessarily agree with all of our "animal" instincts because we, as you'll agree, have different ways that our "electrochemical processes" interpret and react to nature?
Well we've come a long way in our intellectual capabilities from our less intelligent ancestors, so we can now see much further into the future than they could. Sometimes it is in our long term best interest not to act on short term impulses. Following a "stupid piece of paper" called "the Constitution" greatly increases the probability of peace and prosperity, which in turn greatly increases the chances that our children will survive and prosper as well, which in turn greatly increases the chances that our extended family will survive and prosper, which in turn greatly increses the chances that our people will survive and prosper, which in turn greatly increases the chances that our species will survive and prosper.
And that's the ultimate goal for me. A free and liberated human society breaking free of the dead-end future of being bound to a single planet, spreading out into the solar system and beyond, forever and ever, until the Universe itself comes to an end.
Sort of like heaven is supposed to be I guess, but without the inconvient fact you have to die to get there.
If property rights are just the results of what the "electrochemical processes" in our brain tell us about territory in nature, then why shouldn't other "animals" who have "evolved" better "electrochemical processes" fight and take over these territories and make them their own property (as we observe with all animals in nature)?
Well obviously many people do just this, as witnessed by the wars and such that we humans engage in. I just don't feel the need, myself, to take from others by force what I can't get by voluntary exchange. Maybe I'm just weird, but do unto others as I would have them do unto me is just plain common sense.
If rights only come from our thoughts, then who decides which thought process is the most rational and intelligent to interpret what our rights are?
For me, I do. I assume you decide this for yourself, but I could be mistaken.
These are questions I'm just eagerly waiting for you to answer, WilliamC. But don't be surprised if the "electrical-chemical processes" in my brain force me to disagree with you and conclude that you are simply a fool and need to be extinct...
Well good luck with that "Theocrat". Those electro-chemical processes also underly a very strong instinct of personal survivial as well, so you'd best sneak up on me or you might not get your wish of making me extinct.
Do you always threaten those you debate with?
Oh, and what's with all the "quotes"? I didn't say most of those things you are quoting, why are you attributing them to me? Simple mistake? Or outright lie?
heh heh.
