London Riots


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 503 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

ProfessorCirno wrote:
For all of those claiming "Oh just get a job," here's some numbers for you. There's 54 unemployed people for every 1 opening in Tottenham. The jobs don't exist.

Then volunteer. Back in the early nineties I did just that whilst unemployed. Worked on the roads as a volunteer.

They'd still get their state handouts but would actually be helping build and construct their society rather than burning it and tearing it down. But will they? Not a chance - too much like f**king hard work!

As for the prison issue - yup they're overcrowded - but there is a solution. The North Sea has an increasing number of rigs coming to the end of their production lifespan. Turn em into prison-rigs, ship these muppets out to the North Sea for a year or 5 and I'll guarentee they'll appreciate their cities and estates a hell of a lot more.

@Gailbraithe: Alot of your so called middle classes are families from a working class background who have worked their asses off for a better life [know mine did] so don't lay the blame at their doorstep. Like Mark said - people from all walks of life and "class" need to be part of the solution. This is not a class issue, race issue or rights issue. Its a respect issue...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The system is rigged for the rich to get richer and for the poor to suck it. Its just a LOT more rigged in totalitarian regimes. Normally in the west the system has enough to spare so the poor get their bread and circuses. When too many people screw up the system to bad that it crashes, it doesn't, everyone looses money, and the poor drop into unacceptable living conditions.

They protest, and no one gives a damn. There's no representative democracy, only represented monied interests.

So they riot, and remind the rich that all the gold bullion they have stored in the safe isn't going to matter diddly squat if someone bashes their head in with a brick. The rich make some platitudes, crank up the bread and circuses a bit, and ride out the low tide till things change, ride the upswing as hard as they can, milk it for everything its worth, get richer, the system crashes, wash rinse repeat and pretend it won't happen next time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Black Dow wrote:
Its a respect issue...
Black Dow wrote:
They'd still get their state handouts but would actually be helping build and construct their society rather than burning it and tearing it down. But will they? Not a chance - too much like f**king hard work!


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
How about - because they employ people?

No. They don't.

Do you know what unemployment means? It means they aren't employing people.. This one shouldn't be a hard one.

Corporations are making literally record breaking profits and hiring less and less people to do it. This isn't a hard one.

Quote:
How about - because they employ people? You seriously have no grasp about how the world works. I'm not claiming I'm some visionary either - I'm simply pointing out my views, not suggesting they came from the white heat of my seething intellect alone - but I'm not seeing particular originality in your thought either. As for the vast power wielded bu corporations, consider the way BP has been kicked around over the last few years, both in the US and Russia. If you want to look for the source of social ills, look at who runs the country - that's politicians, not business people.

Are we seriously casting BP in a "oh that poor innocent corporation ;_;" light? That's your plan here?

Know what I see when I look at the politician? A business person sticking a hand from their wallet to the politician's pocket. That isn't to say the politician isn't equally at fault, mind you - it says the whole system is f+~+ed.

Sovereign Court

Ancient Sensei wrote:


With respect, my friend, we know why these riots are happening. One group of rioters, rocking their neighborhoods and burning down 100-year-old businesses in response to a drug dealer losing a shootput with cops,

Would you please stop printing lies.

You've repeated this lie twice now.

What we actually know is this:
1: A man was shot and killed by police.
2: two bullets were fired, both by police.
3: A gun was later retrieved from the area in which the shooting occurred.

Our only reliable source here is the IPCC, they have not told us anything about Mark Duggan.

Link to latest IPCC update.

Silver Crusade

Gailbraithe wrote:
MORE STUFF

I am familiar (as in I know of the author and the book) with Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan. I admit that I have never read Hobbes' work, yet I also admit that there are many, many books in the world that I have not read. May be your elitist background ensured that you have read every single work of fiction and non-fiction extent on this planet?

I actually grew up in a low economic area and came from an improverished family. In your model of poverty I would be some unenlightened primate who was incapable of rational decisions because of the crushing stress of my family's lack of financial means. In your view, only poor people suffer from ignorance and irrationality. So, you're saying that my family and my friends were little more than lower primates running around in fear and superstition as we lived our lives in the wastelands of the urban poor?

Now, I admit, both my parents are not intellectual (I admit they were not anti-intellectual, yet the family definitely came before school). My mother never finished primary school (due to polio) and my father never attended school (due to World War II). Both struggled to make ends meet and to keep food on the table. My closest friends came from broken Irish Catholic families. We fought with other boys regularly and I only managed as well as I did because my friends often took a lot of the punishment on my behalf.

In defiance of our circumstances, our "stressful lives" and lack of "rational decisions", my parents raised me to value my education (even though I missed quite a bit of primary school) and were "rational" enough to make excellent decisions that assisted me to qualify for a position in a selective school and, yes, you may be surprised, gain entry into university. Even more suprising, I managed to complete not only a bachelors degree, I also achieved a masters degree from two universities (one being regarded as one of the most prestigious in the country).

Now, I achieved all this with two uneducated parents, who could make rational decisions while relying on all members of our family working to make ends meet, and having come from an area that has some of the highest welfare statistics in our state (though it is surrounded by extremely wealthy suburbs). My friends have also found success in business, education and public service. So, while we were stressed out, sometimes even due to threat of violence, we managed to make rational decisions without the benefit of your precious 'luxury'.

My position is this: humans can make rational decisions in any circumstances and from any economic background (even without the time to gain your definition of 'enlightenment'). Humans can make an irrational decision followed by a rational one (no matter their education or financial background). Being poor and ignorant does not rule out making rational decision-making, such as obeying the law and living an ordered life. It can make it harder (most often due, in part, to external influences), yes, but I have heard of many 'privileged' people who exhibit irrationality and poor judgement as well.

I think the issues facing London at the moment are based on a lot more than your thesis would suggest so far.


Ettin wrote:
Black Dow wrote:
Its a respect issue...
Black Dow wrote:
They'd still get their state handouts but would actually be helping build and construct their society rather than burning it and tearing it down. But will they? Not a chance - too much like f**king hard work!

Exactly - they have little respect for the society and enviroment around them.

If your post is suggesting that I should have any respect for them... save me the irony. After the behaviour that's been pulled in looting and wholesale vandalism, my sympathy meter is at 0.

I don't come from a middle class comfortable background - I'd say I am middle class now, but its taken 20 years of my folks and then me investing in our lives and future with hard work and honest graft.

So don't ask me to respect little scumbags who loot and burn at a whim...


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
How about - because they employ people?

No. They don't.

Do you know what unemployment means? It means they aren't employing people.. This one shouldn't be a hard one.

Corporations are making literally record breaking profits and hiring less and less people to do it. This isn't a hard one.

Quote:
How about - because they employ people? You seriously have no grasp about how the world works. I'm not claiming I'm some visionary either - I'm simply pointing out my views, not suggesting they came from the white heat of my seething intellect alone - but I'm not seeing particular originality in your thought either. As for the vast power wielded bu corporations, consider the way BP has been kicked around over the last few years, both in the US and Russia. If you want to look for the source of social ills, look at who runs the country - that's politicians, not business people.

Are we seriously casting BP in a "oh that poor innocent corporation ;_;" light? That's your plan here?

Know what I see when I look at the politician? A business person sticking a hand from their wallet to the politician's pocket. That isn't to say the politician isn't equally at fault, mind you - it says the whole system is f!@#ed.

They are employing people. There are some people unemployed, but that doesn't mean they aren't employing anyone; that's a clearly fallacious argument. Burning down businesses of any sort is just gonna destroy jobs.

But I agree, the system is f%#$ed, and as it stands there is no reason to trust big companies. They're driven by short-term profit alone, rather than acting in their own long-term interest. Capitalism would be marvellous if they could just look a little further ahead.

The Exchange

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
How about - because they employ people?
No. They don't.

Yes, they do. If you are seriously suggesting instead that the state employ people to do non-jobs, the UK tried that under Labour. It didn't turn out so well. So did Greece. It turned out even worse. And where is this money going to come from in debt-wracked, cash-strapped countries?

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Do you know what unemployment means? It means they aren't employing people.. This one shouldn't be a hard one.

Corporations are making literally record breaking profits and hiring less and less people to do it. This isn't a hard one.

The fact you think this isn't hard pretty much suggests your lack of grasp and simplistic world view. I have been unemployed for a while, so I think I have some insight. Of course corporations are employing people - there has been an increase in unemployment, some of it cyclical, some of it structural. But it's odd how a lot of statist countries have had long term, structural unemployment of 10% or more (20% or more in Spain) through the boom years, never mind now. Until recently, the US had low unemployment and unemployment in the UK isn't even that bad, considering. Certainly, a lot of those arrested over the riots actually had jobs. One was a classroom assistant - employed by the state, no less.

Record-breaking profits? Which corporations, which sectors? Which countries? As for hiring less and less people, this is basic economic illiteracy, the "lump of labour" fallacy. You are saying that improved productivity is bad. That's just dumb. Freeing up resources to move on to more productive work elsewhere is a fundamental of economic growth. Statist intervention in that process is a great way of reducing economic growth, and employment with it. And what is wrong with profit - those profits are churned back into pension funds, benefiting the holder. So taxing corporations isn't "victimless", it reducung living standards now and in the future. And which is better: sack 10% of your staff so you continue in business, employing the 90%, or don't sack them and go bust, making the 100% unemployed.

Quote:
How about - because they employ people? You seriously have no grasp about how the world works. I'm not claiming I'm some visionary either - I'm simply pointing out my views, not suggesting they came from the white heat of my seething intellect alone - but I'm not seeing particular originality in your thought either. As for the vast power wielded by corporations, consider the way BP has been kicked around over the last few years, both in the US and Russia. If you want to look for the source of social ills, look at who runs the country - that's politicians, not business people.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Are we seriously casting BP in a "oh that poor innocent corporation ;_;" light? That's your plan here?

Hardly. BP was lax in its controls and has been in the past too. I'm simply pointing out that politicians have always had the power to cow corporations, since they can legislate and tax. This stuff about corporations running the place is paranoid fantasy - politicians run the place.

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Know what I see when I look at the politician? A business person sticking a hand from their wallet to the politician's pocket. That isn't to say the politician isn't equally at fault, mind you - it says the whole system is f$%~ed.

Actually, there was an attempt at reform in the US, piloted by politicians but struck down by the Supreme Court. I don't disagree that lobbying is an issue in the US (though, funnily, the Democrats have a bit of a blind spot in this concerning lawyers and the massive cost of tort, maybe because the lawyers contribute to the Democrats funding) and that relationships between business and politics are not always healthy. But I don't see what your solution would do about it - France is a heavily statist system but hardly clean.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Black Dow wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
For all of those claiming "Oh just get a job," here's some numbers for you. There's 54 unemployed people for every 1 opening in Tottenham. The jobs don't exist.

Then volunteer. Back in the early nineties I did just that whilst unemployed. Worked on the roads as a volunteer.

They'd still get their state handouts but would actually be helping build and construct their society rather than burning it and tearing it down. But will they? Not a chance - too much like f**king hard work!

As for the prison issue - yup they're overcrowded - but there is a solution. The North Sea has an increasing number of rigs coming to the end of their production lifespan. Turn em into prison-rigs, ship these muppets out to the North Sea for a year or 5 and I'll guarentee they'll appreciate their cities and estates a hell of a lot more.

@Gailbraithe: Alot of your so called middle classes are families from a working class background who have worked their asses off for a better life [know mine did] so don't lay the blame at their doorstep. Like Mark said - people from all walks of life and "class" need to be part of the solution. This is not a class issue, race issue or rights issue. Its a respect issue...

I don't want more people in prisons.

I want less crime.

More people in prison is a waste and it will not make society better because it means that their are more people committing crimes.

I want less people in prisons, I want zero people in prison. Because that will be a sign that we have a very, very low crime rate.

In the short-term you have to treat the symptoms but in the long-term you treat the cause. Building more prisons is a long-term solution to the symptoms: a waste of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Yes, they do. If you are seriously suggesting instead that the state employ people to do non-jobs, the UK tried that under Labour. It didn't turn out so well. So did Greece. It turned out even worse.

It worked fairly well for the US during the depression (which sadly, it appears is going to be our best analogy)

Quote:
And where is this money going to come from in debt-wracked, cash-strapped countries?

Borrow it from china.

Quote:
The fact you think this isn't hard pretty much suggests your lack of grasp and simplistic world view.

Ad hom. Also circular.

Quote:
I have been unemployed for a while, so I think I have some insight.

Hardly a unique qualification these days.

Quote:
Of course corporations are employing people - there has been an increase in unemployment, some of it cyclical, some of it structural. But it's odd how a lot of statist countries have had long term, structural unemployment of 10% or more (20% or more in Spain) through the boom years, never mind now.

Its not odd at all. If you want to make a product and can hire a chinese person for 1 dollar an hour, but have to hire a european at 18 dollars an hour by the time you're done with salary +benefits +taxes, either you hire the chinese person or your competitor will do so and run you out of business.

Also, its hard for company A to compete with company B when company A has to jump through hoops to deal with toxic material and company B can just dump it in the river and have any 3 armed mutant freaks that crop up downstream silenced by the government.

Quote:
Until recently, the US had low unemployment and unemployment in the UK isn't even that bad, considering. Certainly, a lot of those arrested over the riots actually had jobs. One was a classroom assistant - employed by the state, no less.

keep in mind that the rate you see isn't the real unemployment rate, its only the rate of people getting benefits. Folks that have 1) not applied for the benefits 2) are out of work for other reasons 3) have been on unemployment so long that the bennies ran out, aren't counted.

Quote:
Record-breaking profits? Which corporations, which sectors? Which countries? As for hiring less and less people, this is basic economic illiteracy, the "lump of labour" fallacy. You are saying that improved productivity is bad. That's just dumb.

there IS a downside to it. Its overall effects aside, exporting jobs to china costs jobs here, and having robots do the work costs jobs overall.

Quote:
This stuff about corporations running the place is paranoid fantasy - politicians run the place.

ANd how do politicians get elected? TV ads watched by the slack jawed masses who can't be bothered to investigate anyone for 5 minutes on google. How do they get those ads? Money. How do they get that money... unlimited undisclosed "free speech" from corporations. If you won't vote the way the corporations want they'll find someone who will.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gailbraithe wrote:

Stuff about primates, education, poverty and ignorance.

A lack of education is a sad thing, but it does not make one less than human. Humans (even poor and ignorant ones) are capable of making rational decisions.

Anyway, hats off to you Gailbraithe, despite my best intentions in this thread you got me to fall for one of the classic blunders – trying to tell someone they are wrong on the internet. I’m just going to leave at you and I having some fairly different ideas about how things work, and what is acceptable. Good luck to you.

I’m going to chill for a bit. Maybe I’ll go and suck up to some rich people, or oppress and torment some ignorant trained primates (aka poor people) like the middle class scum that I am.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I'm surprised this hasn't happened here in the U.S.

Yet.

Here is one who hopes it does not happen. We have had these sort of things previously on a smaller scale, Rodney King Riots and then earlier Watts Riots and the like. But I for one hope that a more peaceful and sensible protests happen not these riots which cause more harm then good.
What would you do to stop it from happening? Look the other way while Cops gun down the disposessed majority in the streets? Or Charge the idiots in government with Treason and shoot them for their corporate favouritism and contempt for ethics?

As I stated more senisble peaceful protests, which as I stated earlier both Gahndi and Martin luther King were quite capable of accomplishing. Please don't belittle my comments or use them for your agenda of stirring the pot.

The Exchange

Gailbraithe wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:

Sorry, after I read what you wrote I have to say it is a load of crap. I grew up in a poor family, in an economically challenged area surrounded by wealthier areas, and we were far from "badly trained domesticated primates" thank you very much.

If you have not noticed, from the lofty perch you reside on, far above the real world, that even the "better classes" in society are as capable of abhorrent behaviour? Why because "daddy had a Porsche" and sent Billy off to "the fancy private school" that he is somehow better bred, more socially "domesticated" then those of us who did not have that privilege?

Billy is a domesticated primate too. He's just one that lives in a gilded cage and is given license to indulge his base nature without it being criminal. He also has every opportunity to better himself, and easy access to enlightenment, so I judge him a lot more harshly for failing to enlighten himself than I would the poor kid surrounded by gangs and poverty who doesn't undertake the rather heroic task of enlightening himself.

Don't misunderstand me. Everyone on this planet is a domesticated primate. That includes you, me, the Prof, Shifty, Robert Hawkins, and everyone else in this thread. All of us were poorly trained to some degree or another, but most of us had a lot of opportunities to grow and develop.

The desperately poor are just deliberately denied a lot of those opportunities, and not allowed to act out like the wealthy are, which leads to explosive conclusions like rioting.

You maybe a domesticated primate, but please do not speak for the rest of us.

EDIT:

Enlightened:

Dictionary
Search Results
en·light·ened
adjective /enˈlītnd/ 

1.Having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook
- the more enlightened employers offer better terms

2.Spiritually aware aka "knowing the state of ones soul through the eyes of G~d" - Thomas Jefferson

Since in my opinion you seem to be greatly lacking the understanding of this word.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

Yes, they do. If you are seriously suggesting instead that the state employ people to do non-jobs, the UK tried that under Labour. It didn't turn out so well. So did Greece. It turned out even worse.

It worked fairly well for the US during the depression (which sadly, it appears is going to be our best analogy)

That's actually conisdered debatable, rather than a proven truth. However, extended deficit spending right now is probably not a great idea, as the downgrades and turmoil going on in the markets suggests.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

And where is this money going to come from in debt-wracked, cash-strapped countries?

Borrow it from china.

You already are. They are getting restive, as comments from the officla news agency indicate. There are probably limits to what they will accept.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

The fact you think this isn't hard pretty much suggests your lack of grasp and simplistic world view.

Ad hom. Also circular.

Good point. I withdraw the accusation.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

I have been unemployed for a while, so I think I have some insight.

Hardly a unique qualification these days.

Also true, but I get irritated by people telling me about the horrors of unemployment when I have experienced them and they don't seem to have done.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

Of course corporations are employing people - there has been an increase in unemployment, some of it cyclical, some of it structural. But it's odd how a lot of statist countries have had long term, structural unemployment of 10% or more (20% or more in Spain) through the boom years, never mind now.

Its not odd at all. If you want to make a product and can hire a chinese person for 1 dollar an hour, but have to hire a european at 18 dollars an hour by the time you're done with salary +benefits +taxes, either you hire the chinese person or your competitor will do so and run you out of business.

Also, its hard for company A to compete with company B when company A has to jump through hoops to deal with toxic material and company B can just dump it in the river and have any 3 armed mutant freaks that crop up downstream silenced by the government.

Firstly, company B will offer cheaper products to the market. That benefits consumers. Think about what you have in your house and where it was made. Secondly, tying up resources in an activity which can be more productively carried out elsewhere is a way of being inefficient, which actually reduces wealth for everyone. This was established by Ricardo a long time ago. And anyway, what would you do about it? The Chinese are here. Economies adapt and change over time. Trying to prevent that, especially through protected markets and government spending, is simply storing up trouble. Southern Europe is finding this out now.

The stuiff about the environment is something of a red herring. Yes, there are environmental abuses, but they are hardly confined to China or the developing world (like BP in the Gulf). The issue is cost of labour, land and productivity of resources.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

Until recently, the US had low unemployment and unemployment in the UK isn't even that bad, considering. Certainly, a lot of those arrested over the riots actually had jobs. One was a classroom assistant - employed by the state, no less.

keep in mind that the rate you see isn't the real unemployment rate, its only the rate of people getting benefits. Folks that have 1) not applied for the benefits 2) are out of work for other reasons 3) have been on unemployment so long that the bennies ran out, aren't counted.

Measuring unemployment is tricky. But the trends in the number are nevertheless suggestive. I can only really talk to the UK, however, but that was mostly my point anyway.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

Record-breaking profits? Which corporations, which sectors? Which countries? As for hiring less and less people, this is basic economic illiteracy, the "lump of labour" fallacy. You are saying that improved productivity is bad. That's just dumb.

there IS a downside to it. Its overall effects aside, exporting jobs to china costs jobs here, and having robots do the work costs jobs overall.

See above. This is lump of labour fallacy again.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

This stuff about corporations running the place is paranoid fantasy - politicians run the place.

ANd how do politicians get elected? TV ads watched by the slack jawed masses who can't be bothered to investigate anyone for 5 minutes on google. How do they get those ads? Money. How do they get that money... unlimited undisclosed "free speech" from corporations. If you won't vote the way the corporations want they'll find someone who will.

Not so much in the UK, to be fair, Murdoch notwithstanding. The rules in the US strike me as pretty stupid, but then again it can be seen (not that I do) as free speech. I can see how it is potentially corrupting, but politics is at its heart about compromise and relationship-building, so a lot of this will go on anyway. It depends on political culture - talking about Europe, things seem to be cleaner in northern Europe rather than southern Europe, and we can debate Protestantism v Catholicism and its effects in that, for example.

But it strikes me as somewhat beside the point. The rioting doesn't seem to me to have much to do with evil corporations. There are issues about the collapse of the traditional manual jobs done by the working classes, which is associated with the trend for these jobs to go overseas. But I don't conisder that trying to stand in the way of global economic trends is a great way to address this - it has been tried, and it didn't work so well (see Portugal). It seems that having a well-educated, flexible workforce is the way to go about it. For me, this is the deficit which has not been addressed.


Before Paizo employees wake up and lock this thread, I'd like to thank Citizens Gailbraithe and Shifty, and to a lesser extent the Good Professor and Citizen Lillithsthrall (sp?) for the funnest thread I've read in quite a while.

I know I'm in the minority, but I appreciate their efforts to keep this thread lively and interesting.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen (I think you're all male, but I want to be inclusive here).

[Loud, sustained applause]


Why do people so often seem to expect that making the same argument just one more time will suddenly win hearts and minds?

RAWR!


I think we need more Gandhi's out there to solve the situation in London.


I have found this article to be good.

Liberty's Edge

Chubbs McGee wrote:
I am familiar (as in I know of the author and the book) with Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan. I admit that I have never read Hobbes' work, yet I also admit that there are many, many books in the world that I have not read. May be your elitist background ensured that you have read every single work of fiction and non-fiction extent on this planet?

You are taking my comments way too personally, and its causing you to overreact in a way that makes it hard to respond to you.

Quote:
In your view, only poor people suffer from ignorance and irrationality.

That is not what I have said. I have said that poor people are more likely to suffer from ignorance and irrationality, not that they were the only ones who did so.

I don't understand how you can deny that, unless you want to make the claim that education is completely and absolutely useless.

Quote:
My position is this: humans can make rational decisions in any circumstances and from any economic background (even without the time to gain your definition of 'enlightenment'). Humans can make an irrational decision followed by a rational one (no matter their education or financial background). Being poor and ignorant does not rule out making rational decision-making, such as obeying the law and living an ordered life. It can make it harder (most often due, in part, to external influences), yes, but I have heard of many 'privileged' people who exhibit irrationality and poor judgement as well.

Your position doesn't contradict my position at all. You and I are in total agreement.

My position is that growing up poor, being denied an education, and being constantly stressed due to poverty, are not conducive to developing intellectually. I really don't understand why you (or Mothman) is getting so offended by what I'm saying. You're twisting my words something fierce, but you both seem to agree with me at the end of the day.

Liberty's Edge

Crimson Jester wrote:
You maybe a domesticated primate, but please do not speak for the rest of us.

You're a domesticated primate too, Crimson. Everyone is. The truly self-aware are capable of recognizing it. If you think you're a completely enlightened being who never, ever does anything for an unthinking reason, then you're probably just deeply deluded.

The Exchange

Gailbraithe wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
You maybe a domesticated primate, but please do not speak for the rest of us.
You're a domesticated primate too, Crimson. Everyone is. The truly self-aware are capable of recognizing it. If you think you're a completely enlightened being who never, ever does anything for an unthinking reason, then you're probably just deeply deluded.

I haven't read all of your comments in detail, but there is an argument arising from evolutionary psychology that a lot (all?) of behaviour has its roots in the way the brain has evolved from primate roots, and how it is designed more for primitive social structures in hunter-gatherer groups than for living in a modern day setting. I assume you are alluding to that. However, the human brain is capable of much higher levels of cognition than our nearest relation (the chimpanzee), and there are things the human mind does (morality to music) which apes cannot, so while there can be parallels drawn it is probably dangerous to place everything in the lap of instinctive behaviours that are hard-wired, or to assume such behaviours would be similar. Evolutionary psychology does not take away personal responsibility, it simply explains why people might act in a particular way. And, of course, evolutionary psychology is not universally accepted.

Liberty's Edge

Mothman wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:

Stuff about primates, education, poverty and ignorance.

A lack of education is a sad thing, but it does not make one less than human. Humans (even poor and ignorant ones) are capable of making rational decisions.

I never said it makes one less than human. I never said that being poor and ignorant made it impossible to make rational decisions. I'm just saying that being poor, ignorant and stressed out is not conducive to making good decisions. Every sociologist, psychologist and anthropologist out there keeps making that point.

People in this thread just seem really thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive to me. Nothing I'm saying is offensive or demeaning of other people, this is just who we are as a species. We are not homo economicus, born from the womb as fully realized rational beings. We are homo sapiens, a species of bipedal, tool-using apes with strong social instincts that shape much of how we perceive and relate to the world. No matter what our background, we operate primarily on instinct and social conditioning. It takes intense effort and dedication to rise above that base nature of ours, and many people never make that effort.

For the impoverished, many don't even get a chance to make that effort. Many don't have the luxury of developing themselves.

That's not a dis on poor people. That's just why poverty is a bad thing.

I seriously don't get how anyone can find it offensive that I'm pointing out that poverty has an effect on people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok guys, let's get off his back. Maybe he is just trying to take it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All humans are primates. Like it or not, that is a simple statement of fact.

We do not, however, meet the strict definition of "domesticated." That word also carries some unpleasant connotations, especially when misapplied to humans. "Civilized" would have been a much better choice of words, both because it is less likely to perceived as an insult and because it is indisputably true of anyone posting on these boards.*

* I now await the inevitable post insisting the author is, in fact, uncivilized.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Ok guys, let's get off his back. Maybe he is just trying to take it back.

Now that is truly twisting what I said. I didn't call anyone a porch monkey. I'm not talking about race at all, except in the sense that I'm talking about the human race.

Trying to twist what I've said in the way you're trying to twist it is just disingenuous BS.

bugleyman wrote:
All humans are primates. Like it or not, that is a simple statement of fact.

Exactly.

Quote:
We do not, however, meet the strict definition of "domesticated." That word also carries some unpleasant connotations, especially when misapplied to humans. "Civilized" would have been a much better choice of words, both because it is less likely to perceived as an insult and because it is indisputably true of anyone posting on these boards.

No, it wouldn't have been a better choice of words. I fully intended the unpleasant implications of the word domesticated.

Here's a passage from Robert Anton Wilson's excellent novel "The Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy" in which he uses the phrase (he's the author I borrowed the phrase from):

Quote:

Benny had actually read Darwin once, in college a long time ago, and had heard of sciences like ethology and ecology, but the facts of evolution had never really registered on him. He never thought of himself as a primate. He never realized his friends and associates were primates. Above all, he never understood that the alpha males of Unistat were typical leaders of primate bands. As a result of this inability to see the obvious, Benny was constantly alarmed and terrified by the behavior of himself, his friends and associates and especially the alpha males of the pack. Since he didn't know it was ordinary primate behavior, it seemed just awful to him.

Since a great deal of primate behavior was considered just awful, most of the domesticated primates spent most of their time trying to conceal what they were doing.

Some of the primates got caught by other primates. All of the primates lived in dread of getting caught.

Those who got caught were called no-good shits.

This metaphor was deep in primate psychology because primates mark their territories with excretions, and sometimes they threw excretions at each other when disputing over territories.

Am I insulting people? Sure, but let's be clear: If I'm insulting one person, I'm insulting all people, myself included. I am making a cynical assertion about the entire human race, not just poor people, and not just the people who are getting offended.

And I don't recognize anyone's right to get offended, because it's pretty much impossible to argue that I'm off-base here. I mean, you have to be deeply deluded to convince yourself that human history isn't a shocking mess that makes a lot more sense when you stop assuming that the greater mass of humanity is acting from enlightened self interest. The last 6000 years of human history -- i.e. the part we recorded -- is an absolute horrorshow.

Which makes a lot more sense when you realize that humans and chimpanzees are different in the exact same way that dogs and wolves are different. We're not civilized, we're domesticated.

Most of us are fairly well trained at playing our social role, and for most of us our social role is materially, spiritually and psychologically rewarding enough that we do not want more. We don't want to be Jesus or Buddha, and strive for true enlightenment. We're happy to be cogs in the machine, sheep in the herd, going along to get along, entertaining ourselves with the kind of banalities we're all engaged in on these forums, releasing stress through the socially approved ways that we can afford, until we die.

But when it comes to the poor, things break down. Because the rest of us -- the middle and upper class -- have basically decided that the proper social role for the poor is one of quiet, dignified suffering. And we punish them for anything else. They have no outlet for stress that isn't criminalized, and they have to deal with far more stress than the rest of us.

It doesn't work, and it leads to a significant percentage of people in poverty lashing out in various ways against society. Not in some enlightened, rational way, but in a raw, unconscious emotional way. Just like an abused dog who bites the hand that feeds it and ruins the carpets. The wolf or monkey or whatever you want to call it that we evolved from -- that is still buried deep inside us -- knows when it is getting a jacked deal, and even when the animal in question can't understand in a rational manner how he is jacked, he knows he is jacked. And because it lacks the information to make rational decisions about how to respond, it lashes out and bites the hand that feeds it.

Hence criminality, hence vandalism, hence rioting.

That doesn't mean every poor person is going to grow up to be a criminal, nor does it mean that people born into poverty are lesser beings than people born into the middle and upper class. It just means that poverty is a bad scene and that developing a sense of enlightened self-interest and gaining a meaningful understanding of the world is harder when you grow up impoverished.


I wondered if Bob was where you were getting that from.

People don't generally react well to that point of view. There's a lot of truth in it, but it's not easy to accept.


Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it wouldn't have been a better choice of words. I fully intended the unpleasant implications of the word domesticated.

So, I agree with most of the unpleasant implications you listed. However, in the strictest sense, the author was taking liberties when he used the word domesticate. Domestication requires that someone do the domesticating. I suppose you could argue humanity has domesticated itself, but it's a stretch. I have no idea if that has anything to do with why people are taking exception to the phrase, but I maintain that it did not convey the meaning you intended.

In any case, the porch monkey comparison was inaccurate, disruptive, and probably best ignored.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
So they riot, and remind the rich that all the gold bullion they have stored in the safe isn't going to matter diddly squat if someone bashes their head in with a brick. The rich make some platitudes, crank up the bread and circuses a bit, and ride out the low tide till things change, ride the upswing as hard as they can, milk it for everything its worth, get richer, the system crashes, wash rinse repeat and pretend it won't happen next time.

The word that kept rolling through my head as I read about the riots was "jacquerie".

The next bunch of years ought to be interesting.

Also, I read this article and I found it interesting that most of the accused appear to have jobs. And there's a Pole! Yeah, I know, it's a small sample...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Also, I read this article and I found it interesting that most of the accused appear to have jobs. And there's a Pole! Yeah, I know, it's a small sample...

Wait, what do you have against the Polish? ;-)

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it wouldn't have been a better choice of words. I fully intended the unpleasant implications of the word domesticated.
So, I agree with most of the unpleasant implications you listed. However, in the strictest sense, the author was taking liberties when he used the word domesticate. Domestication requires that someone do the domesticating. I suppose you could argue humanity has domesticated itself, but it's a stretch. I have no idea if that has anything to do with why people are taking exception to the phrase, but I maintain that it did not convey the meaning you intended.

I'm not so sure he's taking liberties. Think about this: the concept of domestication was developed by gentleman farmers and educated aristocrats. They tended to imagine themselves as masters of nature, rational beings who were separate and distinct from nature itself, and tended to imagine humans of antiquity the same way. So naturally they invented a concept of domestication that imagine rational man recognizing the inherent potential of animal power and, in an entirely rational manner, harnessing that power by capturing and selectively breeding wild animals to mold them into the domesticated animals we know today.

But chances are good that isn't what actually happened. Consider this: Humans domesticated the dog 40,000 years ago. We then didn't domesticated anything else for about 28,000 years. That's probably because we didn't decide to domesticate the dog - it just happened. If you look at wolf social groupings and primate social groupings, there are a lot of similarities to how both socialize. It's easy to see how wolves or a similar canid could be domesticated accidentally over the course of hundreds of generations.

First the wolves start hanging around the outskirts of human encampments, sneaking in at night to steal scraps of food. The humans occasionally toss scraps at them, and yell at them to bugger off, but don't make an effort to kill them outright. The wolves become less and less afraid of the humans, the humans become less and less afraid of the wolves. Eventually the wolves are practically living in the human camps. Sometimes a wolf bites at a human child, and that wolf gets killed. Over generations the wolves become less and less aggressive as aggression becomes the prime cause of removal from the population.

But at no point is a human in control of this process. No one is recording anything, and human memory isn't long enough to witness the whole process. By the time the wolves have become dogs, the humans have always seen them as dogs.

Does that all sound reasonable? That's basically the current theory on how dogs were domesticated. Accidentally, through the normal process of natural selection.

And if dogs can be domesticated by their accidental interaction with human communities, perhaps humans can be as well. Perhaps once we realized that we could plant seeds in the ground and grow food, and started settling into semi-permanent communities, some of the more violent instincts of humanity became increasingly problematic. Maybe we started unconsciously selecting for humans that could go along to get along, by killing and exiling those who couldn't. Perhaps, with no conscious intention at all, we domesticated ourselves at the same time, and in the same way, we domesticated the wolves.

I don't think that's much of a stretch at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have nothing against Poles and I endorse Citizen Gailbraithe's conception of all you pinkskins as domesticated primates. We goblins, however, were made by the Barghests!

To change the subject, though, if the London riots are going to bring back the sixties' Long Hot Summer, are the Dougherty Gang going to bring back the thirties' Crime Wave?

The Exchange

Gailbraithe wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
You maybe a domesticated primate, but please do not speak for the rest of us.
You're a domesticated primate too, Crimson. Everyone is. The truly self-aware are capable of recognizing it. If you think you're a completely enlightened being who never, ever does anything for an unthinking reason, then you're probably just deeply deluded.

Scientifically we are classified as apes, and as such are primates, scientifically. Being domesticated or tamed, requires an outside force to have tamed us. If you mean to say we are domesticated by a higher power, perhaps. However a tame animal is one in which it has been accustomed to humans, as well as being breed by humans, for artificial qualities we as a race deem useful or pleasing to us.

Once again I feel you are using words and phrases which do not fit the common usage and claim some superiority to the rest of use, in your obvious misuse of them. Those of us who claim to not be under any delusions or misconceptions tend to be the ones most deeply incorrect in our ignorance and delusions. Perhaps it is time for you to take a long hard look in the mirror and consider for a moment why many others seem to disagree with you about so many things.

From your constant bickering and blatant attacks upon these boards one must assume a like attitude in real life. If so this must put a constant strain on any real or deeply meaningful relationships. And while I do not know you personally I pray that this is not so, for a person to miss out on the divine and deeply satisfying harmony that is life, is a sad one to contemplate.

The Exchange

Gailbraithe wrote:


Here's a passage from Robert Anton Wilson's excellent novel "The Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy"

Novel, this means fiction, please try and keep this and non fiction separate, it keeps one from having delusions.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gailbraithe wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, it wouldn't have been a better choice of words. I fully intended the unpleasant implications of the word domesticated.
So, I agree with most of the unpleasant implications you listed. However, in the strictest sense, the author was taking liberties when he used the word domesticate. Domestication requires that someone do the domesticating. I suppose you could argue humanity has domesticated itself, but it's a stretch. I have no idea if that has anything to do with why people are taking exception to the phrase, but I maintain that it did not convey the meaning you intended.

I'm not so sure he's taking liberties. Think about this: the concept of domestication was developed by gentleman farmers and educated aristocrats. They tended to imagine themselves as masters of nature, rational beings who were separate and distinct from nature itself, and tended to imagine humans of antiquity the same way. So naturally they invented a concept of domestication that imagine rational man recognizing the inherent potential of animal power and, in an entirely rational manner, harnessing that power by capturing and selectively breeding wild animals to mold them into the domesticated animals we know today.

But chances are good that isn't what actually happened. Consider this: Humans domesticated the dog 40,000 years ago. We then didn't domesticated anything else for about 28,000 years. That's probably because we didn't decide to domesticate the dog - it just happened. If you look at wolf social groupings and primate social groupings, there are a lot of similarities to how both socialize. It's easy to see how wolves or a similar canid could be domesticated accidentally over the course of hundreds of generations.

First the wolves start hanging around the outskirts of human encampments, sneaking in at night to steal scraps of food. The humans occasionally toss scraps at them, and yell at them to bugger off, but don't make an effort to kill them...

Please refer to this basic wiki article on Selective breeding and then rethink your erroneous approach here.

The Exchange

Speaking of selective breeding, did you know we have been, and this is the royal we including mainly the western society such as it is, have been selectively breeding out or food supplies. In an effort to control so much of our planet we, once again the royal we, have slowly over the last 200 years decreased the number of varieties of various fruits and vegetables to a minuscule proportion of the previous ample supply. [sic] We have say 20 or so varieties of corn where at one time I believe there was around 200. I for one feel that because of this sort of lack of properly care taking our environment precludes most of humanity the title domesticated.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Novel, this means fiction, please try and keep this and non fiction separate, it keeps one from having delusions.

Aside from the "delusional" part (low blow -- quit that), surely you recognize that fiction is often social commentary, and as such is written about very real situations? To classify a work as fiction in no way implies it has nothing important to say about the real world. In fact, I would argue that having something important to say about the real world is a requirement of good fiction, but that is obviously a matter of opinion.


Crimson Jester wrote:
Please refer to this basic wiki article on Selective breeding and then rethink your erroneous approach here.

This basic wiki article that links to the more advanced article on Artificial selection, which includes this:

Wiki wrote:
Artificial selection can also be unintentional; it is thought that domestication of crops by early humans was largely unintentional.

It doesn't speak to dogs, but I'm not really sure what your objection is here.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Also, I read this article and I found it interesting that most of the accused appear to have jobs. And there's a Pole! Yeah, I know, it's a small sample...
Wait, what do you have against the Polish? ;-)

I bet he was the hardest-working rioter there.

It is interesting that a lot of them have jobs, though it was increasingly looking like that. Cirno and I are arguing about joblessness and it seems to be largely irrelevant. There are doubtless broader reasons for this but they aren't looking quite so victimised now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
That's actually conisdered debatable, rather than a proven truth. However, extended deficit spending right now is probably not a great idea, as the downgrades and turmoil going on in the markets suggests.

Its about as proven as anything can get in the murky realms of "what if" economics and history. It PROBABLY helped the economy but there's absolutely no doubt that it helped the individuals involved by giving them enough cash to buy food for their families, job skills, some pride. It also definitely helped the nation by building up the infrastructure. So its definitely a double win, and possibly a triple.

I think it also disproves the idea that people were out of work because they're lazy. As soon as the government put up a sign saying "work here" veritable armies of people showed up to do it.

Quote:
You already are. They are getting restive, as comments from the officla news agency indicate. There are probably limits to what they will accept.

We're too big to fail. We're not only their biggest borrower we're their biggest customer. If we're not buying more things than we need their entire system shuts down. America would have riots that would end with some minor legislative changes. China would have riots that would end in revolt. So we can play chicken with china because we're driving and SUV and they've got a smartcar. Suckers.

Quote:
Good point. I withdraw the accusation.

thank you. I was beggining to loose hope in humanity there for a while.

Quote:
Also true, but I get irritated by people telling me about the horrors of unemployment when I have experienced them and they don't seem to have done.

Its hard to tell what the other person has or hasn't experienced. It could also be vastly different in their country or even by city.

Quote:
Firstly, company B will offer cheaper products to the market. That benefits consumers.

It does.. unless one of those consumers used to make the product. You however reach a tipping point where the cheap products can't be bought because the consumers have no money. Its a matter of group vs individual benefit. In an ideal world, everyone else would make things in an expensive country in order to provide you with rich consumers for your cheap products.

Quote:
Think about what you have in your house and where it was made. Secondly, tying up resources in an activity which can be more productively carried out elsewhere is a way of being inefficient, which actually reduces wealth for everyone. This was established by Ricardo a long time ago.

Equivocation: everyone is not everyone.

A group is not synonymous with an aggregate of the individuals within it. If you have a group of 10 people making 10,000 dollars each, or 5 people making 20,000 and 5 people making nothing the GROUP is the same, but the individuals are not.

If a job is exported to china the benefit and savings is dispersed among all of the consumers, saving them say 3 dollars per unit. The downside is that the cost is localized and the employees are loosing 18,000 dollars or whatever their salary was. You can't just look at things from a macro point of view: that's how we got into this mess.

Quote:
And anyway, what would you do about it? The Chinese are here. Economies adapt and change over time. Trying to prevent that, especially through protected markets and government spending, is simply storing up trouble. Southern Europe is finding this out now.

Fair trade not free trade. American companies are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. They're competing with china where

1) there are lower labor costs
2) there are human rights abuses-you strike? The government runs you over with a tank.
3) There are no environmental protections.
4) China keeps its currency devalued.
5) American goods are taxed to high heaven comming in.

China is already violating the trade agreements we have in place. Tax their goods the same way they do ours, but higher until they start giving their workers a decent wage, bathroom breaks, and air they can breath.

Quote:
The stuiff about the environment is something of a red herring. Yes, there are environmental abuses, but they are hardly confined to China or the developing world (like BP in the Gulf). The issue is cost of labour, land and productivity of resources.

In America BP in the gulf was a disaster. In china its Tuesday.

Quote:
See above. This is lump of labour fallacy again.

You're making the opposite error in assuming that labor is perfectly fluid: that for every job lost another will be made. That is patently not the case: we're seeing a good pit of friction from the labor balloon expanding.

Quote:
Not so much in the UK, to be fair, Murdoch notwithstanding.

Right, because he only broke the law and bribed the government agency that's responsible for catching him breaking the law... do you want to put bets on how many days he serves in jail? I have 210 to 1 odds on 0.

Quote:
The rules in the US strike me as pretty stupid, but then again it can be seen (not that I do) as free speech. I can see how it is potentially corrupting, but politics is at its heart about compromise and relationship-building, so a lot of this will go on anyway.

And what you have is the interests of the entire country being compromised with the interests of an incredibly small segment of the population with equal or greater weight being given to the smaller segment because they have the money.

Quote:
It depends on political culture - talking about Europe, things seem to be cleaner in northern Europe rather than southern Europe, and we can debate Protestantism v Catholicism and its effects in that, for example.

You can. I can't. I have noooo idea how religion enters into it over there.

Quote:
But it strikes me as somewhat beside the point. The rioting doesn't seem to me to have much to do with evil corporations. There are issues about the collapse of the traditional manual jobs done by the working classes, which is associated with the trend for these jobs to go overseas.

The connection is patently obvious: The evil corporations wanted to roll around in even more money, so they sent the labor jobs overseas to china, screwing hard working people out of a living so they could get richer.

Quote:
But I don't conisder that trying to stand in the way of global economic trends is a great way to address this - it has been tried, and it didn't work so well (see Portugal)

It has worked ok for highly socialized nations putting high taxes on said corporations, so that the people they're collectively screwing over are at least getting food and medical care.

Quote:
It seems that having a well-educated, flexible workforce is the way to go about it. For me, this is the deficit which has not been addressed.

The same corporations that are shipping people overseas are the ones against the taxes that might be used to pay for a well educated flexible workforce.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Novel, this means fiction, please try and keep this and non fiction separate, it keeps one from having delusions.

Aside from the "delusional" part (low blow -- quit that), surely you recognize that fiction is often social commentary, and as such is written about very real situations? To classify a work as fiction in no way implies it has nothing important to say about the real world. In fact, I would argue that having something important to say about the real world is a requirement of good fiction, but that is obviously a matter of opinion.

Yes, I agree it was fairly low. Quit maybe. Not all fiction is social commentary I will admit though that most GOOD fiction in my opinion as well is, even if veiled.

However to paraphrase Tolkien, sometimes a story on fairies is just a story on fairies.

Liberty's Edge

Dude, Norse, you and I disagree pretty strongly on some gaming issues, but that was bad ass. You rock. When I become Emperor of Earth, you can have a position in my ministry of trade. I'll make you ambassador to China and you can go explain to them that we have an SUV and they have a smartcar, so they better shut up, sit down and do what we tell them.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Please refer to this basic wiki article on Selective breeding and then rethink your erroneous approach here.

This basic wiki article that links to the more advanced article on Artificial selection, which includes this:

Wiki wrote:
Artificial selection can also be unintentional; it is thought that domestication of crops by early humans was largely unintentional.

It doesn't speak to dogs, but I'm not really sure what your objection is here.

First off I feel wiki is a great starting point, not in and off itself and end. Secondly the article in which you mention as being more advanced is a more shorter though perhaps more concise selection. It is still a starting point, the entire field is a very in depth discussion that should not be summed up in a few sentences in a wiki nor an offhand arrogant simplistic remark as it was in previous posts.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Novel, this means fiction, please try and keep this and non fiction separate, it keeps one from having delusions.
Aside from the "delusional" part (low blow -- quit that), surely you recognize that fiction is often social commentary, and as such is written about very real situations? To classify a work as fiction in no way implies it has nothing important to say about the real world. In fact, I would argue that having something important to say about the real world is a requirement of good fiction, but that is obviously a matter of opinion.

It's particularly silly in this case, since Robert Anton Wilson's fiction is always about philosophy first and narrative second. The Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy is basically a bunch of characters discussing the meaning of life and the human condition for 1000 pages as reality shifts from one possible world to another around them, with them largely unaware of it. There is no actual plot -- there is a plot structure, but because reality keeps shifting the characters, settings, motivation and goals constantly change. By the time the protagonist reaches the end of the novel, the protagonist has been more than a dozen different people striving for a dozen different goals. It's a very experimental novel.

As fiction goes, it's kind of horrible. As a vehicle for explaining many of the concepts RAW developed over his lifetime, it's brilliant.

I'm not going to bother to respond to CJ's arguments, since you and thejeff have already done it for me, but I would ask CJ to actually go read the wiki article on domestication, which includes this gem:

Quote:
Mutation is not the only way in which natural and artificial selection operate. Darwin describes how natural variations in individual plants and animals also support the selection of new traits. It is speculated that tamer than average wolves, less wary of humans, selected themselves as domestic dogs over many generations. These wolves were able to thrive by following humans to scavenge for food near camp fires and garbage dumps. Eventually a symbiotic relationship developed between people and these proto-dogs. The dogs fed on human food scraps, and humans found that dogs could warn them of approaching dangers, help with hunting, act as pets, provide warmth, or supplement their food supply. As this relationship evolved, humans eventually began to keep these self-tamed wolves and breed from them the types of dogs that we have today.

Hey, that looks familiar. Maybe its because its what I said upthread.


What made wolf symbiosis easy was that humans and wolves are a lot alike: nomadic hunters who's primary attribute was endurance running.

we're both social animals with a heiracrhal pack structure. Its easy to get a puppy to see you as the alpha male that he must obey because wolves evolved working together. Horses have a heirarchy: zebras, while social, do not. Thats probably why the horse got domesticated.

Size: Humans are large animals. A BIG wolf will weigh in at a mere hundred pounds. With our bigger size increased by an upright posture we look intimidating to a wolf, so it won't get big and try to eat us. Attempts at lion domestication probably didn't go as well for that reason.

we share damn near identical body language. Just add ears and a tail.


Crimson Jester wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Please refer to this basic wiki article on Selective breeding and then rethink your erroneous approach here.

This basic wiki article that links to the more advanced article on Artificial selection, which includes this:

Wiki wrote:
Artificial selection can also be unintentional; it is thought that domestication of crops by early humans was largely unintentional.

It doesn't speak to dogs, but I'm not really sure what your objection is here.

First off I feel wiki is a great starting point, not in and off itself and end. Secondly the article in which you mention as being more advanced is a more shorter though perhaps more concise selection. It is still a starting point, the entire field is a very in depth discussion that should not be summed up in a few sentences in a wiki nor an offhand arrogant simplistic remark as it was in previous posts.

That's pretty dismissive considering you linked to the wiki entry in the first place and never really explained what point you were trying to make or why you thought Gailbraithe's approach was erroneous. I had assumed you were objecting to the unintentional domestication. If not, what was your point?


Gailbraithe wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:

However, the implication that you are "poor" makes you lack "real awareness" or do not possess "enlightenment" is the problem.

Actually, it makes you sound ignorant.

Really. Well, okay. I'm not really sure how to respond to that.

All I'm saying, to put it in the simplest language possible, is that if you grow up in poverty in the Western world, you will tend to be surrounded by ignorance and irrationality, and that environment is not conducive to developing a person from a domesticated primate into a realized human being.

I'm using enlightened here in the same sense that Thomas Jefferson would have used it, to mean a person who operates from a detached, semi-objective and rational point of view. In the sense of "enlightened self interest," but also in the sense of having intellectual curiosity and creative aspirations (whether they be artistic, scientific or entrepreneurial).

And the reality is the more luxury (as in freedom from toil) you have, the easier it is to develop that enlightened self interest.

This is kind of why poverty is bad. Poverty isn't just lack of money, its lack of access to one's own culture and intellectual heritage. If you grew up with academically challenged and anti-intellectual parents, and went to impoverished schools that lacked even basic textbooks for students, where the classrooms are full of dysfunctional and abused children who act out and turn the school into a prison for poor kids as much as an educational facility, then the chances are you didn't get the exchange above between Robert and I about Hobbes and Leviathan. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of things you don't get if you don't have a decent education.

People in poverty tend to also be people with a lot of ignorance. People in poverty also tend to be under a lot of stress all the time, for all the obvious reasons. Being ignorant and stressed out does not contribute to a whole lot of personal growth and development.

What's your...

By no means do I want you to stop posting. The example your post sets provokes a much needed call for the left to clean house.

The leftist notion that the poor cannot learn good socialization was discarded a very long time ago in the social sciences when it was realized that socialization isn't somethiing somone learns in their leisure time from books, it is something learned from life as lived when the pressure of everyday life peaks.

Silver Crusade

Gailbraithe wrote:
I really don't understand why you (or Mothman) is getting so offended by what I'm saying. You're twisting my words something fierce, but you both seem to agree with me at the end of the day.

Overreacting? I am not the one throwing around 'crack baby' or similar insults. I have called you 'ignorant' and may be you are to the extent that you have not grown up in low economic area. I apologise for the insult, though you have made some assumptions yourself that amount to the same thing (or at least in the way I could interpret from what you wrote).

May be it is the way you are actually putting your point across that makes people read it in a way that they find offensive. If people (not a single person) are becoming offended at what you're saying the problem may not lie with them.

Growing up in a wealthy household, being given everything you need and never challenged is not conducive to intellectual development either (I have actually experienced this during my high school years). I would never state that education is completely and absolutely useless, if you use it.

From my point of view, I think you are using a very broad brush that can easily offend people from the type of background you are discussing. Still, these forums are far from the best medium to use to discuss this type of topic anyway.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

Hi there!

I have just spent far too much time attempting to clean up this thread. I have probably missed some things.

Please keep in mind that it is nobody's full-time job here to clean up the messes people leave here. If we have to spend too much time monitoring a thread and cleaning it up, we will lock it. I'd rather not have to do that.

So everybody, please dial it back a notch or two. Even if you think I'm not talking to you in particular, or if you think were unfairly provoked, I am in fact talking to you.

Thanks.


I predict this will be relevant shortly.

451 to 500 of 503 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / London Riots All Messageboards