The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
The daily flamebait by Arachnid2004-10-21 02:00:38
  Depends by Spisefisken 2004-10-21 02:09:19
How does he define own personal safety. If there was something that threatened my personal safety, but it required doing something most people view as more than my own personal safety I agree. I am an existensialist and very aware of this, and I have decided not to do something that I don't gain from. Being nice to people around me and helping them out do benefit me as well, so of course I do that. I just don't believe in higher causes. I belive in karma though, so if a friend of mine wants a beer and lack the money I give hir one. I have prior received one when I was in the same situation. So basically you only get what you give. I expect to receive another incoherent rambling as a response to one of my post at some point, or I probably already have received one.
[ Reply ]
    Wasn't it Freud that held the view... by Arachnid2004-10-21 02:11:22
      Don't know if it was Freud originally by Spisefisken2004-10-21 02:15:43
        Granted doing 'altruistic' things makes people by Arachnid2004-10-21 02:18:02
          I believe it to be socially by Spisefisken2004-10-21 02:20:09
            So then why by Arachnid2004-10-21 02:27:30
              I don't know all subjects in this world by Spisefisken2004-10-21 02:36:55
                Or a reincarnative karma "thingy", FWIW by HadEnuf2004-10-21 06:02:00
              I think that's because by Yaeger2004-10-21 03:37:35
                The catch with that by Matthewdba2006-11-19 12:55:59
                  Yes it will by Control2004-10-21 04:57:14
                    If they weren't aware of it before by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:00:01
                      Do you have to be aware of a problem by Control2004-10-21 05:06:29
                        If you were aware of headaches by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:09:22
                          Ok, potential brain tumor in 20 years by Control2004-10-21 05:12:00
                            Again, if you're not aware of it by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:15:17
                              So you're saying: by Control2004-10-21 05:19:57
                                You wouldn't that it could have been avoided by Spisefisken2004-10-21 05:26:35
                                What I'm saying is by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:27:38
                                You're on the wrong track. by Naruki2004-10-21 05:41:34
                                I'm not sure even that would work by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:45:10
                      Oh boy, I could tell you stories about that. by Yaeger2004-10-21 07:18:24
              Genetics maybe by Control2004-10-21 03:41:58
                And some of those same species eat their young. by NOLAWitch2004-10-21 05:37:38
                  Curiously, both can enhance offspring surviival; by HadEnuf2004-10-21 05:57:59
              Whom (Who?) would you like more? by Gak2004-10-21 05:15:44
                But this is not someone doing altruistic things by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:17:59
                  A freak of nature ;-) by Gak2004-10-21 05:35:41
                  he/she knows by gibuu2004-10-21 16:47:03
              Sure, there's positive reinforcement, . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 05:50:04
      I agree with you there by Yaeger2004-10-21 03:45:29
        Huh? by Spisefisken2004-10-21 04:08:23
          I think you're missing my point somewhat by Yaeger2004-10-21 04:44:51
            Take a step back by Control2004-10-21 04:50:54
              You feel that by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:00:58
                looky here by Control2006-11-19 12:55:59
            You might not expect it consciously by Spisefisken2004-10-21 04:53:48
              So you're saying by Matthewdba2004-10-21 04:57:29
                Think of where the concepts of 'relationship, ... by Control2004-10-21 05:02:46
                  By that reckoning by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:07:26
                    Then it is just a dispute over definition by Spisefisken2004-10-21 05:12:22
                Yes I do not believe the situation described by Spisefisken2004-10-21 05:04:15
                  But how can you know by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:11:16
                    Alternativ explanation? by Control2004-10-21 05:14:32
                      I disagree by Matthewdba2006-11-19 12:55:59
                    Because we are animals by Spisefisken2004-10-21 05:15:24
                      Assuming of course by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:18:57
                        However, we are still nothing *less* than animals, by HadEnuf2004-10-21 05:46:10
                          True by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:52:08
                            No, our *motivations* would be the superset by HadEnuf2004-10-21 06:41:46
                    How can you know the obverse? by Naruki2004-10-21 05:37:17
                      I don't believe I have less proof by Matthewdba2004-10-21 05:49:48
                        I get the impression that's exactly Narui's point: by HadEnuf2004-10-21 05:59:13
                          s/Narui/Naruki/ # Maye there's a corollary . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 06:00:07
                          I agree. That is also why I have stated 'Believe' by Spisefisken2004-10-21 06:07:14
                            or everybody is right by Matthewdba2004-10-21 06:11:05
                              geez I even previewed that by Matthewdba2004-10-21 06:13:35
                            Yep. That's why we're talking "theory", by HadEnuf2004-10-21 06:48:44
                  Actually, he is already getting something back, by HadEnuf2004-10-21 05:38:59
              The *real* point I am trying to make by Yaeger2004-10-21 07:15:43
                But are acting selfish by Spisefisken2004-10-21 07:28:56
                  And it makes you feel good to know by Yaeger2004-10-21 07:41:03
                    That is how the world works by Spisefisken2004-10-21 07:44:39
                      Does it ? by Yaeger2004-10-21 07:54:44
                        By "selfish reason", do you mean . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 08:40:08
                          To answer the question, neither. by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:44:55
                            What is the sound of one hand clapping? by Naruki2004-10-21 08:51:34
                              What impossible restrictions ? by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:57:49
                                In your statement. by Naruki2004-10-21 09:02:10
                                If you want to interpret it that way by Yaeger2004-10-21 09:32:12
                                It's just that, in your first statement, . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 09:54:23
                                That's it exactly. by Naruki2004-10-21 15:17:07
                            There simply *is* no such situation, as I see it by HadEnuf2004-10-21 08:53:00
                    You just assume it will devalue the action. by Naruki2004-10-21 07:51:28
                      I'll try to explain by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:06:48
                        Suppose you seek an altruistic reason by Naruki2004-10-21 08:23:33
                          Well put, on paranoia and zealotry, . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 08:28:19
                          This is by far a mental exercise by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:32:25
                            That does not necessarily follow by HadEnuf2006-11-19 12:55:59
                              Which is *exactly* the trap I am thinking of. by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:54:41
                                Then we are approaching the same point, . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 09:04:04
                                I'm approaching it from the point by Yaeger2004-10-21 09:15:13
                                And I am approaching it from *my* experience, by HadEnuf2004-10-21 09:24:12
                                Great, an argument over something we agree on :) (n/t) by Yaeger2004-10-21 09:34:57
                                No, everyone *is* capable of the sane "attitude" by HadEnuf2004-10-21 10:05:27
                                Sorry, but I don't think everyone by Yaeger2004-10-21 10:20:31
                                I might buy "unwilling", but not "incapable" by HadEnuf2004-10-21 11:09:08
                                Mmm, difficult one. by Yaeger2004-10-21 12:23:35
                            The obverse is equally "true". by Naruki2004-10-21 08:49:33
                              Which in my mind means that by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:52:15
                                I don't know whether Naruki agrees, but . . . by HadEnuf2004-10-21 08:54:55
                                Which means we don't agree with Yaeger. by Naruki2004-10-21 08:58:18
                                Not entirely certain of that by HadEnuf2004-10-21 09:16:42
                        Regardless of my benefactor's motives, by HadEnuf2004-10-21 08:27:05
                          I think you're spot on with the evaluation bit. by Yaeger2004-10-21 08:41:43
                            Not true by HadEnuf2004-10-21 09:02:44
                              The thing I am arguing for by Yaeger2004-10-21 09:13:21
                                That seems to be the first time you've made that by Naruki2004-10-21 09:24:14
                                Hey, grant *some* points for *trying* by HadEnuf2004-10-21 09:26:26
                                In future, it would help by Yaeger2004-10-21 09:39:07
                                I didn't burn you at all. That's in your mind. by Naruki2004-10-21 15:19:40
      Dunno. It's true though. by julius.apweiler2004-10-21 12:39:29

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)