Page 26 of 27 [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Dec 2011, 4:08 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The rich can afford to give up their possessions.


And that is why we should steal from them?

ruveyn


Well say I lived in the middle of an area with lots of starving people and had stock piles of food in my house, I would be suprised if someone did not come and steal some food. Now that is not quite what is going on, but it is true a rather small amount of the population has access to the majority of resources while a large amount of the population is not doing so well and is realising the trickle down theory was a lie.....just so those on top could feed off all the labor of those in lower classes. So if they don't want to be stolen from they shouldn't of stole from the people to begin with.


Equal distribution of the assets would bring the economy crashing to the ground.

In every society, in every time, in every land ownership or control of the assets has never been equally distributed. Why? Because it does not work. If a revolution occurred tomorrow that redistributed the assets with a year it would become corrupt and only the few at the head of the Revolution would have most of the control or ownership all in the name of The People.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Dec 2011, 4:12 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The rich can afford to give up their possessions.


And that is why we should steal from them?

ruveyn


Well say I lived in the middle of an area with lots of starving people and had stock piles of food in my house, I would be suprised if someone did not come and steal some food. Now that is not quite what is going on, but it is true a rather small amount of the population has access to the majority of resources while a large amount of the population is not doing so well and is realising the trickle down theory was a lie.....just so those on top could feed off all the labor of those in lower classes. So if they don't want to be stolen from they shouldn't of stole from the people to begin with.


Equal distribution of the assets would bring the economy crashing to the ground.

In every society, in every time, in every land ownership or control of the assets has never been equally distributed. Why? Because it does not work. If a revolution occurred tomorrow that redistributed the assets with a year it would become corrupt and only the few at the head of the Revolution would have most of the control or ownership all in the name of The People.

ruveyn


Well if everyone having everything they need would bring the economy crashing to the ground.......then the economy might as well crash to the ground, maybe it would do some good. Why should it be ensured that some people will always lack what they need and some people will always have 100x more then they need?........I see no logical reason for that especially considering with all the technology and resources we have in this day and age. You would think we could have figured out a new system by now that does not require there to be people struggling just to get their basic needs met.


_________________
We won't go back.


dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

11 Dec 2011, 6:06 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Well if everyone having everything they need would bring the economy crashing to the ground.......then the economy might as well crash to the ground, maybe it would do some good. Why should it be ensured that some people will always lack what they need and some people will always have 100x more then they need?........I see no logical reason for that especially considering with all the technology and resources we have in this day and age. You would think we could have figured out a new system by now that does not require there to be people struggling just to get their basic needs met.

Maslow essentially defined human physiological needs as air, food, sex, sleep, and survivable environmental temperature. If you intend to declare "basic needs" as rights, does it then follow that sex is a right? Most would probably say that because humans won't die without sex, it isn't actually a physiological need; however, people do ostensibly commit suicide due to "loneliness." Nevertheless, few Americans die because of an inability to meet any of these needs. Does your concept of "basic needs" go beyond the physiological?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Dec 2011, 6:16 am

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well if everyone having everything they need would bring the economy crashing to the ground.......then the economy might as well crash to the ground, maybe it would do some good. Why should it be ensured that some people will always lack what they need and some people will always have 100x more then they need?........I see no logical reason for that especially considering with all the technology and resources we have in this day and age. You would think we could have figured out a new system by now that does not require there to be people struggling just to get their basic needs met.


Maslow essentially defined human physiological needs as air, food, sex, sleep, and survivable environmental temperature. If you intend to declare "basic needs" as rights, does it then follow that sex is a right? Most would probably say that because humans won't die without sex, it isn't actually a physiological need; however, people do ostensibly commit suicide due to "loneliness." Nevertheless, few Americans die because of an inability to meet any of these needs. Does your concept of "basic needs" go beyond the physiological?


No it does not go beyond physiological needs when I say needs, though I would be going for everyone having what they need to survive plus what they need to enjoy life. now obviously there are some limits like one cannot rape someone and claim its not a crime because they 'needed' sex obviously some things involve consent on both sides.


_________________
We won't go back.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Dec 2011, 2:30 pm

Psych 101 didn't say much about sex when Maslow was brought up. Lots about companionship, family, and belonging, but not much about sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

11 Dec 2011, 3:15 pm

LKL wrote:
Psych 101 didn't say much about sex when Maslow was brought up. Lots about companionship, family, and belonging, but not much about sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs

Sex is part of the base of the pyramid, i.e., it's a human physiological need according to Maslow, as the article you've linked indicates. Of course, Maslow's theory was more about human motivations than what I would term actual needs, i.e., things without which one will literally expire.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Psych 101 didn't say much about sex when Maslow was brought up. Lots about companionship, family, and belonging, but not much about sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs

Sex is part of the base of the pyramid, i.e., it's a human physiological need according to Maslow, as the article you've linked indicates. Of course, Maslow's theory was more about human motivations than what I would term actual needs, i.e., things without which one will literally expire.


I don't feel like I need sex...so from my perspective I do not agree that its a physiological need.


_________________
We won't go back.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Dec 2011, 9:06 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Psych 101 didn't say much about sex when Maslow was brought up. Lots about companionship, family, and belonging, but not much about sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs

Sex is part of the base of the pyramid, i.e., it's a human physiological need according to Maslow, as the article you've linked indicates. Of course, Maslow's theory was more about human motivations than what I would term actual needs, i.e., things without which one will literally expire.

You are incorrect; as my article indicates, sex is included in the 'conmanionship and fellow-feeling' section. Ie, it is psychological, not physiological. Any physiological aspect could be taken care of by wanking, if it were.

edit: the relevant sections:
Quote:
Physiological needs
For the most part, physiological needs are obvious — they are the literal requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body simply cannot continue to function.

Air, water, and food are metabolic requirements for survival in all animals, including humans. Clothing and shelter provide necessary protection from the elements. The intensity of the human sexual instinct is shaped more by sexual competition than maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species.

Safety needs
With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take precedence and dominate behavior. In the absence of physical safety -- due to war, natural disaster, or, in cases of family violence, childhood abuse, etc. -- people (re-)experience post-traumatic stress disorder and trans-generational trauma transfer. In the absence of economic safety -- due to economic crisis and lack of work opportunities - these safety needs manifest themselves in such things as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, reasonable disability accommodations, and the like.

Safety and Security needs include:

Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts
Love and belongingAfter
physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third layer of human needs are social and involve feelings of belongingness. The need is especially strong in childhood and can over-ride the need for safety as witnessed in children who cling to abusive parents. Deficiencies with respect to this aspect of Maslow's hierarchy - due to hospitalism, neglect, shunning, ostracism etc. - can impact individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general, such as:

Friendship
Intimacy
Family
Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether it comes from a large social group, such as clubs, office culture, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, gangs, or small social connections (family members, intimate partners, mentors, close colleagues, confidants). They need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. In the absence of these elements, many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression. This need for belonging can often overcome the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure; an anorexic, for example, may ignore the need to eat and the security of health for a feeling of control and belonging.

(bolding mine)



Last edited by LKL on 11 Dec 2011, 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

11 Dec 2011, 9:09 pm

The human body seems to go through the same feelings and sensations of sex through simple masturbation. I wouldn't say it is a physiological need as long as you can achieve orgasms through masturbation. Not like orgasms are such a need anyway.


_________________
.


dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

11 Dec 2011, 11:51 pm

LKL wrote:
You are incorrect; as my article indicates, sex is included in the 'conmanionship and fellow-feeling' section. Ie, it is psychological, not physiological. Any physiological aspect could be taken care of by wanking, if it were. [...]

Please take a close look at the text that you've quoted. Do you see what it says at the top?

Quote:
Physiological needs [...]

In addition, on the top right of the web page to which you had linked there is an image of a two-dimensional pyramid. The base of this pyramid represents human physiological needs, amongst which "sex" appears.

Sex isn't actually a physiological need. Maslow claimed it was such, but that's because he was using the word "needs" to mean wants. Actual physiological needs are those things that are necessary for an organism to maintain its thermodynamic state. My original comment regarding Maslow was intended to illustrate a point: clarification is required when one suggests that "basic needs" are rights. In reality basic needs are air, food, shelter, and water; anything beyond those are wants. Americans already have their basic needs met.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

12 Dec 2011, 9:08 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q652ElXlw8s&feature=related[/youtube]



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Dec 2011, 11:45 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
LKL wrote:
You are incorrect; as my article indicates, sex is included in the 'conmanionship and fellow-feeling' section. Ie, it is psychological, not physiological. Any physiological aspect could be taken care of by wanking, if it were. [...]

Please take a close look at the text that you've quoted. Do you see what it says at the top?

Darling, did you notice the part where I said, "bolding mine"? That means I was bolding sections on purpose. I bolded the section heads to distinguish them from each other, and I bolded the part where it says 'sexual instinct is shaped by competition rather than a need to ensure species survival' because competition is not a physiological need, nor even a physiological want. It is psychological.


Quote:
In addition, on the top right of the web page to which you had linked there is an image of a two-dimensional pyramid. The base of this pyramid represents human physiological needs, amongst which "sex" appears.

Look at the description of said pyramid... notice, "an interpretation...."

Quote:
In reality basic needs are air, food, shelter, and water; anything beyond those are wants. [i]Americans already have their basic needs met.

That wasn't Maslow's point at all; in addition, I'm sure you know that human companionship is a necessary psychological need? that humans literally go insane when deprived of human company for long periods of time? That isolation is considered torture in most of the world? That's a need, not a want.
Furthermore, lots of Americans don't have even the needs on the base of the pyramid met. Lots of Americans live in food deserts where they can obtain calories but not nutrition; where they 're housed but don't have heat, electricity, etc; where they have space to go outside but are afraid to do so due to crime, pollution, or other issues; and where they fear for their physical safety when they see police officers of a different color (or any police officer at all).



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

13 Dec 2011, 2:00 am

LKL wrote:
Darling, did you notice the part where I said, "bolding mine"? That means I was bolding sections on purpose. I bolded the section heads to distinguish them from each other, and I bolded the part where it says 'sexual instinct is shaped by competition rather than a need to ensure species survival' because competition is not a physiological need, nor even a physiological want. It is psychological.

The statement that "the intensity of the human sexual instinct is shaped more by sexual competition than maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species" is unsourced. It does not appear anywhere in Maslow's paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" However, the following quotation is taken from that paper:

"One thing that must be stressed at this point is that love is not synonymous with sex. Sex may be studied as a purely physiological need. [italics mine] Ordinarily sexual behavior is multi-determined, that is to say, determined not only by sexual but also by other needs, chief among which are the love and affection needs."

To be entirely honest I don't understand the statement you had quoted. Sexual instinct is "shaped" by "competition," i.e. selection pressure, in all species that reproduce sexually. "Maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species" is also a form of selection pressure.

Quote:
Look at the description of said pyramid... notice, "an interpretation...."

I'm pretty sure it says "an interpretation" because the person who created the picture visually modeled Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a pyramid.

Quote:
That wasn't Maslow's point at all;

What, in your opinion, was his point?

Quote:
in addition, I'm sure you know that human companionship is a necessary psychological need? that humans literally go insane when deprived of human company for long periods of time? That isolation is considered torture in most of the world? That's a need, not a want. [...]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that human companionship is a need. Does that make it a right, in your opinion? How can something like human companionship ever be a right? You can't force people to want to be with someone. This is an element of what I wish to discuss regarding the idea that "basic needs" should be rights.

I saw a picture of an Occupier with a sign that read "A JOB IS A RIGHT." He wasn't demanding food, shelter, or water; rather, a job. Humans generally want to feel useful, and in our society a job often provides a means of satisfying this desire. But how can a job be a right? You can't legislate that there be a job for every person, much less a job they would actually want to do.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Dec 2011, 2:49 am

dmm1010 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Darling, did you notice the part where I said, "bolding mine"? That means I was bolding sections on purpose. I bolded the section heads to distinguish them from each other, and I bolded the part where it says 'sexual instinct is shaped by competition rather than a need to ensure species survival' because competition is not a physiological need, nor even a physiological want. It is psychological.

The statement that "the intensity of the human sexual instinct is shaped more by sexual competition than maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species" is unsourced. It does not appear anywhere in Maslow's paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" However, the following quotation is taken from that paper:

"One thing that must be stressed at this point is that love is not synonymous with sex. Sex may be studied as a purely physiological need. [italics mine] Ordinarily sexual behavior is multi-determined, that is to say, determined not only by sexual but also by other needs, chief among which are the love and affection needs."

Ok, given that I haven't read Maslow beyond what was required in class, I have to concede the point. However, that supposed 'need' can still be adequately met by masturbation.

Quote:
To be entirely honest I don't understand the statement you had quoted. Sexual instinct is "shaped" by "competition," i.e. selection pressure, in all species that reproduce sexually. "Maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species" is also a form of selection pressure.
I interpreted that, by 'shaped,' they're talking about the proximate (psychology) cause rather than the ultimate cause (evolution).

Quote:
What, in your opinion, was his point?

As it was taught to me, that a person's lower-level needs must be met before they can focus on the higher ones; thus, if we want a society where people in general are thoughtful, rational creatures, then we must create a society where they're not struggling to meet their basic ends.

Quote:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that human companionship is a need. Does that make it a right, in your opinion? How can something like human companionship ever be a right? You can't force people to want to be with someone. This is an element of what I wish to discuss regarding the idea that "basic needs" should be rights.

Oddly, though, it's not a lack of affirming human companionship, but companionship at all that drives people mad. I would say that it's a right not to put people in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Even we aspies can go hang out by ourselves at coffee shops or go on the internet to argue.

Quote:
I saw a picture of an Occupier with a sign that read "A JOB IS A RIGHT." He wasn't demanding food, shelter, or water; rather, a job. Humans generally want to feel useful, and in our society a job often provides a means of satisfying this desire. But how can a job be a right? You can't legislate that there be a job for every person, much less a job they would actually want to do.

I don't actually agree that a job is a right, but I do think that we should work for economic justice (ie, a level playing field) and against economic injustice (catch-22).