[Heineken]

My God, who are these monsters and whence did they come?

They are ghosts of the past, present and future. In a life and death struggle for resources, where do you want to end up?

These are pictures of the you's and me's of the future, if we don't start cooperating and sharing now. Not even the rich can insulate themselves forever.

[sch_peakoiler]

Sorry, Jack. You can't forever insulate yourself from scrawnette and her starving infant. Sooner or later she is going to be back on your doorstep, the next time with her brothers and their baseball bats. In the end, the stoney-hearted Jacks of this world are going down with the rest of it.

Let me get this straight. So this woman has several brothers who instead of feeding her, go to Jack and demand that he feeds them all, lest he would be beaten to death?? Nice proposition man. There are people like Jack, who can work and provide for themselves, and there are people like you described, who can only demand, threat, steal, and kill. And your respect is with them? murderers, that is?

You see, you name this scenario yourself. Help or they gather in big numbers and kill us. You said that, not me, nor Jack. but for some reason you do not understand this.

[jato]

Only a sociopath would witthold milk from a starving infant, and watch it die in his driveway, screaming. That is what Jack said he would do. He's a sociopath; no other conclusion is possible.

So in your hypothetical, you would feed the strange baby and watch your own baby starve to death? Some problems do not have a solution.

[Heineken]

You're right, Jack, honor is to some extent a flexible, personal value system---but it must exist within the limits of certain universally recognized standards of right and wrong in one's deportment toward others.

I do not agree that honor is a "societal control mechanism." Quite the contrary; honorable men, in pursuing what they internally know to be the right path, often act in opposition to the crowd. Literature---and real life---is replete with such characters, and good people will root for them because good people naturally cleave to kindness, love, charity, and self-sacrifice.

On the one hand, you suggest "certain universally recognized standards of right and wrong." Then you speak of "honorable men, in pursuing what they internally know to be the right path, often act in opposition to the crowd. "

So we have a fundamental internal conflict. Either they are universal, or they are not. If one is to celebrate those who "Internally know" this or that, then one argues that the internal standards supersede the supposedly universal standards.

As for me, I'm pursuing what I internally know to be the right path, even if it is in opposition to the crowd.

No. Weak analysis. Large groups can behave in immoral and unethical ways---history is replete with examples. The classic example these days is Nazi Germany. A few brave Germans (such as Sophie Scholl) openly opposed the Nazis' demented belief system and were beheaded. In that example, a few people clung to the universal right despite ostracism (and murder) by the majority. The universal rights and wrongs remained the same throughout the German experience and always will.

You're not on the right path---you're on no path at all. Because you don't even know the difference between right and wrong.

It is wrong---evil---not to give milk to a starving infant, under any circumstance under the sun. Nothing you say or think can change that.

[Heineken]

The hypothetical, for those who are now confused, was simply this: Whether Jack would give milk, assuming he had milk to give, to a starving infant who showed up in his driveway, thrust at him by its destitute mother. Jack said no, never---on the haywire grounds that feeding the child would exacerbate overpopulation and keep Jack from getting HIS milk. Nothing was said about Jack's brothers, sisters, children, or any other extenuating circumstances whatsoever---all hairsplitting distractions in any case.

OK, so there's the child on your lawn, screaming, in agony. All it needs is a little milk, and you have a refrigerator full of it. All theories and philosophies and statistics fall away at the point, and the sane human being helps the child. Only the insane sociopath could turn away, creep back into his livingroom and turn on the tube.

[jato]

The hypothetical, for those who are now confused, was simply this: Whether Jack would give milk, assuming he had milk to give, to a starving infant who showed up in his driveway, thrust at him by its destitute mother. Jack said no, never. Nothing was said about Jack's brothers, sisters, children, or any other extenuating circumstances whatsoever---all hairsplitting distractions in any case.

If it is his intent to survive, I would suggest that Jack keep his resources for his own consumption. As the population around Jack diminishes, Jack survives due to diligent planning and more natural resources become available per capita for Jack to aquire later.

It is a cold calculation for sure.

[Heineken]

Then you're just as sick as Jack, jato. I certainly never asserted that his illness exists in a vacuum. There are lots of stony hearts in this vale of tears.

Why are you so convinced that Jack and the infant are competing for the same exact resource? What if Jack doesn't even particularly like milk?

This is a matter of morality in the moment, not population control across the years.

[jato]

Additinionally, Jack could use subterfuge and convince the woman with the baby that he does not have any more food. Jack could then give the woman a map to Heineken's house. Jack could tell the woman Heineken has large quantities of food and has never refused to feed a baby.

[jato]

Then you're just as sick as Jack, jato. I certainly never asserted that his illness exists in a vacuum. There are lots of stony hearts in this vale of tears.

I am not sick. I have never hurt anyone without justification. As a matter of fact, I have "passed" several psychological evaluations in the past to be a Peace Officer. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made and because of those decisions, lives are won and also lost.

This is a matter of morality in the moment, not population control across the years.

No, it was cast in a paradigm of survival.

[sch_peakoiler]

It is wrong---evil---not to give milk to a starving infant, under any circumstance under the sun. Nothing you say or think can change that.

Who defines this "WRONG" or "EVIL"?? You ?? The Bible?? The president? Do you know that sometime ago in human history it was moral and good to eat people, and after that, it was good and moral to have slaves. those definitions change all the time. And as we reach the carrying capacity, they must be and will be defined anew.

[jato]

Also, right now where I live, there is no law which states I must feed somebody else’s starving child. Ask yourself why that is? Don’t try and say it doesn’t happen. I have personally seen abused and neglected children in my own community before.


There is also no law against "hording" or cashing food for my own future use.

[Declan]

Heineken, grandstanding on the internet is the easiest thing to do. Also, you are talking about moral values, more precisely your moral values.

Why is it so hard to accept that not everyone has the same values and ideological position as you?

You sound a lot like the Liberals in my country, who think that they know what's best for everyone and that only their way of life is a valid one.

Compassion is a choice. You make that choice if it suits you but don't expect everyone to see the world as you do.

You want to know something else? I can't force myself to like people outside of my own race and culture who are vastly different in their beliefs and life styles than me and that is pretty much true for everyone else.
If you could secretly be privy to conversations between people of different ethnic backgrounds and cultures when they know that no outsider is listening, you would realize that dislike for other ethnic groups is a normal thing and it's very common among all races.

People who say that they love everyone and that they are all for diversity are liars. They have their own hidden motivation for saying that or they've smoked too much pot.

As for you calling people who don't give a shit about others "monsters", you are completely out of touch with reality and common sense. The great majority of people indeed do not give a shit about strangers. It's not natural to do so unless you've been subscribing to liberal, socialist or communist propaganda (which is more or less the same thing) for a long time and are totally brain washed.

The only thing that makes the great majority of people different from Jack is that they don't have the balls to be right out honest about how they feel. People in western societies have learned a long time ago that it is to their benefit, economically and socially, to pretend that they like everyone.

I for one would rather be surrounded by people who are not weasels and tell it like it is vs. people who will be your friend and confidant to your face while behind your back they hate your guts and wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

"The Jack Persona" that I see on this forum is someone strong and self-sufficient who doesn’t have the time or the inclination to pretend he cares about strangers. "The Heineken Persona" I see on here appears to be an opportunistic weasel type with one goal only: scoring brownie points with the Liberal crowd.

In a tight spot, I would trust my life in the hands of the “Jacks” of the world but I would kiss my ass good bye if you my salvation was to come from the “Heinekens” of the world.

[SoothSayer]

You can see all those pictures of the starving in Africa. Or the persecuted in Burma.

Yet, what have you done to help them? (A few pennies given to charity doesn't really count).

The money spent on every unnecessary gallon of fuel or unneeded burger could have saved a life ... but no, you put yourself & family first.

So it simply comes down to physical distance (and possibly skin colour).

Is the starving child at your gate any different to the child in Uganda? Not really.

Family come first - but you would/should help if you felt safe to do so i.e. no risk of depriving your child, no risk of revealing your food stocks and attracting an attack, no risk of attack from the child's parents if you don't help, no risk of upsetting the neighbours.

Life ain't always fair.

[rwwff]

I already posted what I would do. I would never give any money, or any food, to any begger. Period. It makes the problem worse, not better.

That's a cop-out and you know it. At least Jack is honest enough to say that he won't give or help because he wants it all for himself, in addition to the reason you give.

It is not a cop out. It is seeking to remedy the person's real problems. All your solution will do is make it worse, and possibly kill the one you are seemingly most concerned about.

[Jack]

The hypothetical, for those who are now confused, was simply this: Whether Jack would give milk, assuming he had milk to give, to a starving infant who showed up in his driveway, thrust at him by its destitute mother. Jack said no, never---on the haywire grounds that feeding the child would exacerbate overpopulation and keep Jack from getting HIS milk. Nothing was said about Jack's brothers, sisters, children, or any other extenuating circumstances whatsoever---all hairsplitting distractions in any case.

OK, so there's the child on your lawn, screaming, in agony. All it needs is a little milk, and you have a refrigerator full of it. All theories and philosophies and statistics fall away at the point, and the sane human being helps the child. Only the insane sociopath could turn away, creep back into his livingroom and turn on the tube.

Heineken, this is Saturday.

I got up this morning, had a few fresh blueberries and a small croissant, then went to the gym for a pleasant workout. I met some friends there and we talked while we used the machines.

After a refreshing time in the steam room and a shower, I met another friend at one of my favorite watering holes and we had lunch. Then I dropped by Costco and picked up a few things. It's been a delightful day so far, with every indication of remaining so.

You, on the other hand, seem to have spent your time delving into the minutiae of sociopathy.

Now, Heineken, I ask you. Which is more normal? Which behaviors are healthier?

As for the screaming infant, I would still call the police and child protective services. If it is in fact behaving as you describe, it might be sick or injured; thus, feeding it might cause further damage or death.

Note, Heineken, that it is you - not I - who fixates on starving infants. A fact that fairly screams to be noticed, eh?

[Venerye]

Jack,

Somewhat off topic. Out of curiosity, why are you a forum moderator? It would seem to me that the time & effort of moderating is not in the best interest of a person primarily concerned with sequestering the greatest amount of resources for himself for future survival. Wouldn't it make more sense to lurk on the forums and retain any useful information, "blow the chaff away" without having any responsibility to the forum, thus freeing up more time and effort towards preparation?

And after all, isn't much of the advice/example you give to others self-defeating because you are only helping to enable their survival? The more people who see your reasoning, come around and train themselves to act as you say you are acting, the more likely it is that there will be less resources available for you (in the big scheme of things), correct? So why not remain quiet and hope that as many individuals as possible remain weak and emotional, instead of exposing/defending your philosophy? In fact, why not advocate the opposite position of your own in order to reinforce their weakness?

I follow your logic as you have presented it in this thread. I just don't see how you are acting in accordance with that logic by essentially helping other people (strangers, no less!) to survive.

[Heineken]

The hypothetical, for those who are now confused, was simply this: Whether Jack would give milk, assuming he had milk to give, to a starving infant who showed up in his driveway, thrust at him by its destitute mother. Jack said no, never---on the haywire grounds that feeding the child would exacerbate overpopulation and keep Jack from getting HIS milk. Nothing was said about Jack's brothers, sisters, children, or any other extenuating circumstances whatsoever---all hairsplitting distractions in any case.

OK, so there's the child on your lawn, screaming, in agony. All it needs is a little milk, and you have a refrigerator full of it. All theories and philosophies and statistics fall away at the point, and the sane human being helps the child. Only the insane sociopath could turn away, creep back into his livingroom and turn on the tube.

Heineken, this is Saturday.

I got up this morning, had a few fresh blueberries and a small croissant, then went to the gym for a pleasant workout. I met some friends there and we talked while we used the machines.

After a refreshing time in the steam room and a shower, I met another friend at one of my favorite watering holes and we had lunch. Then I dropped by Costco and picked up a few things. It's been a delightful day so far, with every indication of remaining so.

In other words, you spent your day like a typical self-centered, materialistic yup. Big deal.

[Heineken]

Jack,

Somewhat off topic. Out of curiosity, why are you a forum moderator? It would seem to me that the time & effort of moderating is not in the best interest of a person primarily concerned with sequestering the greatest amount of resources for himself for future survival. Wouldn't it make more sense to lurk on the forums and retain any useful information, "blow the chaff away" without having any responsibility to the forum, thus freeing up more time and effort towards preparation?

And after all, isn't much of the advice/example you give to others self-defeating because you are only helping to enable their survival? The more people who see your reasoning, come around and train themselves to act as you say you are acting, the more likely it is that there will be less resources available for you (in the big scheme of things), correct? So why not remain quiet and hope that as many individuals as possible remain weak and emotional, instead of exposing/defending your philosophy? In fact, why not advocate the opposite position of your own in order to reinforce their weakness?

I follow your logic as you have presented it in this thread. I just don't see how you are acting in accordance with that logic by essentially helping other people (strangers, no less!) to survive.

Beautiful.

[Heineken]

The hypothetical, for those who are now confused, was simply this: Whether Jack would give milk, assuming he had milk to give, to a starving infant who showed up in his driveway, thrust at him by its destitute mother. Jack said no, never---on the haywire grounds that feeding the child would exacerbate overpopulation and keep Jack from getting HIS milk. Nothing was said about Jack's brothers, sisters, children, or any other extenuating circumstances whatsoever---all hairsplitting distractions in any case.

OK, so there's the child on your lawn, screaming, in agony. All it needs is a little milk, and you have a refrigerator full of it. All theories and philosophies and statistics fall away at the point, and the sane human being helps the child. Only the insane sociopath could turn away, creep back into his livingroom and turn on the tube.

As for the screaming infant, I would still call the police and child protective services. If it is in fact behaving as you describe, it might be sick or injured; thus, feeding it might cause further damage or death.

Interesting---now you're trying to soften your stance by shifting the onus to "protective services." Let's say there is no protective services within 200 miles, and the child is clearly dying of dehydration and needs the milk (or, if you're feeling especially stingy, just water) now or will die. Would you give it to him? Your earlier responses would indicate a resounding, inflexible "no." Or is there a shred of humanity in you after all?

[Jack]

Let's say there is no protective services within 200 miles, and the child is clearly dying of dehydration and needs the milk (or, if you're feeling especially stingy, just water) now or will die. Would you give it to him? Your earlier responses would indicate a resounding, inflexible "no." Or is there a shred of humanity in you after all?

No, I would not give him/her/it anything. Not milk. Not water. Not a 25 year old MRE in a distended pouch. Not even my attention. Is that clear enough?

The call to protective services would take the mess off my hands. Of course, if I were distracted, and simply didn't notice anything...

Or is there a shred of humanity in you after all?

Nah. I resigned from that outfit long ago.