#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Which is more destructive?
Which is worse and more destructive?
Fear that is taught in order to keep the society functioning OR
when these fears[Fears that are simply within us (fear of death and extinction)] run rampant and society ceases to exist.
Would you suffer more from wrath/pride than the fear of death/extinction?
Is it better to have reason than have no reason at all(fear of death/extinction is more destructive)
or is it better to have freedom (fears that are taught to keep society functioning is more destructive)?
Social Fears
Side Score: 12
Winning Side! |
 |
Primal Fears
Side Score: 2
|
|
Primal fears seem to be more consistent. You get consistent actions when people act on primal fear. Social fears can be used to manipulate people with false fear. Fear that is taught in order to keep the society functioning The problem is that it isn't always to just keep functioning. The fear is that society won't function, but it is up to the person generating the fears to determine if it actually has anything to do with society as a whole. Someone can use this for their own benefits. Side: Social Fears
Confession: I actually have no idea what the original argument is; the framework perspective is too drastically different from my own. The notion of "versus" and "either-or" throughout is throwing me, because I do not understand emotions in that way. I think all feelings are a dual consequence of nature and nurture, that they are all the result of evolutionary pressure, and that they can all exist concurrently. Side: Social Fears
Ah, I see. Forced to choose, I would say motivation based on fear related to death/extinction. I think that wrath and pride based fears are a few among many possible derivative of the death/extinction motivator, making them more finite in their destructive capacities. In other words, wrath/pride motivators are subsumed by death/extinction motivators. Side: Social Fears
I think that wrath and pride based fears are a few among many possible derivative of the death/extinction motivator, making them more finite in their destructive capacities. See? I knew you couldn't do it. In other words, wrath/pride motivators are subsumed by death/extinction motivators. What are specific fear based motivators that cause the most destruction that you base this on? Not the actual fear, but the motivator that was ultimately derived from fear. Side: Social Fears
See? I knew you couldn't do it. Yep, accurately called. What are specific fear based motivators that cause the most destruction that you base this on? Not the actual fear, but the motivator that was ultimately derived from fear. I am, again, not entirely sure what is being asked. My best effort though: aversion to death is a primary motivator that inspires "destructive" secondary motivators such as fear, anger, wrath, pride, vanity, stress/anxiety, etc. (as well as the "constructive" secondary motivators: conscience, compassion, confidence, etc.). Side: Social Fears
You will notice that I put "destructive" and "constructive" in quotations. I do not think anything is exclusively destructive or constructive. As far as an example of how aversion to death can cause destruction, perhaps the most direct example would be someone hurting or killing someone else in order to live themselves (i.e. self defense, coerced violence, etc.). Arguably, of course, this is not purely destructive but there are some elements of destruction. Less directly, I would point to religion as another example; I think that religion is borne out of the general human fear of death and the common incapacity to reconcile our mortality with our instinct to life. Again, though, religion itself is not a purely destructive force. Side: Social Fears
You will notice that I put "destructive" and "constructive" in quotations. I do not think anything is exclusively destructive or constructive. Damn it man, can't you answer a question? As far as an example of how aversion to death can cause destruction, perhaps the most direct example would be someone hurting or killing someone else in order to live themselves (i.e. self defense, coerced violence, etc.). Arguably, of course, this is not purely destructive but there are some elements of destruction. Do you think this represents a lot of destruction? Less directly, I would point to religion as another example; I think that religion is borne out of the general human fear of death and the common incapacity to reconcile our mortality with our instinct to life. Again, though, religion itself is not a purely destructive force. But, when religion is used as a destructive force is it out of survival? Side: Social Fears
Damn it man, can't you answer a question? That was an answer, just not one of the options you were looking for. In other words... no. ;) Do you think this represents a lot of destruction? You are going to hate me for this, but... it depends on how we are measuring "destruction". Are we discussing the single instance, or the general practice of lethal self defense? Is life the greatest value, and thus its loss representative of the greatest destruction? Are we assessing it relative to other loss? Etc. But, when religion is used as a destructive force is it out of survival? It may be out of a survival instinct but that does not necessarily equate it being out of survival itself. It also does not make it any less destructive; I would argue that all destruction is a consequence of evolutionary pressures. Side: Social Fears
You are going to hate me for this, but... it depends on how we are measuring "destruction". Are we discussing the single instance, or the general practice of lethal self defense? Is life the greatest value, and thus its loss representative of the greatest destruction? Are we assessing it relative to other loss? Etc. Let's just stick to human kills. What is the most frequent when someone is killed for religious reasons, is it for self defense or something else? It may be out of a survival instinct but that does not necessarily equate it being out of survival itself. It also does not make it any less destructive; I would argue that all destruction is a consequence of evolutionary pressures. Humans tend to kill for reasons that are very different than other animals in nature. You can't really be part of this conversation because you reduce everything to evolution. Oh well. Side: Social Fears
Let's just stick to human kills. What is the most frequent when someone is killed for religious reasons, is it for self defense or something else? You made this a response to my comment, but I rather fail to see how it is actually responsive. That said, I have no idea what the "most frequent" motivator for religiously compelled killing is (beyond the religion itself) but I think it is safe to disqualify self defense since people are not commonly compelled by religion to act with lethal defensive force. I would even go so far as to say religion is more likely to inhibit the self-defensive instinct. Humans tend to kill for reasons that are very different than other animals in nature. Oh, really? Such as what, precisely? You can't really be part of this conversation because you reduce everything to evolution. Oh well.* I fail to see how being an evolutionary determinist precludes me from the conversation. Side: Social Fears
You made this a response to my comment, but I rather fail to see how it is actually responsive. You don't answer anything directly. I have to ask very specific questions. You were talking about what is destructive. Instead of talking about all destruction I wanted to narrow it down to just killing humans and no other destruction. That said, I have no idea what the "most frequent" motivator for religiously compelled killing is (beyond the religion itself) but I think it is safe to disqualify self defense since people are not commonly compelled by religion to act with lethal defensive force. I would even go so far as to say religion is more likely to inhibit the self-defensive instinct. This would lead me to believe that fear related to pride is the motivator for religion since it isn't a self preservation thing. Oh, really? Such as what, precisely? Well, lions don't go to war with other lions. Stuff like that. I fail to see how being an evolutionary determinist precludes me from the conversation. You are an evolutionary determinist who seems to feel that if there was anything that can be remotely linked to survival it is the motivating factor. The discussion requires you to be able to discuss different motivating factors. Side: Social Fears
You don't answer anything directly. I have to ask very specific questions. Correction: I do not answer vague ambiguity with direct answers. Why should I? This would lead me to believe that fear related to pride is the motivator for religion since it isn't a self preservation thing. Why? I have no idea how you got that from what I said. Well, lions don't go to war with other lions. Stuff like that. Lions are highly territorial; they have tribes, they fight each other, etc. The only difference is scale. You are an evolutionary determinist who seems to feel that if there was anything that can be remotely linked to survival it is the motivating factor. The discussion requires you to be able to discuss different motivating factors. Then I have been unclear. I think that evolution is the primary motivator (i.e. everything can be traced back to it), but it is not the sole motivator. I can discuss non-primary motivations, just so long as it is recognized that these are a consequence of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. Side: Primal Fears
Correction: I do not answer vague ambiguity with direct answers. Why should I? I haven't seen you answer direct questions either. Why? I have no idea how you got that from what I said. It is my opinion, it isn't really important for you to understand it. For me if it isn't done for self preservation it is out of pride. Lions are highly territorial; they have tribes, they fight each other, etc. The only difference is scale. Well, we have certainly outdone lions quite a bit. Then I have been unclear. I think that evolution is the primary motivator (i.e. everything can be traced back to it), but it is not the sole motivator. I can discuss non-primary motivations, just so long as it is recognized that these are a consequence of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. You say that, but I haven't seen you actually do it. :) Side: Primal Fears
I haven't seen you answer direct questions either. Well, I have, and in total honesty I have no interest in proving myself to you on that front. I know I have and that is more than adequate for me. It is my opinion, it isn't really important for you to understand it. For me if it isn't done for self preservation it is out of pride. Okay... I may not answer questions directly, but at least I answer them. Well, we have certainly outdone lions quite a bit. That statement is what we call missing the point. You say that, but I haven't seen you actually do it. :) Again, I have but am not at all concerned whether you think I have or not. Side: Social Fears
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
