Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Avoid hell, you mean.

I think Sebby, who is close to animal status, proves my point. "doing awful things to people just doesn't make me feel good"

If you think Sebby ever proves a point, then you've lost the argument.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What the fuck are you talking about, you freak? I mean like wolves.

Possible explanation for starving kids in Bangladesh: See "help some of the weak young survive," above. Obviously, this would have evolved to meet a local need, but the impulse remains and applies, to varying degrees, to anything with big eyes that looks hungry.

I am starting to think you are some kind of troll sock. You can't be this dense. Or, you really are partially club, and today is club's turn.

It doesn't help our tribe to save young in other tribes. Just like your point about not killing being a rule to help survive, needs the * that our tribe needs to rob and kill from the other tribe. At least in Cave man days that was going on.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you think Sebby ever proves a point, then you've lost the argument.

I don't think he proved his point. I think his statement inadvertently proved my point.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think humans instinctively want, everything else being equal, to help other humans and even animals. I think it's reinforced and channeled by teaching/society/culture, but I think it is instinctive.

How is this politics?

Humans that are taught to want this do. But I think human's are more or less a blank slate at birth. We need to be taught what is good and what is not. I know you will abhor this suggestion, but spend some time around children and I think you will see evidence of this.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It doesn't help our tribe to save young in other tribes. Just like your point about not killing being a rule to help survive, needs the * that our tribe needs to rob and kill from the other tribe. At least in Cave man days that was going on.

It's an instinct. Knowing that the child you have teh instinctive urge to protect is part of a tribe that wants to kill you will make you either ignore your urge to protect/nurture, or make you kidnap the child and work it into your own tribe.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Humans that are taught to want this do. But I think human's are more or less a blank slate at birth. We need to be taught what is good and what is not. I know you will abhor this suggestion, but spend some time around children and I think you will see evidence of this.

I have spend a lot of time around children, and they are very giving/nurturing if they see someone in need of help. Even the crappily brought up ones.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I have spend a lot of time around children, and they are very giving/nurturing if they see someone in need of help. Even the crappily brought up ones.

Your friends/family are apparently better parents than mine.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Humans that are taught to want this do. But I think human's are more or less a blank slate at birth. We need to be taught what is good and what is not. I know you will abhor this suggestion, but spend some time around children and I think you will see evidence of this.

As far as I am concerend nature/nurture is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your friends/family are apparently better parents than mine.

When they are quite young, if they see a person (esp a baby/young child) crying, they will often express concern. Depending on whether they are feeling OK (this goes back to my "all things being equal") themselves. They learn later to ignore it (or not, depending on the situation).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been hesitant to push my views on my colleagues. However, I feel compelled to share my deep concerns with the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations. I strongly feel that the importance of this nomination to our foreign policy requires us to set aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation’s best interests guide us.
At a time when the United States strives to fight terrorism globally, to build a stable and free Iraq, to find a peaceful resolution to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, to spread democracy in the place of oppressive regimes, and to enact needed reforms at the United Nations, it is imperative that we have the support of our friends and allies internationally. These strong international relationships must be built upon robust and effective public diplomacy.

I applaud our President for understanding this and for his leadership on U.S. public diplomacy. He and Secretary Rice have taken important steps to reach out to the international community and strengthen relationships. Additionally, I applaud the President’s decision to appoint Karen Hughes to enhance U.S. public diplomacy at the State Department, and recently to get even the First Lady involved in these important efforts to promote public diplomacy.

However, it is my concern that John Bolton’s nomination sends a negative message to the world community and contradicts the President’s efforts. In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation’s ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective Ambassador to the United Nations. I worry that Mr. Bolton could make it more difficult for us to achieve the important U.N. reforms needed to restore the strength of the institution. I strongly believe that we need to reform the U.N., make it a viable institution for world security, and remove its anti-Israel bias. However, I question John Bolton’s ability to get this job done.

I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate it if you would review my edited statement before the Foreign Relations Committee as to why I think we can do much better than John Bolton at the United Nations. In my closing words, I stated the following:

• “Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the President to give Mr. Bolton an up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. My hope is that, on a bipartisan basis, we send Mr. Bolton’s nomination to the floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its will. I would plead with my colleagues in the Senate, if this nomination gets to the floor, to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all of the pertinent material, and to ask themselves several pertinent questions: Is John Bolton the best possible person to serve as the lead diplomat at the United Nations? Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N., despite his damaged credibility? Will he share information with the right individuals and will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so that he can make the most informed decisions? Is he capable of advancing the President and Secretary of State’s efforts to advance our public diplomacy? Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self discipline, common decency, and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory? Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, and uphold democracy -- as a team – with our fellow nations?”

If you have any comments or questions in regard to my deep concerns about this appointment, I would welcome them.
Sincerely,

George V. Voinovich
United States Senate

TAPPED

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
When they are quite young, if they see a person (esp a baby/young child) crying, they will often express concern. Depending on whether they are feeling OK (this goes back to my "all things being equal") themselves. They learn later to ignore it (or not, depending on the situation).

There's always the mean kid, though, and they grow up to be mean adults, like Trent Lott or lo-berry.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There's always the mean kid, though, and they grow up to be mean adults, like Trent Lott or lo-berry.

Absolutely. I think there's a range, and not everyone gets enough to show.

But I still want to know what Spanky thinks makes up the morality that we all agree on and got from a higher power (often called "god" as a shorthand). My "generally help other people, all things being equal" is not much.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Voinovich screws Bush.

So Bolton's dead? It doesn't take many Rs to put the nails in the coffin.

This Republican congress is kind of interesting.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Absolutely. I think there's a range, and not everyone gets enough to show.

But I still want to know what Spanky thinks makes up the morality that we all agree on and got from a higher power (often called "god" as a shorthand). My "generally help other people, all things being equal" is not much.

We know that morality and ethics predated the writing of the Old Testament. These were derived from religions that, if we accept Judeo-Christianity as true, are fake. This means that either the religions were made up by men or delivered here by aliens. Since morality must come from a higher power (per spanky), the religion must have been delivered by aliens.

George Lucas invented the aliens. Therefore, George Lucas is the source of all morality.

QED.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As far as I am concerend nature/nurture is the basis of politics. I find the disucssion interesting. If you don't want to read my posts, simply ignore them, or you could go to the fashion board and discuss American Idol and breast implants.

Why are you addressing this to me? For the last time, I'm not Spanky.