George - 30 July 2012 10:19 AM

A complex topic. Although Doug is right saying that this behaviour can be probably explained as a spandler, there are differences in how individuals and groups feel about helping and judging others. Liberals feel that everybody deserves out help, conservatives think that we ought to help those in our group before the rest (e.g., supporting the soldiers), and this help should be based on what those in need “deserve.”

“Agreed.”

George - 30 July 2012 10:19 AM

People are also willing to favour those individuals who need help when they are the same race, even though it’s debatable if this is a result of kin selection. A lot of these differences can be explained through various adaptations, but the field of evelitionary psychology is young and it is therefore perhaps too soon to jump into any definitive conclusions. What is exciting, though, is that scientists finally seem to be on the right track.

Young and immature, imho. Hard to tell about the track when they’re like that.

George - 30 July 2012 10:23 AM

Also, I am not sure what this is doing in the philosophy forum. Kant, Plato, Hume and others had their try and got us nowhere. It’s time to use the only tool that works to find out what is really going on here, and that tool is obviously science.

*goes to check the shed*

Inclusion Criterion #2: A lot of philosophy, present probably included, is a fallacious pile of crap.

Please don’t make me read what I wrote in the past. Makes me ill.

I know that feeling all too well. Point for you too.

Inclusion Criterion #3: Reading things you have written in the past can all too often make you ill.

Criterion #4:  Babblers can’t limit the topics on which they focus at the moment.    

Occam

Ah, congratulations.  You finally understood one.

Occam

Exclusion Criterion #4: The stupid paradox.

edit: see, you messed up my count

Are you Ahuva Ai and tayloraustin?

Exclusion Criterion #5: Sock-puppet detectives.

Yes, I like games.

Now’s a good point to summarize.

Megalomaniacal mental masturbator not looking for people who identify with any of the following:

1) Believing you reproduce to pass on your genes. Crude, but hopefully the gist is conveyed. There’s a treasure-trove of stuff that can be compiled with respect to evolution. Tangential, but I even read something written by PhDs that sought to explain entrenched conservative resistance to accepting anthropogenic global warming in terms of self-interest with respect to social environment. Good luck with that.
2) Quickly chalking things up to magical Asperger’s or some other mental condition. It’s a fun list.
3) Not making sense and hating one’s peers.
4) The stupid paradox.
5) Sock-puppet detectives.

Megalomaniacal mental masturbator looking for people who identify with all of the following:

1) Disdain.
2) A lot of philosophy, present probably included, is a fallacious pile of crap.
3) Reading things you have written in the past can all too often make you ill.
4) Not averse to games.

I am a picky one.  (God, I really do hate the smileys on this forum)

George - 27 November 2012 01:48 PM

Are you Ahuva Ai and tayloraustin?

Are you f***ing kidding me? So you think I might’ve created three consecutive users on the ‘newest members’ list prominently displayed at the bottom of the forum? I thought it was strange enough Occam thought I’d have created a sock-puppet to go along with a “puppeteer” simultaneously. Jesus.

Exclusion Criterion #6: George and Occam.

Ahuva Ai and tayloraustin are the same person. I am sure of that. (Although the proof I had of that from another site is now gone—well done!). I don’t know for certain if you have created them, but the fact that they showed up around the same time as the “MMM” account, would be a good indicator of that. Plus, both Ahuva Ai and tayloraustin only pretend to be making grammar mistakes and both sound, hmm, “a little strange.” Also, there has been some interaction between the three of you.

They are your sock-puppets.

I’m a sucker for conspiracy theories, and we have a nice microcosm going here. I’m listening. More! More! More!

Inclusion Criterion #5: You have a loose and somewhat flippant definition for conspiracy theories and thus find them quite commonplace, if not ubiquitous.

Sure, I’ll give you more. All three of you seem to be suffering from the same mentall illness. You really can’t fake not being crazy.