But officer, I was NOT fighting...

I was merely educating.


LOL

You could always try it. They might let you off for originality, if nothing else.

Yes, and so are gone the days of duels, which i am very greatful for.

Yes, and so are gone the days of duels, which i am very greatful for.

Ah yes, duels... But i do not think dueling was ever somthing for the common man. Besides, they should have stuck to lances! At least most of the time it wasn't fatal, just very dangerous - lots of fun!

But i do not think dueling was ever somthing for the common man.

In the formal sense of dueling with gentleman's rules, you're correct. But don't you think the ancient traditions of calling someone out for a fight that could turn deadly are what y'all are really discussing?

Pistol and sword duels and jousting are all upper-class traditions born in periods where new weapons tech was very expensive. Just because peons couldn't aford the aristo toys didn't mean they shunned the idea of formal or semi-formal fights over "matters of honor."

As a progressive son of the old South, I have to agree with TGE's gratitude that we don't damage and kill each other so often over honor, but I sometimes think we've done a "baby with the bathwater" thing by largely abandoning honor itself. If I had to pick just one reason (and I hate doing that) for my retreat from the college civics classroom, it would be the widespread cheating by students (you know who you are ) combined with sham efforts on the part of colleges to try really doing anything about "academic dishonesty."

But don't you think the ancient traditions of calling someone out for a fight that could turn deadly are what y'all are really discussing?

no, also i very much doubt that 'calling somone out' can be called an ancient tradition without first attaching a place and a time period.

As a progressive son of the old South, I have to agree with TGE's gratitude that we don't damage and kill each other so often over honor, but I sometimes think we've done a "baby with the bathwater" thing by largely abandoning honor itself

It is not just honour we have abandoned. We have also abandoned right and wrong! Why? right and wrong is no longer a chioce for people, the 'good samaratin' is irrelevant - If you see a person beaten and dying today, it is a criminal offence not to report it. right and wrong have been replaced with the choice of obeying the law or dissobeying the law.

yes but dueling could be replaced today with multiplayer war game

yes but dueling could be replaced today with multiplayer war game

no way, they had games in the past too you know! games are games, and won't compare to a real fight.... at least not until Matrix style technology is developed! OOOhw damb, wouldn't that be seriously fun???

at least not until Matrix style technology is developed!

You've got a fight over terms here. IMO, if the game requires you to plug in physically (biologically?) and risk that you can lose whatever passes for personal continuity, then it isn't a game, it's "real."

IMO, if the game requires you to plug in physically (biologically?) and risk that you can lose whatever passes for personal continuity, then it isn't a game, it's "real."

Well put the 'safeties' on then. Some people need the danger though... i wonder why that is? why do some people crave danger? to feel alive?

why do some people crave danger? to feel alive?

it is my understanding from disc. channel that the people who invent new things are the people who crave danger

so maybe we do need them

"disc. channel"

That's entertainment, not education. I don't follow behavioral science lit closely, but I would be very surprised if there is hard data showing a consistent correlation between danger-seeking and creativity. I'm sure it is true for some folks, but you could hardly call George Washington Carver or Nikolai Tesla danger-seekers.

IIRC, there's basic neurochemistry behind this difference among people, at least partly related to dopamine. Some of us are "wired" to seek out new (and hence possibly dangerous) sensations, while others tend to prefer things calm and consistent. This makes evolutionary sense for primate groups b/c it means we have folks who tend to stick to camp (guarding, tending kids, toolmaking, etc.) while others range out to find new food sources, new raw materials, and possibly dangerous new neighbors.

Edit: quoting seems broken at the moment--forum is sticking in strange code that doesn't make the green blocks appear.

i guess it would depend on what you call danger

there is physical danger

there is financil danger

there is mental danger

This thread is on so big a tangent that nothing could put it back in a straight line. That's why I like it.

"why do some people crave danger? to feel alive?"

In a sense, yes. When the Human Body is near danger, adrenaline is produced, which creates the feeling of being "alive." Some people crave this feeling and want to feel more of it, and as a result crave danger and seek it actively.

My question is, do these people know there are risks? Or, to put a finer point, will they not do something that has a greater chance of killing them? Or will they simply involve themselves for this "alive" feeling against all risks?

I guess it is what they call the 'fear factor'. Fear does not necissarily mean danger. Look at bunjy jumping, that would scare the shit outa me but you couldn't call it dangerous under normal circumstances. This applies to allot of rides at the fair too.... except mebe the merry go round!! Anyone here scared of riding the merry go round? Only those of us scared of embarrassing ourselves!

Fear of embarrassement is another thing, some people even enjoy that kind of fear too! Naked sport arena invaders come to mind.

An interesting question was brough up about why we crave danger.

Well its quite a harmless question that, has a very complex answer, that is argued by so many people that it is hard to discern the 'real' truth. Anyways, it basicly boils down to biology. As The Deleter has touched upon the subject already, i will just briefly extend it.

Adreneline is always being produced by the body, its always in your blood. Howevever, when we are in danger, the adreneline not only flows throughout our blood, but also in the neural synapses of our nerve cells. It pretty much floods the brain competly and cuts out much of any other chemical intechange, causing a 'frenzy' or hightened mood. This continues on to produce Endorphins and Dopamine which make the body feel happy and relieved afterwards(if the danger passes). The high and after relief is said to cause an addiction to it. Therefore the repetition of dangerous tasks.

Then the question comes up of why we are all no addicted. That basicly boils down to a small formation of the brain that controls instict. Most of us have the instict to avoid danger, some have that instict but its 'dormant'.

experiencing the powerful instinct to avoid danger is exactly what produces dopamine therefore if this instinct was 'dormant' then dopamine would not be produced.

The key factor lies in the initial ability to defy fear. The fact that the brain gets affected by dopamine or whatever is more of a byproduct which some people may indeed get addicted to.

I think it is interesting to see how children react to various scary rides... some cannot wait to jump on, and then go again! others will stedfastly refuse to go on, and yet others will choose to go on as a result of peer pressure.

Me personally, i was more enclined to be a refuser to ride as a child, although i did go on some rides just out of intense morbid curiosity.

To my opinion you are all addicts! Just because you don't have spasms and other symptoms of drug users when not playing GCII doesn't mean you are not an addict.

who says we don't have spasms and other symptoms when not playing gcll

these next two posts are on different thoughts so i am making them separate


thought one

the law of the planet is severvival of the fitest ie those who can adapt live those who can't don't

so the animals that can adapt to the society of man are thriving and those who can't are dieing

climate change is happening on the earth

man is not couseing climate change

Are you insane man!?! Surely you don't believe what you said and I missed something from an earlier comment, right? I mean, if you don't think that we are 'causing' global warming... sheesh! All I can say is you are oh so lucky that I am practicing my mantra and trying to be a 'good boy'.
But being bad is just so tempting

Yeah, humanity is causing it to a degree. I live in a place that, when I was 4, got a nice large snowstorm. Just last year we barely got 2 inches. And the year before even less. You can't say that it is naturally doing that so quickly, nature just doesn't work that fast.

i never said we were not having an effect on climate change

i said we were not cousing it

and if we are cousing climate change then explain mars and pluto

how do you know what is happening is happening as fast as you think it is

last time i looked we can't predict what going to happen in an hour 100% there are natarul laws that we don't understand

as for hotter weather

the state of utah used to have a tropical rain forest in it
the state of utah area has never been near the tropics