Oppositions to Arabs

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
There's a Simple proof. It's a classic in psychology. Girl was raised preventing communication with other humna beings. She acted no different than any other animals. Morality is therefore a learned trait.

As Kohlberg basically said, we are born with ability to distinguish between general right and wrong. I am only using the word morality in its denotation, not the connotation that is associated with it.

It's been awhile since I read him, but here's basically how it goes. We know the basic difference between right and wrong. Why we do or don't do certain actions is based on a basic consequence scheme. The order of these is as follows:

1. Reward/punishment
2. Peer pressure
3. Forgot this one
4. Obedience of man's laws
5. Doing the "right" thing, even if it disagrees with the law

Each person falls somewhere on this list. Where they fall depends on environment, but also keeping in mind that we as rational beings understand the concepts of right and wrong, therefore we can move up the list.

[Zero]

I edited something above. read it Kohlberg disproves the very idea that we are born morally!

BTW Kohlberg's theory is his opinion ior his belief etc.. It's no way scientific.

EDIT: I think 3 was obedience of law. If u want ill dig up my old psych book :b

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
I edited something above. read it Kohlberg disproves the very idea that we are born morally!

BTW Kohlberg's theory is his opinion ior his belief etc.. It's no way scientific.

EDIT: I think 3 was obedience of law. If u want ill dig up my old psych book :b

Yeah did it up dude. I'm really curious. I always found him interesting. What religion was he BTW?

[Zero]

i went up to the eerie attic just for you but realized book was sold for scrap money to pay for adate years ago. Oh well thats why we have the internet!

EDIT:
result;;;;;;;;;

LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION

Pre-conventional 1 Obedience and Punishment

2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,
and Exchange


Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl"

4 Law and Order


Post-conventional 5 Social Contract

6 Principled Conscience

[Zero]

More info

The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
i went up to the eerie attic just for you but realized book was sold for scrap money to pay for adate years ago. Oh well thats why we have the internet!

ROFL you're too funny.

Good Lord we're gonna end up discussing the big bang theory in this thread.

So to get back on topic, let me just say this. I am in support of an Arab Civ AND an Israeli Civ. But I don't like Abu Bakr as the leader, and I want David as the Israeli leader.

[Zero]

yea same here.. i really dont like the name of this thread. Its sounds a bit too strongly agasint. Anyway, if firaxis had room for 3,456,786 civs in game, im sure israel as well as sweden and poland and tibet made it into the game. The unfortunately there is a cut off number of 32 civs and its nothign like israel is "less deserving" or anything. Its just the way it was done.

[Sonic]

I personally believe Mahomet should be Arab leader. And if Firaxis doesn't wants Mahomet because he represents not only Arabs but also whole Islam (so, also Ottomans), than Saladin would fit. Or Gemal Abdel Nasser.

[Sonic]

Also, I did no said Sadam is good, I just said he is not that bad to order people be at home at US attacks.

Anyway, he doesn't considers Kurds his own people just as Israel doesn't consider Palestinians it's own people. We ussually don't say "Israel kills it's own citizens" when Israeli army kills innocent Palestinians, but "Israel killed Palestinian" instead.

Also, UN sanctions are more or less responsible for bad living standart in Iraq. Before that Iraq was one of the richest countries in the middle east, I might even say that Saddam contributed to this (because if not Saddam, Iraq would have collapsed).

Also goodness/badness of leaders is very personal. For example, if I'd have to choose someone from great leaders to rule Lithuania, I'd choose Saddam over Lenin, however some people might do vice-versa.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Sonic

Also, UN sanctions are more or less responsible for bad living standart in Iraq. Before that Iraq was one of the richest countries in the middle east, I might even say that Saddam contributed to this (because if not Saddam, Iraq would have collapsed).

This is where terrorist organization like al qaida gets their moral support from. It is partially true, we dont have to starve the citizen by embargoing necessary trade good just because of Saddam. And arguement can be made that terrorist are doing what they do because of this evil deed. World isn't exactly 100% evil vs 100% good, and this is another example of why people would actually support Terrorist organization! (I mean rarely will you see people join a pure evil organization just because he wants to be evil).

Also goodness/badness of leaders is very personal. For example, if I'd have to choose someone from great leaders to rule Lithuania, I'd choose Saddam over Lenin, however some people might do vice-versa.

Lenin was great (in not a dictator sense)! Stalin sucked. My order of choice for feared leader would be from most feared on:

Stalin - killed off his childhood "will get him" list for crying out loud. who said snatching a candy off a little boy doesnt have a consequence?

Mao - Indiscriminate killing and forced labor. Unless your devoted to party, ur dead!

Pol Pot - Wat a psycho path

Hitler - well he killed alot but if im aryan id have ess to fear. which I'm not. still not as bad as stalin's kill everyone who looks suspicious policy.

Milosevich - If I'm serb ill be alright!

Saddam - Gases his own people but hey as long as I'm not a kurd and am voting for saddam with big grin on my face.


Bush: He probably won't force labor or commit genocide directly. but im afriad he might do something so stupid that he might bring end to all of mankind

[Iron Chancellor]

Originally posted by Calc II
Lenin was great (in not a dictator sense)! Stalin sucked. My order of choice for feared leader would be from most feared on:

Stalin - killed off his childhood "will get him" list for crying out loud. who said snatching a candy off a little boy doesnt have a consequence?

Saddam - Gases his own people but hey as long as I'm not a kurd and am voting for saddam with big grin on my face.


Bush: He probably won't force labor or commit genocide directly. but im afriad he might do something so stupid that he might bring end to all of mankind

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POINTS...
1) Lenin was an idiot. He was merely a front leader. He was indeed far from the brains of the revolution, that was Trotsky. Also, Lenin was the guy behind the "Let's Starve the Peasants for support." I don't see a leader who kills his own citizens as great.
2) Stalin was a complex guy. Loved his family, killed 60 million. However, he did industrialize Russia. Incidently, he was Georgian, and spoke Russian very poorly and with a very heavy accent.
3) Cynic. No, you really aren't as about 80% of the population is oppressed, the Kurds (20%ish) and the other 60% are Shi'a Muslims without any power at all. Saddam and his Ba'ath Party rule through 20% of the population, the Sunni Muslims. And he has massacred both.
4) Damn, another Democrat bitter that Al Gore ran the worst presidential campaign in recent history. I guess any idiot can get a Yale MBA, huh? And win with his opponent's home state. I shudder to imagine the "Gorian" response to 9/11. Maybe he'd take a page out of Clinton's book and cruise missile some camels and maybe a pharmaceuticals factory or two. W. may not be brilliant, but he is much smarter (and a good deal more politically savy) than the liberal media establishments give him credit for.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor


IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POINTS...
1) Lenin was an idiot. He was merely a front leader. He was indeed far from the brains of the revolution, that was Trotsky. Also, Lenin was the guy behind the "Let's Starve the Peasants for support." I don't see a leader who kills his own citizens as great.
2) Stalin was a complex guy. Loved his family, killed 60 million. However, he did industrialize Russia. Incidently, he was Georgian, and spoke Russian very poorly and with a very heavy accent.
3) Cynic. No, you really aren't as about 80% of the population is oppressed, the Kurds (20%ish) and the other 60% are Shi'a Muslims without any power at all. Saddam and his Ba'ath Party rule through 20% of the population, the Sunni Muslims. And he has massacred both.
4) Damn, another Democrat bitter that Al Gore ran the worst presidential campaign in recent history. I guess any idiot can get a Yale MBA, huh? And win with his opponent's home state. I shudder to imagine the "Gorian" response to 9/11. Maybe he'd take a page out of Clinton's book and cruise missile some camels and maybe a pharmaceuticals factory or two. W. may not be brilliant, but he is much smarter (and a good deal more politically savy) than the liberal media establishments give him credit for.

you dont read do you? i said "lenin was great" foloowed by a big parenthesis (well not big) stating in not being a dictator. So why are you telling me lenin was an idiot?
2. Read carefully! I said which leader i would fear. I did not talk about which leaders were ineffective at holding their leadershipo. Are you just trying to argue with me?
3. I said as long as I am not kurd and on saddam's side im alright. why are you not reading?
4. It helps that he is filthy rich. Yes a filthy rich Yale graduate with under 3.0 average (dont know exact gpa but wasnt it 2.0?)

besides when did i ever endorse gore?


Next time read more carefully before you start putting words into people's mouth. People dont appreciate that!

[Zero]

In case you didnt quickly catch on, my list for most scary leaders was abit of a humor, and beside I dont like you putting words in my mouth that i have never stated.

I demand an apology

[Cidifer]

no offense but your last 2 posts were kind of stupid. Are you trying to be sarcastic because you haven't really made a very good arguement to support what you said. 1st you basically backed up each point individually (though not too well) then said it was a joke. I really hope this is more joking.

[Zero]

The top ten list was a bit of a sarcasm in the first place. I guess he didnt get the sarcasm. Anyway he accuses me of being gore advocate and such. i dont like when people put words in my mouth.

So just dont say my arguement is weak tell me, why my arguement is flawed?

btw the numbered points indicate to his numbered points. i just didnt quote him so read his than read mine.