Status-quo

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?

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?

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.

http://www.online-literature.com/for...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?

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!

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.

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.

by wessex girl:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebagman

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.

Still Human though. Most of them anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebagman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebagman

Still Human though. Most of them anyway.

---

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

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?