Swiss wrote:
Aight check it, it's like dis:
@Nick - It's very well possible that the suffering of those in third world countries are not as bad as this fellow's in terms of how the individual perceives said suffering. New research (see Youtube posted below) theorizes we have two kinds of happiness: synthetic and natural. Synthetic is the happiness that arises when we don't get what we want (and had no say/choice in the matter). Natural happiness is the happiness that arises when we get what we want. So in the case of those in third world countries - they have no say in the matter, yet many of them are extremely happy with life. Third world countries are not filled with depressed people. Our brains can synthesize happiness. In the case of Hall here, he does have options in life - he COULD theoretically pursue different lifestyle choices, but he does not. Thus, dissonance arises.
None of this, what so ever, means we should ever stop caring about third world countries nor doing what we can to deliver basic necessities of life to those who do not have them.
If you want your mind blown, just see this (20 minutes):
[youtube]LTO_dZUvbJA[/youtube]
@Corey - Compassion is not limited. You are able to sympathize with Hall along with the millions of children going to bed hungry tonight. You don't have to fixate on one or the other. The second you choose to ignore compassion or care for others is the second you stop acting in a way that improves the state of the world.
If you aren't doing something that helps those starving children in Uganda, or wherever, then you're not in a position to complain when others bring it up. No presumptions; simply stating!
Now, speaking of starving children, who wants to talk Peter Singer and understand why everyone here is selfish and immoral?
[quote="Swiss"][img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqkaa0cc7Z1r25534o1_500.gif[/img][/quote]
Aight check it, it's like dis:
@Nick - It's very well possible that the suffering of those in third world countries are not as bad as this fellow's in terms of how the individual perceives said suffering. New research (see Youtube posted below) theorizes we have two kinds of happiness: synthetic and natural. Synthetic is the happiness that arises when we don't get what we want (and had no say/choice in the matter). Natural happiness is the happiness that arises when we get what we want. So in the case of those in third world countries - they have no say in the matter, yet many of them are extremely happy with life. Third world countries are not filled with depressed people. Our brains can synthesize happiness. In the case of Hall here, he does have options in life - he COULD theoretically pursue different lifestyle choices, but he does not. Thus, dissonance arises.
None of this, what so ever, means we should ever stop caring about third world countries nor doing what we can to deliver basic necessities of life to those who do not have them.
If you want your mind blown, just see this (20 minutes):
[youtube]LTO_dZUvbJA[/youtube]
@Corey - Compassion is not limited. You are able to sympathize with Hall along with the millions of children going to bed hungry tonight. You don't have to fixate on one or the other. The second you choose to ignore compassion or care for others is the second you stop acting in a way that improves the state of the world.
If you aren't doing something that helps those starving children in Uganda, or wherever, then you're not in a position to complain when others bring it up. No presumptions; simply stating!
Now, speaking of starving children, who wants to talk Peter Singer and understand why everyone here is selfish and immoral?