Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurting other people is an instinct.
Citation? I was under the impression that humans do not have instincts.
The suckling action of infants is an instinct; not learned.
What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
91–100 of 127 posts
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's how it's generally defined, e.g. wikipedia: "Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient [...] being." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
Although tempting, debating the meaning of empathy is probably not a beneficial contribution to this HN thread. But I will say, the initial emotional response (for ex. feeling sad someone was harmed) is largely out of our control. But spending time feeling bad after the fact is a controllable state, and is the basis of a large amount of psychological and behavioral therapy.
Although tempting, debating the meaning of empathy is probably not a beneficial contribution to this HN thread.
Surely, given the subject, it is extremely relevant.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're actually mistaking religious for urban. In the Bible we talk about dominion over all animals, that is certainly a part of western culture, but few people actually believes that one should walk around randomly kicking puppies and shooting kittens in the head because they can. Instead, I would argue that this is a function of urbanization and removal of a connection between humans and animals. Animals, w…
I'm not mistaking anything, I'm drawing from an actual study[1]. Feel free to provide evidence discrediting it. And you point out as evidence of the disconnect between the urban people and farm animals, by giving the example of the anthropomorphism of cats , which happen to be one of the few animals that actually live with people in urban environments? I can't even comprehend such logic. [1]: http://www.animalsandsoc…
I've read over the study, and they've identified a trend, which you and I both accept as accurate. They don't, however, rule out the connection between urban environments and animal rights. As you are well aware, correlation does not equal causation.
As a member of a rural community your very livelihood is dependent on the relationship of people with animals. The doctor, the car dealer, etc all are connected to this. Doesn't it make more sense that this would have a bigger impact on how you view animal rights than what religion you are? It just so happens that rural people are overwhelmingly more religious, all I'm saying is they failed to account for a very important variable.
Rural people tend to view all animals as a resource, this includes cats as they are a very effective "mouser" or animal that kills mice. The same with dogs, as protectors of self and property. I'm willing to bet that Lolcats are overwhelmingly produced by urban folk, because they have lost this relationship with animals. My anecdotal evidence is that rural folks, and men in particular, don't find anything about lolcats funny at all. This is explained by their connection to cats as tools for removing rodents, not their religious views.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> moral responsibility is commutative That's nonsense. A baby doesn't know right from wrong, but parents are obliged to care for it. Just because a bear doesn't have responsibility doesn't mean we can shoot it wily-nily, there has to be some justification such as in the example you mention. And commutativity is a property of operations, you probably meant that moral responsibility is a symmetric relation.
Infants have no ability to care for their parents. Do you truly argue that a child, when they become able, has no responsibility to take care of their parents, when they become infirm? And metaphor need not hew closely to semantics, but having is, linguistically, a ditransitive operation-- technically stative, but the difference isn't important here. I may have responsibility, and I may have responsibility toward you…
That infants have no such ability was the whole point of the example. Children do have such responsibilities when they have the ability.
have is actually a transitive word, not ditransitive. An example of the latter is give: A gives B to C. I disagree that there's metaphor here, commutativity is a very technical term and it relates to operations such as addition. So in fact I do think it's relevant that have is stative, because this implies it's not an operation. When speaking of ethical matters it is simply more common to use words like symmetry and reciprocity.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation? I was under the impression that humans do not have instincts.
The suckling action of infants is an instinct; not learned.
That's a reflex, which is different from an instinct. In any case, I think the rather creative behaviors of hurting people in this case are obviously learned.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because it's bloody obvious that they're doing things specifically to hurt people. Humans don't desecrate graves by instinct, that requires malice, I'd say.
Hurting other people is an instinct.
Bullshit, we're social animals. That's what makes primates so distinct. Obviously there are exceptions, which these 4chan numbnuts have exemplified, but generally we're good at socialising and being friendly with another.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that empathy can only be the result of an emotional response and not rational thought.
My current view on it is that empathy isn't specifically an emotional or a rational response, but is more a sensory mirroring of the state of another entity real or imagined, and I am not sure that you can pick apart the strands into one realm or the other. It can be influenced by conscious thought and logic, sure, but as it is primarily experiential in nature, I usually have an experience that I then rationalise abo…
I won't debate your comment, it sounds reasonable. But as with my previous comment, I'll repeat "context is important".
In the documentary, I watched footage of him sitting 5ft from grizzly bears by himself for 15-20 minutes before they discuss his death.
In this article it explains how the girl teased 4chan repeatedly for 3-4 paragraphs before they described the attacks against her.
My emotional/empathetic response after hearing what happened to both of them was heavily influenced by rational thought beforehand.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not mistaking anything, I'm drawing from an actual study[1]. Feel free to provide evidence discrediting it. And you point out as evidence of the disconnect between the urban people and farm animals, by giving the example of the anthropomorphism of cats , which happen to be one of the few animals that actually live with people in urban environments? I can't even comprehend such logic. [1]: http://www.animalsandsoc…
I've read over the study, and they've identified a trend, which you and I both accept as accurate. They don't, however, rule out the connection between urban environments and animal rights. As you are well aware, correlation does not equal causation. As a member of a rural community your very livelihood is dependent on the relationship of people with animals. The doctor, the car dealer, etc all are connected to this.…
That may be so, but it doesn't change what I originally said; even if it's true, then as society becomes more urban, it'll both become less religious and more supportive of animal rights.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perverted view of history. In fact, in small hunter-gatherer tribes it was easier to keep track of each other and hold each other accountable, so crossing someone would be risky. Today, with large societies that are increasingly anonymous, one can more easily get away with screwing people over--you can always move someplace else. So I don't think being nasty is particularly natural for humans, it just comes…
On the other hand, when people have nowhere else to go, they are extremely vulnerable to exploitation of those in power. (Go watch Dogville for an exploration of that idea.) I think it's a bit naive to suggest that if people lived in smaller communities, nothing nasty would happen to anyone.
Outcasts are vulnerable, yes, but that's why you try to prevent becoming one. I have seen Dogville, but I don't see why this fictional anecdote would refute my thesis which is based on what I believe is the consensus in modern anthropology. I didn't imply that 'nothing nasty would happen to anyone', that's a straw man. I merely pointed out a contrast between small close-knit groups vs. large anonymous crowds.
Re: What Happens When You Taunt 4Chan: Story of Lacey Vicich
#100I feel that somewhere in the progress of western civilization, our culture lost track of some of the important but nasty sides of human nature. We censure them, and to an extent refuse to believe they exist. I hope that the 'wild internet' reintroduces society to the fact that people have a tendency to lash out and hurt others, and that reintroduction serves to help us put value back on thoughtful and caring behavior…
This is a perverted view of history. In fact, in small hunter-gatherer tribes it was easier to keep track of each other and hold each other accountable, so crossing someone would be risky. Today, with large societies that are increasingly anonymous, one can more easily get away with screwing people over--you can always move someplace else. So I don't think being nasty is particularly natural for humans, it just comes…
If nastiness wasn't natural, it would take more than being able to get away with it to bring it out.