@boomzilla said:
Their reasoning might differ. It might not. Ditto with the response
Ohh, so we agree on that, certain randomness is to be expected, however I would love to see compiled data on response, It would clear the issue considerably.
@boomzilla said:
I would differ with you on the societal benefit, too.
Ok.. what are the benefit?
@boomzilla said:
I think I disagree with at least a few of your assumptions.
That is ok, and perfectly understandable, without disagrement there would not be progress. However I would like for you to point them so I can correct them if they are wrong or try to explain them better.
@boomzilla said:
Seriously? You can't grasp the concept of nationality
More to the point I don't see why humans care about such a triffle matter nowadays, however I do understand its anthropological and evolutionary importance.@boomzilla said:
But yes, you've given hints that you live in Cuba (the currency thing being the biggest). No one knows where you actually live.
That guess is as good as any although is not the first time it has been proponed, the only reason I never put a nationality is because I don't believe it to matter in the grand scheme of things.
@boomzilla said:
If you live in a place like Cuba or (worse) North Korea, there's all sorts of horrible things done to the populace
Care to provide recent provable examples, for Cuba at least?
@boomzilla said:
Survival in that kind of environment seems to require people to suppress normal emotions and reaction
How very "1984". As I mentioned before, in my case, as I mentioned before, it is slightly different but it could be true in a broader sense, however I would posit that that response would be normal for that environment.
@boomzilla said:
If you suppress the natural act of judging something to be good or bad, it's easier to accept someone else's assertion about what's right and wrong.
In a general case, maybe, however if I can't judge something bad or good it is also imposible to accept the judgement of others so this doesn't make sense.
@boomzilla said:
I recently read a book about North Korean defectors.
Great, I hope you enjoyed it, however even if the content of it is true, it is anecdotal evidence at most.
@boomzilla said:
What's not rational about it?
Putting more value in another life than yours, except in extreme circunstances, saving yourself should be imperative.
@boomzilla said:
The implication of your response appears to be that, rationally, a person has an equal responsibility for the safety of all other people.
Have you read Asimov? Remember the Three laws of Robotics and how at some point one of the characters said that a robot behavior was exactly the same as the one of a good person. There is some thruth to that but humans are not inherently good or bad.
@boomzilla said:
Or perhaps that the responsibility is undefined?
Well, I would say that varies according to society and time.
@boomzilla said:
Are you confusing reason with nihilism?
I'm not sure I'm, however I read the wiki page on moral nihilism and some of its ideas are certainly interesting.