|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » I love a story with a happy ending.

Default I love a story with a happy ending.

July 22nd, 2013, 16:10
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Unlike Mr. Genes - I believe the environment is the dominant factor when it comes to the vast majority of human beings, if we look beyond the physical traits which we all share.

This means that if you took me out of my mother's womb near my birth - and placed me in the womb of a woman living in America - I would end up a product of that environment.
"Dominant" leaves quite a bit of latitude, but I don't think you can minimize genetic differences.

To point, I give you my twins. 1 minute difference in age, although not identical fairly similar in appearance, both girls. Nurture was functionally identical since they were raised in the same house with the same parenting in the same locations at the same times with the same economic and social opportunities. Yet, just shy of 13 years in, wildly different children.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#421

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,326

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 16:13
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
I might be off base, but it seems to me that y'all have a basic difference of opinion on human nature.
You don't say

For MWJ, his logic holds up best if all people are crazed animals to some extent or other, with the "good" ones better able to control their instincts to conform with society. His terms of "good" and "bad" are defined by the ability to fit within society's boundaries. It's more of a true/false position than an emotional one.
He has no logic when it comes to these concepts.

He's advocating we all accept that criminals are bad - and at the same time, he's clearly stating they're born without a choice in the matter.

How can you be bad if you have no choice in the matter? That doesn't compute.

Beyond that, we're all criminals - as we've all broken the law in some form or another.

So, we're all bad?

Oh, no - only the violent criminals.

So, if a young man hits another young man in self defense - and he gets convicted through bad luck, he's a bad criminal born that way. If hits and misses - or if he doesn't get convicted - he's not a bad criminal born that way.

I haven't the words to describe the level of ignorance it requires to hold such an opinion.

Your logic holds up best if all people generally start "good" to some extent or other, and remain as such unless society screws them up. Your notions of "good" and "bad" match up better with traditional emotional ones (although I think your intent is far more utilitarian) and address the individual, ummm, individually.
I have no notions of good or bad. They're useless concepts.

I actually agree that we have little or no choice in terms of how we develop - certainly not in the initial years of our lives. Since I believe the initial years to be the dominant ones - that essentially means that much of ourselves is beyond our control.

To put it another way, we can control ourselves within a relatively limited framework that's surprisingly rigid.

So, we don't start good or bad. We just start and we just respond to what's happening.

Parents being a tiny part of what's happening - which is what so many people don't understand. It's like the entire world consists of nothing but parents. No sights or smells. No nature or sounds. No other people - no other input.

It's amazing how many people think that parents can truly control the development of a human being.

I favor the former approach, but readily admit that it's foo-foo philosophy with little to no objective support that's decisive.
The former approach is easy to grasp, so I understand why someone would favor it.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#422

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 16:16
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
"Dominant" leaves quite a bit of latitude, but I don't think you can minimize genetic differences.
I'm not minimizing them - but putting them in second place.

To point, I give you my twins. 1 minute difference in age, although not identical fairly similar in appearance, both girls. Nurture was functionally identical since they were raised in the same house with the same parenting in the same locations at the same times with the same economic and social opportunities. Yet, just shy of 13 years in, wildly different children.
You're describing how the environment has taken two nearly identical people and turned them into two wildy different children.

I'm surprised you'd argue my case, but thank you

As for thinking the environment can ever be anything CLOSE to the same for two people - you're not living on planet Earth.

Take two IDENTICAL people with the same parents - parenting them in an IDENTICAL way (not possible, but still) - then you take them to the same IDENTICAL school.

However, you place them in two different classrooms. Each classroom has 20 completely unique and different individuals in them. They also have different sets of teachers. They have different friends. One starts off befriending someone, the other starts off making enemies with someone.

Do you seriously mean to suggest that each IDENTICAL person will develop in EXACTLY the same way, when exposed to 20 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT people several hours of EACH AND EVERY day?

Even if every single step of the way was identical, which in itself is entirely impossible, it takes but a single significant event or person to change everything as a source completely and permanently.

That's why when you think back on what shaped your life for real - you'll find a few extremely significant events standing out above all others.

Think about it.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#423

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 16:39
Actually, the differences started becoming pronounced long before they started school. Additionally, they were put in the same classes for their early years (we split them up after 4th grade to limit direct competition), and you've stated before that you feel the formative years are the early ones.

I understand that school is presented as an example rather than a coup de gras, but you're rapidly running out of viable examples.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#424

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,326

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 16:47
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Actually, the differences started becoming pronounced long before they started school. Additionally, they were put in the same classes for their early years (we split them up after 4th grade to limit direct competition), and you've stated before that you feel the formative years are the early ones.
I gave the school example as a demonstration for purposes of simplicity and clarity.

I don't know why I would need to come up with other demonstrations, because it should be clear to any adult with a mind capable of processing experiences it has had.

Think back to your own childhood - and what happened to you in your own home. Did you have friends? Did you play at the exact same places as your siblings (assuming you have them) - and did you do ANYTHING that wasn't identical to what the others did?

Most children are exposed to something other than exclusively their parents all day long. Most parents have to work - and most children don't get sick on the exact same day.

When you're out playing on the grass, and you trip and fall - you can either be lucky and nothing happens - or something might break. That means you'll likely be taken to the hospital or the doctor. Another child might not.

If you cause serious damage to your leg - that will potentially change your life forever - or for years.

You might meet another boy somewhere who challenges you and fights you - and another child might not.

You might accidentally walk in on mommy and daddy having sex, and another child might not.

You might befriend a teacher to guide you - and another child might not.

You might watch a violent movie without your parents noticing, and another child might not.

You might be abused by your uncle, and another child might not.

Get it?

No two people have identical environments - EVER - anywhere on the planet. You can take any two people who - in your private little fantasy - have the same life - and I'll show you more significant differences than you could possibly imagine.

All it takes is for you to understand what makes an impact on you as a child and what doesn't.

Just think about it.

Two people will encounter different things - and they will respond differently to things - because their moods and their state of mind will never be identical at the time of the encounter.

One child might have a bad day - and the teacher might take a disliking to it, making the subject of class a bad one for the child. It might not take more than a single bad first day in math class and a bad teacher to taint the subject forever - or years.

Human beings will look for ways to stand out and to make an impression - to prove themselves. That will depend on the other people they encounter. If they encounter a math genius - their abilities might never flourish. They will have to look inside for something else to prove themselves. If, however, they're not met by a math genius - they might take an instant liking to math, because they're good at it. The sheer passion and desire to prove themselves will make them the best at math - with or without a genetic pre-disposition.

I understand that school is presented as an example rather than a coup de gras, but you're rapidly running out of viable examples.
This is something I will never run out of, believe me
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#425

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 17:15
Love? I adore happyending sories like this one:
http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/n…0-itunes-bill/

Toka Koka
joxer is offline

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
RPGWatch Donor

#426

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,119

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 17:56
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
He has no logic when it comes to these concepts.

He's advocating we all accept that criminals are bad - and at the same time, he's clearly stating they're born without a choice in the matter.

How can you be bad if you have no choice in the matter? That doesn't compute.

Beyond that, we're all criminals - as we've all broken the law in some form or another.

So, we're all bad?

Oh, no - only the violent criminals.
You're equating letter of the law with societal boundaries. Naughty DArt. We've all broken the speed limit. Letter of the law, but society currently defines breaking the speed limit as an acceptable offense. Still wrong, but not "bad". Violent behavior, excepting certain circumstances, is currently defined as unacceptable behavior. This accounts for changing social mores such as (to bring the train back around) our opinions on gun laws, racial laws, and justice. It also accounts for some variation that we see in results, since "current definitions" can be a bit fuzzy (subject to that relativist BS that irritates me so) and can vary widely with locality.

I also think you're having a hard time divorcing the emotional implications of "bad" from a definition-based usage. Surprises me a bit, given your usual approach.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, if a young man hits another young man in self defense - and he gets convicted through bad luck, he's a bad criminal born that way. If hits and misses - or if he doesn't get convicted - he's not a bad criminal born that way.

I haven't the words to describe the level of ignorance it requires to hold such an opinion.
Self defense gets pretty muddy since you've got to walk back thru the chain of events until you find the break between acceptable and unacceptable. That's going to be a very fuzzy discussion. Again, current social norms figure in. Thus, calling someone a nigger 50 years ago was not sufficient grounds to justify violence while doing so today is a totally different kettle of fish.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I have no notions of good or bad. They're useless concepts.
Yet, you're terribly wound up about someone's usage of them.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I actually agree that we have little or no choice in terms of how we develop - certainly not in the initial years of our lives. Since I believe the initial years to be the dominant ones - that essentially means that much of ourselves is beyond our control.

To put it another way, we can control ourselves within a relatively limited framework that's surprisingly rigid.

So, we don't start good or bad. We just start and we just respond to what's happening.
Only true if we minimize the impact of genetics. That's currently in dispute.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
It's amazing how many people think that parents can truly control the development of a human being.
As a parent, let me assure you that parents with any sliver of honesty know that they don't control squat, in spite of their best efforts.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#427

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,326

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 21:43
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Are you disputing the logic, or just having an emotional event? You'll note that I very specifically made no mention of derogatory reasons, as the differences may very well be important ones that we value highly. Still differences.
Your very elliptical but completely transparent argument, is that women do less than men and therefore should be paid less. That sort of argument is the epitome of misogyny. DTE, you should be ashamed. I think there's a spot in the dungeon waiting for you. I hope you were joking!
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#428

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,002

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 22:19
Actually, that's not my argument at all. I believe you are filling in the blanks with your own (incorrect) answers.

It's a rather complex problem, but let me give you a couple examples. These will relate to attendance, which is certainly a critical requirement for business. The differences overall are not limited to attendance, but those are probably the easiest to grasp.

Consider a small family. Mom and Dad both work. Little Jimmie wakes up with a 103deg temp and puking. Who stays home? 9 times out of 10, the woman stays home while the man goes to work because our current society still places women in the nurturing role and overall women still embrace that role. From a business standpoint, you've still got an unmanned station on the line, and with little notice of the absence to boot. Thus, a woman is less likely to be at work each day than a man, based on this example. That means that you have to pay someone else to temporarily fill the labor requirement while still paying the female employee. Higher overall cost gets offset by paying the less reliable employee less money.

Do we want Little Jimmie home alone? No. As a society, we want someone home taking care of the sick pup and that someone is generally Mom. Whether that's fair/reasonable/enlightened/right/chauvanistic/whatever is completely irrelevant to the argument. We can address that in another thread if you wish, but it doesn't change anything in this particular discussion. That's simply how it is and it's probably a good thing for society overall. Doesn't change the impact to business.

Example two- Mom is now having another baby. That's generally light duty for the final month or two of pregnancy. Then you've got a minimum of 6 weeks afterward. Even if a woman wanted to return to work early (and do we, as a society, really want that anyway?), daycare cannot lawfully take infants younger than 6 weeks old. I can already hear the wailing about male FMLA. When men take anywhere near the amount of time off for having a baby, that might matter. Until then, don't even bother trying to muddy the waters. So now you've got a bare minimum of 6 weeks where business has to supply temporary labor to fill the hole left by Mom. Total labor costs go up, which means individual pay goes down. Fairly simple, really. Now, until we figure out how men can have babies (and do we, as a society, really want that mess?), I think we can all agree that the situation is different between men and women.

So again, the only way that 77cent stat has true meaning is if men and women supply the exact same labor to business. From the above, that clearly and irrefutably is not the case. Thus, the stat is misleading at best and dogmatic propaganda at worst. Doesn't mean there is no problem and doesn't actually mean that we don't want it that way, but a little common sense shows that the unlying assumption is bullshit.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#429

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,326

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 22:20
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
I'd like to take a look at this really quickly if I might. The logic applies to the rest of your claims, but this one is easier.

In order for the numbers to have any meaning whatsoever, you have to assume that women do the exact same job in the exact same way and everything else is exactly the same. Apples to apples. OK, I wave my magic wand and your wish is granted. Everything is identical.
Except that's not the case. The problem is they take "similar education level" into account. So they are comparing a school teacher to a computer programmer who has a much harder job and works longer hours, and a principle to a corporate VP which is an even more hilarious comparison as a VP at a corporation does nothing but work.

Of all the trayvon stuff, it's clear what happened. You can hear zimmerman in the background saying "hey stop!" a few times and he just ignores him. Then he says to his girlfriend "I have to go baby" in the same sweet voice then starts to go mental as he puts the phone away (and there's no racial slurs, you can hear zimmerman clearly).

The ONLY thing that has any merit is that he did say "no!" at the end. However this is after he's been bashing this guy's skull in and already broken his nose. As much as people say they would never be violent if someone's bashing your skull in you probably will be, just like everyone who has a family member murdered suddenly believes in the death penalty.

That he said "no!" like that tells me the gun was not out til then or they were struggling for the gun, and the idea he physically tried to punch martin is too absurd to entertain, like pee wee herman attacking the hulk. And if that's the case, whoops, it's all martin's fault for attacking some guy. Well what else could it have been aside from invisible meth nazis?

But all the rest, what pure BS. TXA didn't even have the basic facts straight and has just made up incredible BS and slung ridiculous insults like holocaust denier (I am quarter ashkenazi jew, guys) and racist homophobe misogynist (which are also all untrue). Now he is trying to drudge up the "facts" probably by looking at random nutjobs' blogs.

I don't think DArtagnam is racist, but TXA definitely is, he just can't disentangle anything from race, that's what being racist is about. And racism doesn't motivate everyone to a large degree, just a few sad dudes here and there let it control their lives.
Last edited by ManWhoJaped; July 22nd, 2013 at 22:45.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#430

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 723

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 22:44
Originally Posted by gozioso View Post
You guys are never going to see eye to eye on this one. Better to agree to disagree and move on…

I do have a question for Thrasher and txa1265:

Do you or have you ever lived in an area with a high concentration of black people? If not, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Personally, I grew up in NJ, and didn't start dealing with lots of blacks until I moved down South (Durham, NC for 2 years, Northern Atlanta suburbs, GA for 14+ years). I must say that it has been an eye-opening experience. When I first moved down South, I was pretty empathetic to the plight of blacks, but not so much anymore. Most black people I've encountered massively reinforce ghetto stereotypes. It's so bad that I consider calling someone "black" to be an insult. I call the non-stereotypes, "dark-skinned", instead (you can't fault someone for their skin color). I'll never forget one day when an African guy that I used to work with asked me:

"Why is it that I can talk to your people…the white people…I can have a civilized discussion…but, my people, they are animals!!!"

Was he a "racist"? Or is he a person who can reach conclusions based on personal experiences? I explained to him that they are not his people, and he shouldn't insult himself. The fact is that blacks are masters of scuttling their own ships.

I'm fully aware of the racist history of this country. It is absolutely despicable!!! However, the colonists and later citizens were exploitive of everything. They murdered the natives, stole their land, discriminated against Asians (Angel Island/Internment). Basically, they fucked over everyone they could for personal gain. These other groups have, for the most part, gotten past this and thrived. Blacks are incapable of this. They dwell in the past, accept no responsibility for their actions, and destroy everything they touch. Furthermore, they view themselves as saints. If Africans had the steel weapons, armor, and galleons, then they would have enslaved the Europeans. Exploitation is a human problem, which is color-blind.

As far as DArtagnan is concerned, all I can say is that without living in an area in the US with a high concentration of blacks, you can't really comment on the situation. You can read all the articles on the subject, but you really need to experience it first hand to understand. Trust me, you should stay in Denmark.

To me, true racism means that you can't stand someone based solely on their skin color/ethnicity. Having bias against thuggish-looking/acting vermin hardly applies. I consider that to be survival instincts and street smarts.

Your mileage may vary, but that is my 2 cents…
Just to throw in my alternate experience I live in Las Vegas and never once had a problem with even a rude black guy except I had some neighbors in a gang who were running a crackhouse. And they were obviously gang members, all big tough guys, and I came home one day to blood all over my porch from a driveby (and the police didn't even bother to inform me). But aside from that I've been surprised at how many people have gone out of their way to be nice.

It's really not a black problem, black people get a bad rap for what a small minority do. There's some people who are just messed up and nowadays we know some of the genetics involved, and then there's gangs, and drugs. They all tend to go together and to feed on each other. That pretty much accounts for all the violent crime that there is. Without those everything would be like mayberry aside from some nonviolent theft and fraud here and there which exists in all scoieties.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#431

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 723

Default 

July 22nd, 2013, 22:59
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Actually, that's not my argument at all. I believe you are filling in the blanks with your own (incorrect) answers.

It's a rather complex problem, but let me give you a couple examples. These will relate to attendance, which is certainly a critical requirement for business. The differences overall are not limited to attendance, but those are probably the easiest to grasp.

Consider a small family. Mom and Dad both work. Little Jimmie wakes up with a 103deg temp and puking. Who stays home? 9 times out of 10, the woman stays home while the man goes to work because our current society still places women in the nurturing role and overall women still embrace that role. From a business standpoint, you've still got an unmanned station on the line, and with little notice of the absence to boot. Thus, a woman is less likely to be at work each day than a man, based on this example. That means that you have to pay someone else to temporarily fill the labor requirement while still paying the female employee. Higher overall cost gets offset by paying the less reliable employee less money.

Do we want Little Jimmie home alone? No. As a society, we want someone home taking care of the sick pup and that someone is generally Mom. Whether that's fair/reasonable/enlightened/right/chauvanistic/whatever is completely irrelevant to the argument. We can address that in another thread if you wish, but it doesn't change anything in this particular discussion. That's simply how it is and it's probably a good thing for society overall. Doesn't change the impact to business.

Example two- Mom is now having another baby. That's generally light duty for the final month or two of pregnancy. Then you've got a minimum of 6 weeks afterward. Even if a woman wanted to return to work early (and do we, as a society, really want that anyway?), daycare cannot lawfully take infants younger than 6 weeks old. I can already hear the wailing about male FMLA. When men take anywhere near the amount of time off for having a baby, that might matter. Until then, don't even bother trying to muddy the waters. So now you've got a bare minimum of 6 weeks where business has to supply temporary labor to fill the hole left by Mom. Total labor costs go up, which means individual pay goes down. Fairly simple, really. Now, until we figure out how men can have babies (and do we, as a society, really want that mess?), I think we can all agree that the situation is different between men and women.

So again, the only way that 77cent stat has true meaning is if men and women supply the exact same labor to business. From the above, that clearly and irrefutably is not the case. Thus, the stat is misleading at best and dogmatic propaganda at worst. Doesn't mean there is no problem and doesn't actually mean that we don't want it that way, but a little common sense shows that the unlying assumption is bullshit.
Hourly wage rates shouldn't be affected by your argument. But they are. Costs should be balanced by paying fewer hours. Clearly women are judged inferior.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#432

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,002

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 07:38
Interestingly enough, George Zimmerman is back in the news already.

Zimmerman helps family out of overturned SUV
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#433

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 17,878

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 07:42
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
"Dominant" leaves quite a bit of latitude, but I don't think you can minimize genetic differences.

To point, I give you my twins. 1 minute difference in age, although not identical fairly similar in appearance, both girls. Nurture was functionally identical since they were raised in the same house with the same parenting in the same locations at the same times with the same economic and social opportunities. Yet, just shy of 13 years in, wildly different children.
Time and again studies show that nuture like DArtagnam is obsessed with are not the culprit when it comes to disease and crime.

However, people actually grow, and they don't grow exactly the same. That's why a strong genetic correlation is .5. You might well get sick right before your growth spurt starts or just randomly not express all the same genes in the same amounts at the same times and thereby turn out different.

Part of this is epigenitics, it's sort of the working copy of your DNA. The base code says one thing but your actual cells may be doing something else. For example women have two copies of X chromosome in each cell but each individual cell only actually uses ONE of them.

The nuture does matter but it's not like you didn't love your children enough if they develop problems either.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#434

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 723

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 09:54
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
You're equating letter of the law with societal boundaries. Naughty DArt. We've all broken the speed limit. Letter of the law, but society currently defines breaking the speed limit as an acceptable offense. Still wrong, but not "bad". Violent behavior, excepting certain circumstances, is currently defined as unacceptable behavior. This accounts for changing social mores such as (to bring the train back around) our opinions on gun laws, racial laws, and justice. It also accounts for some variation that we see in results, since "current definitions" can be a bit fuzzy (subject to that relativist BS that irritates me so) and can vary widely with locality.
"Wrong", to me, has nothing to do with breaking laws. It's about doing harm. But that's where I differ from a lot of people, I suppose.

If that is the case - then might I suggest we don't go overkill with concepts and stop talking about "criminals". If we're to communicate with any measure of success - then let's use the appropriate words.

Let's start by defining when, exactly, a criminal becomes a born bad person. Because if it's not about committing a crime in general - but a very specific kind of crime under specific circumstances - then I might be able to appreciate it better.

I also think you're having a hard time divorcing the emotional implications of "bad" from a definition-based usage. Surprises me a bit, given your usual approach.
Maybe it's because there IS a moral implication when you use the word bad. If it's not morally wrong - then don't use that word. Use the neutral words - like I do. There's a reason I've spent so much time coming up with appropriate words.

That's why I rarely use non-neutral words to communicate these concepts.

"Harm" is a morally neutral word - as is "benefit".

They come in very handy.

Self defense gets pretty muddy since you've got to walk back thru the chain of events until you find the break between acceptable and unacceptable. That's going to be a very fuzzy discussion. Again, current social norms figure in. Thus, calling someone a nigger 50 years ago was not sufficient grounds to justify violence while doing so today is a totally different kettle of fish.
Going through a chain of events suggests you have that option - which you won't ever have, unless every event has been precisely recorded.

That's why this whole case is all but impossible to respond appropriately to.

As for calling someone nigger or anything of that sort - I don't think that justifies violence at any point in time.


Yet, you're terribly wound up about someone's usage of them.
Only true if we minimize the impact of genetics. That's currently in dispute.
As a parent, let me assure you that parents with any sliver of honesty know that they don't control squat, in spite of their best efforts.
If disagreeing and presenting my disagreement is being "wound up" - then so be it.

I'm rarely "wound up" about much at all when I debate on a public forum - but if I come off in that way, I can accept it. It's ok.

I don't minimize impact of genetics - I just don't think they're the dominant factor in shaping a human being into a "bad criminal" or a "good person" - not at all.

I think physical traits are a huge part of the human condition - but we share so many of them - so as to render the remaining differences secondary to our psychological makeup.

It's true that someone born with a pre-disposition towards a large frame and powerful physique will have a much greater chance of being a competitive sportsman - but his psychological makeup will be dominated by his environment - and how he handles his own condition and his own capability will be totally dominated by his environment.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#435

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 10:30
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
It's true that someone born with a pre-disposition towards a large frame and powerful physique will have a much greater chance of being a competitive sportsman - but his psychological makeup will be dominated by his environment - and how he handles his own condition and his own capability will be totally dominated by his environment.
I have a hell of a goof swing and did the second I picked it up but ability and desire are two different things.

The problem with your thinking is not just that it implies people are powerless and therefore not responsible for their actions, but that they don't get any credit for them. If that were really true achievement would be just meaningless. It almost leads to an attitude that everything we have comes magically as if delievered by god (but ironically it's invariably atheists who have this kind of thinking).

However your agency is nothing to do with your ability. You do have free will, but that doesn't mean you can actually do everything you'd like. If you have messed up MAO you are going to have a bitch of a time keeping your cool and it's going to be much much harder to avoid aggressive behavior. You still have a choice but you have a big handicap and by the nature of the handicap you won't WANT to make that choice, you'd have to override very strong emotions to keep yourself out of trouble.

There's just countless studies to show even in the most extreme abuse most people don't become abusers or criminals. I understand your philosophy completely but philosophy has long since been superceeded by scientific method. We don't have to guess about these issues any more.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#436

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 723

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 10:40
Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped View Post
The problem with your thinking is not just that it implies people are powerless and therefore not responsible for their actions, but that they don't get any credit for them. If that were really true achievement would be just meaningless. It almost leads to an attitude that everything we have comes magically as if delievered by god (but ironically it's invariably atheists who have this kind of thinking).
That's very correct. I don't think it's healthy - this obsession with achieving things in modern society. In fact, I think it's one of the primary reasons that the world is shit.

We should all be doing what we can to benefit all of us - but going around trying to stand out and be better than the other guy is stupid and harmful - because then standing out takes precedence over benefitting. It's something we can grow beyond.

However, I'm not the one claiming murderers are born murderers. THAT is taking power away from people - and that's on you.

I'm saying we do have power - only it's a very limited kind of power. We have power within the framework of our personality - and the size and flexibility of that framework will be almost entirely based on our environments.

However your agency is nothing to do with your ability. You do have free will, but that doesn't mean you can actually do everything you'd like. If you have messed up MAO you are going to have a bitch of a time keeping your cool and it's going to be much much harder to avoid aggressive behavior. You still have a choice but you have a big handicap and by the nature of the handicap you won't WANT to make that choice, you'd have to override very strong emotions to keep yourself out of trouble.
I don't think I've said you can do everything you'd like. I'm saying it's useless to blame people for being who they are. It's stupid and wasteful.

But we have to ensure the safety of the majority - that's a pragmatic response. It's the only logical response.

There's just countless studies to show even in the most extreme abuse most people don't become abusers or criminals. I understand your philosophy completely but philosophy has long since been superceeded by scientific method. We don't have to guess about these issues any more.
Yeah, yeah - there are countless studies proving everything you say. Great
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#437

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 11:58
Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped View Post
Time and again studies show that nuture like DArtagnam is obsessed with are not the culprit when it comes to disease and crime.

However, people actually grow, and they don't grow exactly the same. That's why a strong genetic correlation is .5. You might well get sick right before your growth spurt starts or just randomly not express all the same genes in the same amounts at the same times and thereby turn out different.

Part of this is epigenitics, it's sort of the working copy of your DNA. The base code says one thing but your actual cells may be doing something else. For example women have two copies of X chromosome in each cell but each individual cell only actually uses ONE of them.

The nuture does matter but it's not like you didn't love your children enough if they develop problems either.
It really depends on what you are talking about. Nurture play a large role in some things and a small role in other things and other thing both. For example if a girl is sexually promiscuous it is a result of lack of affection from her dad as the pheromones in the biological father stunts puberty for starters(the stepfather accelerates it). (sorry i dont have the link on me atm)

Also the birth environment of the child plays a big role too and not just the genes. A twin study came out recently showing that genes play very little role in the sexuality of a person. The sexuality of a person is more to do with the birth environment and nurture.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno…/06/30-01.html

My point is that an adult human being is has a complex history and have different effects based on their history, birth and genetics.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#438

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

July 23rd, 2013, 21:01
Homosexuality is epigenetic. That is, gay men and the gender disphoric are expressing the genes of their mothers. This is normal in the womb but usually stops. This is also why you have higher homosexuality in some populations ie west europeans. It's not nuture in the least, not in the sense guys like DArtagnan are talking about.

EDIT: Also I don't mean to say parenting is useless but it's become more than clear that things like mental illness and extreme antisocial behavior are not due to parenting.
Last edited by ManWhoJaped; July 23rd, 2013 at 23:03.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#439

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 723

Default 

July 24th, 2013, 00:03
Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped View Post
Homosexuality is epigenetic. That is, gay men and the gender disphoric are expressing the genes of their mothers. This is normal in the womb but usually stops. This is also why you have higher homosexuality in some populations ie west europeans. It's not nuture in the least, not in the sense guys like DArtagnan are talking about.

EDIT: Also I don't mean to say parenting is useless but it's become more than clear that things like mental illness and extreme antisocial behavior are not due to parenting.
I think the 'nurture' element exists (regarding homosexuality) for the same reason I find the study of people born 1959-1985 suspect. And that is because there are innate and expressed traits - and when a significant social stigma presents and particularly is enforced by parents, depending on other genetic traits of the child sexuality might be repressed in order to be compliant - depending on which tendency and trait presents in a more dominant manner … if how I said that makes sense.

— Mike
txa1265 is online now

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#440

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,435
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » I love a story with a happy ending.
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:47.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch