dimreepr

Then I'm sure this local story, will interest you. http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/archive/2014/02/12/11003702.Renishaw_builds_world_s_first_metal_3D_printed_bicycle/

“Now write that, 100 times; or I’ll cut your balls off” “Doing good” ‘for me’ is, maybe, more accurate in this case.

If you want people to take up and use your word, then give some thought to the phonetics and the society you want to use it; may I suggest something like ‘longsta’.

Jesus managed it, by your logic, as did Mohamed and Buddha; why not John Cuthber or me?

You would seem to be right not to hit that button, before the results were in; I bow to your wisdom.

Why do you need a special word for wanting to be something you’re currently not? For instance I’ve always wanted to race in the motogp but never did I think it needed a special word to describe that want; although a word for that does exist, ‘wannabe’ IIRC.

What I’ve learnt from my journey is: As harsh as it may seem ‘know body owes you happiness’ and the decision not to ‘accept’ a situation, you have no control of, is yours alone and can only affect YOU and cause you pain. And if you are able to change what’s causing upset, change it, don’t demand others change it for you; but if they choose to help then say thanks and accept gratefully. Never expecting makes it easier accepting.

You don't get to decide what’s agreed.

Goalposts, for you Tar, are just two sticks in a forest you’ve just vaguely waved at.

Ok just to fire in the final nail in your tenuous argument. If morals predated religion then mankind existed without religion but with morals; so in answer to your question I would cite, THAT society. And if you, for some strange reason, require the final say be my guest.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself, it’s getting old, don’t imagine you’re the only one that’s felt/attempted suicide and there’s a word for living forever; so you want to be immortal? The phrase ‘be careful what you wish for’ springs to mind.

Mine. BTW I said culture not society tut tut Tar.

Wow Tar you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, variable goalposts, reframing arguments to mean what you’ve decided; You can’t have it both ways, if you believe there’s no god the only logical conclusion is that morals came before religion. Its culture not religion that forms our morals, religion may play its part but that part depends on the strength of religion in your personal culture, which means religion can play an important part, but equally it can play no part AT ALL.

The opposite of suicidal would be happy or content; the opposite of the act of suicide is living.

Phi, surely hero worship should include a +1.

This is a chicken/egg question but wait, you’re an atheist Tar; therefore you believe the morals came from us, not god/s, ergo morals predated religion. Nailing jello to the wall is the easy bit, Phi; just freeze it, drill a hole, insert nail and bang away.

Tar, please clarify, your verbose style and my limited comprehension makes it unclear to me; are you suggesting religion IS necessary to have morals? P.S. The Ukrainian trouble is due to the government wanting closer ties with Russia and the opposition wanting closer ties with the EU, AFAIK.

I think bignose’s point is valid, I for one, at the start would have brushed aside any such hurdle because my idea was ‘so valid’ as to ignore any such restrictions, simply to show that my amazing idea simply, must be shared with a community that could appreciate it; having since come to terms with the chasm of my understanding, I am eternally grateful that I was accepted and later taught my mystification.

It’s certainly an intriguing example of the predator prey arms race.

My apologies, Acme, for not replying quicker and for my suggesting tawny crazy ants don’t bite; my intention was not that they didn’t bite but rather they didn’t bite themselves to counteract the fire ant toxin.

If I may wrestle this thread back on topic: Tar The definition of religion or the posing of ethical conundrums isn’t the point and doesn’t answer the question here. If we accept the innateness of a basic moral code as in fairness, reciprocity, respect of authority and empathy; then the answer is clear and the title of the thread is accurate. Dekan Do the police or any authority, culture or society teach empathy? Or indeed, how would you go about teaching it? I agree these innate senses don’t seem to carry a great deal of strength and is why cultures develop many different ways of framing their ethical codes, however, many similarities are seen across almost all of these different approaches; besides the need for authority isn’t in question here.

There is no indication that the crazy ant bites anything, let alone themselves, it would seem they simply smear themselves with their own acid, thus counteracting the alkaline produced by their natural enemies. cross posted.

The difference between venom and poison is, venom is a poison that is injected via a bite or sting and a poison is ingested; so, yes the term is indeed probably misapplied in this case.

In terms of the ants themselves the term ‘venom’ is possibly a misnomer, in that, for them it’s a simple poison; perhaps it maybe simply a case of acid verses an alkaline?

Tar I think any ‘dangerous animal’ that has evolved to cooperate with its fellows, for survival, will by necessity have at least a rudimentary set of morals, together with an increased intelligence, due to the need to not kill or injure those you rely on for survival; so in answer to your question I think it would go back to the ancestor that first started down that road, which would predate Moses by quite some time.