What is the relevance of "gang mentality" in the Lord of the Flies?

wow, did u even read the book?
What is the relevance of %26quot;gang mentality%26quot; in the Lord of the Flies?
Did you ever hear of the Nazis?
What is the relevance of %26quot;gang mentality%26quot; in the Lord of the Flies?
It has to do with mindlessly following the crowd. the actions that you would preform in a mob of people would probably not be the actions that you would preform on your own. like when a riot breaks out people have Mob mentality. everyone else is doing it so people who are normally mild tempered break windows and loot.

Define your own situation right now ?

...Are you happy...?
Define your own situation right now ?
yes... if somewhat a little apprihensive!
Define your own situation right now ?
kinda pissed cuz i lost a usb cord and im lookin for it
Reply:confused rly wanna work things out wit this person
Reply:no, just bored
Reply:umm not really


if i had to choose an emotion id say blank.
Reply:oh yeah...
Reply:Yes, I am on a scavenger hunt right now, looking for questions to answer!
Reply:I am happy right now because I%26#039;m laughing so hard at some of the funniest answers to some of the most ridiculous questions I%26#039;ve ever read.
Reply:no i%26#039;m going to kill myself maybe unless something comes up
Reply:no, i really don%26#039;t know what im doing right now. im 17 and i can%26#039;t seem to see my own future
Reply:yes but very tierd , part time job , full time mother (of 2 babies ), and wife ..
Reply:i am not as happy as i would like to be my fiance lives in USA and i live in UK all i want is me and her married and settled in one place as been apart is damaging my health mentally and physically.





I am happy in love but not happy at been away from her
Reply:yes , despite everything...I%26#039;m happy..it%26#039;s innate...I cannot explain it..just like that...
Reply:standing on the lawn looking at the grass grow and the squirrels playing.


I am very happy!
Reply:Nope, single mom dead beat dad, car broke down, no money to fix it, teenager needs clothes no way to pay for them, cannot afford groceries anymore as the prices are sky high, haven%26#039;t had a vaction in years, filed bankruptcy a few months ago, and I am becoming a recluse in my own home as I have no money to go anywhere or do anything (I can%26#039;t even afford the gas) Walking is great but who wants to walk in 90 degree heat? I have to care for my aging mother too. The good things are: I have a home, I have a great kid, I have pretty good health, my mom is still alive and doing good, I have a pretty good job and a few good friends and I am trying to keep my spirits up until this cloud of ill goes away. Sorry but you did ask. Thanks , I feel better now.
Reply:Yes absolutely! For the first time in my life of 60 years, I %26quot;am%26quot; positively glowing! Do you want to know why? Because I have the Lord in my life! Oh He has been there all of my life, but only in the last 25 years, did He make Himself known to me. It has been a work in progress, ever since. I have discovered many things in my walk with Him. None that I regret. All my experiences and knowledge I am able to use in helping others.


As a survivor of suicide many times over, I can honestly say; I love my life!
Reply:Mostly hun....Love hurts though...*winks*
Reply:i have peace in my soul, compassion in my heart, I%26#039;m at one with all around me and yes i am very happy, thank you for asking. lol
Reply:I have a little kitten named %26quot;Dready Dreads%26quot;. She is all black, except for a fingernail of white under her chin. She%26#039;s runnin around like a crazy nut, chasing her tail. She%26#039;ll never catch it. She makes me laugh, but I forgot what happiness is.








I think I was happy when my husband was alive. Cliff restored old cars. After they were done, and before he would sell them: he would take me for rides in them. I%26#039;ll never forget that smell.....a mixture of gasoline %26amp; old stale cigarettes. I know I felt at home then, sitting next to Cliff in an old car he was so proud of. I must have been happy too. Because I would start singing, and he would join in.
Reply:dazed :I
Reply:Thinking about how to get rid of astral projection.it%26#039;s killing me now...
Reply:Kinda happy. I am battling some health issues but trying to stay positive. Right now I am at work.Not working, of course. But I am the only one here so who cares. I work two part time jobs and would rather have one full time one. I am a student full time in massage school though, so I really can%26#039;t work full time....I would be a LOT happier if gas and grocery prices would go down. I was living on the edge as it was, before everything went up so dang high!I eat more vegetarian now.
Reply:nno im pissd bc i got posion ivy all over me
Reply:moneyless, loveless (or incapable of it atm), jobless, foodless sometimes but not homeless or totally friendless so yay?
Reply:Right now my mental health is getting more stable each day, so i guess my life is getting stable also.








Thank you God.
Reply:I%26#039;m trying to formulate a sentence out of the words , paddle creek without sh*t a
Reply:Currently I am looking for work as my former position was phased out due to office restructuring.





Am I happy? Deep down I am - on the surface I am trying hard to be.





I hope you are happy!! -----%26gt;--@





Blessings,


K
Reply:Yes I am very happy. You have to do your best to remain that way. Too many things in this life to alter our happiness. It%26#039;s not easy but who said life is? Stress, sadness and pain is the alternative and nobody wants that.

Why are we so fond of wrong ?

apparently not as fond as we are of vagueness
Why are we so fond of wrong ?
because of its good taste!!
Why are we so fond of wrong ?
We notice it more than %26quot;good%26quot; because as humans we tend not to like %26quot;wrong%26quot; more than we tend to like %26quot;good%26quot;...





Meaning, that wrong often overshadows good because we tend to notice it more more when somebody is at fault than when they do something good...





Its a mechanism...to prevent future %26quot;wrongs%26quot;...
Reply:Wrong educates us faster than Rights
Reply:There is only one right answer, but so many wrong ones. So if we do the right thing we are just conforming to society%26#039;s rules, which makes us doubt whether we are being ourselves or not. If we go the other way, we get to decide OURSELVES how to break the rules.


Doing wrong makes us feel a little free at the moment but greatly stupid later on depending on the consequences.

I don't see a big tree where is it exactly in fairytale forest?

is it near the wicthes house or..............WHAT?

If we were not "designed", then what is the catalyst for life?

What plunged us into existance in the first place? And don%26#039;t tell me the big bang please. What catapolted the big bang? If you think about it, does it really make sense to say we weren%26#039;t designed? Does it go with any sort of logic that there is a cause for everything?
If we were not %26quot;designed%26quot;, then what is the catalyst for life?
it makes far more logical sense than to assume some mystical man in the sky, lol.





Assuming you accept most scientific facts of the day, like the age of the universe and life on this planet, there is no other conclusion to draw. Dinosaurs %26quot;ruled%26quot; the earth for like 200 million years, life has been here for almost 1 billion years. There have been 5 major die-offs on this planet, at least one that killed like 95% of all species.





if not for the most recent, about 65 million years ago, mammals would VERY likely be little rodents hiding from the big lizards still. How can u look at that and say that humans, who have been here for at most 6 million years, are the ones it is all designed for? it%26#039;s ridculous.





EDIT: Christian Hegele, logic does NOT require the existence of god by language alone, that is ludicrous. There are numerous objections to it that, to me, are far more convincing:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological...
If we were not %26quot;designed%26quot;, then what is the catalyst for life?
Evolution





It is the Great Sorter of things





Verification? Look around and in you
Reply:Many atheists accept experience and existence as %26quot;brute facts%26quot; and their deeper sources beyond rational explanation. They are what we philosophy types call %26quot;Phenomenologists%26quot;. Therefore, appeal to causation or design arguements for God%26#039;s existence are going to be met with skepticism. To these people, such questions are simply beyond the scope of any prudent application of reason. There is nothing inconsistent in this position.





Other atheists (like Dawkins) are rationalists AND atheists, and I think this position is inconsistent. They say that the universe is accessible to human reason through the exercise of logic; that the universe %26quot;obeys%26quot; the principles of logic, so to speak. However, they also reject the notion that God exists, even though logic informs us God is necessarily existent as much as a square has 4 sides or a married bachelor is impossible (see %26quot;Ontological Argument%26quot; for more info). Thus, their view is untenable, IMHO.





Edit: Hey, %26quot;dude%26quot;.





Well, the existence of God is not so much proved by argument, but it is a self-evident truth .... a %26quot;clear and distinct perception%26quot;, so to speak. Furthermore, it%26#039;s the %26quot;archimedean point%26quot; of my entire epistimology, seeming to me to be even more fundamental and self-evident than Descartes%26#039; cogito. Can you imagine a non-existent God without committing a logical contradiction? Neither can I!





Furthermore, it allows me to escape skepticism and assert my rationalist stance. The universe behaves logically because God is logical, and God created the universe. The corner-stone to every good, Rationalist programme is a belief in God. See Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Malebranche, etc. etc.





How does an Atheist justify his rationalism without appeal to God? That is to say, what reason has he to assume the universe must follow the same rules of logic that govern the mind? As Hume pointed out, why should repeated observations of a certain occurance be taken as any indication that its future occurance is more likely? Isn%26#039;t that just habit? (Problem of Induction)





Without an appeal to God -- an intelligent mind that has ordered the universe according to logic -- believing in %26quot;science%26quot; is either blind faith and prone to skepticism, or else is viewed merely as an inescapable consequence of human psychology (and the view collapses to phenomenolism). Thus, in my opinion, Rationalist Atheism is just as religious and irrational as Evangelist Fundamentalism.





By the way, which objection convinces you the most? Hume is so vague and imprecise, it%26#039;s frustrating. Gaunilo was just plain wrong -- %26quot;perfection%26quot; within a species is a totally different concept than %26quot;maximal perfection%26quot;. Kant%26#039;s is the only half-decent objection, and is easily dispatched with the observation that while %26quot;existence%26quot; in itself might not be a predicate, %26quot;necessary existence%26quot; assuredly is.
Reply:Those who seek dogma will create it where none exists.
Reply:There is a good logic for existence having no cause. The universe is, after all, the material of existence. Without that material there is no %26quot;existence.%26quot; So we are not talking about the creation of planets and gasses and life. We are talking about the fact that existence exists within which those things that we call matter, whether it has life or not, find their place. That place cannot have been created without contradiction.





%26quot;Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric, but purposeless...%26quot; http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html





Life requires no supernatural cause. It happened because it happened, as all things in nature have happened and will happen. To believe we were %26quot;created%26quot; is anthropomorphic. That means projecting your own views of what it is to be human onto a %26quot;thing%26quot; which you assume to have the powers of humans--multiplied infinitely.





What if you stopped projecting your image of a being capable of production, of imagination, of creation? For that matter, why do you do it? If existence has existed for eternity, then it could not have been created. And if existence once did not exist, then you contradict the meaning of the word %26quot;existence.%26quot;
Reply:I personally I don%26#039;t believe in the big bang theroy.Explain thought/speech?GOD IS and will always be my CREATOR..Blessings Yahoo

Why do you think that people are so comfortable with their contribution to self-destruction?

Do you think that it is because the worst punishment that is in law for self-destruction is integration into a self-destructive organization?





People know what is good for their own survival, but when they begin to mingle with more people they begin to make major errors in judgement. Why can%26#039;t people get along with each other? Is it because everyone always wants someone to claim as their servant and life is some sort of pyramid scheme?





How do you define anarchy? I think that anarchy arises from the breaking of one%26#039;s own rules. Based on that premise, that would make us all anarchists. However, only those people who are honest enough to admit that they are anarchists are punished. Do you agree? Does that make us all %26quot;bad people%26quot; or just the dishonest ones?





If a society makes its living by exploiting another society and a member of the first society refuses to cooperate then does that make the outcast a %26quot;bad%26quot; person for not leaving the society and joining the ranks of the abused?
Why do you think that people are so comfortable with their contribution to self-destruction?
I%26#039;m not saying you dont%26#039; have a point in there--somewhere. But your entire proposition has so many fallacies of logic, it%26#039;s impossible to address your question.
Why do you think that people are so comfortable with their contribution to self-destruction?
okay, I%26#039;m going to tie a few of your points in to answer your general question.


As I see it, human nature is flawed. it is human nature to take the easiest and most pleasurable, for the moment, route out of any situation. Due to the fact that we are here to learn to do otherwise, I don%26#039;t think that it%26#039;s a big deal.


The fact is that people are comfortable with their contribution to their own self destruction when they don%26#039;t know any better. When they do know better, they are not comfortable with it, but often despair gets ahold of them and takes them spiralling further and further down the wrong path they began.


What do you think?
Reply:woah! difficult question, erm. I%26#039;m drinking so prepare for crap answers!! Q.1 It%26#039;s easier not to care about something important apposed to something you care about(whatever it might be)


q2. Depends on how vulnerable you are socially- (Something you can%26#039;t measure yourself)i.e bad company


Q3. Error is the only way to learn in a practical sense, you learn from your mistakes or/and some people fear you, even if your the nicest guy in the office so they put you down. Ignore them as best you can...


q4. having been involved in some school riots a few years ago I would define that as anarchy!!! windows smashed, fires,


seafood all over the corridors... you get my point!


q5. Depends on why really
Reply:You don%26#039;t get anarchism. It does not mean hypocrisy; anarchism supports free association, opposes the state, and opposes hierarchy. (At the very least, anarchists oppose involuntary hierarchy; anarchists often try to create egalitarian alternatives to the semi-voluntary hierarchies too).





There are several different traditions which respect these values, and usually recognize each other as forms of anarchism. These traditions borrow ideas from classical liberalism, from early socialism, from each other, and sometimes from other sources.





People depend on each other. People tend to create their own voluntary social order, including free association, reciprocity, mutual aid, and, if necessary, mutual defense. Once people create this order, a state, or any other criminal gang, is in trouble. So the state, to preserve itself, must preempt voluntary social order.





Highleyman, %26quot;An introduction to anarchism:%26quot;


http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp00155...





%26quot;An anarchist FAQ:%26quot;


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193... or


http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (same text)
Reply:Here I quote what you say that I believe are most telling points about human nature:





%26quot; People know what is good for their own survival, but when they begin to mingle with more people they begin to make major errors in judgement [...]





[So...true...the test where theory meets practice, that the effort can be made genuine or not]





%26quot;I think that anarchy arises from the breaking of one%26#039;s own rules [emphatically so, true]. Based on that premise, that would make us all anarchists [in fact, this result is what should be made to yield truth]. However, only those people who are honest enough to admit that they are anarchists are punished. %26quot; [yes, and this is the great arbiter any way and unfortunately or not is a result that has to be, and is a mandate and the healer both, that few if any choose to confront] Denial can be likened to a disease.





Your train of thought is curious, which subtlety is so easily overlooked. There is much beneath it. Surely it does not misbecome us to look to ourselves first, which is truly the test of how deeper pomp and circumstance are and must be brought to bear, for which one is led to know just %26quot;where the rubber meets the road,%26quot; that is, where platitude has first to be tested for its utility and made or not made practical and genuine by proof; and made evident to any the observer%26#039;s heart that has been so without such gift.
Reply:Oh, I thought this was going to be a lecture on the ills of tobacco smoking.





%26#039;Do you think that it is because the worst punishment that is in law for self-destruction is integration into a self-destructive organization?%26#039;





The punishment, then, is before the wrong deed; we are born into such an organization, but formerly in criminal punishment the organization (prison), is concerted destruction (less so in these modern times).





%26#039;Is it because everyone always wants someone to claim as their servant and life is some sort of pyramid scheme?





Class society.








%26#039;How do you define anarchy? %26#039;





Class less society with individualism as the ego ideal. There are teachers and the taught (the students), a class organization, Could any society perpetuate its self having no organized education.





%26#039;If a society makes its living by exploiting another society and a member of the first society refuses to cooperate then does that make the outcast a %26quot;bad%26quot; person for not leaving the society and joining the ranks of the abused?%26#039;





Is your subject national society or class society. If national, then such a person is a traitor, if class society, then such a person is proletariat. Conscientious objection is legal, but where is one to go if not to be self destructive.








%26#039;If a society has wronged an individual member then the individual has the right to remove their contributions entirely from the society.%26#039;





Assuming the individual did not wrong the society, when that property is sold, the right of ownership passes over to the other. Self property is not sold but rented for a term specified in a contract, but stolen in slavery. Product property, the personal property sellable or alienable from the producing human as producer for that product, is not self property but an extension for self property for that self%26#039;s purpose. When that product is sold the right for ownership is sold with it and passes over to the other purchaser or buyer.





%26#039; I believe that for the individual to descend themselves on behalf of those who have wronged them is to set an exploitive example.%26#039;





Do you mean sell self%26#039;s labor and forfeit limited terms unrevokable? Yes, that is unconscienable.





%26#039;Perhaps the nation will recognize its wrong-doings only if the contributions from individual are removed; the contributions taken for granted as they are.%26#039;





It has been done, it does not work.





%26#039;I don%26#039;t intend to imply that the society is never supportive to its members. I do intend to imply that the wronged, setting a strong example, will assist the members of society in building a more stable system of liberties. Let the worth of the contributions be evaluated by those who collaborate for them and with them. At any rate, it is immaterial whether the contributions have the magnitude that any member of society deems to them. It is only important that the contributing member be liberated to come and go as he/she pleases regardless of the deeming. If this rule is followed then people will settle in comfort with their proximity; where that proximity is, is not critical except to those people who hope to remove his/her liberties and exploit him/her.%26#039;





The real magnitude is scientific and objective and measurable and any other sense for magnitude is purely subjective and lacks the necessary competency, though it has the value for initiating the value concept, need.

Is there really a such thing as a soul? Or is it an emotional concept?

If we had a soul, what exactly would it consist of? An electrical energy perhaps? An invisible element, like the wind? And what would be its purpose? Would it be that which controlls our mind? The source of life as we know it, in memory and emotion?
Is there really a such thing as a soul? Or is it an emotional concept?
a) no


b) yes, in that it%26#039;s an invention of an emotional need.
Is there really a such thing as a soul? Or is it an emotional concept?
The soul is the result of brain flatulation
Reply:There doesn%26#039;t appear to be any evidence to suggest the existence of a soul. Certainly it doesn%26#039;t control our minds, if it did then its effects would be measurable and it would be detected. And memory and emotion are certainly controlled by our brains, not souls.
Reply:Many people like to believe in the idea of a soul, and we often look to the empirical world to bolster our religious or spiritual beliefs, searching for corroborating physical evidence. Just such scientific proof seemed to come in 1907,when a Massachusetts doctor named Duncan MacDougall devised experiments that he expected would actually measure the soul. Using six terminally ill patients on a specially-constructed scale bed, he measured their weight before, during, and after death. His results were mixed, but he concluded that there was indeed a very slight loss of weight, 21 grams on average
Reply:a) What do you mean by soul? Different people have different definitions. If you are talking about the religious %26quot;immortal soul%26quot; concept, there is not evidence for it, so I say no, there is no such a thing as a soul.





b) The rest of the questions are irrelevant. There is no soul.





c) The wind is not an element, nor is it invisible.
Reply:I%26#039;ll tell you what I think, the soul is the part of our being that lives on after these bodies of ours die. What it is made up of, I don%26#039;t know, but it%26#039;s the thing that we%26#039;re here to develop through life%26#039;s lessons. It%26#039;s purpose, we cannot know, we can never fully explain that, because we cannot say for sure WHY we%26#039;re here, or even HOW we got here.


One thing that I know for sure, it is the most integral part of us, and remains as much a mystery as anything else that baffles the human mind. It%26#039;s beyond our comprehension.
Reply:Yes, we have a %26quot;soul%26quot; in the sense of an immaterial part of us that gives rise to consciousness.





Consciousness must be rooted in the immaterial (in my opinion) because it%26#039;s the only view that can provide a successful account of qualia -- the phenomenological %26quot;events%26quot; of life. Wiki %26quot;qualia%26quot; for more info.





What is the substance of the soul, if not matter? Well, I%26#039;m tempted to go with Descartes on this and insist that the soul is %26quot;made of%26quot; thought itself. That is to say, the soul%26#039;s essence is *thought* -- in the same way matter%26#039;s essence is *extension*.
Reply:I am an atheist who belives in the soul:





%26quot;...that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul...





%26quot;[Man must earn self-esteem] by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal...





%26quot;...the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself—and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul’s shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal...





%26quot;[Man has been taught] that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth—





%26quot;A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost—





%26quot;[Man has been taught that there is a] split between [his] soul and body...





%26quot;[Man%26#039;s] vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, [ ] is his self.





%26quot;[American freedom] could not stand on the mystic split that divorced man’s soul from his body.





%26quot;That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.





%26quot;This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning.





%26quot;The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit.





%26quot;I covet no man%26#039;s soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.%26quot;





%26quot;For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone.%26quot;





%26quot;[The word %26quot;we%26quot;] must never be placed first within man%26#039;s soul...%26quot;





Many of these quotes are from “The Soul of an Individualist,” from %26quot;For the New Intellectual.%26quot; Some are from from the novella %26quot;Anthem.%26quot;





But all were written by the most ardent atheist of the 20th century, Ayn Rand. And I stand by every word about the soul that she wrote, because it was my soul she was describing.
Reply:I believe emotions/the soul are simular........Blessings Yahoo
Reply:Yaoi hit it pretty good. Someone also wrote %26quot;We don%26#039;t have souls, we have bodies. We are souls.%26quot;





How else do we explain our very essence?
Reply:How far-fetched is the idea ?





There might be something to it.





Maxwell predicted radio waves.





Hertz then discovered radio waves.





I%26#039;d rather trust my own judgement that believe someone else pontificating that souls did not exist.