Why are people so hung up on fairness?

Because honesty is always the best policy. If you can’t be fair and honest, you don’t have anything. The “Golden Rule” rules!

And your initial assumption is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_Lm49XVkGQ

Are you saying that you are replacing the Bible with Nature as your guide for how we should live our lives? In that case you would need to approve of infanticide, adultery, cannibalism, theft and homosexuality. Will you be creating a new religion based on these principles?

The wealthy sure don’t believe in fairness so you might be on to something with this.

@LostInParadise Are you saying that you are replacing the Bible with Nature as your guide for how we should live our lives? In that case you would need to approve of infanticide, adultery, cannibalism, theft and homosexuality. Will you be creating a new religion based on these principles?
THAT would never happen with me. However, in conversations with those who care nothing for the Bible they get stuck on fairness. I may not see how things and events in the Bible seem fair to my carnal mind, I know events and such are not just random, but there is an order behind them and a being sovereign to intervene if He chooses. I guess if it is a made up religion then I will have the rules and justice of those who created it and the gods behind it. No God all you have is nature and the random occurrences of it. There is no fairness in nature, When the turtles hatch and try to make it to the surf, other animals care nothing about the fact the turtles were just born, they line up at the buffet, and those unlucky or too slow, or both, have a live long enough to be an entrée for some larger faster animal. That is the pure order of nature no matter how you slice it. There is no adultery in the animal kingdom so it is not even in play. Neither is a bona fide gay animal, in the wild and not crossbred to hell, so that is off the table. So, having cannibalism and infanticide they both have their mythology. If you are vanquished by your enemies, you are dead, so if they eat your body the worse has been done, so there is no unfairness there. In the gist of natural selection if you were not strong enough to defend yourself, or smart enough to avoid an enemy or predator what could do you in, you were like the turtles, part of the buffet. The babies are in the same position, in fact infanticide goes on every year in the US but we as a nation just choose to see it not for what it is but the outcome is no different. If it is fair, why is using a different method not fair? If there is anything to maybe hang a hat on, is that most species do not kill members of their own species as man does. Not to say some don’t, they fight over females, territory, etc., but if it fair? The question never comes up because it is a part of the process; you protect what is needed for your survival 1st, then your clan, then your species. If it means wiping out another species, once that species is gone, then you worry about where to go from there, but while they are food, or useful, they are utilized.

I am having trouble interpreting your answer. Do you or do you not personally approve of infanticide and cannibalism among humans? What about theft? Animals regularly steal the food caught by other animals. Animals definitely engage in homosexual acts. Sexual promiscuity is also common in the animal kingdom. Does that mean that you personally recommend such behavior among humans? You can’t cherry pick the lessons that you like from nature. If you are going to defend acts simply because they occur naturally, you have to accept all of them.

^ Do you or do you not personally approve of infanticide and cannibalism among humans?
I don’t approve of those things, but then there are other things I don’t approve of, but society is all for it.

What about theft? Animals regularly steal the food caught by other animals.
In nature, there is no theft per se, if an animal makes a kill and cannot protect it, in nature they lose. Same as if they cannot protect their young, their offspring ends up on the buffet table.

Animals definitely engage in homosexual acts.
I invited the collective to come up with divinative proof of that, I looked and could not find it, I am still waiting. There has been behavior scientist or zoologist attribute to homosexual behavior but that is filtered through finding what you wish to find, have have found none to go on record to say there are gay animals in this species or that, which reject their natural proclivity to mate and procrate with the opposite sex, and be only with those of the same sex exclusively. If you have something concrete bring it on, I would love to examin it.

Sexual promiscuity is also common in the animal kingdom. Does that mean that you personally recommend such behavior among humans?
With the greater animal kingdom there is a method to that, with humans there isn’t. I don’t have to recoment it, they do it anyhow, and often to disastrous affect. I am sure you do more than I because I am sure you are not staunchly in the one woman-one man until death in an official established unit camp, are did I get that wrong?

You can’t cherry pick the lessons that you like from nature. If you are going to defend acts simply because they occur naturally, you have to accept all of them.
The ”cherry picking” is done by those who want to live under nature or just trandom occurance, infanticide being one of the glaring choose as you wish issues. To say ridding the little nipper one minute past birth is wrong or worse than ridding of it three months before birth or simply trying to redefine it other than what nature says because it makes it more palatable to do as one wishes is the same none the less. People try to equate fairness in it as to the host who by her actions affilitated the action which nature has always used as a catalyst for a new life to be created. In actuality one living being had no say and was wiped out to suit another for their overall convenience. People want to justify state sanctioned murder as necessary or to attone for some taking of life. A life is taken taking the life of the person who did it willnot unring the bell. People want to cherry pick that and call it justice or fairness in evening the score in some strange way. Those under nature use cherry picking, I don’t life under nature, nature is just a part of the process for aniumals but not for humans, that is why a lot of things that are OK with animals are not with humans.

I invited the collective to come up with divinative proof of that, I looked and could not find it, I am still waiting.

The proof is all over the place if you are willing to accept it. You aren’t, so you won’t. So this is all brick-wall shit and a waste of electrons.

^ The proof is all over the place if you are willing to accept it.
I am, but this proof no one can seem to find so it must not exist, or for some reason the scientific community is trying to keep it a major secret. Some times it is just a shadow in the threes no matter if 50 people think they see the bogey man in there. Made a liar of me, show me a zoologist who put in print backed up with undisputable scientific evidence that any particular species have homosexual animals not merely those who exhibit it from a human perspective; no one could find it last time, I doubt you will find it this time, but you can manufacture whatever truth makes what you believe real.

There are homosexual animals and Hypo won’t except it because animals aren’t human so can’t be exhibiting actual homosexual behaviour. He’s made that question a catch 22 so he always wins. That’s what he does on fluther, He creates a question not to get an answer, but to preach his sermons. It’s boring.

@cazzie He’s made that question a catch 22 so he always wins.
None of my questions are catch 22s, as Fox Mulder said, ”The truth is out there”. If anything wins, it is the truth. If one has the truth all they have to do is present it, not speculation and the issue is solved.

That’s what he does on fluther, He creates a question not to get an answer, but to preach his sermons. It’s boring.
It may seem that way because fluther want to use unproven facts or theories to bolster what it agrees with but dismiss the same methology when it bolster things they don’t agree with. Like math, you can use it to strike fear thinking potential adversaries are out numbering you, or you can use it to show an upswing in beneavolence; it is what it is, be it good or bad is all perception of who is using it. To try to manupilate numbers to manufacture a truth that is not real is more than boring it is just plain pathetic.

I did not inject gay animals into the conversation, I merely responded to it just as cannibalism and infanticide, of which I did not inject either, so there was no sermon to be made, but invention of facts is a specialty around here.

You know the X-files isn’t a documentary, right?

^ Psst…..no one said it was…..don’t know what you heard, but listening more than speaking can go along way with gaining understanding. ;-)

Your assumption of ‘one truth’ in regards to these questions of yours shows that your intention is to preach at us about your ‘one truth’. You don’t ask these questions for any other reason. I repeated the gay animal question because you were shown several examples, but refused to acknowledge them as examples. The same will go with this question. Your initial assumption is wrong, as I pointed out in my first post. Humans are animals. They made up myths of gods. They, as well as their counter cousins on the tree of life are/were naturally concerned with fairness because it helps the social order in their groups and they were doing it long before they invented gods and they will continue to do so when we outgrow the myths and learn to live rationally.

@cazzie Your assumption of ‘one truth’ in regards to these questions of yours shows that your intention is to preach at us about your ‘one truth’.
It may seem that way, but only to those who are asked to come up with their brand of definative proof. It is no fault of mine if it doesn’t exist in any form to be presented.

You don’t ask these questions for any other reason.
Wrong again, I ask questions that explore areas of this world, even dark parts where people excersice different standards to the same basic action. I want to see if the double standard can be justified to a point that it can be logically defended or it is just an emotional leaning and bias.

I repeated the gay animal question because you were shown several examples, but refused to acknowledge them as examples.
I have not seen any examples from you or anyone else that proved gay aniumals as certainly as gravity. One can say what they want about how humans stay on this planet but there is a force that works no matter how interpreted. Most facts (or lack of) that I have seen presented here is interpretation of observation but no smoking gun. The closes that was even found to say as you believe, I found myself, and that was attributed more to man’s tinkering with inbreeding domestic bighorn ship than a natural occurance in the wild. Even the much lauded Bonobo promates the actions were more seem as a social mechanism for stress avliviation or to resolve conflict than male apes having the hots for each other while firtle female apes were available. I do not want interpretation based on what would be usual for humans, show me a species untinkered with by man where they have a male contingent of the population that will ignore a firtle female in head to go copulate another male of the species.

The same will go with this question. Your initial ….. yawn …and learn to live rationally.
The question goes to people’s belief in fairness, which should have no sway if we humans are indeed just higher form of animals. Even the fact, unlike many animals, we prey on each other for less reason animals might battle others of the same species. If it is just a this random world, then the only thing that matters if how to work the advantageous situation you were born in or minimize the disadvantage if you were not born so. If someone of lesser ability gets used or decimated by those in better situations, who are stronger, faster, etc. that is the way it was suppose to be, natural selection. Fairness would just be some abtract concept as you believe is behind most religions.