Human limitations and colonialism (was:English ..)
Sam J. Turner
Peter Homme Meilleur Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <832009...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
: Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
: >
: > Kill file him. You know what he's going to say.
: >
: And there was I, thinking that I could possibly be wrong, suggesting that
: this would be the next stereotypical response.
: What a very sad crew these lefties are, cowards to a man.
Turning away from insanity is not an act of cowardice, but one of good taste.
Those who choose not to ^Kill L'Homme Meilleur are occasionally confronting
a worthy foe, but more often than not merely giggling from the balcony of
bedlam.
Sam.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nktau$k...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> : >
> : > Kill file him. You know what he's going to say.
> : >
>
Any intelligent readers out there may find entertainment in seeing how
quickly the left wing tortoise leaps into its shell. Just try a critical
analysis of any loony lefty ideas and see how quickly poor 'challenged'
pinkos like sam and roger put you in their kill files. I think that
there is an opportunity to establish exactly which ideas these tortoises
find most upsetting, a week will probably mean that you have actually
got under their skin, a month means that they have tried to think of a
repost and failed. Personally, I prefer the two month lead to the kill
file where the poor fuckwits have tried every 'argument' that they
have been spoon fed with and found them all blown to bits.
Come on chaps, there must be at least one clever pinko out there who
can attempt to measure up to me. I would be delighted by a real
debate, deleting idiots like sam, doug, roger, abelard and the rest
is such a trivially easy occupation. Please, somebody out
there with a brain, come and give me some real entertainment.
--
Peter H. M. Brooks
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832445...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
> >
> > Turning away from insanity is not an act of cowardice, but one of good taste.
> > Those who choose not to ^Kill L'Homme Meilleur are occasionally confronting
> > a worthy foe, but more often than not merely giggling from the balcony of
> > bedlam.
>
> Nobody I work with is as mad as the pink sombrero.
>
Poor Roger, you tried to argue your lunacy with my, became angry and
confused so now try to deny these points. I am happy that you have
isolated yourself like this, it is now quite possible that you will
consider the ponts that I have made and, after quite some time, come
to understand them.
>
> I've just worked out why black and white men are analagous to elephants
> and tomatoes in his distorted imagination. It's because their skins are
> a different colour. If they ever breed a grey tomato or red elephant he'll
> be in trouble for feeding peanuts to the stock at the greengrocers.
>
This 'understanding' has taken you quite a few weeks. Not really surprising
as you have exhibited very little originalty.
I think that you attempt a joke here. I suggest that you leave humour to
those less encumbered by the stupidity from which you suffer. A more
cack handed attempt to be funny I have yet to see.
Look, Roger, many adults are able to confess to being wrong and feel
better for it. Why don't you try? You have nothing to lose.
If you inquire with a mind ready to learn, I will by happy to comfort
you by showing how what you call 'genetit determinism' doesn't condemn
you to being a fuckwit forever, but will give you some hope, not a
lot, maybe, but at least some will make you feel happier than you
currently show yourself to be.
Roger
>
> Those who choose not to ^Kill L'Homme Meilleur are occasionally confronting
> a worthy foe, but more often than not merely giggling from the balcony of
> bedlam.
Nobody I work with is as mad as the pink sombrero.
I've just worked out why black and white men are analagous to elephants
and tomatoes in his distorted imagination. It's because their skins are
a different colour. If they ever breed a grey tomato or red elephant he'll
be in trouble for feeding peanuts to the stock at the greengrocers.
--
"Damned creatures you are thoroughly evil despite my daily teaching and advice."
| Only the saintly can become good without instruction;
Roger | Only the worthy can become good after instruction;
| Only idiots will not become good even with instruction.
Doug Weller
In article <832451...@psyche.demon.co.uk>
"Peter H. M. Brooks" <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Come on chaps, there must be at least one clever pinko out there who
> can attempt to measure up to me. I would be delighted by a real
> debate, deleting idiots like sam, doug, roger, abelard and the rest
> is such a trivially easy occupation.
Well, I've just read 3 posts from you, all flames. I can't see why
anyone would bother.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Peter H. M. Brooks
>
> : What a very sad crew these lefties are, cowards to a man.
>
> Turning away from insanity is not an act of cowardice, but one of good taste.
> Those who choose not to ^Kill L'Homme Meilleur are occasionally confronting
> a worthy foe, but more often than not merely giggling from the balcony of
> bedlam.
>
Well, Sam, I am pleased that you make your points in a public forum rather
than sending deranged e-mail messages to me directly.
I am also pleased that my points have hit home so directly that you can
only resort to the tired ploy of claiming insanity for your opponents since
you cannot produce any rational argumantes.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <2eb06...@ramtops.demon.co.uk>
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk "Doug Weller" writes:
>
> Well, I've just read 3 posts from you, all flames. I can't see why
> anyone would bother.
>
I wouldn't call them 'flames', rather mild rebukes, well earned by those
to whom they were directed.
The reason people would bother is that they believed that they were right
in being pinkos and would wish to demonstrate their superior position by
proving me wrong. This is exactly what the crew that I mentioned attempted
to do, they all failed, so the incentive is there for somebody with a
brain to show it. Of course the problem is that those well equipped with
brains tend not to be pinkos.
Sam J. Turner
Peter H. M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4nktau$k...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
: s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
: > : >
: > : > Kill file him. You know what he's going to say.
: > : >
: >
No I didn't. I was responding to you quoting someone else. Please don't
pretend you didn't understand that, even a `pinko' would.
: Come on chaps, there must be at least one clever pinko out there who
: can attempt to measure up to me.
If you wish to label me a `pinko' simply because I do not belong to the
cult of genetic determinism, feel free. You are extremely adept at redefining
terms to suit your own hand.
I do concede to owing you one, conditional, apology - my initial response to
you was by email because of a software fault at my end. If it was rabid it
was because you labelled me a social scientist when I am a mathematician.
I have nothing against social scientists because, unlike yourself, I am able
to understand the subject and do not have to call it a `soft' science just
because it is beyond a small-step intellect. I do object to being reduced
to a meaningless label simply to avoid confronting anything I have to say.
The marvel of communications and confrontations in this medium is that people
like you, in the face of whatever may indicate the contrary, can persuade
themselves that they are right on any subject. Before its invention you would
have had to satisfy yourself with marrying somebody stupid and tsk-tsking
over stories in the `lefty' press.
By the by, I would never Kill file you, as a `pinko' I prefer reeducation to
capitol punishment.
Regards,
Sam.
Roger
> In article <832451...@psyche.demon.co.uk>
> "The Pink Sombrero" <peter@please don't feed the vegetables> wrote:
> >
> > Come on chaps, there must be at least one clever pinko out there who
> > can attempt to measure up to me. I would be delighted by a real
> > debate, deleting idiots like sam, doug, roger, abelard and the rest
> > is such a trivially easy occupation.
> Well, I've just read 3 posts from you, all flames. I can't see why
> anyone would bother.
I just read his 'echos' these days, but he's often good for a quick
one-liner. Shows what religion does for you.
> Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Do you happen to know where I can get hold of a copy (to buy) of Volney's
"Travels in Syria and Egypt", BTW.
John Lynch
In article <832492...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "Peter H. M. Brooks"
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> writes
When I read this bit, Peter:
>
>The reason people would bother is that they believed that they were right
>in being pinkos and would wish to demonstrate their superior position by
>proving me wrong. This is exactly what the crew that I mentioned attempted
>to do, they all failed, so the incentive is there for somebody with a
>brain to show it.
I thought, there's a flaw in that thought process. Then I saw this:
>Of course the problem is that those well equipped with
>brains tend not to be pinkos.
>
and I realised you'd spotted it
--
John Lynch
Roger
In article <8rrGSDAq...@ldta.demon.co.uk>
jly...@ldta.demon.co.uk "John Lynch" writes:
> In article <832492...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, "The pink sombero"
> <peter@why is there a trunk in my tomato salad?> writes
>
> When I read this bit, Peter:
> >
> >The reason people would bother is that they believed that they were right
> >in being pinkos and would wish to demonstrate their superior position by
> >proving me wrong. This is exactly what the crew that I mentioned attempted
> >to do, they all failed, so the incentive is there for somebody with a
> >brain to show it.
The reason nobody debates with you is that you simply shout pinko and
commie and never say anything which accords with the real world. No one
has failed to prove you wrong, they just got fed up with downloading
acres of irrelevant garbage.
You suffer the same problem in the flesh, I'm reliably informed. You have
a big mouth and berate and patronise people. As a result you are not liked,
but ignored and avoided.
You have a difficult personality defect which you really need to address.
If you continue to believe that people ignore you because you are the only
one in step you are very close to being deluded.
> I thought, there's a flaw in that thought process. Then I saw this:
It comes from only playing with rosaries and chanting hail marys as a child.
A Jesuit got hold of him before he was 7.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832501...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" lies again:
>
>I just read his 'echos' these days, but he's often good for a quick
>
This makes Roger much happier, the rest of his 'perception' of the world
is also made up of 'echos'.
>
> one-liner. Shows what religion does for you.
>
This didn't make sense at first, but having read Rogers' other lie, this
is a reference to his delusion that I was brought up by Jesuits, a complete
lying fabrication.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nmu2q$j...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> I do concede to owing you one, conditional, apology - my initial response to
> you was by email because of a software fault at my end. If it was rabid it
> was because you labelled me a social scientist when I am a mathematician.
>
I see. I can certainly understand why you were leaping up and down in
fury, why didn't you just say this?
>
> I have nothing against social scientists because, unlike yourself, I am able
> to understand the subject and do not have to call it a `soft' science just
> because it is beyond a small-step intellect. I do object to being reduced
> to a meaningless label simply to avoid confronting anything I have to say.
>
Well, well, you 'understand' social science. Interesting, and further,
'understanding' it, you don't object to it. If you are so good at this
understanding of mathematics and social science, it is a pity that you
haven't applied your vast intellect to understanding sociobiology.
>
> The marvel of communications and confrontations in this medium is that people
> like you, in the face of whatever may indicate the contrary, can persuade
> themselves that they are right on any subject. Before its invention you would
> have had to satisfy yourself with marrying somebody stupid and tsk-tsking
> over stories in the `lefty' press.
>
I wonder where all these 'people like me' are. Actually, one wouldn't purchase
the meaderings of the lefty press. The other problem with your analysis is
that in order to get a similar situation, I would have to marry several, not
stupid, but barmy women.
>
> By the by, I would never Kill file you, as a `pinko' I prefer reeducation to
> capitol punishment.
>
I wonder what this 'capitol punishment' might me, maybe it is being forced
to attend jovial speeches.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832503...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" lies again:
> commie and never say anything which accords with the real world. No one
> has failed to prove you wrong, they just got fed up with downloading
> acres of irrelevant garbage.
>
So this Roger is a yank, this rather explains some of his problems. He also
believes that he understands the 'real world'(tm) a common pinko delusion.
>
> You suffer the same problem in the flesh, I'm reliably informed. You have
>
You are not reliably informed. Whoever you know who claims to know me
is simply winding you up - quite well it seems.
>
> It comes from only playing with rosaries and chanting hail marys as a child.
> A Jesuit got hold of him before he was 7.
>
Funny Rogers' 'real world'. It is good to see that his opinions are
consistently completely wide of the mark not just about the world, but also
about me. To the best of my knowledge, I have only met two Jesuits, neither
before I was 7 and I have not said a rosary or chanted a hail mary in my life.
Interesting how this need to believe something, anything, to escape the
evident truth is so fixed in the people who run away, tails between
their legs, from discussions with me.
It is also interesting to see how being of a leftish persuasion and lying
seem to fit together so well. Maybe there is some more general moral to
be taken from this. Of course other totalitarians have also been good at
it, for every Roger, or Blair, there is, no doubt a Quisling or Goebbels.
Sam J. Turner
: 'understanding' it, you don't object to it. If you are so good at this
: understanding of mathematics and social science, it is a pity that you
: haven't applied your vast intellect to understanding sociobiology.
At least you concede the (relative) vastness of my intellect (for a second
there I almost credited you with a capacity for sarcasm). It is indeed a
pity that I haven't applied myself to a number of subjects, although the
retentive pseudo-science of social genetics would be some way down the list.
Your problem with social sciences, I imagine, is that you cannot deal with
a subject that requires more than simply plugging a few tautologies into a
five hundred year old philosophy and pulling out a trivial solution. It will
probably surprise you, as you demonstrate yourself to be frighteningly out of
touch, that even mathematics can no longer be reduced to this.
I look forward to being corrected and told that you have dedicated hours
of acute reasoning to the subject and have come to the simple conclusion
that it is all gibberish. The standard excuse of old minds confronted by new
ideas.
Regards,
Sam.
M.S. Robb
In article <832492...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well, I've just read 3 posts from you, all flames. I can't see why
>> anyone would bother.
>>
>I wouldn't call them 'flames', rather mild rebukes, well earned by those
>to whom they were directed.
IYHO.
>The reason people would bother is that they believed that they were right
>in being pinkos and would wish to demonstrate their superior position by
>proving me wrong. This is exactly what the crew that I mentioned attempted
>to do, they all failed, so the incentive is there for somebody with a
>brain to show it. Of course the problem is that those well equipped with
>brains tend not to be pinkos.
IYHO.
--
There is no excuse. uk.politics Resource Page
There is no accusation. http://gromit.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/~matt/ukpres.html
M.S. Robb
In article <832515...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So this Roger is a yank, this rather explains some of his problems. He also
>believes that he understands the 'real world'(tm) a common pinko delusion.
Do you have anything to say? Give me a potted version in a single post.
Arguing that your detractors are 'commies' and 'pinkos' when they
manifestly are not makes you look like an idiot.
Roger
In article <4nndil$p...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> The Pink Sombrero (peter@Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.) wrote:
> : >
> : Well, well, you 'understand' social science. Interesting, and further,
> : 'understanding' it, you don't object to it. If you are so good at this
> : understanding of mathematics and social science, it is a pity that you
> : haven't applied your vast intellect to understanding sociobiology.
> Your problem with social sciences, I imagine, is that you cannot deal with
> a subject that requires more than simply plugging a few tautologies into a
> five hundred year old philosophy and pulling out a trivial solution. It will
> probably surprise you, as you demonstrate yourself to be frighteningly out of
> touch, that even mathematics can no longer be reduced to this.
Social science goes back at least to Aristotle and has always suffered at
the hands of the theologically motivated. When the Arabs made Aristotle's
analytical tools available to medieval Europe, the church was almost persuaded
that the reign of the Antichrist had arrived. The PHMBs of the day condemned
such enquiry in the most mocking manner and entrenched themselves in their
dogma.
PHMB seems very much the product of a fundamentalist religious upbringing,
and having abandoned one God has only been able to replace him by adopting
an equally dogmatic and absolutist replacement.
As the Fawlty Towers psychiatrist remarked: "There's enough material there
for an entire conference."
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nnkda$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> Do you have anything to say? Give me a potted version in a single post.
> Arguing that your detractors are 'commies' and 'pinkos' when they
> manifestly are not makes you look like an idiot.
>
Well, if you call these people detractors and suggest that that is the
reason for showing them to be pinko's then you make a point for yourself,
it is, however, a straw man. The usual way in which these people expose
themselves is by a dogged adherence to both the standard social science
model and political correctness. Both of these are devices used to substitute
for thought, the opposition to thought is standard left wing practice since
conformity is all to the left. Hence the charge.
Now, what about some indication, in the light of the above, why these
people are 'manifestly' not pinkos? Incidentally, you apply what the
relativistic pinko would call a 'value judgement' to my term, surely
if I use the word pinko, it means left wing in relation to me, not
left wing in relation to you.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832528...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
>
> that the reign of the Antichrist had arrived. The PHMBs of the day condemned
> such enquiry in the most mocking manner and entrenched themselves in their
> dogma.
>
Funny how dogmatists see others as being dogmatic. This Roger is the man
who persists in believing that he knows something about me, against all
evidence. That is to leave his peculiar problems with genetics out of
the matter.
>
> PHMB seems very much the product of a fundamentalist religious upbringing,
> and having abandoned one God has only been able to replace him by adopting
> an equally dogmatic and absolutist replacement.
>
I suppose that one has to give Roger's teachers some credit for his
use of the word 'seems' to avoid full responsibility for this foolishness.
It suggests that Roger has understood that his lies about my being brought
up by Jesuits were just that.
If you read Roger, when he is not simply in rant mode - you have to
search a bit, you will find that he is absolutely dogmatic in asserting
that genes do not influence behaviour, only 'culture' and 'society'
do.
M.S. Robb
In article <832536...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Arguing that your detractors are 'commies' and 'pinkos' when they
>> manifestly are not makes you look like an idiot.
>Well, if you call these people detractors and suggest that that is the
>reason for showing them to be pinko's then you make a point for yourself,
>it is, however, a straw man. The usual way in which these people expose
>themselves is by a dogged adherence to both the standard social science
>model and political correctness.
That makes them conservatives wiht a small 'c' at best. Not communists.
> Both of these are devices used to substitute
>for thought, the opposition to thought is standard left wing practice since
>conformity is all to the left. Hence the charge.
This is just rubbish. There are radical leftists and radical rightists.
The right has its conformists as does the left.
>Now, what about some indication, in the light of the above, why these
>people are 'manifestly' not pinkos? Incidentally, you apply what the
>relativistic pinko would call a 'value judgement' to my term, surely
>if I use the word pinko, it means left wing in relation to me, not
>left wing in relation to you.
This is the point that we differ on. For me a pinko is a comunist, an
adherent to ideas either contained within the Marxist manifestos of
Engels and Marx, or, less oikely, of actual policies pursued by
governments which called themselves communists. As I haven't seen Roger,
abelard or any others you mentioned say such things, then I see no
evidence for calliing them pinkos.
Roger
In article <4npojs$i...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
> In article <832536...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> The Pink Sombrero <peter@Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.> wrote:
>
> >> Arguing that your detractors are 'commies' and 'pinkos' when they
> >> manifestly are not makes you look like an idiot.
>
> >Well, if you call these people detractors and suggest that that is the
> >reason for showing them to be pinko's then you make a point for yourself,
> >it is, however, a straw man. The usual way in which these people expose
> >themselves is by a dogged adherence to both the standard social science
> >model and political correctness.
>
> That makes them conservatives wiht a small 'c' at best. Not communists.
The "standard social science model" and "Political Correctness" are
inventions of the rabid reactionary right. They are the ultimate in
straw men and ensure that people like PHMB never have to engage in a
real debate.
> > Both of these are devices used to substitute
> >for thought, the opposition to thought is standard left wing practice since
> >conformity is all to the left. Hence the charge.
A good example of how people like PHMB works is the dogmatic use of the
old medical model of mental illness - clearly something that PHMB should fear.
It sets up a set of symptoms, diagnoses schizophrenia, say and then
prescribes neuroleptics followed by ect. Just like genetic determinism it
refuses to look at the individual, the group and the culture.
When you take the other approach, there aren't these same ideological
blinkers. There isn't a standard or right answer. The medical model then
becomes a useful adjunct.
> >Now, what about some indication, in the light of the above, why these
> >people are 'manifestly' not pinkos? Incidentally, you apply what the
> >relativistic pinko would call a 'value judgement' to my term, surely
> >if I use the word pinko, it means left wing in relation to me, not
> >left wing in relation to you.
>
> This is the point that we differ on. For me a pinko is a comunist, an
> adherent to ideas either contained within the Marxist manifestos of
> Engels and Marx, or, less oikely, of actual policies pursued by
> governments which called themselves communists. As I haven't seen Roger,
> abelard or any others you mentioned say such things, then I see no
> evidence for calliing them pinkos.
Brooks has to take an apparent relativist position - most absolutists do. It
is the hallmark of every dictator that wrongness results from straying
from the staight and narrow path to which they subscribe. If he is able to
classify everyone who disagrees with him as a 'pinko' he protects his
fragile ego. The alternative is for him to admit the appalling nastiness of
his ideology and to see how close he comes to doing mike corley impressions.
Sam J. Turner
Peter H. M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: If you read Roger, when he is not simply in rant mode - you have to
: search a bit, you will find that he is absolutely dogmatic in asserting
: that genes do not influence behaviour, only 'culture' and 'society'
: do.
Dogma bites dogma.
How useful.
Sam.
Peter H. M. Brooks
> >Well, if you call these people detractors and suggest that that is the
> >reason for showing them to be pinko's then you make a point for yourself,
> >it is, however, a straw man. The usual way in which these people expose
> >themselves is by a dogged adherence to both the standard social science
> >model and political correctness.
>
> That makes them conservatives wiht a small 'c' at best. Not communists.
>
Not the political correctness part, which is not conservative. It is only
in the context of sad mistakes over the past twenty odd years that one
could possibly consider supporting the sss as conservative.
>
> > Both of these are devices used to substitute
> >for thought, the opposition to thought is standard left wing practice since
> >conformity is all to the left. Hence the charge.
>
> This is just rubbish. There are radical leftists and radical rightists.
> The right has its conformists as does the left.
>
Up to a point. 'Radical' leftists conform to strict ideology, not radical
rightists.
>
> This is the point that we differ on. For me a pinko is a comunist, an
> adherent to ideas either contained within the Marxist manifestos of
> Engels and Marx, or, less oikely, of actual policies pursued by
> governments which called themselves communists. As I haven't seen Roger,
> abelard or any others you mentioned say such things, then I see no
> evidence for calliing them pinkos.
>
The word 'pinko' is needed to identify those who claim not to be commies,
and are clearly not complete marxists, but, by their inclination to
supporting their ideology by appeal to bleeding heart arguments show
themselves to be fellow travellers. Of course pinkos are not reds, if
they were one would simply call them reds.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832604...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
>
> The "standard social science model" and "Political Correctness" are
> inventions of the rabid reactionary right. They are the ultimate in
> straw men and ensure that people like PHMB never have to engage in a
> real debate.
>
Good this, Roger admits to being a pinko. He puts forward the 'idea' that
it wasn't lefty feminists that started misusing the word 'gender' and
pretending that there is no innate difference between the sexes and that
it wasn't loony left social scientists that supported them by making this
barmy assumption part of the standard social science model.
Even for a pinko, though, this complete ignorance of the truth is
impressive. One wonders what planet Roger has been on for the last
twenty years.
>
> > > Both of these are devices used to substitute
> > >for thought, the opposition to thought is standard left wing practice since
> > >conformity is all to the left. Hence the charge.
>
> A good example of how people like PHMB works is the dogmatic use of the
> old medical model of mental illness - clearly something that PHMB should fear.
> It sets up a set of symptoms, diagnoses schizophrenia, say and then
> prescribes neuroleptics followed by ect. Just like genetic determinism it
> refuses to look at the individual, the group and the culture.
>
So Roger wants it both ways he firstly wishes to object to the 'old' medical
model of mental illness and support it by saying that I ought to fear it.
Maybe he shouldn't post after the fifth G&T.
He again shows his complete ignorance of the evolution of behaviour, of course
it considers the individual, after all evolution works entirely through
the individual. Genetics also considers the group so that, for example, the
altruism of bees is understandable only by considering the overall group
behaviour of the hive. Evolutionary behaviouralists are keenly interested in
culture, the huge similarities in human cultural edifices indicate the
genetic impulses that drive their creation.
Now it is also certain that Roger doesn't understand 'determinism' either,
he thinks that it means that organisms behave like clockwork at the impulse
of the turning key. He cannot concieve that things can be more complicated
than this and still deterministic - no doubt recent research showing how
the heart behaves in a chaotic way is far beyond his ken.
>
> When you take the other approach, there aren't these same ideological
> blinkers. There isn't a standard or right answer. The medical model then
> becomes a useful adjunct.
>
If this relativistic nonsense were in any way true, there would be no
point whatever in any research. After all the ideas of the average
fruit fly would be as 'valid' as those of Roger - actually, come to
think of it, maybe in this case he has a point.
>
> Brooks has to take an apparent relativist position - most absolutists do. It
> is the hallmark of every dictator that wrongness results from straying
> from the staight and narrow path to which they subscribe. If he is able to
> classify everyone who disagrees with him as a 'pinko' he protects his
> fragile ego. The alternative is for him to admit the appalling nastiness of
> his ideology and to see how close he comes to doing mike corley impressions.
>
The usual mindless ad hominem that we are used to from the unhappy Roger. I
don't quite see why I should have any concern with the 'nastiness' of life,
it is the way that it is, to pretend that my 'ideology' is in some way
responsible for the ills of the world (or that they have all been
caused by people like me) is simply stupid.
Roger hopes that by pretending that the world and life are not nasty will
suddendenly make them nice. No doubt he also believes in Father Christmas
and fairies at the bottom of the garden.
M.S. Robb
In article <832604...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The "standard social science model" and "Political Correctness" are
>inventions of the rabid reactionary right. They are the ultimate in
>straw men and ensure that people like PHMB never have to engage in a
>real debate.
The standard social science model sounds a little dubious to me, but I'm
bot a social science student, so I'd be curious as to PHMB's version of
this. PC is a straw man, without a shadow of a doubt. Morality is not,
occasiionally they get confused, but only by the witless.
>A good example of how people like PHMB works is the dogmatic use of the
>old medical model of mental illness - clearly something that PHMB should fear.
>It sets up a set of symptoms, diagnoses schizophrenia, say and then
>prescribes neuroleptics followed by ect. Just like genetic determinism it
>refuses to look at the individual, the group and the culture.
As I once said to DT, one nervous breakdown is necessary to see the
world aright, two is self indulgence.
>Brooks has to take an apparent relativist position - most absolutists do. It
>is the hallmark of every dictator that wrongness results from straying
>from the staight and narrow path to which they subscribe. If he is able to
>classify everyone who disagrees with him as a 'pinko' he protects his
>fragile ego. The alternative is for him to admit the appalling nastiness of
>his ideology and to see how close he comes to doing mike corley impressions.
If his position is truly that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a
pinko, then he ought to simply redefine pinko. They'd we could all agree
with him. Does he have a position, I haven't seen him argue anything yet...
M.S. Robb
In article <4nq7kl$9...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>,
Sam J. Turner <s...@gauss.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>: If you read Roger, when he is not simply in rant mode - you have to
>: search a bit, you will find that he is absolutely dogmatic in asserting
>: that genes do not influence behaviour, only 'culture' and 'society'
>: do.
>
>Dogma bites dogma.
You said it. Who thinks that the both aren't involved?
M.S. Robb
In article <832615...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Well, if you call these people detractors and suggest that that is the
>> >reason for showing them to be pinko's then you make a point for yourself,
>> >it is, however, a straw man. The usual way in which these people expose
>> >themselves is by a dogged adherence to both the standard social science
>> >model and political correctness.
>>
>> That makes them conservatives wiht a small 'c' at best. Not communists.
>>
>Not the political correctness part, which is not conservative. It is only
>in the context of sad mistakes over the past twenty odd years that one
>could possibly consider supporting the sss as conservative.
Well, as I'm only 24, I'd find it easier to stick to the present day. So
you are arguing that they are conservatives, at least in common parlance.
PC is a straw man, it means all kinds of things, from simple decency to
utter lunacy.
>> This is just rubbish. There are radical leftists and radical rightists.
>> The right has its conformists as does the left.
>>
>Up to a point. 'Radical' leftists conform to strict ideology, not radical
>rightists.
This isn't true either. Even when most 'radical' leftists were communists
this wasn't true. It certainly isn't now, leftism is appearing in many
guises. The right has also had a powerful ideology, based on free
markets, and so on. Monetarism was pure ideology, and aterrible one at that.
>The word 'pinko' is needed to identify those who claim not to be commies,
>and are clearly not complete marxists, but, by their inclination to
>supporting their ideology by appeal to bleeding heart arguments show
>themselves to be fellow travellers. Of course pinkos are not reds, if
>they were one would simply call them reds.
Best to call them social liberals. Pinko is clearly derogatory, yet
social liberals have easily the bulk of the evidence to support them in
many areas of social policy, such as the penal system.
So what is this argument that the pinkos hate so much?
M.S. Robb
In article <832616...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Good this, Roger admits to being a pinko. He puts forward the 'idea' that
>it wasn't lefty feminists that started misusing the word 'gender' and
>pretending that there is no innate difference between the sexes and that
>it wasn't loony left social scientists that supported them by making this
>barmy assumption part of the standard social science model.
You are marking all people as left if they are left of you, and then
calling that group homogeneous. I'd say that I was left of you, yet I am
far from being a 'lefty feminist'.
>He again shows his complete ignorance of the evolution of behaviour, of course
>it considers the individual, after all evolution works entirely through
>the individual.
Sort of.
> Genetics also considers the group so that, for example, the
>altruism of bees is understandable only by considering the overall group
>behaviour of the hive.
Sort of. It's the same mistake as above. I don't know if you know
whether you are simplifying here.
>Now it is also certain that Roger doesn't understand 'determinism' either,
>he thinks that it means that organisms behave like clockwork at the impulse
>of the turning key. He cannot concieve that things can be more complicated
>than this and still deterministic - no doubt recent research showing how
>the heart behaves in a chaotic way is far beyond his ken.
So stop worrying about Roger. I am pretty familiar with chaos and
determinism. To you these ideas show what?
>If this relativistic nonsense were in any way true, there would be no
>point whatever in any research. After all the ideas of the average
>fruit fly would be as 'valid' as those of Roger - actually, come to
>think of it, maybe in this case he has a point.
Get a grip. You ought to stop slagging Roger, it's not improving your
case. Relativism has it's place. Morals are relative, value judgements
are relative. Empricism is less so.
>The usual mindless ad hominem that we are used to from the unhappy Roger. I
>don't quite see why I should have any concern with the 'nastiness' of life,
>it is the way that it is, to pretend that my 'ideology' is in some way
>responsible for the ills of the world (or that they have all been
>caused by people like me) is simply stupid.
Perhaps. Though it's worth noting what was done in the name of darwin,
mostly in ignorance. True ideas in a moral vaccuum don't necessarily
improve humanity's lot.
Roger
In article <4nq7kl$9...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@gauss.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> The Pink Sombrero (peter@Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.) wrote:
>
> : If you read Roger, when he is not simply in rant mode - you have to
> : search a bit, you will find that he is absolutely dogmatic in asserting
> : that genes do not influence behaviour, only 'culture' and 'society'
> : do.
Now we have you. You (and others) have said that I have said this). Then
you have simply argued against your own created arguments. That it
the real "Political Correctness". You made it, not me.
> Dogma bites dogma.
>
> How useful.
Nice to see that you are agreeing with Brooks. From the defence of
him I recieve in e-mail, you're with the vast majority here who think the
guy's a genius.
I don't suppose you're actually interested in my view, and more than Brooks is
but that's dogma for you - set up a target and attack that. Let's not make
life difficult for ourselves.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nqfif$8...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
> The standard social science model sounds a little dubious to me, but I'm
> bot a social science student, so I'd be curious as to PHMB's version of
> this. PC is a straw man, without a shadow of a doubt. Morality is not,
> occasiionally they get confused, but only by the witless.
>
No, not at all. Examine the constitution of the 'New South Africa' a more
craven prayer to political correctness is difficult to find. This is a
serious and dangerous millstone round the neck of the new child that is
apparently being born in South Africa. No straw man, no joke, many people
may die as a result of this pernicious bullshit.
>
> If his position is truly that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a
> pinko, then he ought to simply redefine pinko. They'd we could all agree
> with him. Does he have a position, I haven't seen him argue anything yet...
>
You can't have been here long. We do welcome new people, what do
you wish me to explain to you?
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nqgev$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
> Well, as I'm only 24, I'd find it easier to stick to the present day. So
> you are arguing that they are conservatives, at least in common parlance.
> PC is a straw man, it means all kinds of things, from simple decency to
> utter lunacy.
>
This is no mistake. As the pc are found out they attempt to evade detection
by appealing to well known moral positions that you call common decency
and pretend that these point are their own. I am delighted to see this
it is an indication of a wickedness going through its death throes.
>
> This isn't true either. Even when most 'radical' leftists were communists
> this wasn't true. It certainly isn't now, leftism is appearing in many
> guises. The right has also had a powerful ideology, based on free
> markets, and so on. Monetarism was pure ideology, and aterrible one at that.
>
Well, where is the beef?
>
> Best to call them social liberals. Pinko is clearly derogatory, yet
> social liberals have easily the bulk of the evidence to support them in
> many areas of social policy, such as the penal system.
>
Ok, if you wish to call 'social liberals' pinkoes, so be it. I don't
agree as, I, being no pinko do not support the death penalty, nor many
silly punitive measures that achieve nothing to reduce crime.
>
> So what is this argument that the pinkos hate so much?
>
All argument. Pinkos simply wish to polarise everything into either their
world view or fascism. If you examine my posts you will see, if you have
eyes to see, that I am keen to, through satire, expose the wimpish pinko
attempts to engineer utopia for the bullshit that they are. It is clear that
this satire works when you see people of many apparently differend political
hues getting hot under the collar. They condemn themselves, I simply hold
up a mirror.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nqgrh$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> You are marking all people as left if they are left of you, and then
> calling that group homogeneous. I'd say that I was left of you, yet I am
> far from being a 'lefty feminist'.
>
The real joke is that I am not right wing. I am an anarchist, so, clearly,
I agree with many feminist points, however, I do not accept points that
reject reality, from whichever camp the come. The reason that I appear
right wing is that most of the evidently foolish, anti-reality points
come from doctrinaire pinkos.
>
> > Genetics also considers the group so that, for example, the
> >altruism of bees is understandable only by considering the overall group
> >behaviour of the hive.
>
> Sort of. It's the same mistake as above. I don't know if you know
> whether you are simplifying here.
>
Well then, lad, read up on the subject. You will notice, if you look
at my previous posts, that I frequently encourage people to examine the
evidence and come to their own conclusions. If you listen to sad creatures,
bound by dogma, like Roger, Abelard, Doug and the rest you will hear no
exhortations to examining primary evidence, this if because they fear
it.
>
> So stop worrying about Roger. I am pretty familiar with chaos and
> determinism. To you these ideas show what?
>
I don't. If you wish to expand the discussion, I will be delighted. I find,
in notes, that I am normally up against people who don't understand the
first principles and attempt to move every discussion into a political
polarisation. This is very sad, but I am happy to attempt to put a
little sand into their mind in the hope that pearl may develop. It is
a labour of love, little fruit comes from it, but when it does, it is
delightful.
>
> Get a grip. You ought to stop slagging Roger, it's not improving your
> case. Relativism has it's place. Morals are relative, value judgements
> are relative. Empricism is less so.
>
Morals and value judgements are not relative. This is a current popular
and unfortunate myth.
>
> Perhaps. Though it's worth noting what was done in the name of darwin,
> mostly in ignorance. True ideas in a moral vaccuum don't necessarily
> improve humanity's lot.
>
Indeed they don't necessarily. However, denial of the truth avoids all
possibility of hope. I attempt to help people to understand the universe
of discourse so that we can begin to attack the real points.
I must confess that I very much like your points. I hope that you will
engage in the debate more. What I attack with vigour is non=thought and
facile points, you, entering the debate late, my see my posts as being
similar, this is a sad result of engaging the deluded.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832619...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
> > Dogma bites dogma.
> >
> > How useful.
>
Some may enjoy Flan O'Brien and 'The hair of the Dogma'.
>
> Nice to see that you are agreeing with Brooks. From the defence of
> him I recieve in e-mail, you're with the vast majority here who think the
> guy's a genius.
>
Please, my fans. Don't bother attempting to convert poor Roger. You just
upset him.
Illtud Daniel
In article <832627...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
>
>> > Dogma bites dogma.
>> >
>> > How useful.
>>
>Some may enjoy Flan O'Brien and 'The hair of the Dogma'.
Hmm. Flan O'Brien? Is that Myles Na Gopaleen's quiche or something?
--
_ Illtud Daniel ida...@jesus.ox.ac.uk
X "I was born outta time" Napoleon Wilson -buy SFA- FFPGP
Roger
> >don't quite see why I should have any concern with the 'nastiness' of life,
> >it is the way that it is, to pretend that my 'ideology' is in some way
> >responsible for the ills of the world (or that they have all been
> >caused by people like me) is simply stupid.
Genetic determinism. Racism, extreme right wing bigotry, Religious dogmatism.
Now where's my history book, I seem to recall that it got a mention somewhere.
> Perhaps. Though it's worth noting what was done in the name of darwin,
> mostly in ignorance. True ideas in a moral vaccuum don't necessarily
> improve humanity's lot.
Look, I've kill filed Brooks for misrepresenting what I have to say and then
taking the piss. I've taken some pleasure in seeing his echos as he gets
enraged by my taking the piss back.
Problem is he's got a big fan club of those who believe what he says
and imagine that I actually said what he's said I said.
What Brooks says on his own behalf is nonsense.
What Brooks says I said is nonsense.
What you say in reply to what Brooks says I said in nonsense.
As a result, this thread is simply a crowd of people arguing about
a set of conjoured and imagined beliefs.
Which makes everything above nonsense. That's how the PC straw man works.
There ain't no such thing as a "standard social science model", BTW. That's
a PC straw man offering too.
Roger
> In article <832616...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> The Pink Sombrero <peter@Jumbo Tomatoes Inc> wrote:
>
> >Good this, Roger admits to being a pinko. He puts forward the 'idea' that
> >it wasn't lefty feminists that started misusing the word 'gender' and
> >pretending that there is no innate difference between the sexes and that
> >it wasn't loony left social scientists that supported them by making this
> >barmy assumption part of the standard social science model.
Where have I argued any part of this. There is no such thing as a "standard
social science model", BTW.
> You are marking all people as left if they are left of you, and then
> calling that group homogeneous. I'd say that I was left of you, yet I am
> far from being a 'lefty feminist'.
You are answering Brooks as if it was my argument he was putting. Please
answer him in proper terms.
> >He again shows his complete ignorance of the evolution of behaviour, of course
> >it considers the individual, after all evolution works entirely through
> >the individual.
>
> Sort of.
>
> > Genetics also considers the group so that, for example, the
> >altruism of bees is understandable only by considering the overall group
> >behaviour of the hive.
>
> Sort of. It's the same mistake as above. I don't know if you know
> whether you are simplifying here.
He is inventing a series of straw men in my name. In case you hand't noticed,
I'm using the sad prat as a joke machine.
> >Now it is also certain that Roger doesn't understand 'determinism' either,
> >he thinks that it means that organisms behave like clockwork at the impulse
> >of the turning key. He cannot concieve that things can be more complicated
> >than this and still deterministic - no doubt recent research showing how
> >the heart behaves in a chaotic way is far beyond his ken.
>
> So stop worrying about Roger. I am pretty familiar with chaos and
> determinism. To you these ideas show what?
Look, he isn't worried about me, he's worried about some delusion that
he's attached my name to.
Sam J. Turner
Roger (Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4nq7kl$9...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
: s...@gauss.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
: > The Pink Sombrero (peter@Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.) wrote:
: >
: > : If you read Roger, when he is not simply in rant mode - you have to
: > : search a bit, you will find that he is absolutely dogmatic in asserting
: > : that genes do not influence behaviour, only 'culture' and 'society'
: > : do.
: Now we have you. You (and others) have said that I have said this). Then
: you have simply argued against your own created arguments. That it
: the real "Political Correctness". You made it, not me.
: > Dogma bites dogma.
: >
: > How useful.
: Nice to see that you are agreeing with Brooks. From the defence of
: him I recieve in e-mail, you're with the vast majority here who think the
: guy's a genius.
: I don't suppose you're actually interested in my view, and more than Brooks i
: but that's dogma for you - set up a target and attack that. Let's not make
: life difficult for ourselves.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The first paragraph is unintelligible - who are you talking to/about?
I am most certainly not agreeing with L'Homme Meilleur, and whoever believes
him to be a genius has never shown me any proof. Or even anecdotal evidence.
The dogma bites dogma comment was aimed at you and L'Homme chasing each others
tails to the benefit of nobody.
My personal opinion is that both the genetic determinist cult and the
`there is no such thing as objective truth' cult should stay in their
narrow academic corridors and leave the rational middle ground alone.
I think you are overreacting or reading something into the post that was
definitely not intended. It was only five words, for heaven's sake.
Regards,
Sam.
M.S. Robb
In article <832626...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No, not at all. Examine the constitution of the 'New South Africa' a more
>craven prayer to political correctness is difficult to find. This is a
>serious and dangerous millstone round the neck of the new child that is
>apparently being born in South Africa. No straw man, no joke, many people
>may die as a result of this pernicious bullshit.
Which aspects of it do you regard as being so dangerous?
>> If his position is truly that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a
>> pinko, then he ought to simply redefine pinko. They'd we could all agree
>> with him. Does he have a position, I haven't seen him argue anything yet...
>>
>You can't have been here long. We do welcome new people, what do
>you wish me to explain to you?
I've been around ages, but I just edited my killfile, so this thread
popped out again. Tell me what you think Roger fears so much.
M.S. Robb
>This is no mistake. As the pc are found out they attempt to evade detection
>by appealing to well known moral positions that you call common decency
>and pretend that these point are their own. I am delighted to see this
>it is an indication of a wickedness going through its death throes.
Exceelent, then neither of us need worry about PC anyway.
>> This isn't true either. Even when most 'radical' leftists were communists
>> this wasn't true. It certainly isn't now, leftism is appearing in many
>> guises. The right has also had a powerful ideology, based on free
>> markets, and so on. Monetarism was pure ideology, and aterrible one at that.
>>
>Well, where is the beef?
Meaning?
>> Best to call them social liberals. Pinko is clearly derogatory, yet
>> social liberals have easily the bulk of the evidence to support them in
>> many areas of social policy, such as the penal system.
>>
>Ok, if you wish to call 'social liberals' pinkoes, so be it. I don't
>agree as, I, being no pinko do not support the death penalty, nor many
>silly punitive measures that achieve nothing to reduce crime.
Excellent. So I think pinko is a bad term, as it does not differentiate
your more considered stance from that of neanderthal right wingers, who
also use the term.
>> So what is this argument that the pinkos hate so much?
>>
>All argument. Pinkos simply wish to polarise everything into either their
>world view or fascism. If you examine my posts you will see, if you have
>eyes to see, that I am keen to, through satire, expose the wimpish pinko
>attempts to engineer utopia for the bullshit that they are. It is clear that
>this satire works when you see people of many apparently differend political
>hues getting hot under the collar. They condemn themselves, I simply hold
>up a mirror.
Was there a specific argument that you had in mind?
M.S. Robb
>The real joke is that I am not right wing. I am an anarchist, so, clearly,
>I agree with many feminist points, however, I do not accept points that
>reject reality, from whichever camp the come. The reason that I appear
>right wing is that most of the evidently foolish, anti-reality points
>come from doctrinaire pinkos.
Ok, then you ought to be able to accept that people that oppose your
positions are heterogeneous, and can not be called pinkos. To lump
together abelard and roger seems somewhat ludicrous.
>> > Genetics also considers the group so that, for example, the
>> >altruism of bees is understandable only by considering the overall group
>> >behaviour of the hive.
>>
>> Sort of. It's the same mistake as above. I don't know if you know
>> whether you are simplifying here.
>>
>Well then, lad, read up on the subject. You will notice, if you look
>at my previous posts, that I frequently encourage people to examine the
>evidence and come to their own conclusions. If you listen to sad creatures,
>bound by dogma, like Roger, Abelard, Doug and the rest you will hear no
>exhortations to examining primary evidence, this if because they fear
>it.
I'm doing a PhD in the subject (or at least allied subjects). I just want
to know whether you are aware that your understanding of evolution (as
posted) contains simplifications. If you do know this, then that's fine,
if not, then fine too.
>> So stop worrying about Roger. I am pretty familiar with chaos and
>> determinism. To you these ideas show what?
>>
>I don't. If you wish to expand the discussion, I will be delighted. I find,
>in notes, that I am normally up against people who don't understand the
>first principles and attempt to move every discussion into a political
>polarisation. This is very sad, but I am happy to attempt to put a
>little sand into their mind in the hope that pearl may develop. It is
>a labour of love, little fruit comes from it, but when it does, it is
>delightful.
So to you the ideas of chaos and determinism show what exactly?
>> Get a grip. You ought to stop slagging Roger, it's not improving your
>> case. Relativism has it's place. Morals are relative, value judgements
>> are relative. Empricism is less so.
>>
>Morals and value judgements are not relative. This is a current popular
>and unfortunate myth.
So what is the absolute standard against which you judge all actions?
>> Perhaps. Though it's worth noting what was done in the name of darwin,
>> mostly in ignorance. True ideas in a moral vaccuum don't necessarily
>> improve humanity's lot.
>>
>Indeed they don't necessarily. However, denial of the truth avoids all
>possibility of hope. I attempt to help people to understand the universe
>of discourse so that we can begin to attack the real points.
Agreed.
>I must confess that I very much like your points. I hope that you will
>engage in the debate more. What I attack with vigour is non=thought and
>facile points, you, entering the debate late, my see my posts as being
>similar, this is a sad result of engaging the deluded.
Cheers. At the moment I'm really trying to find out what the argument is
about before I comment.
M.S. Robb
In article <832675...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As a result, this thread is simply a crowd of people arguing about
>a set of conjoured and imagined beliefs.
This seems more thrue than anything else at the moment.
M.S. Robb
In article <832676...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> You are marking all people as left if they are left of you, and then
>> calling that group homogeneous. I'd say that I was left of you, yet I am
>> far from being a 'lefty feminist'.
>
>You are answering Brooks as if it was my argument he was putting. Please
>answer him in proper terms.
I'm just trying to work out what he thinks. I'm moderately famiiliar with
your position from reading your posts for the last year or more.
>> So stop worrying about Roger. I am pretty familiar with chaos and
>> determinism. To you these ideas show what?
>
>Look, he isn't worried about me, he's worried about some delusion that
>he's attached my name to.
Maybe. But I couldn't care less about that either. I just want to knw
what he thinks, not what he thinks you think. When I want to know your
opinion, I find it easiest to ask you for it. :)
Sam J. Turner
P. H. M. B. (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) patronised M.S.Robb, gave him
some homework to do and claimed an absolute knowledge of what was objective
and what was subjective truth. Just so nobody else has to drudge through the
last post.
Oh, and claimed to be an anarchist aiming to improve his opposition.
I didn't understand that bit since my English-Brooks Brooks-English
dictionary is a little out of date. I'm sure he'll advise, in his
anarchic educator role.
Awaiting my imminent improval,
Sam.
Sam J. Turner
P. H. M. B. (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) astonished:
:
: ........... Pinkos simply wish to polarise everything into either their
: world view or fascism. If you examine my posts you will see, if you have
: eyes to see, that I am keen to, through satire, expose the wimpish pinko
: attempts to engineer utopia for the bullshit that they are. It is clear that
: this satire works when you see people of many apparently differend political
: hues getting hot under the collar. They condemn themselves, I simply hold
: up a mirror.
Sorry P, could you repost the bit where you redefined the word `satire', my
newsreader seems to have misplaced it.
Sam.
Roger
In article <4nsavd$o...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> My personal opinion is that both the genetic determinist cult and the
> `there is no such thing as objective truth' cult should stay in their
> narrow academic corridors and leave the rational middle ground alone.
My personal opinion is that both the genetic determinist cult and the
`there is no such thing as objective truth' cult should stay in their
narrow academic corridors and leave the rational middle ground alone.
Do you mind if I borrow your words? I just get pissed off with having a
viewpoint ascribed, which is what my badly formed first paragraph meant.
What happens is like the old "manhole cover" story. Nobody ever said
it, but because it got reported it is assumed that some idiot somewhere
objects to the use of the word "manhole" as sexist. It is wrong to
use the "manhole" argument to condemn all feminist views, but doing so
marginalises the real issues.
An test.
Language ability has a (H)eritability of 0. Any variability is due to
factors like brain damage, deafness and profound neglect.
The fact that language ability is inherited tells us nothing about which
language and how well it is spoken. The first is cultural, the second depends
on a whole range of social and cultural factors as well as some elements
which are inherited.
It is possible and useful to identify the social/cultural factors.
Am I arguing that "there is no such thing as objective truth", because
I cannot measure those factors?
M.S. Robb
In article <832684...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Language ability has a (H)eritability of 0. Any variability is due to
>factors like brain damage, deafness and profound neglect.
Is this a statement or a proposition?
>The fact that language ability is inherited tells us nothing about which
>language and how well it is spoken. The first is cultural, the second depends
>on a whole range of social and cultural factors as well as some elements
>which are inherited.
Kind of. But mainly I agree.
>It is possible and useful to identify the social/cultural factors.
>
>Am I arguing that "there is no such thing as objective truth", because
>I cannot measure those factors?
No. Emphaticaly not.
Susan Spence
Roger (Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: [wanton deletia]
: Problem is he's got a big fan club of those who believe what he says
: and imagine that I actually said what he's said I said.
Nahhh. We think he's full of shit, but he's much more
entertaining than you are.
: What Brooks says on his own behalf is nonsense.
: What Brooks says I said is nonsense.
: What you say in reply to what Brooks says I said in nonsense.
: As a result, this thread is simply a crowd of people arguing about
: a set of conjoured and imagined beliefs.
Well - as they say, "that's usenet".
Sam J. Turner
Roger (Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4nsavd$o...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
: s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
:
: > My personal opinion is that both the genetic determinist cult and the
: > narrow academic corridors and leave the rational middle ground alone.
And you agreed. I am afraid we might both be guilty of misunderstanding the
other. I never meant to imply that you were a member of either cult - only
that your approach to arguing with PHMB (who is most certainly a paid up
member of the gen.det army) could give the impression that you were.
I am not sure whether it is possible to compete against P's gut churning
self-important sarcasm with the same - he is far too arrogant.
And (whether or not you could give a shit) as soon as he believes he has
annoyed you he awards himself match-winning points.
He unfortunately has the advantage that the popular press is obsessed with
a) genes (ooo aren't they clever) and b) extreme culture studiers (ooo aren't
they barmy)
He has translated this popular mythology into a personal philosophy - a sign
that he is either verging towards delusion, or firmly tongue in cheek.
Good luck,
Sam.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832675...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
>
> Look, I've kill filed Brooks for misrepresenting what I have to say and then
> taking the piss. I've taken some pleasure in seeing his echos as he gets
> enraged by my taking the piss back.
>
I am happy that Roger is taking this solitary pleasure, though not surprised.
I don't recall seeing Roger taking the piss out of anything, let alone me,
I wonder what he can mean.
>
> There ain't no such thing as a "standard social science model", BTW. That's
> a PC straw man offering too.
>
He must be misquoting the famous Maggie line that there is no such thing
as society. In this particular case, though, Maggie had some logic on
her side, not poor Roger.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nsc6t$g...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> Ok, then you ought to be able to accept that people that oppose your
> positions are heterogeneous, and can not be called pinkos. To lump
> together abelard and roger seems somewhat ludicrous.
>
I understand your point, if I were to wish to be more precise I could
point out the particular statist tendencies that I have seen in
the two of them. As it happens, though, I haven't read anything that
abelard has written for many a long month, I don't believe in kill
files, but the puerile lack of capitals and the pathetically obvious
points made in a manner that seeks to render them profound makes reading
him a sickmaking experience. In the fact that they are both twits, they
can certainly be lumped together, after all, Noddy and Rupert have
little in common but are certainly both twittish wimps.
>
> I'm doing a PhD in the subject (or at least allied subjects). I just want
> to know whether you are aware that your understanding of evolution (as
> posted) contains simplifications. If you do know this, then that's fine,
> if not, then fine too.
>
Obviously it does, if I were to post with the same care and attention that
you will have to put into your thesis, I wouldn't bother, this is a forum
for chat and interesting conversation, not for theses.
>
> So to you the ideas of chaos and determinism show what exactly?
>
Is this an essay question? Chaos is the study of non linear systems
that exhibit large differences in output for small differences in
input, this is not to suggest that there is any doubt that if the
model is exact, the same input will give the same output, the system
is deterministic.
>
> So what is the absolute standard against which you judge all actions?
>
That is easy, I judge them according to my principles which are my
standard. Now, I think that you probably wanted me to justify this
standard, I think that if you read 'The Moral Animal' you will find
most of the system that I approve of, quite well described.
>
> Cheers. At the moment I'm really trying to find out what the argument is
> about before I comment.
>
I would have thought that it was fairly plain from the header of the
thread. The subtext in the unfortunate Roger posts is that, his having
been soundly thrashed in a previous engagement with me, he now resorts
to any device including libel and lies in order to attempt to attack
me.
I have explained my underlying point, but I rather liked the way it
was put in a review of a bad book in the FT this morning, to quote:
'The spirit of Darwinism is so strong that, more than a century after
his death, few people can take it neat. Darwin himself distained to water
down the theory; but he tried hard to make it palatable by including
much that was familiar.' (Max Wilkinson reviewing In The Blood, God,
Genes and Destiny).
I like to give it to people neatly and simply, in the hope that even
if it is in an attempt to refute me, they will go and read it up
for themselves.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nsbmg$g...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> >No, not at all. Examine the constitution of the 'New South Africa' a more
> >craven prayer to political correctness is difficult to find. This is a
> >serious and dangerous millstone round the neck of the new child that is
> >apparently being born in South Africa. No straw man, no joke, many people
> >may die as a result of this pernicious bullshit.
>
> Which aspects of it do you regard as being so dangerous?
>
As I said to Cyril Ramaposa last night, the lack of provision for minority
rights, and the inclusion of the racism of ethnic cleansing of the workplace.
Interestingly, he agreed with me that in the implimentation of 'affirmative
action' it would be quite wrong to award a job to anybody other than
the best candidate on grounds of race or sex - however it would be fair
to use the grounds of race or sex as a 'casting vote' in the case of
two equal candidates.
>
> >> If his position is truly that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a
> >> pinko, then he ought to simply redefine pinko. They'd we could all agree
> >> with him. Does he have a position, I haven't seen him argue anything yet...
> >>
> >You can't have been here long. We do welcome new people, what do
> >you wish me to explain to you?
>
> I've been around ages, but I just edited my killfile, so this thread
> popped out again. Tell me what you think Roger fears so much.
>
What all social science types do, the destruction of their world view. This
view takes the remains of the Judaic-Christian morality and uses them to
justify state intervention in peoples lives (or charitable intervention
where the state cannot be persuaded to interfere) in order to right
what they see as wrongs. They do not wish to believe that people are
naturally aggressive, decietful etc. etc, but want to believe that with
'good' education all can be made homogeneously 'nice'.
The fear is that if reality is faced in all its horror, then there will
be no justification for considering oneself a good person if one
supports bleeding heart policies.
Of course the other fear, much more real, though not much stated is that
much of what passes for research and theory in the social sciences is
simply bullshit. This is not happy news for people who have built their
careers in this particular line of academic playground.
As with many fears, both are unfounded, psychologists, for example who
apply their findings and investigate their theories in the light of
evolution find that, suddenly, things that were messy and murky become
clear and 'fit into place'. It does take a fair bit of courage to make
the step into the new unknown, so the number of social scientists who
have tried to understand evolution and its implications is still
tiny.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nus6e$u...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> : > `there is no such thing as objective truth' cult should stay in their
> : > narrow academic corridors and leave the rational middle ground alone.
>
> And you agreed. I am afraid we might both be guilty of misunderstanding the
> other. I never meant to imply that you were a member of either cult - only
> that your approach to arguing with PHMB (who is most certainly a paid up
> member of the gen.det army) could give the impression that you were.
>
Make up your mind Sam, is it a cult or is it an army? Maybe it is an
underground cult army.
>
> I am not sure whether it is possible to compete against P's gut churning
> self-important sarcasm with the same - he is far too arrogant.
>
I am delighted to hear that I have 'churned your gut', normally I have to
prepare a good curry to achieve this, to manage it with mere words is
clearly an acievement.
>
> He unfortunately has the advantage that the popular press is obsessed with
> a) genes (ooo aren't they clever) and b) extreme culture studiers (ooo aren't
> they barmy)
>
Thank you for this intelligence, since I don't read the popular press, nor
watch plebvision, I had been quite unaware of this. I am pleased to
hear it, though, maybe there is something to be said for the tabloids
after all.
>
> He has translated this popular mythology into a personal philosophy - a sign
> that he is either verging towards delusion, or firmly tongue in cheek.
>
You must be right. Nice of you to be so kind as to only mark me down as
verging towards delusion, by this stage most people go strait for the
accusation of insanity.
Do you look for signs often?
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nsbs9$g...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> Exceelent, then neither of us need worry about PC anyway.
>
It would be nice.
>
> >> This isn't true either. Even when most 'radical' leftists were communists
> >> this wasn't true. It certainly isn't now, leftism is appearing in many
> >> guises. The right has also had a powerful ideology, based on free
> >> markets, and so on. Monetarism was pure ideology, and aterrible one at that.
> >>
> >Well, where is the beef?
>
> Meaning?
>
This all seems to be reasonable stuff, but I don't see the point being
made as being particularly interesting.
>
> Excellent. So I think pinko is a bad term, as it does not differentiate
> your more considered stance from that of neanderthal right wingers, who
> also use the term.
>
I haven't met these neanderthal right wingers, where are they to be
found? Presumably they don't post on the internet. Do you mean skinhead
members of the National Front, by any chance? If so, I don't think that
they would use the term Pinko. However, not knowing any of them I could
be wrong.
>
> Was there a specific argument that you had in mind?
>
Not a new one, my specific argument is summed up in Ecclesiastes, though
sociobiology (or any of its many different names) gives hope to move
on to a more rational approach to humanity, than has been possible since
the writing of the book.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4nsem8$s...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
>
> Oh, and claimed to be an anarchist aiming to improve his opposition.
>
I am not sure that simply taking up anarchy is going to improve anybody,
including any opposition that I may have. I am delighted to know that
you have refined your telepathic abilities to the extent that you read
my motivation so easily, it must make you feel very happy.
>
> I didn't understand that bit since my English-Brooks Brooks-English
> dictionary is a little out of date. I'm sure he'll advise, in his
> anarchic educator role.
>
Which bit didn't you understand? Helping people to understand things?
I agree that it is rather too optimistic a position to hold as some
are clearly ineducable. Maybe I ought to phrase it more cautionsly
as 'trying to help people understand things'.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <832684...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
> Language ability has a (H)eritability of 0. Any variability is due to
> factors like brain damage, deafness and profound neglect.
>
This is, no doubt, Roger attempting to take the piss. Surely even he knows
that women have a greater language ability than men?
>
> The fact that language ability is inherited tells us nothing about which
> language and how well it is spoken. The first is cultural, the second depends
> on a whole range of social and cultural factors as well as some elements
> which are inherited.
>
This is certainly Roger attempting to take the piss. Here he is talking
about 'how well' language is spoken when we all know that he doesn't believe
in any judgement being applied to questions of ability.
>
> Am I arguing that "there is no such thing as objective truth", because
> I cannot measure those factors?
>
Ah, this explains why he was acting so out of character in the previous
paragraph, so that he can now claim that he does believe in truth.
Peter H. M. Brooks
> I am not sure whether it is possible to compete against P's gut churning
> self-important sarcasm with the same - he is far too arrogant.
>
I wondered if it was politic to reply to this, and have now decided that
it is. I love it when somebody calls me arrogant. I have a little shiver of
delight to hear it. After all to be called arrogant suggests that you
arrogate some knowledge to yourself without justification. Now, had those
who called me arrogant actually indicated where my points were not justified,
then they could have had a point. Since they haven't, it is clear that
what they actually mean in using the word 'arrogant' is that I demonstrate
truths that they don't like and that are in some way contoversial. What is
pathetic about their irritation is that they have no counter to the point
made, and think that anybody that questions their unthought out world view
ought to be hesitant and contrite in examining the popular delusions to
which they are in thrall.
I am not hesitant and contrite, I make the points that I do welcoming
any sensible, thought out, or evidence based contratiction, to call
me arrogant is simply to betray the poverty of your view, argument or
political problem. Nothing makes me happier than to find somebody who
can convince me that I am wrong. What I love about the internet is that,
like face to face discussions, truth is annealed so that the more hammer
blows (as they are seen by the detractors) that are rained on the steel the
more that the steel of truth is hardened and enriched. It is very sad that
there are so few bright people on the net who can show the flaws in my
points - after all, even evident truths can be refined, it would be nice
if I could refine some of my conclusions with the help of the internet,
instead I have to rely on my own examination of established facts to
root out things that need revision.
Come on lads, if you have brains, prepare to use them here.
abelard
On 21 May 1996 12:38:47 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb)
typed:
>In article <832676...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
>Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm just trying to work out what he thinks. I'm moderately famiiliar with
>your position from reading your posts for the last year or more.
>Maybe. But I couldn't care less about that either. I just want to knw
>what he thinks, not what he thinks you think. When I want to know your
>opinion, I find it easiest to ask you for it. :)
'he' ?
'thinks'?
i have noticed *no* *evidence*....
i am quite convinced that 'it' is a virus....that multiplies
when 'stimulated'.....i have therefore set my news-reader
appropriately....
it's repetitious contentless echoing has convinced me,
that reading or replying to the empty computer
generated verbiage, would lead to terminal boredom.
the virus is totally deterministic afaicdetermine....there
appears to be no learning engine even to the degree
of 'dogz' (a program you will soon run across if you
have not yet.)
it does have one rather trivially interesting function...
if one responds to it negatively, it puts a copy of
your tag in it's output...which it then repeatedly
but at random places in 'it's' output.
therefore....
what truly fascinates me is what fascinates you or
'entertains' susan....a serious q. btw.
regards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
On 20 May 1996 16:46:13 GMT, s...@gauss.bham.ac.uk (Sam J. Turner)
typed:
>Peter H. M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: If you read Roger, when he is not simply in rant mode - you have to
>: search a bit, you will find that he is absolutely dogmatic in asserting
>: that genes do not influence behaviour, only 'culture' and 'society'
>: do.
>
>Dogma bites dogma.
>
>How useful.
just for information....
i have 'debated' very lonnngg with
roger and i have not once seen
such a stt from him.
and i read with fanatical care...
btw you have made it onto my list
of interesting contributors...i'd like to see more...
M.S. Robb
In article <832861...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I understand your point, if I were to wish to be more precise I could
>point out the particular statist tendencies that I have seen in
>the two of them. As it happens, though, I haven't read anything that
>abelard has written for many a long month, I don't believe in kill
>files, but the puerile lack of capitals and the pathetically obvious
>points made in a manner that seeks to render them profound makes reading
>him a sickmaking experience. In the fact that they are both twits, they
>can certainly be lumped together, after all, Noddy and Rupert have
>little in common but are certainly both twittish wimps.
I think you just lost that argument. You are just lumping them together
in on group bcause you disagree with both of them. Even if they share
some statist tendencies, that doesn't make them all that similar.
>> So to you the ideas of chaos and determinism show what exactly?
>>
>Is this an essay question? Chaos is the study of non linear systems
>that exhibit large differences in output for small differences in
>input, this is not to suggest that there is any doubt that if the
>model is exact, the same input will give the same output, the system
>is deterministic.
I agree. But what I don't see is what relevance this has to the argument.
>> So what is the absolute standard against which you judge all actions?
>>
>That is easy, I judge them according to my principles which are my
>standard. Now, I think that you probably wanted me to justify this
>standard, I think that if you read 'The Moral Animal' you will find
>most of the system that I approve of, quite well described.
I haven't read this book. Could you indicate which arguments you find
persuasive? Secondly, you indicAted that you didn't think that values
were relative/subjective. What makes this system absolute?
>'The spirit of Darwinism is so strong that, more than a century after
>his death, few people can take it neat. Darwin himself distained to water
>down the theory; but he tried hard to make it palatable by including
>much that was familiar.' (Max Wilkinson reviewing In The Blood, God,
>Genes and Destiny).
There's a lot od truth in that for sure.
>I like to give it to people neatly and simply, in the hope that even
>if it is in an attempt to refute me, they will go and read it up
>for themselves.
But even if it is true, it doesn't imply that 'social liberalism' won't work.
M.S. Robb
In article <832862...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Which aspects of it do you regard as being so dangerous?
>>
>As I said to Cyril Ramaposa last night, the lack of provision for minority
>rights, and the inclusion of the racism of ethnic cleansing of the workplace.
Which minority rights did you want to see. What do you mean by ethnic
cleansing of the workplace?
>Interestingly, he agreed with me that in the implimentation of 'affirmative
>action' it would be quite wrong to award a job to anybody other than
>the best candidate on grounds of race or sex - however it would be fair
>to use the grounds of race or sex as a 'casting vote' in the case of
>two equal candidates.
I can see some mileage in that argument.
>What all social science types do, the destruction of their world view. This
>view takes the remains of the Judaic-Christian morality and uses them to
>justify state intervention in peoples lives (or charitable intervention
>where the state cannot be persuaded to interfere) in order to right
>what they see as wrongs. They do not wish to believe that people are
>naturally aggressive, decietful etc. etc, but want to believe that with
>'good' education all can be made homogeneously 'nice'.
Two separate points here, the first is of state intevention/charity.
Charity I see no objection too, nobody is forced to help out, and anyone
that wishes to can. State intervention is IMO on balance a good thing in
some places, but you'd have to argue the specifics of a policy.
The second one has some truth in it on both sides. People are born with a
set of genetic instructions which neither preclude nor prescribe altruism
or selfishness. Most people will cut their best deal for themselves.
There's a lot of agreement on this issue.
>The fear is that if reality is faced in all its horror, then there will
>be no justification for considering oneself a good person if one
>supports bleeding heart policies.
Can you develop this?
>Of course the other fear, much more real, though not much stated is that
>much of what passes for research and theory in the social sciences is
>simply bullshit. This is not happy news for people who have built their
>careers in this particular line of academic playground.
Sure, but then loads of economics is bullshit too, like monetarism, like
state controlled planning. Any soft science has it's crap.
>As with many fears, both are unfounded, psychologists, for example who
>apply their findings and investigate their theories in the light of
>evolution find that, suddenly, things that were messy and murky become
>clear and 'fit into place'. It does take a fair bit of courage to make
>the step into the new unknown, so the number of social scientists who
>have tried to understand evolution and its implications is still
>tiny.
Broadly speaking that's true. But evolutionary theory doesn't rule out
altruism, even where people are not genetically related. I take it you
have read the evolution of cooperation, by Robert Axelrod.
M.S. Robb
In article <832863...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Excellent. So I think pinko is a bad term, as it does not differentiate
>> your more considered stance from that of neanderthal right wingers, who
>> also use the term.
>>
>I haven't met these neanderthal right wingers, where are they to be
>found? Presumably they don't post on the internet. Do you mean skinhead
>members of the National Front, by any chance? If so, I don't think that
>they would use the term Pinko. However, not knowing any of them I could
>be wrong.
Anyone that supports Michael Howard for example.
>Not a new one, my specific argument is summed up in Ecclesiastes, though
>sociobiology (or any of its many different names) gives hope to move
>on to a more rational approach to humanity, than has been possible since
>the writing of the book.
Don't know much about Ecclesiates, but sociobiology is fine by me.
M.S. Robb
In article <832864...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This is, no doubt, Roger attempting to take the piss. Surely even he knows
>that women have a greater language ability than men?
In what sense?
M.S. Robb
In article <31a63717...@news.demon.co.uk>,
abelard <abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>therefore....
>what truly fascinates me is what fascinates you or
> 'entertains' susan....a serious q. btw.
Initially it was idle curiousity, never like to leave an arguemnt alone.
:) But I still can't see what his argument is. He appears to have
extrapolated from a kind of Wlisonian siciobiology something that offends
nearly everyone. As a biologist I'm midly concerned that
mis-extrapolations of biology aren't used for justifying social ends. But
so far I really can't see what his argument actually is. Si I'm probab;y
going to leave it.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4oc80n$q...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> Which minority rights did you want to see. What do you mean by ethnic
> cleansing of the workplace?
>
Any minority rights at all, would have been nice. Ethnic cleansing of the
workplace is a pernicious yank invention where companies are obliged to
withold jobs from the racial group that is not currently fashionable and
award them to the currently fashionable one. See sexual cleansing of the
workplace.
>
> Two separate points here, the first is of state intevention/charity.
> Charity I see no objection too, nobody is forced to help out, and anyone
> that wishes to can. State intervention is IMO on balance a good thing in
> some places, but you'd have to argue the specifics of a policy.
>
I agree, I have no objection to charity, but do object to the begging that
frequently accompanies it.
>
> The second one has some truth in it on both sides. People are born with a
> set of genetic instructions which neither preclude nor prescribe altruism
> or selfishness. Most people will cut their best deal for themselves.
> There's a lot of agreement on this issue.
>
Not true. Altruism towards kin is ubiquitous in human and non-human primates
(as well as many other species), it is the reverse of the xenophobia that
is also ubiquitous.
You are right that there is a 'lot of agreemeent' against this, mainly
from the camp that hold the social science model dear, this is a political
problem. The fact that altruism is genetic and applied in proportion to
kinship (though by contingent pressure, rather than conscious decision).
>
> >The fear is that if reality is faced in all its horror, then there will
> >be no justification for considering oneself a good person if one
> >supports bleeding heart policies.
>
> Can you develop this?
>
To what? Surely you have seen the knee jerk reactions against evolutionary
biology, completely evidence free?
>
> Sure, but then loads of economics is bullshit too, like monetarism, like
> state controlled planning. Any soft science has it's crap.
>
True, up to a point, of course macroeconomics is a fairly blunt instrument,
but, in terms of its own objectives, monetarism seems to work fairly well.
>
> Broadly speaking that's true. But evolutionary theory doesn't rule out
> altruism, even where people are not genetically related. I take it you
> have read the evolution of cooperation, by Robert Axelrod.
>
Evolutionary theory doesn't 'rule it out', just as agnosticism doesn't
'rule out' gods and faries at the bottom of the garden.
Of course most impulses can end up misdirected, so a woman may direct all
her maternal instincts at a cat, this doesn't mean that people have evolved
to be nice to cats.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4oc8a1$r...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> I think you just lost that argument. You are just lumping them together
> in on group bcause you disagree with both of them. Even if they share
> some statist tendencies, that doesn't make them all that similar.
>
No, in the context in which I accused them of being pinko, they were using
the same arguments from the same position for the same motives, that is
pretty similar to me.
>
> >> So to you the ideas of chaos and determinism show what exactly?
> >>
> >Is this an essay question? Chaos is the study of non linear systems
> >that exhibit large differences in output for small differences in
> >input, this is not to suggest that there is any doubt that if the
> >model is exact, the same input will give the same output, the system
> >is deterministic.
>
> I agree. But what I don't see is what relevance this has to the argument.
>
Nor did I, but you brought up the question of chaos and determinism.
>
> >> So what is the absolute standard against which you judge all actions?
> >>
> >That is easy, I judge them according to my principles which are my
> >standard. Now, I think that you probably wanted me to justify this
> >standard, I think that if you read 'The Moral Animal' you will find
> >most of the system that I approve of, quite well described.
>
> I haven't read this book. Could you indicate which arguments you find
> persuasive? Secondly, you indicAted that you didn't think that values
> were relative/subjective. What makes this system absolute?
>
Simply stated the book takes a utilitarian line, this system, coupled with
evolutionary psychology shows a morality that is possible given human
nature, rather than one that is idealistic and unlikely to be achieved.
>
> >'The spirit of Darwinism is so strong that, more than a century after
> >his death, few people can take it neat. Darwin himself distained to water
> >down the theory; but he tried hard to make it palatable by including
> >much that was familiar.' (Max Wilkinson reviewing In The Blood, God,
> >Genes and Destiny).
>
> There's a lot od truth in that for sure.
>
> >I like to give it to people neatly and simply, in the hope that even
> >if it is in an attempt to refute me, they will go and read it up
> >for themselves.
>
> But even if it is true, it doesn't imply that 'social liberalism' won't work.
>
Yes it does. Social liberalism is based on a theory of human behaviour that
is at odds with the facts, it is thus certain to fail. Now, this is not to
say that a particular policy that a 'social libetarian' may like may
work - it will if it happens to be congruent with human behaviour, if
not, not.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4oc8oc$r...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
> Anyone that supports Michael Howard for example.
>
You appear to want to be considered a pinko, M. Howard isn't a member of
the National Front, he is so left wing that he hasn't even called for the
death penalty to reduce the prison population.
>
> >Not a new one, my specific argument is summed up in Ecclesiastes, though
> >sociobiology (or any of its many different names) gives hope to move
> >on to a more rational approach to humanity, than has been possible since
> >the writing of the book.
>
> Don't know much about Ecclesiates, but sociobiology is fine by me.
>
You are likely to learn at least something from Ecclesiastes, unless
you are under thirty. Glad to hear that you are open to sociobiology.
Peter H. M. Brooks
In article <4oc8q1$r...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
>
> >This is, no doubt, Roger attempting to take the piss. Surely even he knows
> >that women have a greater language ability than men?
>
> In what sense?
>
How can you ask this? Haven't you read any of the findings concerning verbal
acuity, ability to communicate etc. etc.? They are better at language on
most measures, just as men are better at mathematics on most measures.
Oh, yes. I know that this isn't your problem, but just in case there is
some thicko lefty out there, these abilities do follow the standard
bell curve distribution so you can find some men who are much better
than some women. It is a pain to have to put these disclaimers here, but
sadly necessary.
Peter H. M. Brooks
>
> extrapolated from a kind of Wlisonian siciobiology something that offends
> nearly everyone. As a biologist I'm midly concerned that
>
Not really, it upsets those who are unhappy about what they think determinism
means.
>
> mis-extrapolations of biology aren't used for justifying social ends. But
> so far I really can't see what his argument actually is. Si I'm probab;y
> going to leave it.
>
The reason you probably can't see what my 'argument' is, is that I don't
have one, single argument that I am attempting to punt. I think that there
is a great deal in politics, morality, education etc. etc. that will
benefit from the application of evolutionary psychology (aka sociobiology)
and enjoy discussing the implications that it is likely to have. When
I see postings that clearly understand nothing of humanity (claiming that
men and women are born as the same creature and behave differently simply
because of thier upbringing is just one of many utterly ridiculous
positions you see brought up frequently) then I move energetically to
show what is wrong with them.
If you examine discussions that I have had with various of the people who
don't like me, you will find that the point at which they became upset
was that where they were unable to conceal the fact that their fragile
edifice had been ripped apart. If I chose to take a kinder line and
allow people to retreat before they have been exposed and humiliated I
would no doubt have more friends. This is not my method, I prefer to
use the techniques of Zen buddism to those of Socrates.
M.S. Robb
In article <833209...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >This is, no doubt, Roger attempting to take the piss. Surely even he knows
>> >that women have a greater language ability than men?
>>
>> In what sense?
>How can you ask this? Haven't you read any of the findings concerning verbal
>acuity, ability to communicate etc. etc.?
Never have read them. Doesn't hugely surprise me though, as it's
consistent with less academic studies I have read. Verbal acuity is s
mild surprise though. Prejudice is a fine thing... :)
>They are better at language on
>most measures, just as men are better at mathematics on most measures.
>Oh, yes. I know that this isn't your problem, but just in case there is
>some thicko lefty out there, these abilities do follow the standard
>bell curve distribution so you can find some men who are much better
>than some women. It is a pain to have to put these disclaimers here, but
>sadly necessary.
Best to pre-empt the knee-jerk response.
M.S. Robb
In article <833208...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Any minority rights at all, would have been nice. Ethnic cleansing of the
>workplace is a pernicious yank invention where companies are obliged to
>withold jobs from the racial group that is not currently fashionable and
>award them to the currently fashionable one. See sexual cleansing of the
>workplace.
Aka positive discrimination. I can see some argument for it in SA, but
not in the US really. It doesn't address the problems of the US.
>> The second one has some truth in it on both sides. People are born with a
>> set of genetic instructions which neither preclude nor prescribe altruism
>> or selfishness. Most people will cut their best deal for themselves.
>> There's a lot of agreement on this issue.
>Not true. Altruism towards kin is ubiquitous in human and non-human primates
>(as well as many other species), it is the reverse of the xenophobia that
>is also ubiquitous.
Xenophobia is not ubiquitous. Nor ought it be.
>You are right that there is a 'lot of agreemeent' against this, mainly
>from the camp that hold the social science model dear, this is a political
>problem. The fact that altruism is genetic and applied in proportion to
>kinship (though by contingent pressure, rather than conscious decision).
This isn't really correct. Altruism is surely the most obvious version of
kinship, but there are other sources. Do you know of the Prisoners Dilemma?
>> Sure, but then loads of economics is bullshit too, like monetarism, like
>> state controlled planning. Any soft science has it's crap.
>>
>True, up to a point, of course macroeconomics is a fairly blunt instrument,
>but, in terms of its own objectives, monetarism seems to work fairly well.
Get away. Nobody could work out what version of money they were trying to
control. In the UK, interest rates soared, the economy moved into deep
recession, and then the policy was abandoned. A general policy of keeping
interest rates high enough to keep inflation low seems to be working at
the moment, but that isn't monetarism.
>> Broadly speaking that's true. But evolutionary theory doesn't rule out
>> altruism, even where people are not genetically related. I take it you
>> have read the evolution of cooperation, by Robert Axelrod.
>>
>Evolutionary theory doesn't 'rule it out', just as agnosticism doesn't
>'rule out' gods and faries at the bottom of the garden.
No, this isn't a valid analogy at all. In intelligent creatures whcih can
se the future, or in interactions that are repeated over an evolutionary
significant timespan, altruism is to be expected in some cases. Have you
read Axelrod's evolution of cooperation, or any game theory (W. Hamilton
wrote one text which is well regarded, and the intro to Axelrods book).
>Of course most impulses can end up misdirected, so a woman may direct all
>her maternal instincts at a cat, this doesn't mean that people have evolved
>to be nice to cats.
Sure.
M.S. Robb
>> I agree. But what I don't see is what relevance this has to the argument.
>>
>Nor did I, but you brought up the question of chaos and determinism.
Not IIRC, but it's possible.
>Simply stated the book takes a utilitarian line, this system, coupled with
>evolutionary psychology shows a morality that is possible given human
>nature, rather than one that is idealistic and unlikely to be achieved.
But it is still a value judgement to say that this is better. And that is
arbitrary.
>> But even if it is true, it doesn't imply that 'social liberalism' won't work.
>>
>Yes it does. Social liberalism is based on a theory of human behaviour that
>is at odds with the facts, it is thus certain to fail. Now, this is not to
>say that a particular policy that a 'social libetarian' may like may
>work - it will if it happens to be congruent with human behaviour, if
>not, not.
I don't think you are familiar with the ideas of game theory. Am I wrong?
M.S. Robb
In article <833209...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
Peter H. M. Brooks <pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> extrapolated from a kind of Wlisonian siciobiology something that offends
>> nearly everyone. As a biologist I'm midly concerned that
>>
>Not really, it upsets those who are unhappy about what they think determinism
>means.
But that upset is usually based on a rather childish idea of determinism.
In reality, there is little or nothing to fear.
>The reason you probably can't see what my 'argument' is, is that I don't
>have one, single argument that I am attempting to punt. I think that there
>is a great deal in politics, morality, education etc. etc. that will
>benefit from the application of evolutionary psychology (aka sociobiology)
>and enjoy discussing the implications that it is likely to have. When
>I see postings that clearly understand nothing of humanity (claiming that
>men and women are born as the same creature and behave differently simply
>because of thier upbringing is just one of many utterly ridiculous
>positions you see brought up frequently) then I move energetically to
>show what is wrong with them.
Can't argue with that for a moment.
>If you examine discussions that I have had with various of the people who
>don't like me, you will find that the point at which they became upset
>was that where they were unable to conceal the fact that their fragile
>edifice had been ripped apart. If I chose to take a kinder line and
>allow people to retreat before they have been exposed and humiliated I
>would no doubt have more friends. This is not my method, I prefer to
>use the techniques of Zen buddism to those of Socrates.
With reference to what? A koan? Or the slap across tha back of the shoulders?
I'd back you with zen any day. Oh the beauty of raked stone gardens...
M.S. Robb
>> Anyone that supports Michael Howard for example.
>>
>You appear to want to be considered a pinko, M. Howard isn't a member of
>the National Front, he is so left wing that he hasn't even called for the
>death penalty to reduce the prison population.
What makes you think that is left wing. What makes you think that is a
good idea?
>> Don't know much about Ecclesiates, but sociobiology is fine by me.
>>
>You are likely to learn at least something from Ecclesiastes, unless
>you are under thirty. Glad to hear that you are open to sociobiology.
I'm well under thirty. And I wouldn't read the Bible unless I was paid
for my time.
Roger
In article <4ocq6b$b...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
A. N. Other Sombrero "M.S. Robb" writes:
> In article <833209...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> The Pink Sombrero <Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.> wrote:
> >Oh, yes. I know that this isn't your problem, but just in case there is
> >some thicko lefty out there, these abilities do follow the standard
> >bell curve distribution so you can find some men who are much better
> >than some women. It is a pain to have to put these disclaimers here, but
> >sadly necessary.
>
> Best to pre-empt the knee-jerk response.
Look you two. Since I've never argued a single word of the crap that
both of you ascribe to me I find you both thoroughly objectionable.
Since you're both as thick as the proverbial pig shit with your
totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint, I think the most
polite thing I can say is "Piss off".
Two sombreros in a kill file. Must be a song there.
--
"Damned creatures you are thoroughly evil despite my daily teaching and advice."
| Only the saintly can become good without instruction;
Roger | Only the worthy can become good after instruction;
| Only idiots will not become good even with instruction.
Roger
In article <4ocqqn$b...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
A.N. Other Sombrero "M.S. Robb" writes:
> In article <833209...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> The Pink Sombrero <Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.> wrote:
> >> Anyone that supports Michael Howard for example.
> >>
> >You appear to want to be considered a pinko, M. Howard isn't a member of
> >the National Front, he is so left wing that he hasn't even called for the
> >death penalty to reduce the prison population.
>
> What makes you think that is left wing. What makes you think that is a
> good idea?
Didn't you know that there is a substantial body of evidence that
criminality is passed on genetically. There was a man of the telly
said so.
They can't be cured so they should be killed. Families as well. No more
crime after that. It's an ecclesiastical solution.
So you intend to kill the stupid, the criminal and the pinkos. Can we
have the complete list.
Do you live together BTW.
Mind you if everyone from Michael Howard leftwards is terminated, It
would only leave you Peter and Duncan, so you'd enjoy the company.
Roger
In article <4ocq6b$b...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk "M.S. Robb" writes:
This is, no doubt, Roger attempting to take the piss. Surely even he knows
that women have a greater language ability than men?
Does that include the ones who can't speak. There are some interesting
studies about communication and gender, but they're mostly pinko so
I couldn't recommend them.
I asked politely that you don't discuss views that I don't hold as if
they were mine.
Is this the way you do your science. Assign a view to another scientist to
enable you to promote your view more easily.
Why should I trust scientists when it matters if you behave this way
when it doesn't?
I can understand why you disagree so violently with myself and abelard.
We at least try to respond to what each other says.
Just to put the record straight, BTW, Robert Wright, (The moral animal)
is not a raving nutter like some.
"As for the effects of creeping biological determinism - which is to say,
creeping determinism - they (also) defy ideological pigeonholing. On the
one hand, by stressing that incarceration is always a moral tragedy, if a
practical necessity, determinism accents the urgency of erasing social
conditions, such as poverty, that lead to punishable behaviour."
Not quite the death penalty, is it?
Steve Firth
In article <833222...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint
errm where and by whom was the postulate that genes can (indeed do) affect
behaviour discredited? Can you provide any reference to a peer-reviewed
journal where such a crushing blow to modern genetics was dealt?
And just for diversion, if genes have no effect upon behaviour how do
weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
Roger
In article <ADCFE3D5...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>
fil...@firthcom.demon.co.uk "Steve Firth" writes:
> And just for diversion, if genes have no effect upon behaviour how do
> weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
Sorry I forget, I was born able to speak, read and write in English.
Walking, no problem. Red and yellow striped wallpaper - hard wired
mate so stuff your calalogue. Not my fault that I nicked your video,
thieving runs in the family. Hate blacks - well that's hard wired too.
You're not arguing here you know, it's all been worked out in advance
and you just spout it out at an appropriate time. Pure instinct, just like
a weaver bird.
Just because your meccano set has a book of examples doesn't mean that
that's all you can make.
Is there something wrong with you guys that makes you believe that people
are just big weaver birds. Isn't there just a chance that what our genes
provide is an ability to interact with our environment.
Is there just one person out there who isn't a genetic determinist, BTW?
Roger
> >totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint
>
> errm where and by whom was the postulate that genes can (indeed do) affect
> behaviour discredited? Can you provide any reference to a peer-reviewed
> journal where such a crushing blow to modern genetics was dealt?
It was PHMB's "totally ....", but never mind.
To be honest, I have to date come across just two other people who think
that PHMB is not a profoundly intelligent person, so your intervention
is not unexpected. Just why he is such a guru escapes me, but it seems that
his analysis cuts across party lines and is accepted uncritically by
almost everyone.
When I've argued against DB, nobody has ever sent me an e-mail in his
defence. When I say something against Brooks, there is outrage.
It's almost religious.
Macimilian
Can't Peter find something else to do with his time?
abelard
On 27 May 1996 13:42:54 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb)
typed:
>In article <31a63717...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>abelard <abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>therefore....
>>what truly fascinates me is what fascinates you or
>> 'entertains' susan....a serious q. btw.
>
>Initially it was idle curiousity, never like to leave an arguemnt alone.
>:) But I still can't see what his argument is. He appears to have
>extrapolated from a kind of Wlisonian siciobiology something that offends
>nearly everyone. As a biologist I'm midly concerned that
>mis-extrapolations of biology aren't used for justifying social ends. But
>so far I really can't see what his argument actually is. Si I'm probab;y
>going to leave it.
this is why i am convinced it is a virus....
it never does seem to say anything.
it does not appear to have opinions.
yes i remain convinced it is reactive code...
with no real world in put.
i am however amazed that people attribute opinions to it...
this seems to be achieved by repetitious use of key
phrases such as 'sociobiology' 'pinko' 'thicko' and a variety of
'aggressive' adjectives....but it is all so random, it just
incorporates terms from the previous posting or two...
adds in the standard phrases and repeats it back!
it is the total emptiness and lack of coherence that gives
the game away....
but the way, what i assume to be 'real' posters, respond
to it's output...that is quite fascinating to me.
M.S. Robb
In article <833237...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Is there something wrong with you guys that makes you believe that people
>are just big weaver birds. Isn't there just a chance that what our genes
>provide is an ability to interact with our environment.
Yes.
>Is there just one person out there who isn't a genetic determinist, BTW?
Yes, you're flaming (at least) one.
M.S. Robb
In article <ADCFE3D5...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <fil...@firthcom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint
>
>errm where and by whom was the postulate that genes can (indeed do) affect
>behaviour discredited? Can you provide any reference to a peer-reviewed
>journal where such a crushing blow to modern genetics was dealt?
>
>And just for diversion, if genes have no effect upon behaviour how do
>weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
Steve, time to get that asbestos suit on. As I understand it, on the one
habd there's Roger, saying anyone using even a faintly genetic approach
is a facist, and on the other is PHMB who doesn't understand game theory
and therefore thinks that all cooperative bahaviour is a lberal
perversion.
Not much room for rational debate here.
Sam J. Turner
P. H. M. B. (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4nus6e$u...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
: s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
:> He unfortunately has the advantage that the popular press is obsessed with
:> a) genes (ooo aren't they clever) and b) extreme culture studiers (ooo aren't
:> they barmy)
:>
:Thank you for this intelligence, since I don't read the popular press, nor
:watch plebvision, I had been quite unaware of this. I am pleased to
:hear it, though, maybe there is something to be said for the tabloids
:after all.
:>
:> He has translated this popular mythology into a personal philosophy - a sign
:> that he is either verging towards delusion, or firmly tongue in cheek.
:>
:You must be right. Nice of you to be so kind as to only mark me down as
:verging towards delusion, by this stage most people go strait for the
:accusation of insanity.
Am I intrigued now? Perhaps. Are we now claiming that you have, independently,
formed an ideology identical to the one invented by the popular press? Even
though the journalists (ir)responsible for creating the pseudo-science myths
are perfectly willing to admit that they are a deliberate fabrication?
Do you also believe that you, independently of the press, read somewhere of
EC plans to straighten bananas and ban sausages?
Perhaps even your obsession (elsewhere) that it was impossible to create
vitamin B12 artificially without animals, wasn't lifted directly from the
Sunday Times (poss Telegraph) article (which was later corrected in an
editorial), but was in fact a product of your own research.
Perhaps your address should be @psychic.demon.co.uk?
Sam.
M.S. Robb
In article <833224...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >You appear to want to be considered a pinko, M. Howard isn't a member of
>> >the National Front, he is so left wing that he hasn't even called for the
>> >death penalty to reduce the prison population.
>>
>> What makes you think that is left wing. What makes you think that is a
>> good idea?
>
>Didn't you know that there is a substantial body of evidence that
>criminality is passed on genetically. There was a man of the telly
>said so.
Roger, you're losing it mate. The statement above records my opposition
to the idea.
>They can't be cured so they should be killed. Families as well. No more
>crime after that. It's an ecclesiastical solution.
No, it's cod science. Neither more nor less.
>So you intend to kill the stupid, the criminal and the pinkos. Can we
>have the complete list.
Who do you mean by 'you'?
>Do you live together BTW.
>
>Mind you if everyone from Michael Howard leftwards is terminated, It
>would only leave you Peter and Duncan, so you'd enjoy the company.
You really make PHMB's case for him don't you?
Sam J. Turner
: s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
: >
: > Oh, and claimed to be an anarchist aiming to improve his opposition.
: >
: I am not sure that simply taking up anarchy is going to improve anybody,
: including any opposition that I may have. I am delighted to know that
: you have refined your telepathic abilities to the extent that you read
: my motivation so easily, it must make you feel very happy.
What on earth are you blathering about P? In the post I was commenting on,
which I have no intention of rereading, you claimed to be an `anarchist'
and, possibly in the same breath, claimed a desire to improve the minds and
understanding of your perceived opposition. My problem was the juxtaposition
of two contradictory statements. I hardly think I was reading between the
lines or attempting telepathy. If you want to change your position, or define
the blurry previous one more clearly, please do. Don't accuse me of reading
something you didn't write.
: >
: > I didn't understand that bit since my English-Brooks Brooks-English
: > dictionary is a little out of date. I'm sure he'll advise, in his
: > anarchic educator role.
: >
: Which bit didn't you understand?
The anarchic educator position.
: I agree that it is rather too optimistic a position to hold as some
: are clearly ineducable. Maybe I ought to phrase it more cautionsly
: as 'trying to help people understand things'.
Well, if you want to agree with something you have (I hope) deliberately
misread, go ahead. If you are hoping anybody else has genuinely misunderstood
and is going to find this at all clever or amusing - don't hold you breath.
Or admit that you have redefined (or simply don't understand) the concept of
anarchy. Fat chance, eh P?
Sam.
Steve Firth
>> And just for diversion, if genes have no effect upon behaviour how do
>> weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
>
>Sorry I forget, I was born able to speak, read and write in English.
>Walking, no problem. Red and yellow striped wallpaper - hard wired
>mate so stuff your calalogue. Not my fault that I nicked your video,
>thieving runs in the family. Hate blacks - well that's hard wired too.
>You're not arguing here you know, it's all been worked out in advance
>and you just spout it out at an appropriate time. Pure instinct, just like
>a weaver bird.
>
>Just because your meccano set has a book of examples doesn't mean that
>that's all you can make.
>
>Is there something wrong with you guys that makes you believe that people
>are just big weaver birds. Isn't there just a chance that what our genes
>provide is an ability to interact with our environment.
>
>Is there just one person out there who isn't a genetic determinist, BTW?
So, your answer, when stripped of rhetoric and rambling is that you have no
answer? Your claim that genes have no effect upon behaviour is empty
posturing?
You seem to have a stunted imagination, in that you can only conceive that
behaviour is either all learned or all inherited. Why not a little of each?
It seems clear that some behaviour is learned, and other behaviour is
innate to take your example, no you were not born speaking English. However
you were born with the ability to speak and learn a language, even without
the ability to speak or hear, humans develop language. Most animals do not,
and do not seem to have the capacity to learn, no matter how hard we try to
teach them. The only animal species which seem to have the ability to learn
a language are the higher primates, a group which includes Hom. sap.
Steve Firth
In article <833239...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When I've argued against DB, nobody has ever sent me an e-mail in his
>defence. When I say something against Brooks, there is outrage.
I expressed no outrage about your flirtation with Mr. Brooks, who seems to
speak as much twaddle as yourself. The fact that I see a gaping hole in
your argument does not mean that I support his ramblings any more than I
support your own. You are both wrong.
Steve Firth
In article <4oeg9v$h...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>Not much room for rational debate here.
I saw, but when science is debased to this level by know-nothings I think
it is time to inject at least a little observation into the process. As you
can see from "Ducks" reply, his brain has been given a bypass and the
answer seemed mostly glandular.
Sam J. Turner
Peter H. M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4nus6e$u...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
: s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
: > I am not sure whether it is possible to compete against P's gut churning
: > self-important sarcasm with the same - he is far too arrogant.
: >
: I wondered if it was politic to reply to this, and have now decided...
Erm, P, you responded to this with some drivel a couple of days ago. Is the
old memory failing, or could you not find another suitable quote to `respond'
to?
And if you are going to attempt to misinterpret someone, at least have the
dignity to misinterpret something which is addressed to you, not a third party.
Oh - if you want to know what I actually meant by arrogant - that's it. I was
referring to your most appealing habit of selectively quoting somebody,
deliberately misinterpreting it and somehow believing that your wit and
eloquence was sufficient to persuade everybody else that the person you
were quoting meant what you said, not what they said. Clever? Whatever.
: Come on lads, if you have brains, prepare to use them here.
It would help if you gave some sort of indication as to what you wanted to
discuss, rather than self-congratulatory invitations to `do battle'.
Awaiting a response worth reading,
Sam.
Roger
In article <4ofc26$c...@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk "Sam J. Turner" writes:
> The Pink Sombrero (peter@Jumbo Tomatoes Inc.) wrote:
> : Come on lads, if you have brains, prepare to use them here.
When they gave out the brains you thought they said trains and asked
for one that puffed and steamed a lot.
> It would help if you gave some sort of indication as to what you wanted to
> discuss, rather than self-congratulatory invitations to `do battle'.
He's read several book reviews and doesn't realise that others have read
them, and the books, too. He's a minor gong holder who thinks he's something
special. His religious upbringing didn't instil God, but left him with
the religeous certainty.
> Awaiting a response worth reading,
I quite like the bit where he argued the Michael Howard was a left wing
pinko.
spin
In article <833237...@ducks.demon.co.uk>, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk says...
>> weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
>
>Sorry I forget, I was born able to speak, read and write in English.
>Walking, no problem. Red and yellow striped wallpaper - hard wired
>mate so stuff your calalogue. Not my fault that I nicked your video,
>thieving runs in the family. Hate blacks - well that's hard wired too.
>You're not arguing here you know, it's all been worked out in advance
>and you just spout it out at an appropriate time. Pure instinct, just like
>a weaver bird.
>
You are polarizing the argument. One of the things genes equip bodies
with is brains. This is in order to impart a degree of flexibility
of behaviour through learning. This does not mean that all behaviour
requires learning. Nor does it mean that instinctual behaviour can't
be overridden by will.
The fact that much behaviour is instinctual can be demonstrated by
the range of emotions which are the same in all humans, regardless
of cultural differences or geographical separation. All humans
also have innate abilities, e.g. ability to aquire language, ability
to recognise faces.
It is probably correct to think of instinctual behaviour as being
modifyable by learned behaviour, but to a greater or lesser extent
(depending on the behaviour).
Whether any of this provides an *excuse* for socially unacceptable
behaviour will depend on whether or not you want it to. It may,
however, provide a *reason* for the behaviour.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Susan Spence
Roger (Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <ADCFE3D5...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>
: fil...@firthcom.demon.co.uk "Steve Firth" writes:
: > >totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint
: >
: > errm where and by whom was the postulate that genes can (indeed do) affect
: > behaviour discredited? Can you provide any reference to a peer-reviewed
: > journal where such a crushing blow to modern genetics was dealt?
: It was PHMB's "totally ....", but never mind.
: To be honest, I have to date come across just two other people who think
: that PHMB is not a profoundly intelligent person, so your intervention
: is not unexpected. Just why he is such a guru escapes me, but it seems that
: his analysis cuts across party lines and is accepted uncritically by
: almost everyone.
I've explained this to you already. You're both full of it, but you
whine incessantly while he at least makes an attempt to be amusing.
I'm sorry you need this spelled out to you, but it is very natural
for people to prefer amusing posters, even if they affect a smugly
superior posture, to whiners. This doesn't mean that we agree with
everything (or indeed anything) that such people may say.
: When I've argued against DB, nobody has ever sent me an e-mail in his
: defence. When I say something against Brooks, there is outrage.
I find this very difficult to believe.
: It's almost religious.
Yeah sure.
Cheradenine Zakalwe
>Didn't you know that there is a substantial body of evidence that
>criminality is passed on genetically. There was a man of the telly
>said so.
OK, Roger I'm interested in your position on this. Do you think:
(a) there is no link between genes and criminal behaviour
(b) there might be a link, but it is unproven and probably not very
strong.
(c) there is a link and it is a strong one, but environmental influences
are also important.
(d) genes totally control and predict behaviour
(e) something else
The reason i'm asking is I can't work out what you do think, although i
get the impression that you tend to think in terms of (a) and (d) with
little in between.
--
Zakalwe
abelard
On 28 May 1996 09:16:47 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb)
typed:
>In article <ADCFE3D5...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>,
>Steve Firth <fil...@firthcom.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint
>>
>>errm where and by whom was the postulate that genes can (indeed do) affect
>>behaviour discredited? Can you provide any reference to a peer-reviewed
>>journal where such a crushing blow to modern genetics was dealt?
>>
>>And just for diversion, if genes have no effect upon behaviour how do
>>weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
>
>Steve, time to get that asbestos suit on. As I understand it, on the one
>habd there's Roger, saying anyone using even a faintly genetic approach
>is a facist,
let's try again....in a long string of posts
which i have read in detail and with close
attention...roger has never said this.
>and on the other is PHMB who doesn't understand game theory
>and therefore thinks that all cooperative bahaviour is a lberal
>perversion.
i repeat phmb is a computer virus....
it never generates any statement other
than those scanned in by it's creator...
a young hacker from the bronx.
the sources scanned are invariably
the latest bit of woolworths 'psychology'
which you may pick up in any wh smug
store...one is called 'brain sex' another a rather
boring review(imo) by pinkus...there is
a new one only partly scanned in at
present which i keep seeing on the
latest best seller display but have yet
to generate the energy to pick up....
about god or something i think.
watch matt testing my theory by
keep repeating a ref. to axelrod...
a more difficult and interesting tiny
tome...notice how the virus keeps
ignoring the input....it is mostly o/p
only except for name tags.
back to the point...afaics roger refuses to
get deeply into the determinist position
because it is trivial and prob. as a good
teacher he does not reinforce inadequate
behaviour patterns....too dedicated if you
ask me....
but then i'm just guessing....but the big
difference is that i *know* i am guessing...
i've never asked him because i think, as he
prob. does, that the issue is too trivial.
mind you, you could always ask...instead
of being creative......you might come away
with a whole new point of view....(sue! for
aficionados)
>Not much room for rational debate here.
go on try an experiment or two..
Sam J. Turner
Steve Firth (fil...@firthcom.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <833222...@ducks.demon.co.uk>,
: Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >totally discredited genetic determinist viewpoint
: errm where and by whom was the postulate that genes can (indeed do) affect
: behaviour discredited? Can you provide any reference to a peer-reviewed
: journal where such a crushing blow to modern genetics was dealt?
Affecting and being the sole determining cause are _very_ different things.
I don't think anyone has suggested that genes can be neglected entirely.
There is a problem with the word affect, though, unless you subscribe to the
idea of thinking genes building newer and better bodies to further _their_
`species'.
: And just for diversion, if genes have no effect upon behaviour how do
: weaver birds learn to build a nest? Weaver bird elementary school?
Nobody here is such a slave to nature as a weaver bird, with the possible
exception of PHMB.
Sam.
Roger
In article <Hilb5KAD...@vision25.demon.co.uk>
zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk "Cheradenine Zakalwe" writes:
> In article <833224...@ducks.demon.co.uk>, Roger
> <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Didn't you know that there is a substantial body of evidence that
> >criminality is passed on genetically. There was a man of the telly
> >said so.
>
> OK, Roger I'm interested in your position on this. Do you think:
>
> (a) there is no link between genes and criminal behaviour
The gene for stealing televisions remained dormant until just after WW2.
> (b) there might be a link, but it is unproven and probably not very
> strong.
> (c) there is a link and it is a strong one, but environmental influences
> are also important.
>
> (d) genes totally control and predict behaviour
Almost certainly for a haddock and certainly not for an octopus.
> (e) something else
>
> The reason i'm asking is I can't work out what you do think, although i
> get the impression that you tend to think in terms of (a) and (d) with
> little in between.
That's the problem of having one's opinions edited and stated by The Pink
Sombrero. You get the wrong impression.
I e-mailed Matt about learning to walk properly. There are environmental
implications in something as obvious as that.
Criminal behaviour isn't so clear cut as to be able to give pat answers. I
need you to answer a few questions first.
What do you define as criminal behaviour?
Is the person who steals once and reforms part of your set of criminals?
Is the mentally ill criminal primarily ill or primarily a criminal?
Is the learning disabled criminal " " ...?
Is honesty genetically determined?
Given the current level of criminal behaviour, particularly among the
young, it is obvious that many do not come from *criminal* families.
How do you account for that?
Given the statistical correlation between social factors and criminal
behaviour, how should they be taken into account?
Given the statistical correlation between educational factors and criminal
behaviour, how should they be taken into account?
Do you think that we should be thinking in terms of genetically determined
criminality or genetic predispositions which always/sometimes/never show
themselves as criminal behaviour?
Is it possible that the predisposing genetic factors are the same ones
that help account for some non-criminal behaviour?
I have a few more questions when we've narrowed the target a bit.
Roger
In article <ADD09D95...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>
fil...@firthcom.demon.co.uk "Steve Firth" writes:
> In article <4oeg9v$h...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>
> >Not much room for rational debate here.
>
> I saw, but when science is debased to this level by know-nothings I think
> it is time to inject at least a little observation into the process. As you
> can see from "Ducks" reply, his brain has been given a bypass and the
> answer seemed mostly glandular.
I lost interest in the possibility of rational debate a long time ago.
So you're perfectly correct. I'm just taking the piss.
Why has it taken you so long to realise that.
Roger
In article <83332085...@aster.demon.co.uk>
sp...@aster.demon.co.uk "spin" writes:
> You are polarizing the argument. One of the things genes equip bodies
> with is brains. This is in order to impart a degree of flexibility
> of behaviour through learning. This does not mean that all behaviour
> requires learning. Nor does it mean that instinctual behaviour can't
> be overridden by will.
>
> The fact that much behaviour is instinctual can be demonstrated by
> the range of emotions which are the same in all humans, regardless
> of cultural differences or geographical separation. All humans
> also have innate abilities, e.g. ability to aquire language, ability
> to recognise faces.
>
> It is probably correct to think of instinctual behaviour as being
> modifyable by learned behaviour, but to a greater or lesser extent
> (depending on the behaviour).
>
> Whether any of this provides an *excuse* for socially unacceptable
> behaviour will depend on whether or not you want it to. It may,
> however, provide a *reason* for the behaviour.
You are a lefty pinko soft social science type and I claim my five pounds.