Status-quo

[thebagman]

Mass opinion gave us communism, it gave us Hitler and the popular sport of witch-hunting. This is a weird question but does it seem to anyone else as though the more people you get together the dumber everyone seems to get?

Let's think about it! Cults, riots, wars, anything religious, is there anything we can do in a group that in a intellectual or scientific way advances mankind? Why has most of the pioneering work done in these fields by one man (or woman) or a single scientist in opposition of a much larger group? Is mass opinion just a reinforcement of the status-quo?

I do know that work on cancer and AID etc. are done in laboratory's in groups but that is not what I'm asking.

I am aware of the irony of asking a group of people for their opinion on this.

A person might have interpersonal skills, musical skills, physical, artistic, intellectual or mathematical skills but there is no way a person can have it all. Having never met a polymath I cannot be sure about this but I believe every person will in some way be lacking. It's part of the reason why we need each other and why we are social animals.

The reason for this rant is that some of the threads on this have got me worried. It's not love, it's vanity and under cover of darkness. A few years ago there was one where an author called Dark Muse expressed her feelings about how she felt about people who were not a part of her "inner circle". I can't find the thread but she did write that she felt nothing for those who were not close to her so much so to the point that if she had witnessed something horrible (death or major injury) happen to them she would not care. She then went on to point out the fact that she cared far more for animals than people.

I don't know whether or not she was being serious with these posts but it was quite shocking for me reading it. Dark Muse is an established member of this site isn't she? Why would she write pages and pages of this? Another member was quick to point out that she might be regarded as a psychopath after which she changed her tone. That only made me more worried, it just made her sound more sincere. I wish I could find that thread for you.

For these lost, hopeless and sometimes dangerous souls, is the status-quo all we have on offer?

[G L Wilson]

I would like to see what Dark Muse wrote that was so offensive. George Orwell pointed out that we shouldn't pretend at saintliness but practise humanity to those who we love. To me, the status quo seems to be airy-fairy nonsense about the brotherhood of man or some such crap. Whatever happened to family?

[thebagman]

family? what are you talking about?

by status-quo I mean the combined knowledge of mankind. That sounds much cooler than it really is. I mean, for example if I had asked anyone a few hundred years ago what the shape of the world was they would have told me that it was flat. They would have said that the world was the center of the universe and that if you went to far you would fall off the edge. By status quo I mean the defining ideas of our time.

What Dark Muse wrote wasn't offensive it was awkward. I could try finding it for you and maybe I worded it to sound more offensive than it was? If so, that's my fault but I swear there was a post and she did write something to the effect I have already written about in my first post. If you can't find it... well who cares? This damn site, posts are always appearing and disappearing and being changed all over the place. I'll try and find it for you.

I'm not sure exactly what the george orwell quote has to do with what I'm asking but shouldn't we practice humanity to all living things? Sure we can't always get along, we are only human in the end after all, but all human beings deserve our love and respect regardless of who they are, that is, until one of them starts acting in a way deserving of our wrath.

And don't tell me you've never expressed wrath for another.

[thebagman]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38752&page=5

Ah, I've found it! I was referring to a line somewhere down the middle.

"Well one of the very misanthropic things about me, is that I do not feel any empathy or compassion for the lives of strangers. What happens to people that I do not personally know or care about means nothing to me.

If someone else's existence does come to interfere with me, or with someone I care about, then I will do what I feel needs to be done to eliminate the problem.

All my empathy and sympathy goes towards animals. I do not much care for other human beings if they are not within the small circle of people that personally mean something to me.

I am not going to sacrifice myself for someone else if I do not have a personal connection with that person.

Because thier life has no value to me and I am a survivalist and fighter by nature."

Reading this post again I think Dark Muse was in the moment and we shouldn't take her too literally. Or maybe we should? :yikes:

If you read some of her poetry she really isn't like this at all. At least she doesn't seem to be.

Anyway, back to the original question, are people dumber in groups? You get a bunch of guys and some alcohol and we most definitely are dumber in a several hours. Some of us permanently so, depending on how much we were drinking.

I'm not saying all group activity is bad. Through religion and even rock concerts we can enrich and add meaning to our lives. Group therapy is available for those losing the battle against drugs and alcohol and is there ever anything better than the feeling of being a part of a family or a group of sincere friends?

[G L Wilson]

I fail to see your point. You seem confused as to your position, perhaps you don't have a position, perhaps you don't know what the hell you are talking about, perhaps you should go back to sleep, perhaps!

[G L Wilson]

In my country, you would seem to have what is called tall poppy syndrome. But you don't how to chop their heads off, therefore you waste everyone's time.

[G L Wilson]

In my country, you would be called a wowser who has nothing better to do with his days than go on about the bad behaviour of others.

O, my saints! The man's a saint, that's what's wrong with him.

[thebagman]

by wessex girl:


I find your stance not only shocking, but muddled.

You seem quite happy to announce your lack of compassion and empathy for mankind, to the extent that you would, you say, have no qualms about killing for your own survival, even if it was an innocent baby. Apart from a worrying lack of feeling for other humans, which I think is one of the factors tending towards the definition of a psychopath, you also seem quite blase in your assertion that the insane should be executed. This just doesn't make any sense at all. If someone is insane, they are not in their right mind, and therefore did not commit the act they did knowingly. Their "punishment", would be to commit them to an asylum. You seem to take an unswerving line against killing when others do it, but as you are a "misanthrope" with little feeling for your fellow members of humanity, it's ok for you to assert your willingness to commit such acts.

I know this discussion is academic, and in real circumstances things may be very different, who knows what we are capable of, but I would not like to think that I was so unfeeling.

Dark Muse's response:


That is because I differentiate between different types of killing, or different reasons and motives for it.

In the example of the baby, the scenario given indicated the baby would pose a direct threat to my survival.

To me that would be different then if someone just went up and killed a baby because they were bored, or had a bad day, or just because they felt like it.

I do not approve of murder. But as I have mentioned in the revenge thread, I do not view all killing as murder. For me murder happens when an innocent person is killed without any just cause.

To kill another person because their actions are putting your own life in danger I consider just cause.

As to the question about people are insane. The fact that they did not know what they were doing, does not make the person they killed any less dead, and they should not be given a softer sentence for what they have done. Nothing changes their actions and the result of those actions.

As to my being a psychopath, while I do not claim to be completely sane. The difference between me and a psychopath, is that I do actually know the difference between right and wrong, though it is true I have my own code of morals and ethics that does not always agree with societies code. But I would not actually kill another person unless I felt it absolutely necessary to do so.

And the fact that I am actually capable of feeling and caring about other people, though I am not sympathetic to the human race generally. I am actually quite compassionate and caring and loyal to my friends and loved ones.

But it is true, anyone outside of my circle, does not truly concern me.


Mazhur:


I think the feelings expressed by Darkmuse are based on personal 'choice'. Having no feelings for others (not in one's circle) may also mean that the apathetic person also does NOT want any reciprocal feeling from others. Commonly this is not considered to be a commendable societal or human trait but there are exceptions. Maybe Darkmuse has its own reasons.

As far as killing is concerned it is probable in case of self-defense or in the event of a hangman executing a convict on court's order. Many things and actions which are socially and legally valid are invalid when done in personal capacity. even committing suicide is a crime!


I suppose for Dark Muse the status-quo is very much the better alternative. But has she changed at all? Or is she a raging psychopath? Sorry Dark Muse.

[thebagman]

To G L Wilson: In any country, you're called stupid.

[G L Wilson]

I think that Dark Muse's defence is perfectly acceptable, both legally and morally. When it comes down to it, there isn't a lot to like about the masses - they're basic zombies for the most part.

[G L Wilson]

To G L Wilson: In any country, you're called stupid.

Trash talk comes cheap, thebagman, dispute me if you wish but don't trash talk me. I have no time for it.

[thebagman]

Still Human though. Most of them anyway.

[G L Wilson]

I suppose for Dark Muse the status-quo is very much the better alternative. But has she changed at all? Or is she a raging psychopath? Sorry Dark Muse.

She should turn the other cheek and get bashed, should she, thebagman? I should have known that religion was behind this outrage.

[G L Wilson]

Still Human though. Most of them anyway.

If you want to call the living dead human, you are welcome to. I wouldn't be.

[thebagman]

If someone is doing the bashing by all means retaliate. But that was not what her post was about.

"What happens to people that I do not personally know or care about means nothing to me.

If someone else's existence does come to interfere with me, or with someone I care about, then I will do what I feel needs to be done to eliminate the problem.

All my empathy and sympathy goes towards animals. I do not much care for other human beings if they are not within the small circle of people that personally mean something to me."

You don't find a problem with this?

[thebagman]

What outrage?

[G L Wilson]

What outrage?

Suggesting that Dark Muse is somehow psychotic when she is most clearly not.

[G L Wilson]

If someone is doing the bashing by all means retaliate. But that was not what her post was about.

"What happens to people that I do not personally know or care about means nothing to me.

If someone else's existence does come to interfere with me, or with someone I care about, then I will do what I feel needs to be done to eliminate the problem.

All my empathy and sympathy goes towards animals. I do not much care for other human beings if they are not within the small circle of people that personally mean something to me."

You don't find a problem with this?

No, I don't. She clearly knows the boundaries of human interaction, and she knows her limits. What else is there to know?

[thebagman]

Judging by that quote I don't think she knows the boundaries of human interaction at all. Caring more for animals than human beings? Granted, as I've already mentioned before, how she may have been caught up in the moment and she may have been writing carelessly.

[G L Wilson]

Judging by that quote I don't think she knows the boundaries of human interaction at all. Caring more for animals than human beings? Granted, as I've already mentioned before, how she may have been caught up in the moment and she may have been writing carelessly.

She could have put it better but I think that she was not ethically unsound in what she had to say. If you don't like it, that's your problem. I think that she was being entirely human in her actions and reactions, nothing else could be asked of her, except perhaps from God.

[prickly_pete]

Animals are without sin. How could we not feel compassion for every creeping and crawling thing when man mistreats and abuses them?

[cyberbob]

I feel much the same way as Dark Muse.

I assume she's an animal rights advocate and possibly a Vegan and so am I.

It's not that I don't have compassion for other humans. If I saw some random person in trouble I would try to help them. The point is that I don't take an active approach in helping people because it seems that there is plenty of that going on already.

Everyone knows that homelessness or child abuse are problems and they care about it to some extent, but not everyone has a problem with things like factory farming. To me, the fact that animals are engineered to have massive bodies that make them cripples so they can have more meat is a moral outrage. Regardless, the average person is not even aware that this is going on and wouldn't stop eating meat becauses of it anyway.

It's just what ticks me off. I can't explain it. I don't know if it makes me a sociopath that it bothers me more than most cases of human suffering but it's just the way I feel.

[G L Wilson]

Animals are without sin. How could we not feel compassion for every creeping and crawling thing when man mistreats and abuses them?

Exactly, prickly_pete, her love for animals harms no-one. Personally, I prefer human beings but then I am a fool who loves beauty and truth and all the other good things of humanity. You could say that I am a glutton for punishment, you could.

[thebagman]

Everything I want to say.


You seem quite happy to announce your lack of compassion and empathy for mankind, to the extent that you would, you say, have no qualms about killing for your own survival, even if it was an innocent baby. Apart from a worrying lack of feeling for other humans, which I think is one of the factors tending towards the definition of a psychopath, you also seem quite blase in your assertion that the insane should be executed. This just doesn't make any sense at all. If someone is insane, they are not in their right mind, and therefore did not commit the act they did knowingly. Their "punishment", would be to commit them to an asylum. You seem to take an unswerving line against killing when others do it, but as you are a "misanthrope" with little feeling for your fellow members of humanity, it's ok for you to assert your willingness to commit such acts.

I know this discussion is academic, and in real circumstances things may be very different, who knows what we are capable of, but I would not like to think that I was so unfeeling.

I had an english tutor, told me she wasn't afraid of death because she had once been comatose and had "seen a light at the end of a dark tunnel". Her voice went up in pitch and she was much more tense when she said it. Go figure.

[prickly_pete]

Doing charitable work doesn't seem as important as it used to now that government guarantees a minimum standard of living and medical treatment for virtually everyone. There's barely anything you can do without a permit or permission of some kind. I probably couldn't start a canned-food drive without having some local official giving his or her blessing. Now most charity work is geared towards overseas stuff and people we really do have absolutely no connection with. It's a good opportunity for upper middle class white people to feel good about themselves but how much it says about their love of humanity I'm unsure. Ironically a lot of the money goes to economic development - with the logical objective being a world where everyone thinks acts and works like upper middle class white people. Weird.

You call it the Peace Corps. I call it neo-colonialism.

[G L Wilson]

In a way, prickly_pete, you are right. In another, the status quo is because of inaction. No matter our moral qualms we cannot allow the status quo to go on. I would rather be wealthy any day than dirt poor. Why should it be any different for anyone else?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm sorry, but those comments by Dark Muse are pretty morbid. I don't really understand people who don't have compassion for their fellow man just because they don't know them. Anyone who can watch disasters like the like 9/11 or the tsunami in Japan and not feel some sort of sorrow is a person I'd rather not associate with. I don't know if that describes Dark Muse or not, though.

As to the "are people dumber in groups" question, I'd say once you get above ten people or so, yes. I always remember a quote from the movie Men in Black from Tommy Lee Jones's characters, when he says, when asked why people aren't told about what really is going on with aliens, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." I think it rings true.

[prickly_pete]

I honestly don't know how much compassion you can feel watching CNN. They rarely even show human beings injured or killed (even in combat) anymore - most of the stuff they're allowed or choose to display is damage of the infrastructure. Sorry, but watching building collapse doesn't really pluck at my heartstrings. The animal rights people though - they get IT IN. They get up close and personal and I think they're more compelling in that respect. If CNN did that with war or disaster stories than maybe more people would be crying - as if this is even an adult objective to begin with.

It might get more people involved, sure. But the only people I see lining up in drove to do anything overseas are people in the military and not upper middle class white people who flock to these "causes" in order to feel better about themselves. Don't pat yourself on the shoulder too much is what I'm saying.

[thebagman]

Sorry, but watching building collapse doesn't really pluck at my heartstrings.

Unless that building is full of people right? A building that goes down because of some crazy stunt by some crazy religious people otherwise known as the taliban which is a group, or if you believe conspiracy theorists which is yet another group, the jews, which is another group also!

[Ecurb]

Most of us have more compassion for people who are closer to us. We care about our family and neighbors more than about those who live in a distant city. We (Americans) care more about the 3000 people who died in the attack on the World Trade Centers than we do about the people who died in bombing raids on Bagdhad. That's only natural.

Still, it's a bit bizarre to refuse to care at all about bad things that happen to people in distant places -- most of us have some empathy for even distant human suffering.

On the other hand, I knew a guy who liked to drive a big, gas guzzling car, because (he claimed)when he had a crash it happened far away, like a war in Africa.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't need to see it for me to feel compassion for a horrible event. Seems pretty shallow, really.

[thebagman]

Still harder to watch than to hear about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Still harder to watch than to hear about it.
I'm not disputing that.

[thebagman]

Sorry, Mutatis-Mutandi, I misread your comment.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It's all good. :)

[dwdean]

Mass opinion gave us communism, it gave us Hitler and the popular sport of witch-hunting. This is a weird question but does it seem to anyone else as though the more people you get together the dumber everyone seems to get?



someone may have already stated this, but when a group of individuals gather to make a decision, oftentimes the level of intellect is lessened due to "group think." group think occurs when the more intelligent, the free thinkers hesitate to state their opinion because they fear being ostracized and the less intelligent loud mouths tend to govern the actions of the group. this happens all the time and has ben aid to many catastrophes throughout history.

[G L Wilson]

If I walk in the shoes of other people, I usuallly get smelly feet.

[Calidore]

If I walk in the shoes of other people, I usuallly get smelly feet.

Never talk down to a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then you have a one-mile head start, and he has no shoes.

[G L Wilson]

Both jokes have their serious points, I think, Calidore. lol

[prickly_pete]

I don't need to see it for me to feel compassion for a horrible event. Seems pretty shallow, really.

Hardly. If anything an overly somber approach to natural disasters is evidence of someone who is under developed emotionally, I think. Three hundred years ago people could care less about this stuff - not because they were cold hearted but because they knew that hurricanes or what have you were just part of the natural state of things. It was no ones fault. It might be viewed as a shame but there's no sense getting distraught about it.

We moderns have trouble with this concept. We have trouble accepting that the world isn't all about us and that history doesn't unfold like a Snow White film. It's childish to be perfectly honest.

[G L Wilson]

Hardly. If anything an overly somber approach to natural disasters is evidence of someone who is under developed emotionally, I think. Three hundred years ago people could care less about this stuff - not because they were cold hearted but because they knew that hurricanes or what have you were just part of the natural state of things. It was no ones fault. It might be viewed as a shame but there's no sense getting distraught about it.

We moderns have trouble with this concept. We have trouble accepting that the world isn't all about us and that history doesn't unfold like a Snow White film. It's childish to be perfectly honest.

Nature is a biatch make no mistake.

[thebagman]

How easy is it for one person to spread lies (or half truths) about another person and ruin their credibility? There was someone at school, he was a big guy (not fat) and he was alright but he was socially shunned by almost everybody through most of our years. Most people didn't even know him (I didn't) but every now and then some little kid would taunt him and the rest of the school would join in. Why?

[G L Wilson]

How easy is it for one person to spread lies (or half truths) about another person and ruin their credibility? There was someone at school, he was a big guy (not fat) and he was alright but he was socially shunned by almost everybody through most of our years. Most people didn't even know him (I didn't) but every now and then some little kid would taunt him and the rest of the school would join in. Why?

Because the young are juvenile.

[thebagman]

High school?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hardly. If anything an overly somber approach to natural disasters is evidence of someone who is under developed emotionally, I think. Three hundred years ago people could care less about this stuff - not because they were cold hearted but because they knew that hurricanes or what have you were just part of the natural state of things. It was no ones fault. It might be viewed as a shame but there's no sense getting distraught about it.

We moderns have trouble with this concept. We have trouble accepting that the world isn't all about us and that history doesn't unfold like a Snow White film. It's childish to be perfectly honest.
Childish? How is having compassion in the face of death in any way analogous to a Snow White film? If one faced something that caused mass death with incredulity, then it would be like a Disney film, since it wouldn't even seem possible.

Feeling compassion and being distraught are two different things. When I hear people have died in a terrorist attack or natural disaster, I don't need to see it for it to strike an emotional chord with me, even if that chord is as little as a thought of, "How sad," or, "What a shame." I don't shed tears, but I rarely think, "Oh well, **** happens, no big deal," unless I'm in a sardonic mood.

And, I don't really see how having compassion for people one doesn't even know is somehow thinking the world is all about is.

[Ecurb]

The idea that people in the past felt no empathy for those killed in natural disasters is simply incorrect. Here's a description of reactions to the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/

Of course it is true that people died sooner in the past than they do today, for a variety of reasons. In many societies, half of the children do not read age five. So people were more used to young lives being cut short. Despite that fact, natural disasters (and plagues, diseases, and other causes of death) were viewed with empathy.

[prickly_pete]

The idea that people in the past felt no empathy for those killed in natural disasters is simply incorrect. Here's a description of reactions to the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/lisbon/

Wow, I never said anything like that. I simply implied that they didn't blubber over it for weeks on end the way we do. Some - ahem, most - of the reactions to these disasters I see now are absolutely ridiculous. Celebrity telethons, Anderson Cooper staring into the camera with an overly stern face, round-the-clock text messages asking for my money, religious nuts saying its the end of times...

...God people, get a life already.

[Ecurb]

People moaned endlessly about the Lisbon earthquake. Some historians think it was a key reason for a move toward atheisim (why would a benificient God have visited such a disaster on innocents?).

My point: although we are more aware of depression, anxiety, stress, and theatrical whining when it happens in our own era, people were much the same in the past as they are today. I'll grant that without TV, the reactions of the mourners were not recorded -- and that with the proliferation of cable channels, TV stations need to fill airspace, and sometimes grasp at anything. However, Christian preachers have been predicting the "end times" for a couple of millenia now.

[G L Wilson]

One can empathise with the pain of others, but really what good does it do? Am I not like God, full of empathy but little else? How can I help the weak and the sick? Am I not powerless? Am I not merely me? Is suffering not endless? Should I rush out like Don Quixote upon my steed and do battle with the world? Where's the hope in a futile rushing about? Can I not think small? Do I need to think bigger? Do I need to be a fool? Can I not think smart? Can I not do more by doing less? Are we not all mortal? Is the world not a stage and I have a part in it? Should I not play my part well? Must I be a mechanical, a poor player fretting his time away? Should I not live but die a fruitless fool? Am I a fool?

[Ecurb]

Am I a fool?

Hmmm.

I’ll grant that there’s an aura of theatricality about some of the empathetic grief. People like to cry over Princess Diana’s death, just as they pay money to cry over Ol’ Yeller’s death. It allows us the fun of an emotional response, without the pain that comes from real grief (as when a good friend or family member dies).

As to whether our empathy does any good – the closer the tragedy is to us, the more likely we can do some good. We are more likely to be able to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks in the U.S. (if we are Americans) than in Mumbai (which most Indians still call “Bombay”).

[prickly_pete]

People moaned endlessly about the Lisbon earthquake.

lol how were people moaning about it before mass communications? You're telling me people in Massachusetts were fretting about...you know what nevermind. This is pointless lol.

[Ecurb]

Yes, I (and the link from the U. of Cal.) am telling you that people in Massachusetts were probably moaning about the disaster in Lisbon. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

From the website I cited earlier:


The extensive number of renderings of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake found throughout Europe demonstrate the traumatic effect the disaster had on the continent. Depictions of the Lisbon earthquake were created, copied, and widely distributed and discussed throughout all of southern, western and central Europe. Whether created by the new desire to investigate, record, and understand the earthquake in natural rather than strictly metaphysical terms, or created by the more sensational desire to report on human calamity, these depictions indicate that the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 represents a watershed event in European history.

Or, how about this link:

http://hess.metapress.com/content/tn14161r6477q554/


The reaction to the Lisbon earthquake in newspaper articles, earthquake-sermons and pamphlets printed in the New World appears unanimous: earthquakes are caused by God, although he may act through natural causes. Benjamin Franklin did not formulate any theory and John Winthrop seemed unable to separate science from religion in his lecture on earthquakes, although he emphasized natural causes, as generally accepted in Europe. An anonymously published article on agitations of the sea and related earthquakes in November 1755 proposed an alternative to fire and vapors for countries without volcanic activity. The author, Dr. John Perkins, physician in Boston, proposed that earthquakes may be caused by settling of land in mountains. He argued that the upper parts of lands consist of harder and less pliable material than the lower parts which are yielding and water-soaked. Underground waters carry away parts of this lower substance and the resulting caverns collapse when the overlying heavier material sinks into the lower one. Displacement of this material may spread toward the ocean thus transmitting earthquakes of great intensity to the ocean basin; alternatively the spreading may be stopped by an obstacle and cause the rising of coastal areas. Perkins found alleged proofs of such raised areas in Pine-Plain and Hampstedt-Plain on Long Island. His contribution is important and should be included among the early earthquake theories presented in the British colonies of America.

However, I agree that "this is pointless".

[Panglossian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-8K8Hj8bxE

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm sorry I ever defended you, Prickly Pete.

[G L Wilson]

I'm sorry I ever defended you, Prickly Pete.

prickly_pete is perfectly capable of defending himself. Why would he need your help?

[Ecurb]

prickly_pete is GL Wilson's sock puppet (that's my theory, at any rate).

[G L Wilson]

prickly_pete is GL Wilson's sock puppet (that's my theory, at any rate).

I don't know who you insult more by that allegation.

[Heteronym]

Mass opinion gave us communism, it gave us Hitler and the popular sport of witch-hunting. This is a weird question but does it seem to anyone else as though the more people you get together the dumber everyone seems to get?

People also organise in groups to fight for civil and labor rights, to fight invading armies, to participate in charity events to help countries afflicted with natural disasters, to complain about the government, to help each other during crises. We're not really that horrible. Sometimes we're just not strong enough to have our group voice reach the ears of the individuals who hold most of the power in their hands.


Let's think about it! Cults, riots, wars, anything religious, is there anything we can do in a group that in a intellectual or scientific way advances mankind? Why has most of the pioneering work done in these fields by one man (or woman) or a single scientist in opposition of a much larger group? Is mass opinion just a reinforcement of the status-quo?

Outside a few mediatic cases like like Galileo and Darwin, do most scientists and thinkers really work in opposition to society? Most thinkers and scientists are reclusive people doing work that doesn't attract the attention or the wrath of society. I don't think scientists who discover new butterfly species, or who catalogue new types of moss, for instance, really have stirred the ire of the populace. What happens is that once in a while there's a big idea that clashes with ideas deeply rooted in a culture.

Although Galileo and Darwin are now proven right, I think it's totally understandable that they were persecuted. I mean, if I were a religious person and my entire worlview was founded on the fact that the Earth does not move, as written by men who received the word from the true God, the maker of the world; and some scientist told me everything I believed in was wrong, of course I'd be upset! If I weren't upset that everything I believed in, that gave meaning to my existence, was wrong, then I'd be a fool. My entire existence would be a lie. Of course I wouldn't accept that.

The moral of the story, however, is that society did change to accomodate Galileo's discoveries. It changed little by little, as changes in moral views and customs must change. One can't expect to uproot an entire society overnight. That'd be traumatic. That'd be doing what communism tried to do in Russia, turn a feudal society into a modern worker's utopia by demolishing the existing society in one swoop. That never works. People always need a sense of continity, to feel that there's something they can lean on for support. That is the status quo, which is nothing more than the culture that exists around us like the air we breathe. We can't live without the status quo, we can't always be modern. Without status quo we'd have nothing to orient our lives.

[G L Wilson]

Without the status quo, we would have right to guide us.

[Darcy88]

If someone is doing the bashing by all means retaliate. But that was not what her post was about.

"What happens to people that I do not personally know or care about means nothing to me.

If someone else's existence does come to interfere with me, or with someone I care about, then I will do what I feel needs to be done to eliminate the problem.

All my empathy and sympathy goes towards animals. I do not much care for other human beings if they are not within the small circle of people that personally mean something to me."

You don't find a problem with this?

I think this is a natural mind-set. And unless you spend a fair amount of your time volunteering and donate most of your disposable income (if you have any) to charity, you have no right to jump on someone else for expressing such views.

If Dark Muse actually hurt other people, if these views she expressed lead to others being harmed, then you would definitely have a point.

How many people actually go out of their way to help random strangers? Where I live people don't even pick up hitch-hikers anymore.

At least she is honest. Most people, despite a lot of talk to the contrary, conduct themselves in a manner completely in accord with the sentiments Dark Muse expressed.

If it was otherwise then every newscast would crush the heart of every viewer and people would not spend lavishly on consumer items while droves of their fellows sleep on the streets and starve.

[TheChilly]

"All my empathy and sympathy goes towards animals. I do not much care for other human beings if they are not within the small circle of people that personally mean something to me."

No problem with it in my case.