Domain name black market
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Wrong again. A good example to prove it wrong is when a disaster happens. Some people put their own lives in danger to save others. One such an example is enough to prove this idea is wrong, although there are a lot of such examples and I am sure you've heard, read or probably seen it.
People commit suicide every day. People engage in activities that are recognized by almost everyone, including themselves, as being very dangerous and even die from doing it. So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate. And that obviously contradicts absolutely everything about genetics.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
and if they don't, they are probably not healthy
Utter nonsense.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
if someone is thinking only about his/her gain while that gain
No one thinks only about it. Just as no one completely ignores it. For the latter case one only need look to people who feed themselves. Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
jschell wrote:
So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate.
Where did I say that? By that example I am only trying to say that your theory that having too much has caused giving is incorrect. People sacrifice their live which from it they only have one, which means one decreases his/her gain to increase someone elses. Now I'm not an expert in biology to say why it happens or what happens to genes when it happens. Just for a clue, I can say that I think at some point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look. Just an idea though.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense.
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
jschell wrote:
Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
How is this related to our discussion?
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
jschell wrote:
So based on your reasoning genetically we are predispositioned to kill ourselves before we can propagate.
Where did I say that? By that example I am only trying to say that your theory that having too much has caused giving is incorrect. People sacrifice their live which from it they only have one, which means one decreases his/her gain to increase someone elses. Now I'm not an expert in biology to say why it happens or what happens to genes when it happens. Just for a clue, I can say that I think at some point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look. Just an idea though.
jschell wrote:
Utter nonsense.
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
jschell wrote:
Feeding oneself is by its very nature selfish.
How is this related to our discussion?
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Where did I say that?
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that. Thus it follows that any activity that people engage in must be solely based on genetic conditioning.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
...point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look.
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
Yes actually it does.
-
Not sure why that'd be the case. One could say that the business was just created in order to snag the domain, which is just as egregious as snagging a domain just to have it bought by a business. Seems analogous to attempting to patent something that existed before you invented it (prior art).
AspDotNetDev wrote:
One could say that the business was just created in order to snag the domain, which is just as egregious as snagging a domain just to have it bought by a business.
Re-read what I said...the business must be run as a business for some time before challenging for the domain.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Seems analogous to attempting to patent something that existed before you invented it (prior art).
Not apt at all. Actually rather the reverse. Some one has registered a right without doing any actual work in the first place. Additionally it is more appropriate to trademark law where one can register new names but not existing ones. And where one can loose the right to the name if they do not actively protect it.
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Where did I say that?
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that. Thus it follows that any activity that people engage in must be solely based on genetic conditioning.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
...point, pain of others become more painful to us and thus more critical to survival to just sit and look.
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Just because you call it that, it doesn't become that.
Yes actually it does.
jschell wrote:
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that.
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain! But about your claim that people only give what there's plenty of it, I gave you an example that proves you wrong.
jschell wrote:
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Just because you don't know that, it doesn't mean it's not true. Again, I'm not a biologist but what I wrote was based on scientific studies. Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
jschell wrote:
Yes actually it does.
Now you're just a kid. Grow up first, then I'll be interested to continue this conversation.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
jschell wrote:
You claimed that because some people help others that it must mean that people are genetically programmed to do that.
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain! But about your claim that people only give what there's plenty of it, I gave you an example that proves you wrong.
jschell wrote:
That however says nothing about a genetic predespostion.
Just because you don't know that, it doesn't mean it's not true. Again, I'm not a biologist but what I wrote was based on scientific studies. Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
jschell wrote:
Yes actually it does.
Now you're just a kid. Grow up first, then I'll be interested to continue this conversation.
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain!
However your conclusion of from that that people do not in fact gain from is entirely your opinion. And it is that to which I responded.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
I am familar with current theories that attempt to explain various behaviors by genetics. And they are all based on gain.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Now you're just a kid.
Your statement is an opinion. That my opinion of that opinion is all that matters.
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
I never made such a claim. What I said about limbic system is not made up by me mister, I've read it in a book. It's not based on my investigation of brain!
However your conclusion of from that that people do not in fact gain from is entirely your opinion. And it is that to which I responded.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Now before denying what you have no idea about, at least do a little bit research!
I am familar with current theories that attempt to explain various behaviors by genetics. And they are all based on gain.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Now you're just a kid.
Your statement is an opinion. That my opinion of that opinion is all that matters.
jschell wrote:
people do not in fact gain from is entirely your opinion.
Which sentence exactly are you referring at?
jschell wrote:
Your statement is an opinion. That my opinion of that opinion is all that matters.
Well, thanks. Instead of playing games you could have said that.
jschell wrote:
I am familar with current theories that attempt to explain various behaviors by genetics. And they are all based on gain.
Good for you. Now I'll be glad to know at which point I made a mistake, if I made any. When did I exactly spoke about gain of genes? (I really don't think I do such a thing cause I have no idea about genes, still I'll read my comments again but it would be appreciated if you can tell me what you are mad at.)
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
jschell wrote:
people do not in fact gain from is entirely your opinion.
Which sentence exactly are you referring at?
jschell wrote:
Your statement is an opinion. That my opinion of that opinion is all that matters.
Well, thanks. Instead of playing games you could have said that.
jschell wrote:
I am familar with current theories that attempt to explain various behaviors by genetics. And they are all based on gain.
Good for you. Now I'll be glad to know at which point I made a mistake, if I made any. When did I exactly spoke about gain of genes? (I really don't think I do such a thing cause I have no idea about genes, still I'll read my comments again but it would be appreciated if you can tell me what you are mad at.)
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Which sentence exactly are you referring at?
"is responsible for caring about our kind/species"
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
When did I exactly spoke about gain of genes?
When you spoke about "Part of the limbic system of our brain..." I made the assumption that you were referring to modern theories that attempt to explain altruistic behavior. If you have some other recent theory in mind then you would need to educate me on it.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
if you can tell me what you are mad at.)
I don't get mad on forums. Life if too short for that sort of nonsense and I come here for diversion only not because this is my life. Amusement, laughter, astonishment, puzzlement are more representative of my emotions on forums. Especially the first.
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Which sentence exactly are you referring at?
"is responsible for caring about our kind/species"
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
When did I exactly spoke about gain of genes?
When you spoke about "Part of the limbic system of our brain..." I made the assumption that you were referring to modern theories that attempt to explain altruistic behavior. If you have some other recent theory in mind then you would need to educate me on it.
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
if you can tell me what you are mad at.)
I don't get mad on forums. Life if too short for that sort of nonsense and I come here for diversion only not because this is my life. Amusement, laughter, astonishment, puzzlement are more representative of my emotions on forums. Especially the first.
jschell wrote:
"is responsible for caring about our kind/species"
Possibly fault of my bad English again. "Caring about" someone means we don't ignore them, right? And "caring for" means we are obligated to their survival. Anyway, the conclusion is based on these information, correct me where I'm wrong please: 1. Mirror cells: I read that they mimic what happens to other people and thus cause us to feel similar feelings. 2. Pain is stronger than pleasure: I have also read that if a painful news is given to brain, to return back to the state it had before the news, it must receive almost three pleasant news with the same magnitude. So pain effect human brain more than pleasure. 3. The limbic brain. I read it in a relatively old book (2010 I guess), so I don't think it's related to studies that you mentioned. The book wasn't about genes so it did not speak about details and only said that that part of the brain is the root of our feelings towards our own species. (Unlike many other animals including worms that I wrote there.) So, I think you're right that the conclusion isn't about this study. Now the question is: what a healthy brain will choose in equal condition, among ones gain with the cost of others pain.
jschell wrote:
When you spoke about "Part of the limbic system of our brain..." I made the assumption that you were referring to modern theories
I like human psychology more than general biology, specially about human brain, so no. I haven't read with that detail what's going on deep inside. Also I have to read such books while I'm not programming which doesn't give me much time. ;-)
jschell wrote:
I don't get mad on forums.
Sorry if I behaved a bit rude. That was because I found your response quiet rude and arrogant. I thought you're a kid playing around! :-D
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-) -
jschell wrote:
"is responsible for caring about our kind/species"
Possibly fault of my bad English again. "Caring about" someone means we don't ignore them, right? And "caring for" means we are obligated to their survival. Anyway, the conclusion is based on these information, correct me where I'm wrong please: 1. Mirror cells: I read that they mimic what happens to other people and thus cause us to feel similar feelings. 2. Pain is stronger than pleasure: I have also read that if a painful news is given to brain, to return back to the state it had before the news, it must receive almost three pleasant news with the same magnitude. So pain effect human brain more than pleasure. 3. The limbic brain. I read it in a relatively old book (2010 I guess), so I don't think it's related to studies that you mentioned. The book wasn't about genes so it did not speak about details and only said that that part of the brain is the root of our feelings towards our own species. (Unlike many other animals including worms that I wrote there.) So, I think you're right that the conclusion isn't about this study. Now the question is: what a healthy brain will choose in equal condition, among ones gain with the cost of others pain.
jschell wrote:
When you spoke about "Part of the limbic system of our brain..." I made the assumption that you were referring to modern theories
I like human psychology more than general biology, specially about human brain, so no. I haven't read with that detail what's going on deep inside. Also I have to read such books while I'm not programming which doesn't give me much time. ;-)
jschell wrote:
I don't get mad on forums.
Sorry if I behaved a bit rude. That was because I found your response quiet rude and arrogant. I thought you're a kid playing around! :-D
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)Hamed Mosavi wrote:
what a healthy brain will choose in equal condition, among ones gain with the cost of others pain.
Regardless of whether one chooses a spiritual, psychological or physical basis for the brain it is far too simplistic to suggest that people are compelled to help other people ("healthy" or not.) And it is certainly simplistic to suggest that gain is not involved. Consider this very simplistic statement - I feel good when I have helped someone. So do I not "gain" in my own emotional well being when I help someone?
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Sorry if I behaved a bit rude.
I strive not to attribute emotional states to others based on their comments on forums. They could be either demented, coldly rational, disinterested, wildly laughing or absolutely furious and I would not be sure. Nor do I much care.
-
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
what a healthy brain will choose in equal condition, among ones gain with the cost of others pain.
Regardless of whether one chooses a spiritual, psychological or physical basis for the brain it is far too simplistic to suggest that people are compelled to help other people ("healthy" or not.) And it is certainly simplistic to suggest that gain is not involved. Consider this very simplistic statement - I feel good when I have helped someone. So do I not "gain" in my own emotional well being when I help someone?
Hamed Mosavi wrote:
Sorry if I behaved a bit rude.
I strive not to attribute emotional states to others based on their comments on forums. They could be either demented, coldly rational, disinterested, wildly laughing or absolutely furious and I would not be sure. Nor do I much care.
jschell wrote:
it is far too simplistic to suggest that people are compelled to help other people
One thing's almost clear to me, if after all the evolution process, our brain comes to the same conclusion of the worm, then I won't consider that an evolution or at least an effective one!! I believe here's an obvious difference between Psychology and biology. While psychology clearly talks about brain issues and devides people into healthy, normal and abnormal('normal' based on society standards, but 'healthy' I am not sure how), it is biology job to find out why. So I guess answer to such complicated questions are more easily found in Psychology if one isn't interested about very detailed information of how.
jschell wrote:
They could be either demented, coldly rational, disinterested, wildly laughing or absolutely furious and I would not be sure.
Or rational smart people. Please consider this option as well. ;-)
Planning to move to Germany, looking for a job there!
Looking for a Windows desktop programmer? I look forward to hearing from you! :-)