| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Just for the record - I never covered WWII in GCSE at all. |
That much is obvious dogsmilk: you know stuff! 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk quote
| Quote: | | There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were) |
Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
And point out an example of altruism? That is, an act that is contrary to the interests of your gene pool?
This is the best debunking of altruism i have read - decades ago...
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wor k/Books/selfish.shtml
Meanwhile there is currently a gene pool acting in its own interests versus all others... preserved for centuries it is... protected by a raft of 'isms'
This is what genes are PROGRAMMED to do. Survive at the expense of others.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously Rodin have you led such a life that you have never come across acts of altruism or selfless action by people of one 'gene pool' towards another? I have, many times
Humanity is so much more than its genes and biology
When you say
| Quote: | | Meanwhile there is currently a gene pool acting in its own interests versus all others... preserved for centuries it is... protected by a raft of 'isms' |
you appear to be on well dodgy ground IMO but you need to say what you really mean or just drop it.
Last edited by ian neal on Mon May 21, 2007 9:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | Dogsmilk quote
| Quote: | | There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were) |
Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
And point out an example of altruism? That is, an act that is contrary to the interests of your gene pool?
This is the best debunking of altruism i have read - decades ago...
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Wor k/Books/selfish.shtml
Meanwhile there is currently a gene pool acting in its own interests versus all others... preserved for centuries it is... protected by a raft of 'isms'
This is what genes are PROGRAMMED to do. Survive at the expense of others. |
There you are! Where have you been!
Firstly - no I can't. In the same way you can't present any evidence for MIHOP that JREF would be happy with.
Besides, I use books and have no ready links.
It's not about a piece of evidence, it' about the body of evidence. And what you think.
'Final Solution' makes no other sense to me other than in the context it's generally given. Others disagree.
To be honest - I can't be arsed. I don't want to argue about a blue stain or turn of phrase or whether every single Nazi was brainwashed or tortured into sticking to the same story until they died. Or where exactly an awful ot of people actually went. Or what exactly all those gypsies got out of such a massive hoax. Or why all the evil freemasonic Jewish communist puppetmasters killed all the Jews, communists and freemasons. Or where exactly the Jehovas Witnesses fit in to the plot.
It's kind of interesting, but in terms of this lengthy post exchange, I'm not going to play.
However, it is worth pointing out that Joey Two-Rivers, my net based apache spirit guide recently taught me internet time travel by using netoplasm. On 911history.org, May 2045, I found this:
| Quote: | Well, if you follow the links to muslim_watch.org, you'll see that there is simply no single piece of evidence that PROVES they did it. All Cheney ever talked about was the 'September Surprise" (forgetting the amount of birthdays among friends and family around that time) and, in terms of the camps, the "final reckoning".
Of course, at Gitmo2, Johnny Aryan found a door made out of tissue paper that had been there since at least 2011 and in one of the cells found a Wii4 - some concentration camp. In those camps, they had four meals a day, a gym, tv room, and weekly massage. Those earphones played the music OF THEIR CHOICE, and were NOT used for 'audio torture' (whatever that's supposed to be). The bags on their head simply allowed them to get a good night's sleep. And I think I'd quite like being wheeled about on a trolley instead of having to walk.
So what if Bush says Pearle told him Cheney was going to 'do the arabs?' - those memoirs were written in crayon which can easily be manipulated and what was actually the case was Bush said that because he kinda knew he'd be arrested in the future and wanted a get-out clause.
The Truth commission was a whitewash and the whole thing was the Saudi muslim puppetmasters (who financed the neocons? Have you read those articles yet?). All those 'confessions' were bogus. Everyone knows those tin foil hats the Truth Commission wore emit mind rays. Beyond that, daily exposure to Fred's Funtastic Videodrome would break anyone.
And who said Bush was such a bad guy anyway? Have you actually read "Mein Pet Goat"? - you might find some of it disturbingly resonant. People forget the muslims declared war on the neocons - they wanted to destroy our freedoms ferchrissakes.
You can point to any damaged steel beam you like. The fact is, they do not match up to the levels of explosives used. Harold Nordic did a comprehensive analysis that shows only office furnishings could possibly have caused those levels of steel evaporation. He put a telephone directory in a whole in the ground, tried to burn it, pissed on it then did a little dance. I don't think anyone could argue with that level of painstaking research.
The blunt fact is, we were duped by evil muslims into thinking they didn't do what really did. It's the scam of he century. We're going to hell in a hancart. You couldn't make it up. |
Anyway, I shall respond to the point about altruism later...purely out of the goodness of my heart.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Anyway, I shall respond to the point about altruism later...purely out of the goodness of my heart. |
Ian - have you read 'The Selfish Gene'?
Obviously altruism must appear to be real. But under the surface it is not. Many examples were clevery decoded by Dawkins in his seminal work. Decent people (including us) appear to do altruistic acts. But when you analyse deeply you will find that THEY or THEIR GENES get a kickback. Give me any example of so-called 'altruism' and I will offer an alternative motive for the act.
This is not to say that people do not willingly act decently, and will help out. I got off my bike, threw it in the boot of the car that was being pushed along the dual carriageway and lent a hand. I did not expect reward not was it forthcoming. I was simply helping out a stranger in need. Was that altruistic?
I would say not. It was spontaneous - yes. But looking back I can see that it gave me a good feeling - of having helped someone. My kickback.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Quote: | | Anyway, I shall respond to the point about altruism later...purely out of the goodness of my heart. |
Ian - have you read 'The Selfish Gene'?
Obviously altruism must appear to be real. But under the surface it is not. Many examples were clevery decoded by Dawkins in his seminal work. Decent people (including us) appear to do altruistic acts. But when you analyse deeply you will find that THEY or THEIR GENES get a kickback. Give me any example of so-called 'altruism' and I will offer an alternative motive for the act.
This is not to say that people do not willingly act decently, and will help out. I got off my bike, threw it in the boot of the car that was being pushed along the dual carriageway and lent a hand. I did not expect reward not was it forthcoming. I was simply helping out a stranger in need. Was that altruistic?
I would say not. It was spontaneous - yes. But looking back I can see that it gave me a good feeling - of having helped someone. My kickback. |
I haven't read it myself - it's one of those books I never seem to get round to, so you might have to correct me on a few things.
Broadly speaking, I agree to a large extent. But I suppose it depends how rigid your definition of 'altruism' is. Being a fan of Kropotkin's mutual aid I'm quite a strong believer in the evolutionary necessity of 'atruistic' co-operation which I guess is encoded in our genes. Something I am familiar with is Peter Singer's stuff. In the expanding circle gives the example of the Thompson's gazelle. When one spots a predator, it bounds off using a stiff-legged gait called 'stotting'. This makes it a less effective runner so, as an individual, more prone to be caught. However, the other gazelles see this, start doing it themselves, and the whole group is warned of the danger. So, though the individual gazelle exposes itself to danger, it benefits in the long run by being part of a comprehensive early warning system that may benefit it next time when it itself doesn't spot the predator. So the genes for co-operating gazelles are more successful in the long run than the 'rugged individualist' gazelles.
As group animals, if we help each other out as a collective, in the long run we are more successful. If I groom you for parasites and you groom me, both us apes will be less prone to unhealthy infestations than non reciprocally altruistic apes. So altruism borne of evolutionary sensibleness is probably where it's at.
So this is, indeed, ultimately selfish. But it's important as social darwinists have often tried to make out evolutionary 'selfishness' is 'natural' in a crude 'survival of the fittest' stylee. So really, the more we co-operate and behave altruistically, the more likely we are to survive as someone will help us when we take a fall. "Do unto others..." is actually very, very sensible. Unless you're an extreme masochist or something.
And yeah, you might get a warm glow from helping others which is 'selfish' , but does that really sum it up totally adequately?
One might say a Christian dying for their faith in Rome was 'selfish' in wishing to avert the greater horror of hell. But does that adequately sum up the relationship they felt they had with God? Does it capture the emotion they feel when they see the image of Christ on the cross?
If someone breaks into a laboratory to rescue some rabbits from having stuff poured in their eyes so some guy can justify another year's research grant, is it simply they wish to make themselves feel a bit better about the whole thing? Does it capture the the depth of feeling they have for the plight of a species that can never even understand what they're doing?
When some guy risks his life under enemy fire to rescue a wounded comrade, is it just to avoid future guilt or fulfill his group instinct? Does that fully capture his determination to not leave his comrade behind? (though I would recommend he should probably have thought about the primate group thing before getting himself into that situation in the first place).
By extension, when you lie next to your loved one after a marathon session of red hot lurve, hold them close, feeling things you've never felt before, whispering things you've never said before, does it adequately sum up the experience to simply say you've just fulfilled the urge to reproduce and are now engaged in pair bonding for the benefit of future offspring? Or you've selfishly avoided the fear of growing old alone in a care home wearing a big nappy?
The urge to mate is biologically based but doesn't explain what it's like to be in love. You can even isolate the chemicals it produces in the brain (I'm sure I read somewhere it's very similar to bipolar disorder), but the 'explanation' doesn't quite capture the experience.
Is hearing Napalm Death just sounds hitting your ear drum? Does that explain why they ROCK? (I just said that as I'm listening to smear campaign right now.)
This reductionist stuff I believe is probably correct, but kind of misses something in the translation. Evolutionary explanations do not capture what it is to experience something.
However, does it even matter? Surely it's how we use the words? If I eat all the pie and don't leave you any, we'd probably agree that's selfish. If I spend my last few quid buying you a birthday present, we'd generally agree that's altruistic. Even if I get a smug, saintly glow for doing so -you still feel chuffed with your new 1933 edition of the protocols - everyone's a winner! If we can build a better world by people being routinely selfish in a way that makes everyone happy - how cool is that?
F*ck the genes - I used to spent regular Saturday mornings trying to save the lives of little red canine things that aren't even the same species. Against the will of other members of my own species. My genes might be responsible for the initial impetus, but I have a consciousness borne of language which, although it may be 'hard-wired', is not simply defined in terms of genes. They're a template.
Personally, I feel an appreciation of the kind of primitive primate group instincts that allow inane actions like waving the Union Jack (as opposed to burning it), rallying round some chump 'alpha male' (Blair would never had cut it 'in the wild' - funny how how alpha males change), demonising 'other' primate groups of differing pigmentation, spacial location or genetic origin, having 'countries' and 'nationalities' (chimps mark their territory with poo - we draw lines on maps), saying "are you looking at my bird" and all that is probably more urgent. A world of selfish altruistic co-operation I can live with.
Interestingly, Buddhism and certain strains of the occult do try to get totally beyond the 'human condition'. The (lamentably misunderstood) ubermensch. But whether that's possible or not is a very big area.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were) |
| rodin wrote: | | Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny? |
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | [Firstly - no I can't. In the same way you can't present any evidence for MIHOP that JREF would be happy with. |
No one can successfully argue against the free-fall collapse times as being absolute proof of CD. ie of MIHOP, since CD requires preparation. Even the dubious Steven Jones admits this, because he knows not to do so will discredit himself.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Have you actually read "Mein Pet Goat"? - you might find some of it disturbingly resonant. |
Interesting discovery you'll make there DM.
Though I think you'll find it's "Die Pet Goat"
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | There's something I don't quite get about this whole train of thinking - even if we assume for a moment there were no gas chambers (though a simply enormous body of evidence suggests there were) |
| rodin wrote: | | Could you provide a link to evidence that stands up to scrutiny? |
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | [Firstly - no I can't. In the same way you can't present any evidence for MIHOP that JREF would be happy with. |
No one can successfully argue against the free-fall collapse times as being absolute proof of CD. ie of MIHOP, since CD requires preparation. Even the dubious Steven Jones admits this, because he knows not to do so will discredit himself. |
MIHOP does not consist of Steven Jones. Very few (if any) truthers would say their position rests on a single point. The position tends to consist of a multitude of points that converge on a specific conclusion. What does the balance of probabilities suggest. The steel has (apart from a few pieces) gone. There will be no documents saying how it was done. There will be no written order. There may be confessions. Some of the initial claims turn out to be wrong. Others are disputed within the field. Further claims may turn out to be wrong. New ones may emerge. Reffers will hold up each of them in turn for ritual dismissal.
One day people might put all the available pieces together and say "on balance, all things considered - we agree it happened like this". And they might go on to put in books and teach it in schools. And it will be history.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Broadly speaking, I agree to a large extent. But I suppose it depends how rigid your definition of 'altruism' is. Being a fan of Kropotkin's mutual aid I'm quite a strong believer in the evolutionary necessity of 'atruistic' co-operation which I guess is encoded in our genes. |
Yup!
| Quote: | | ...."Do unto others..." is actually very, very sensible. Unless you're an extreme masochist or something. |
Took the words right outa my mouth
| Quote: | | And yeah, you might get a warm glow from helping others which is 'selfish' , but does that really sum it up totally adequately? |
yes
| Quote: | | One might say a Christian dying for their faith in Rome was 'selfish' in wishing to avert the greater horror of hell. But does that adequately sum up the relationship they felt they had with God? Does it capture the emotion they feel when they see the image of Christ on the cross? |
ecstasy is an addiction not a calling
| Quote: | | If someone breaks into a laboratory to rescue some rabbits from having stuff poured in their eyes so some guy can justify another year's research grant, is it simply they wish to make themselves feel a bit better about the whole thing? Does it capture the the depth of feeling they have for the plight of a species that can never even understand what they're doing? |
Thery probably hate humans like my guinea-pig adoring niece
| Quote: | | When some guy risks his life under enemy fire to rescue a wounded comrade, is it just to avoid future guilt or fulfill his group instinct? Does that fully capture his determination to not leave his comrade behind? (though I would recommend he should probably have thought about the primate group thing before getting himself into that situation in the first place). |
In stress sitches we do what we must. Personal safety/comfort becomes less of an issue. Plus the soldier is PROGRAMMED more than most.
| Quote: | | By extension, when you lie next to your loved one after a marathon session of red hot lurve, hold them close, feeling things you've never felt before, whispering things you've never said before, does it adequately sum up the experience to simply say you've just fulfilled the urge to reproduce and are now engaged in pair bonding for the benefit of future offspring? Or you've selfishly avoided the fear of growing old alone in a care home wearing a big nappy? |
Since you were feeling things you'd never felt before, we must assume this is not routine?
| Quote: | | The urge to mate is biologically based but doesn't explain what it's like to be in love. You can even isolate the chemicals it produces in the brain (I'm sure I read somewhere it's very similar to bipolar disorder), but the 'explanation' doesn't quite capture the experience. |
Aaaahhh being in lurve - such a sweet state of intoxication...
| Quote: | | Is hearing Napalm Death just sounds hitting your ear drum? Does that explain why they ROCK? (I just said that as I'm listening to smear campaign right now.) |
Not listened to them... but I can imagine...
| Quote: | | This reductionist stuff I believe is probably correct, but kind of misses something in the translation. Evolutionary explanations do not capture what it is to experience something. |
Yes they do. But we can still savour the experience (thinkey - what is sex like for a gyneacologist?)
| Quote: | | However, does it even matter? Surely it's how we use the words? If I eat all the pie and don't leave you any, we'd probably agree that's selfish. If I spend my last few quid buying you a birthday present, we'd generally agree that's altruistic. Even if I get a smug, saintly glow for doing so -you still feel chuffed with your new 1933 edition of the protocols - everyone's a winner! If we can build a better world by people being routinely selfish in a way that makes everyone happy - how cool is that? |
NOW YOU'RE TALKING! By being our selfish selves we can build a better world. By following paths laid down by those at the apex of the pyramid we are doomed to a life of dissatisfaction at best...
| Quote: | | F*ck the genes - I used to spent regular Saturday mornings trying to save the lives of little red canine things that aren't even the same species. Against the will of other members of my own species. My genes might be responsible for the initial impetus, but I have a consciousness borne of language which, although it may be 'hard-wired', is not simply defined in terms of genes. They're a template. |
I too have a soft spot for wild things actually. But I do like a good barbecue...
| Quote: | | Personally, I feel an appreciation of the kind of primitive primate group instincts that allow inane actions like waving the Union Jack (as opposed to burning it), rallying round some chump 'alpha male' (Blair would never had cut it 'in the wild' - funny how how alpha males change), demonising 'other' primate groups of differing pigmentation, spacial location or genetic origin, having 'countries' and 'nationalities' (chimps mark their territory with poo - we draw lines on maps), saying "are you looking at my bird" and all that is probably more urgent. A world of selfish altruistic co-operation I can live with. |
Blair has no soul left. As for demonising other pigmentations - I actually disagree there. I am intrigued by difference...
| Quote: | | Interestingly, Buddhism and certain strains of the occult do try to get totally beyond the 'human condition'. The (lamentably misunderstood) ubermensch. But whether that's possible or not is a very big area. |
Religion is a great control mech because is fills the logic void in most peoples brain - 'who made us' etc.
A final word for the eve - here's a statistical look @ spirituality. How come we are alive when the universe has been going 15 billion years? The odds of our time in the light being in the here and now are greater that winning the lottery....
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Dogsmilk"]Very few (if any) truthers would say their position rests on a single point. [quote]
More's the pity because the laws of physics are not amenable to photoshopping and the free-fall collapses PROVE CD. Not who did it - just CD.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rodin I have read The Selfish Gene among other Dawkins' works, and I have to say I think you're misinterpreting his case, although Dawkins himself does have a tendency towards reductionism.
Dawkin's essential thesis that behaviour is part of the "extended phenotype" and therefore largely genetically determined is persuasive - especially when dealing with instinctive behaviour, such as building nests, courtship rituals and so on. However when dealing with human beings and altruism, I think it's very difficult to say anything much beyond "our genes pre-dispose us to be altruistic, because altruism is evidently a successful behaviour strategy".
However, we have to take account of the fact that we have also evolved highly complex brains that grant us the ability to make decisions on grounds other than the purely instinctual. Now the extent to which decisions are made on an subconscious level and simply rationalised by the conscious brain is a matter of some contention, but I think there's a strong case to say that human beings do, in a very real sense have "free will" and thus when we act altruistically (or not) it can be seen to be a meaningful, conscious act rather than simply the product of some internally produced algorithm as if from a biological computer.
It's interesting to note that even fruit flies, previously thought of as among the simplest/robotic of decision-makers, are apparently endowed with the capacity for making spontaneous "choices":
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70632
If this is true for fruit flies then I can only say that any reductionist approach to human behaviour has to be infinitely more problematic.
EDIT: This section from The Selfish Gene is particularly relevant:
| Richard Dawkins wrote: |
Whatever the philosophical problems raised by consciousness, for the purpose of this story it can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. Not only are brains in charge of the day-to-day running of survival machine affairs, they have also acquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly. They even have the power to rebel against the dictates of the genes, for instance in refusing to have as many children as they are able to. But in this respect man is a very special case, as we shall see.
What has all this to do with altruism and selfishness? I am trying to build up the idea that animal behaviour, altruistic or selfish, is under the control of the genes in only an indirect, but still very powerful, sense. By dictating the way survival machines and their nervous systems are built, genes exert ultimate power over behaviour. But the moment-to-moment decisions about what to do next are taken by the the nervous system. Genes are the primary policy-makers; brains are the executives. But as brains became more highly developed, they took over more and more of the actual policy decisions, using tricks like learning and simulation in doing so. The logical conclusion to this trend, not yet reached in any species, would be for the genes to give the survival machine a single overall policy instruction: do whatever you think best to keep us alive.
The Selfish Gene, p59.
|
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Last edited by EmptyBee on Thu May 17, 2007 10:16 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just quickly -
Though maybe not for me. Differing realities i guess.
| Quote: | | ecstasy is an addiction not a calling |
Who says it's ecstatic?
| Quote: | | Thery probably hate humans like my guinea-pig adoring niece |
Common assumption. It is almost routine for animal rights activists to be passionate about or active in human rights. It's usually a passion for life. Some misanthropists, but you get them anywhere.
| Quote: | n stress sitches we do what we must. Personal safety/comfort becomes less of an issue. Plus the soldier is PROGRAMMED more than most.
|
Not all soldiers are programmed. The guerilla or partisan may act purely of their own volition. During major wars when conscription looms, the time for adequate programming is scarce.
| Quote: | | Since you were feeling things you'd never felt before, we must assume this is not routine? |
Anything you feel must have been felt for the first time at some point whenever that may have been.
| Quote: | Not listened to them... but I can imagine...
|
Touring this summer!
| Quote: | NOW YOU'RE TALKING! By being our selfish selves we can build a better world. By following paths laid down by those at the apex of the pyramid we are doomed to a life of dissatisfaction at best...
|
Only if we're being selfish by trying not to be selfish.
| Quote: | Blair has no soul left. As for demonising other pigmentations - I actually disagree there. I am intrigued by difference...
Quote: |
How does being intrigued imply demonisation? I find insects intriguing, but I've grown out of pulling their wings off.
| Quote: | Religion is a great control mech because is fills the logic void in most peoples brain - 'who made us' etc.
|
Strictly speaking, Buddhism is more of a practice. As is the occult.
| Quote: | | More's the pity because the laws of physics are not amenable to photoshopping and the free-fall collapses PROVE CD. Not who did it - just CD. |
It's not me you have to convince.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Have you actually read "Mein Pet Goat"? - you might find some of it disturbingly resonant. |
Interesting discovery you'll make there DM.
Though I think you'll find it's "Die Pet Goat" |
Strictly speaking I, er, didn't write it - I'll get Joey two-rivers to channel the correction, though.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgmark2
Wrecker
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
or it could have been ochastrated by demons, to then get new arms funding money sent through congress
_________________
yes u knw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emmanuel
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 434
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 830
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control.
_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annie wrote: | Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control. |
Didn't see it, Annie, but it sounds interesting. I will put it on my "to watch" list. Thanks.
The question with these apparent social control memes is: "Are they spontaneous phenomena which just happen to affect society in particular ways, or are they created deliberately to cause those effects?"
If we are to believe the latter, then the next question is: "Is any agency or super-computer or model of human societal behaviour clever and devious enough to do that?"
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Clever enough?
What like 10+ million men killing eachother from 1914>1918 because some fat irrellevant Arch Duke from nowhere gets shot!
Or like an entire developed, educated and literate society from the early 1930`s in Germany was conned by a snivelling little maniac to ignore mass genocide against a people accused in the media of bringinh all the countries woes upon them...
...Or perhaps like all the turf wars breaking out in the UK because pile of S**T tabliods make headlines like "thousands of immigrants are here to steal your job and take your money...
Or like the time a nation of 200 million + was convinced by sucessive administrations that an evil "RED ARMY" lurked around every corner of the globe waiting to steal their daughters and eat their babies???
Or like...honestly need I go on?
I would like to make a very important point here, those in charge can have control....not because THEY are clever and faultlessly organized but becuase WE are stupid and easily led.
End of story.
C.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annie wrote: | Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control. |
Absolute balderdash. Cold war was a psyop from start to finish. Selfish gene has nothing to do with Yuppies. Yuppies are selfish people who want to party. Selfish genes want to survive.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rodin - I simply cannot even begin to comprehend how wrong that post was.
So I won't even try. 
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annie wrote: | Did any of you see the recent BBC Adam Curtis offering? He of "The Power of Nightmares" fame. The latest series was called "The Trap" and he analysed how the "game theory" aka the cold war mentality was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic. This then evolved into the whole "selfish gene" and "yuppie" theory, which has since been used to fragment our community spirit.
Yet all recent psychological studies indicate that most people gain the greatest contentment from being part of and contributing actively to a community. He postulated that the"game theory", and all psychiatric ideas which followed, were part of a scheme to create division to evolve better societal control. |
Annie, I did see "The Trap", in fact you can find most of Curtis' documentaries kicking around the net.
He made a valid point about game-theory - i.e. only psychopaths and economists (is there a difference?) acted entirely "rationally" in games of prisoners' dilemma and Nash's "F*ck You Buddy" that favoured backstabbing.
However, there's an important distinction that needs to be made when applying game-theory to genes. Essentially our genes do not "program" us to be entirely selfish individualists, rather there's every indication that human beings are naturally predisposed to reciprocal altruism, and there is a way to make sense of this in the context of game-theory. Richard Dawkins, the biologist who wrote "The Selfish Gene" defended his much-maligned interpretation of Darwinism in the documentary Nice Guys Finish First, which inverted the aphorism of Garrett Hardin - the man who wrote The Tragedy of the Commons that "nice guys finish last."
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| utopiated wrote: | | EmptyBee wrote: |
although Dawkins himself does have a tendency towards reductionism.
|
I nominate that for most understated statement ever since the old daze of Usenet... which most people here will think is a piece of fishing apparatus. |
The thing is that Dawkins' central thesis: that the gene is the fundamental unit of natural selection and that it is gene survival that determines the direction of natural selection, not the individual or the species is essentially correct and is hardly controversial among biologists.
It is only when he starts expounding his philosophically hidebound ultra-materialism asserting that's ALL there is to life that he attracts so much flak, which tends to extend (wrongly in my view) to his understanding of the mechanics of natural selection.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Warning, obvious anti semitic messages here.