Just now, I had a somewhat similar experiance. My daughter was giving bath to her child. I asked a question. She usually do not reply immediately. But this time she spoken immediately which I feel replied my question, which I could not understand and felt she told some tecnical things. I asked thrice, she spoke every time. Next time when I asked, she shouted and told she is talking to her child not replying my question, so why I am asking again and again? When I came to know it, when she again spoke same words to her child I could easily understood those that they were mouth wash eye wash. So this suggest, our perception, expectation,liking and misunderstanding can also affect, not just language.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Just now, I had a somewhat similar experiance. My daughter was giving bath to her child. I asked a question. She usually do not reply immediately. But this time she spoken immediately which I feel replied my question, which I could not understand and felt she told some tecnical things. I asked thrice, she spoke every time. Next time when I asked, she shouted and told she is talking to her child not replying my question, so why I am asking again and again? When I came to know it, when she again spoke same words to her child I could easily understood those that they were mouth wash eye wash. So this suggest, our perception, expectation,liking and misunderstanding can also affect, not just language.
This is because of your perception, liking or need. One can opt belief or skepticism due to any reason, natural or unnatural.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Cool story. You still can't write coherent English. Fix that, or quit complaining that no one can understand you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Your religion is made up. This is not a matter of perception but rather of fact. You're knowingly posting to a skeptics forum. Expect the skeptical answer every time. Also you failed to explain why, if your religion is so altruistic, you are wielding it like a moralistic bludgeon.
Last edited:
I rarely complained but yes many posters here complained in specific conditions.
Anyway, leave this language a&f issue. Mod may mind.
My religion is true religion not specific religion. It is not necessary, anyone who is following true religion in his behaviour but not accepting it as commonly shown or is skeptical, can not still be religious in true sense. So I say concentrate on sense not on entity.
Accidently, I got following definition of altruistic(you mentioned above, I was not knowing, so searched):
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It isn't because the animals think about it and decide to act atruistically on the basis of reason or morality. It's because natural selection can result in behaviour that has survival advantages for the individual's genes being selected for, even if the surviving and proliferating copies of the genes are carried by another individual.
Last edited:
Whatever may be the term, but it can also somewhat indicate grattitude and nobility in animals---naturally or acquired. Why can't they take to their owners or nursers alike their close relatives/companions?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, it indicates that behaviours that result in genes proliferating will result in those genes proliferating, even if the particular copies of the gene that proliferate are not the ones carried by the individuals exhibiting the behaviour.
Because their owners are not closely related to them, so don't share their genes. You aren't closely related to any of the species that we use for food, are you?*
*ETA: Rhetorical.
Last edited:
I can not understand it. It is bit more technical for me.
I think, relations can also be made without blood relations. Eg. companion, friend, guardian, teacher etc. The whole sense should lie in what one feel to other.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
We've been saying just that for how many pages now?
Back down the inadequate language rabbit hole.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What made you think that using something you don't understand to support your argument was a good idea?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
If you wrote in good French people who understand French would understand. Your problem is not there. It is that you are writing in English which is not understandable by anyone here, including those who speak it.
What it looks like here is an attempt to camouflage bad ideas in bad language so that one need take no responsibility for either.
But still can cause relatiónship. How genetic relationship can matter in animals esp when they are not in close contact?
Yoú speculate too much. I do not need it.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
OK, no problem. Then stop trying to shoehorn your own explanations into ti.
Yes, that is correct. Most domestic animals are flock animals (cats are an exception, but then cats are not very altruistic), and they take their human keepers as flock leaders. This exactly shows that it is not an intelligent or emotional choice: In most cases the human flock leader will exploit the animal to his own uses, and the animal does not realize this.
Not, however, that this is still an evolutionary advantage: The humans make sure that the animal survives as a species. Very few domestic species would have much chance of surviving for very long without humans.
Hans
fagin
Philosopher
Still many posts are understood here and much more elsewhere. Since we are discussing, it suggest we are, anyway, understanding each other. May be some if not fully.