Davis is right, regardless. The thing is, as human beings we cannot just get rid of our bias, all we can do is be frank about it. More thoughts on bias.

@Gregol: the whole ignorance is bliss thing does require a definition for ignorance. For your example, I think you are using ignorance in the following context:

You might say that not knowing about the misery in this world that goes beyond our personal life is a good thing because such misery will not bother us if it's kept away from your consciousness.

But I could claim that not knowing (or in this case, understanding) the nature of pain and the important role it plays in binding us together is what makes you think that it's better to be ignorant of the suffering of others.

Thus, if you can accept that, as people so eloquently say, "shit happens," you won't have to be burdened by the pain of others, instead it'll be used as an opportunity to nurture empathy, compassion and love for them, regardless of whether you know them personally or not. And this is a step up from the first scenario, where you are free of worries about people you don't know/see, but you are still troubled by the pain of those you know.
Davis_500 said:
in the end, being neutral and having an objectionable stance is much like being politically correct: you as in a general audience just don't want to offend anyone by standing for what you believe in and remain forever riding the fence. no one wants someone who's indecisive
There are a few things I still care about disregarding rationality and logic. It's like working of a list of things that are important and every step on the way you cross off more and more as being ridiculous, illogical, absurd or without any use to me or the things I do care about.
What are the views of everyone here and methods you have on neutral positions in the long (astronomical long LONG) term? Such as an immortal observer? (Q1)

Emptiness

Disagreeing with inability to take a stance

I wonder if anyone can share what that is like. I've seen so many people yet because of their nature you don't bump into the observer type. It's only logical, yet frustrating at times. It may be interesting to just know there's more people with that view out there, no need to compare notes. I guess you could say wanting to have a sense of not being alone is still on the list. I don't see that coming off of their either. I'd say it's to hardcoded into the brain but also I don't want to give that up. Life without so many moving people of all sorts would be tremendously boring.

RE on bias

I would like to ask the following question then.

Is there a way to hold firmly onto specific beliefs and be satisfied with those choices yet still realize that such views are biased? (Q2)

I suppose that this person would in time automatically start to warp his/her beliefs towards goals or the other way 'round to keep from having to accept that it is from all views and perspectives little more than rubbish.
Mnessie said:
Is there a way to hold firmly onto specific beliefs and be satisfied with those choices yet still realize that such views are biased? (Q2)
The key issue here is "firmly." There's a huge difference between having a preference for an opinion, and having blind faith in the validity of an opinion.

Explanation of how we develop an opinion/stance/"bias" and why it isn't inherently bad.

By the way, I just checked the definition of bias:
Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly.
And I'd like to mention that I have not used bias in this way at all. In fact, the way I used bias up to now is synonymous of "opinion." Perhaps the whole discussion started off on the left foot, since I didn't consider bias to be that :S

I get the impression the rest of the people here weren't using the proper definition for bias neither... am I right?

Addendum: About the rest of Mnessie's post. There are many topics that Mnessie touched on here, that I could go on and write a huge monologue if I were to fully tackle each one of them. For now, to focus on one topic at a time, I'll just summarize my opinions:
- Emptiness is the natural state of existence in Buddhism.
- About being an observer. I am :B I can be quite talkative in small groups when nobody takes the initiative, but in larger groups I default to sitting back and assimilating the situation.
SK7000 said:
1: "difference between having a preference for an opinion, and having blind faith in the validity of an opinion"
1: I meant blind faith with minimal changes

SK7000 said: Bias: As we live we come across questions and experiences. We use our understanding to assign answers through the experiences. We believe we made the best effort to answer these questions truthfully, and thus the answers we reached are more likely to be right than wrong.
Let me try and understand this as well as I can by means of an example to help illustrate how I perceive this statement. Example

Explanation required on "best effort"

SK7000 said:
The key here that separates the closed-minded from the open-minded is how strongly you attach yourself to "being sure of being right."
I don't see how being accurate about something requires being sure of it. Explanation of statement
Bias
I like how you talked about my views and their buddhistic nature. I would be a lousy buddhist since I'd find myself to be too constrained believing in something again. I'd rather just see it as a point of view.

You don't strike me as the observer type. I wonder what to do with that information :/
@mnessie;
You don't strike me as the observer type.
"All men are similar in nature, in actions they are wide apart." - this is a chinese proverb, I believe.

About doubting oneself: exactly the same here.

I think SK7000 was talking about the following:
A person had a strange encounter/witnessed a strange phenomenon.
Said person tries to apply knowledge gained from previous experiences to explain that occurrence.
Person almost automatically believes themselves to be correct.
Degree of confidence depends on open-mindedness of person.

Now to answer your(mnessie) question:Q2
Yes, IMO it is possible(to firmly/blindly believe, but still know it is biased).
There are a lot of weird people out there, and you never know what they are up to.
But that's not what you wanted to hear, though, is it?
I find that most scientists are like that. They just blissfully ignore that fact. Or don't.
Point is: I don't know how it could be impossible.
If you come across a point of view and believe it, but know that there was an assumption made somewhere, that's not proven to be true, yet you realise that there is no better alternative available, you might become like what you said in the question.
One would be in a sort of state of acceptance, like you(mnessie) readily accept the futility of your own existence.

Q1 needs some more specified parameters...
I'm not sure what's being asked...
Gregol said:
Clamp
I think being biased about something and realizing it I would then consider to be a transition state in which we can move towards other concepts (S1, (statement/suggestion)). Alternatively one could remain in this state unable to find answers elsewhere. Let's not forget the option for self-deception as some views would even claim that all that we perceive is a deception of reality warped into something we can relate to our own experiences. In fact I remember an episode of Through the wormhole (epic source :P) where there was some research about just that....I should look that up if we're going to dig into this topic further.

Gregol Said:
One would be in a sort of state of acceptance, like you(mnessie) readily accept the futility of your own existence.

Q1 needs some more specified parameters...
I'm not sure what's being asked...
Achievement unlocked! First to actually notice and mention how that is based on assumption somewhere along the line. I'm actually glad you noticed. Obviously there is no solid proof for it.

Ignore question one for the time being then. Let's focus on Q2. I think we're getting somewhere on that.

I think I may be able to turn it into this now:
One is able to be biased about something yet still stand behind it. At closer inspection this person may show doubt or disbelief but will not distance himself/herself from such a belief unless an alternative has been presented that can be replaced.

Personal Note
Uhm, Mnessie, let's think about the scientific method. Because that's pretty much what I was talking about, referring to life experience (Gregol got my meaning right).

Mnessie's understanding of "using experience to answer life's questions"
It goes beyond that. Big example in case it isn't clear.

The part where I say "we believe we made our best effort" is basically saying "we believe we made the right choice, we picked the right answer." When you say:
So I can not readily accept your idea of best effort being of such relevance in experience vs questions
I think this is because, personally, you seem to not be "too confident" on the decisions you reached (it's the impression I got from the rest of the comment). That you don't become confident on your conclusions does not mean that others will not be.

(expanding the explanation on the example)

I don't see how being accurate about something requires being sure of it.
Again, you are missing the point I was trying to make. I never said there was a relationship between "confidence" and "accuracy". What I said is that our "confidence" is directly related to our willingness to "accept" that we are wrong (if we are wrong).

Back on the bias topic...
Mnessie's definition of bias
Changing the definition of a word from the official dictionary one is not going to make things easier to discuss, you know.

In fact, I don't think we have really been discussing bias at all so far. It's something closer to... "can we have (and defend) an opinion knowing it might not be the truth?" I think, would you agree? Phrased like that, I think most of the remarks you've both made make sense so far.
SK7000 said:
Uhm, Mnessie, let's think about the scientific method.
I didn't stop as far as I can tell. Perhaps one of my more thought provoking statements wasn't wrapped in enough arguments. Sometimes I just use strategy in words to provoke a response I was looking for. Sorry for causing any confusion if I did. It's an ancient habit of mine. Consider it a mapping technique. Nothing too threatening :)

SK7000 said:
"How should I deal with annoying people"?
Thusly

SK7000 said:
The part where I say "we believe we made our best effort" is basically saying "we believe we made the right choice, we picked the right answer.
Consider this point clarified and understood. Indeed, this is something that I find rare to the point I'm not even sure anymore what that feels like ^_^. I suppose that makes me very open-minded then.

Discussion Continued, several topics

In any case let us continue then on bias and the last statement first and then circle back here.
@Mnessie:
I find it amazing how hard it is to get some of my meanings across. Even when I express myself in a way which I think is clear enough, there are some definitions which you seem to grasp half-way (with the other half being perhaps 1. what you wanted me to say, or 2. what you wanted to discuss about). I don't know if I am doing the same on my side, but I am trying to follow your statements and comment on that.

I don't see how this example helps in understanding life experiences. To me its functions and absorbed knowledge.
In brief: life experience is absorbed knowledge and also is what we use to build these functions.

I have also seen people that would rather not use their own knowledge or problem solving abilities and rely on others first before letting themselve interact.
What if the experience of these people is that they've found themselves to be terrible decision makers, and that they feel safer trusting the judgment of other people whom they deem wiser? I can imagine at least that scenario where it's sensible to follow that approach.

Something about bias and belief @[email protected]
A reply which might make no sense when you consider the next paragraph.

I am not sure how to answer your question because I don't understand this:
They can have both at the same time.
Both what? Bias and belief? How is a bias not a belief as well? And how are beliefs not biased to match our expectations of how life is?

PS
Just because one believes in something doesn't necessarily mean they are fully biased towards it. They can still be quite objective about their belief as well. I don't believe in the singular almighty god prevalent in the dominant religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but I'm by no means biased against such ideas (assuming the concepts are presented to me in a non-forceful way. Trying to shove one's beliefs on me is when I will push back.)

You can call me agnostic (I don't really commit myself to that term, though if needed, I would probably state that over atheist for now), though leaning toward Shintoism. (Shinto concepts make more sense compare to some of the western religious concepts.) However, I don't put my belief at the forefront of my mind and am very open to other ideas. Belief =/= bias.

Another example (if somehwat weaker) is how this site's upload approvals are manage. I can very well believe an image is fugly as hell and should be deleted. If I was truly biased to my belief, I'd delete it on the spot (assuming it met all the technical requirements for the site). However, I tend to leave my bias behind and leave such an image for review by other mods for a second opinion.

A bias or belief may lead to one or the other, but they don't really equate to each other, if you get what I mean.
SK7000 said:
@Mnessie:
I find it amazing how hard it is to get some of my meanings across. Even when I express myself in a way which I think is clear enough
Change of method

I will just focus on the point made in the following quote as best I can for now.

SK7000 said:
What if the experience of these people is that they've found themselves to be terrible decision makers, and that they feel safer trusting the judgment of other people whom they deem wiser? I can imagine at least that scenario where it's sensible to follow that approach.
My reply

SK7000 said:
A reply which might make no sense when you consider the next paragraph.
Well said.

SK7000 said:
Clamp
Ever heard of solipsism? It is the belief that you are the only thing that is real. If there were to be left or right turn from the bias discussion. My proposal is to go there or the theme of eternal life and how to make it work (for that person after obtaining it). Give me some more time to consider bias. I haven't reached anything new worth mentioning on this yet I think. (See also: Sidetracking, below)

feedback

Sidetracking
StahnAileron said:
A bias or belief may lead to one or the other, but they don't really equate to each other, if you get what I mean.
I think I do.
Ah, so another of Mnessie's mysteries is solved. It isn't that you are only half-following my responses, it is more that you read them and then you go off on a tangent thinking about it :P However, I suppose you should be aware that in doing so, you might confuse your listeners, because it comes across as if you were only half-listening to others.

More than the sum of its parts? Maybe for the lesser engineers and aesthetics...humans are beyond arrogant.
You know, this in itself could be an interesting topic. I am not sure how you can apply this phrase to life (those that do), but I know it applies to the culinary arts. The taste of a meal is much more than simply the addition of the individual tastes xP

Beings sensible can still be weak and less rewarding for growth and development. ...
That's all fine and good, but... what makes you so certain the you can choose the optimal solution?

In brief: I argue that humbleness is a good thing and it does not precludes wisdom or learning.

However that is no reason to accept an imperfect answer as the correct answer once it has been made. Not even under the wings of "I did the best I could given the circumstances!"
I was going to argue here, but I then realized you have successfully argued with yourself, so there's really nothing left to add.

StahnAileron said:
Belief =/= bias.
Thanks for the explanation, that cleared things up. I am still trying to figure out what Mnessie's question was about, though. Well, he's going to think about it. So let's wait and see.
SK7000 said:
what makes you so certain the you can choose the optimal solution?
The OVERabundance of poor alternatives.

SK 7000 said:
Picking the best solution will sometimes involve acknowledging that other people might be able to make a more informed decision than we can.

As for letting others make a decision stumping our personal growth, wouldn't that be the case only if we refuse to pay attention and learn from the decisions of others?

I don't think you are addressing humbleness at all with your musings.
Reply

SK7000 said:
You know, this in itself could be an interesting topic. I am not sure how you can apply this phrase to life (those that do), but I know it applies to the culinary arts. The taste of a meal is much more than simply the addition of the individual tastes xP
Sum of parts, whole designs and strange notions

My current view on bias and beliefs
tl;dr x 2

^in short: being objective is the same thing as being biased and an immortal observer is an empty shell of an existence.

edit: okay, looking back at what i wrote, i kinda veered off of my intended course. give me a few to reroute myself, 'kay?

edit 2: this might take until tomorrow. i'm getting sleepy and i would like my thoughts to be coherent enough to make sense, so i'm holding it for now.
Edit Q1:
I was not going for the "can see everything" model
I should have been specific :)

I meant the personality trait where someone enjoys sitting back just watching things unfold. How would immortality effect that trait? Would it quickly become redundant or would it become the only way to cope?

I'm looking forward to your revision Davis. I could see a lot of good points being made but I had a little trouble understanding it. I'll wait untill it's online before I give any new feedback.

Let's continue with our current Q1 which Davis described to avoid further confusion. We can always circle back later if we reach the topic of immortality anyway. Seems to fit there...
Some thoughts on the last few replies.

Thoughts on Mnessie's apparent lack of faith on humanity.

On the important of humbleness and my lack of it.

But I must point out that I find it risky to assume learning value remains the same in this situation.
It was not assumed. The focus was on making the best decision, not on learning the most out of the situation (no need to go deeper into this).

Bias definition. It remains to be seen if the person involved can actually act upon such moral guidance. But I would ask out of curiosity, how often has your mood been that it wasn't so?
For a biased decision to win, all you have to do is feel emotionally strong about it, thus reacting with your gut instinct instead of applying your brains (and deciding what is best).

I know I've slipped in the past, but it doesn't happens often as it takes a very particular set of circumstances to upset me to that point.

@Davis, I could understand your post, actually. The only thing that worries me is that we use varying definitions for bias in the different posts we've mentioned so far.

Defining bias for the 7th time.

We'll always have opinions and preferences in most issues, because rarely something is black & white where one choice is absolutely, irrevocably better in every aspect than the other. The only way to not have an opinion is when you simply don't care about the topic, at all.

And that's what the immortal observer would be like: uncaring, but accepting.

objectionability = counter-bias.
in order to be objective, you had to have been exposed to biasness;
I can object to this. I'd say that being objective involves being able to spot a bias and counter it. If you say that "objectiveness is the lack of bias", then why do you have to have bias in order to nurture objectivity? What if you just didn't have a bias to begin with, you cannot be objective then? o.O'

PS: Gosh, why do my posts seem so long even after I have spoiled the hell out of them? x_x'
So while composing my little monologue here, Mnessie added a reply elsewhere whose reply actually belongs here.

Mnessie said (What do you use konachan for? thread):
gender roles? surely someone of your knowledge and intellect must be aware of the falsehood of such outdated and baseless darwinistic views on society! whats next... men have no feelings and women cant do math. i really hope i misunderstood your point!7
I meant that I'd rather have genders be equal, certainly. If we, as a culture, are going to allow women to be sexualized like this, then it's only fair to have men be sexualized too.

Even though it really bugs me that "male sexy" is understood as "foreboding, serious anarchist guy that you never know if he really loves you or just is using you." Any other type of "male sexy" gets called gay instead. :/

When are we going to allow BlazBlue/Guilty Gear male fashion into our everyday lives! That'd be totally rad, and sexy at a time x3
SK7000 said:
Thoughts on Mnessie's apparent lack of faith on humanity
...and the rest you said about humility
Full RE

And SK7000 why do you keeping saying you're posts are TOO long as if it were a bad thing? Didn't you yourself say this was the tl;dr thread?
@SK7000 about his immortal observer

I believe that it depends very much on the personality of the person.
It(the observer) might first fall into a deep depression, but as it is unable to take its own life, it might start to try to change the world, so it's less annoying...(in hindsight, this would actually defeat the purpose of it being an OBSERVER, also, it's disregarding the conditions set out by mnessie)

Are there still any unanswered questions floating?
I'd like to know before posting another.
(damn, because all posts here are long, I feel obliged to write plenty too...)

Also, @Davis
I would go further and claim that being objective requires to be exposed to two opposite biasses(that required a dictionary).
One can, of course, be impartial from one's own point of view(i.e. take a neutral stance) even without knowing all sides of the argument, but that is, like I said, simply taking a neutral stance.
But to be truly, actually objective(as in you being objective=universal truth), one needs to be at least slightly familiar with both sides.

@mnessie and his lack of faith:
I would find your lack of faith disturbing(SORRY!!, it was so obvious, I just had to say it!!), if I didn't share your point of view, at least slightly.
In fact, I was about to object as I read your post, but, after a moment of thought, I realised that I am not any "better".
I too get really annoyed at the amount of shit I get from some people. There are(were, at this stage. We all finished, but I still can't get used to the fact) a lot of brilliant students, with whom I can't compete. But when I think about how they view life, and look at their low, from my perspective, ambitions, I can't help but go on a facepalming-rampage inside my head.(I mean, I was THE ONLY PERSON, who even TRIED applying to Oxford or Cambridge, WTF is wrong with those straight-A people?! a PhD in medicine is by far not the most you can achieve in life!!)
I believe that we can learn something from absolutely EVERYTHING, no matter how superior we are.
Also, as life went on, I found that the typical cliche from superhero cartoons is, without a single doubt, hands down, the most true phrase I ever heard(sorry for the crude phrasing)
"If you want something to be done right, fucking do it your-(fucking)-self"
Sorry, I do swear a lot IRL
Sometimes I feel like I am the only person in the whole building who actually possesses the capacity for basic cognitive logic.(though most of the time I spend facepalming),but I am sure that everyone has these moments at some stage in life.

We, people, are actually all the same. The difference is our choice. It only matters what we choose to believe, and what goals we choose to set ourselves.

Point is:losing faith in your fellow humans is a sign of great internal suffering.

Please do argue about my correctness, I'm looking forward to new points of view.
Gregol said:
about his immortal observer
I believe that it depends very much on the personality of the person.
It(the observer) might first fall into a deep depression.
When you don't interact with others anymore. What is the use of personality? It seems obsolete.

Gregol said:
I would find your lack of faith disturbing
That being quoted with the context actually being present is rare

The difficult part is trying to communicate with people from a neutral point of view is often not going to give me results I need. So then it comes down to twisting turning and bending views in such a shape untill it clicks.

Gregol said:
WTF is wrong with those straight-A people?!
A+

Discussion with Gregol Part 2

SK7000 said:
If we, as a culture, are going to allow women to be sexualized like this, then it's only fair to have men be sexualized too.
It's not, we simply shouldn't. I find fighting for any form of justice to be an affront if it does not include all parties. For example, defending women from agression ignores agression towards men mainly due to taboo and ignorance and partially due to lack of understanding of justice. It's only a worthy cause if you set up a campaing specifically against agression between people in potentially a domestic environment. In your case, the way we perceive others, not women or men specifically.
Long posts are fine for monologues or when you just feel like venting your mind out. What worries me is that it's much more difficult to hold a debate/discussion when the message size keeps growing.

Further thoughts on that.

Now, there are two points I wish to address on this post.
1. The nature of an immortal observer (mostly replying to Gregol)

Mostly my same stance from before, but detailed further.

2. The importance of humility in acquiring wisdom (mostly replying to Mnessie)

I've been thinking about how to best reply to this since I saw Mnessie's reply yesterday. The reason I think being humble is important in becoming wise is because it is the vaccine that prevents you from becoming confident on your knowledge, which is the virus which corrupts people into becoming arrogant.

Humble definition:
adjective
1. not proud or arrogant; modest (this is the definition relevant to our case)
I see humility as the ability of accepting that you might be wrong, no matter how likely it is that you are right. Without it, as your knowledge of a particular area deepens, you will develop a sense of certainty in having the right answer. These are the roots of confidence, in which you come to believe yourself "certainly right" in the areas you have become invested yourself in. If left unchecked, arrogance will rise when confronted with a differing opinion. Why? Because you know you are right and "it would be a waste of time listening to somebody else who's obviously wrong because I am right."

Without humility you will close doors to alternative reasonings, and completely block out sources of information/knowledge which you deem useless.

Dealing with the most likely counter argument (i.e.: "so how can you prove that I am not wasting my time by being surrounded by superficial people instead of more intelligent beings?")

And, I guess I've written enough for now. I rest my case.

EDIT: Mnessie ninja-posted me, so I suppose I should add these bits:
@Being "the same"

@Abolishing gender roles
The same? It is impossible for me to disagree more. I don't even know where to start. Even our blueprints are messed up... that's a start I guess.
Well, we all love to eat, sleep and drink; we enjoy music; we need love; we hate stuff and we like stuff; we enjoy talking to people of a similar mindset, and we argue with people of different mindsets; almost all of us are tempted to be violent(at some stage), yet we are afraid of violence; we get bored from monotony and loneliness; we enjoy a good laugh; we (have) reject(ed) truths, that we dislike(at some stage), etc... This list is inexhaustible...
Apart from minor deviations and/or psychologically sick people, we, as a species, are indeed all the same, on the surface level at least.
I bet one of the biggest mistakes one can make, is to think of oneself as uniquely superior(I'm a HYPOCRITE!! NOOOOOO!!)

About "Straight-A people":
They are smart people. I know them. I can't compete with them in anything, be it sports, art, maths, languages or random trivia. They show skills far above my own, but for some reason, they have no ambitions whatsoever...
I guess the guy who was never hungry has all the extra food, and the guy with a fire-extinguisher lives in a stone house...

About sexualisation and gender equality:
Sexualisation is wrong in my eyes, no matter what the circumstances, and shouldn't be applied to ANYTHING AT ALL. Period.
IMHO, men and women are already equal, in the western world, at least, so the next question is world-poverty...
Gregol said:
IMHO, men and women are already equal, in the western world, at least, so the next question is world-poverty...
I'm not sure the amount topics/subjects are the way to regulate post size SK7000. May I suggest you set up some guidelines to aid us all here in managing the thread? You can always edit the first post afterwards for first time users. Maybe a simple "throw around only THIS ball for now method?" system

derail from the poverty question? Just a little, really :3

Sorry for derailing so much on world poverty (which I must say I find interesting!) but I had to speak my mind on this. It bothers me to have so little people I know that actually care about emancipation, always being selfish and ignorant about their actions. I'm glad you feel it is important to treat women and men equally so I felt like I wouldn't be wasting my time sharing with you the information I had as I have the idea with so many other people.

To return to your question: I suggest the idea that poverty is the only true root of war as it means a lack of basic provisions which undermines all forms of morality and rationality which is a fundamental requirement for any form of war. (I can already poke some holes in this statement myself but I'd rather let you see through them first to avoid further contamination)
I think it's pointless to try to establish guidelines into handling all the possible topics that can flourish in here. I'd rather just let people post what interests them, and reply to things that catch their eyes. Interesting topics will stay afloat, the others will sink along. We aren't here to impose on people what they should talk about, so I doubt guidelines would help.

My brief thoughts on poverty and war.

My not so brief thoughts about gender inequality: it exists, but it is not such a big deal as society makes it seem to be.

In the end, I see gender roles as I see stereotypes. Tools that can make it easier to deal with people when you don't know them better, but completely useless if you need to get anything important done.
SK7000 said:
I think it's pointless to try to establish guidelines into handling all the possible topics that can flourish in here. Clamp
Hah excellent! I can see how it helps to make guidelines to keep things ordered even though that remains questionable. Personally I prefer the natural flow of the conversation. Count me in!

SK7000 said:
I prefer to by step the topic on war. Though I think most wars are caused by greed for foreign natural resources (if not religious reasons).
When viewing poverty as the need for resources and on the other hand greed, the need for resources for other purposes, we can see that they are not so different at closer inspection. However...

I don't see large gaps in our viewpoints on this and I would like to continue to discuss this. However I know of little sources or history itself to be able to support this to any relevant input besides speculation . I wish I could say: "Care to do some research?" but my current calender has an overabundance of tasks as it is.

I think SK7000 and I are not so very far apart in perspective from the topic of gender roles/emancipation/gender equality.

Gregol said:
so the next question is world-poverty...
For continuation and lack of research I would like to offer my speculation on poverty. I defaulted war into this but I'd rather consider Gregol's view of world poverty.

my speculation on the proposed undefined concept of world poverty
I was talking about equality in the laws of first world countries, but anyways, equality in society is too much for me to handle...
I think it's beyond any human, to change it, by moral means anyways...

About poverty and war:
-True, your statement is flawed. We have plenty examples, from history, of wars fought for power over people, rather than resources, especially in the more advanced countries(of any given period). ( but that's turning it into a debate about wars, rather than poverty)

-Also, war isn't the only solution to lack of resources.
Post war Germany and Japan are good examples.
Obviously, another war was out of the question, so they began industrialising. Today, they are two of the top five world economies.(but that proves nothing, except that war isn't the only solution; i.e. it doesn't disprove your statement)

-Again, poverty isn't the only source of rational and moral inadequacy either.
Even in a fully prosperous country(like the USA, sorry, only example I could think of!!) there can be jackasses who just want to wage war for no apparent reason whatsoever.
I blame a poor educational system, and the excess of freedom in their youth, which is a direct consequence of WEALTH(rather than poverty), and the resulting lack of responsibilities(during their youth as well).

I would actually go as far as to say that a bit of poverty is GOOD. I'm not talking about extreme deprivation, but about "not living in abundance".
I'd say that it teaches to spare resources, manage time and energy as well as it strengthens the character and can give rise to big dreams/hopes and ambitious people.

EDIT:
damn, both of you ninja'ed me!!
@mnessie: yes, that definition would pretty much do, but let me think about it for a while...
@religion as a cause of war: I disagree!! I do not see "religion" as a direct cause of war!!
More often than not(in fact, I still have to see examples of a counter-argument) "religious wars" are caused by none other than greed for power, resources, or a strong feeling of nationality and pride.
I wonder... isn't talking about poverty as a cause of war pretty pointless for those who haven't studied history? We have plenty of historical data and an historian would be much better qualified to give their opinion on what are the most common causes for war.

As it stands, Mnessie admits to not know much of history and I am awful at remembering dates. Us talking about this would be akin to two blind people discussing which colors make for the best combination for nature paintings. How about you, Gregol, you got your history knowledge in check (his last reply seems to indicate so)?

Also, I don't think "a bit of poverty" is good. You forget that between rich and poor there's a whole range of incomes. For the economic perspective, poverty is usually defined as not having enough income to cover the basics to survive (shelter and food).

It's true that there is much to learn when you have to manage your resources and you aren't living in abundance, but I am pretty sure most people wouldn't mind missing out on that lesson if it meant being rich xP
SK7000 said:
Us talking about this would be akin to two blind people discussing which colors make for the best combination for nature paintings.
That's almost a line from my collection :3
how lovely to see you use your words like that.
sorry this took a day longer, but i was wiped from doing overtime at the hospital yesterday.

in short: bias, beliefs and objective views are very similar.

tl;dr

i hope this one's better than my last one.
I'm thinking you should've segregated that into several SPOILERs to make it easier to parse (and warning people/tell them what is direct at whom), but that's just my formatting habits talking.

Actually, it'd be nice if all of you could split your posts better with spoilers so that if someone wants to skim the thread (for whatever reason), they would have a fighting chance at doing it. I'm not demanding it. It's just a suggestion and something to think about. This is a simple forum afterall. (It would also make this thread look a little neater.)