Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-02-2012, 04:34 AM   #151
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Um... practically EVERY STUDY on physiological psychology?
__________________
"Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women's liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.” - Huey Newton
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 05:49 PM   #152
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
Give me one hard solid fact that proves psychology is more than theory. Please, so that you can show just how dumb I am.
Neurotransmitters allow electro-chemical communication between nerve cells. Wow that was difficult find, I had to dig through so much theory to find a single fact..oh wait that fact is the basis for everything we know about brain chemistry and how we treat numerous psychological conditions so I guess it is actually pretty basic.

This thread reminds me why I stay out of this sub-forum, I'm just not enough of a asshole to want to, or even be able to, intellectually beat people until they pull their heads out of their own misinformed asses so they can actually process what I'm saying. Alan, Desp, AO, I don't know how you guys do it but thanks, someone's got to do it.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 09:42 PM   #153
Murder.Of.Crows
 
Murder.Of.Crows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dude, I don't even know where I live anymore.
Posts: 1,276
The point of these aren't to beat the opponent into submissively pulling said head out of arse. It's for the entertainment and education for all those other people who read it. Like me! Because, I am incapable of asserting my own opinion, nor can I do so without sounding like an oaf.
__________________
Caution, I may bite.
Murder.Of.Crows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 09:48 PM   #154
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Oh that does sound like more fun
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2012, 10:08 PM   #155
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
Neurotransmitters allow electro-chemical communication between nerve cells. Wow that was difficult find, I had to dig through so much theory to find a single fact..oh wait that fact is the basis for everything we know about brain chemistry and how we treat numerous psychological conditions so I guess it is actually pretty basic.

This thread reminds me why I stay out of this sub-forum, I'm just not enough of a asshole to want to, or even be able to, intellectually beat people until they pull their heads out of their own misinformed asses so they can actually process what I'm saying. Alan, Desp, AO, I don't know how you guys do it but thanks, someone's got to do it.
Truth... is an emergency. KnowwhatImeandawg?
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:22 PM   #156
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
Neurotransmitters allow electro-chemical communication between nerve cells. Wow that was difficult find,
Right. Wow.

Why didn’t I foresee this one being used?

A basic biological function of the brain.

I ask you to tell me how a car functions and you respond with "you put gas in it, DUH!" But, I'm the idiot.

I'm not even going to bother explaining to any of you why neurological synapses - while critical, obviously (any idiot that's smart enough to breathe knows that) - is only a small fraction of psychological theory. It's the gas, but it's not the engine.

You forget – or rather, ignore – the fact that I work in the entertainment industry, that I hold a bachelor of science in entertainment media. I know that doesn’t mean shit to any of you, it’s not a “real” degree and I’m just an idiot. But apparently you’re completely oblivious to the fact that behavioral science is at the very core of everything related to the entertainment industry, and everything I do for a living.

When I said I’m an artist I guess you thought that just meant that I draw pretty pictures, or some crap. No. Well yeah, actually I do draw a lot, it’s one of the fundamentals of my career (conceptual designs, etc), but professionally, I’m a 3D artist. I work in film and video games and own my own studio, which I’ve spent the last several years trying to build. Most of my work is contract, which means that weeks, sometimes even months can go between jobs, especially in this economy. So when that happens, I read and study as much as I can when I’m not working on a project. Mythology and psychology are primarily what I read, because they are the two fields that impact my career the most, and where most of my personal interests are in terms of the rest of the world.

You ever wonder why people say that TV will brainwash you? It’s not just a baseless rumor, or some crazy conspiracy theory. “Brainwashing” is how companies sell their products – whether that be a movie, a pair of jeans, a hamburger, an iPhone, the next Justin Bieber, or the next president. Behavioral science tells us how to do it, when to do it, and who to target. It helps us understand trends and develop products that appeal to a wide audience. I’ve been studying psychology for the better half of my adult life, because it’s a major determining factor whether I sell my work or not, whether I develop compelling characters and plot lines that are marketable, and also, simply because I enjoy learning what makes people tick, what pushes their buttons. I have to know this stuff because the industry I’m in is extremely competitive, cut-throat in some cases, and only the best of the best get the paying jobs. Most of us are not employed by giant studios as so many people seem to think. We have to compete with each other to get the contracts from those giant, high-paying studios, (who really don't pay all that much). And competition requires knowing your shit.

So I suck at debating. That’s kind’a why I come here, to practice those skills, not to piss anyone off, just to get people to think a little differently from the box they live in. But you all just enjoy attacking people who have opposing views than yours and automatically label them idiots because they don’t subscribe to your view of how the world should be. Forget the fact that this thread has spent a half dozen pages arguing hypotheticals, and none of you have presented any facts that back up your views, because you don’t have any facts. All you have is arrogance and bias against anyone who disagrees with you or refuses to wear your rose-tinted glasses. The concept of objectivism is absolutely foreign to your way of thinking.

So I believe in God. So what. It’s my business, not yours, and the fact that it offends you is your problem, not mine. Everyone does not, and will not, think like you, or interpret the world the way you do, no matter how much you think they should. It’s not going to change my views, especially not when they’re baselessly attacked. You all came into this thread looking for an argument, keep in mind. I didn’t attack you, you attacked me because I replied to someone’s post, as though I didn’t have the right to have an opinion or belief of my own. I believe that all life is connected, somehow, much like a spider’s web across the universe. From every plant and insect to every animal and human, to every planet, moon and star, even every galaxy. That is God to me, and there is nothing in any form of science, including psychology, that proves to me that that form of energy network does not exist. On the contrary many things – both in science, and that I have personally witnessed and experienced in the real world – tells me that that is exactly how it is. Ever hear of quantum entanglement? I believe that it supports my God theory, and I believe that science will someday have the capacity to prove it, but it will be something that is discovered more by accident than purposeful research. But for all of you it’s just something more to criticize about me, not because my theory is baseless, but simply because my views are different from yours. So be it.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 10:05 PM   #157
Murder.Of.Crows
 
Murder.Of.Crows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dude, I don't even know where I live anymore.
Posts: 1,276
Giant wall of text! My god, this is terrible.

Anyways. There was so much wrong in so much of what you just said.

Pretty much I got " I am super successful in my life, none of you are, and shame on you for not knowing." Well, your not. There are shitloads of people on this forum that are pretty successful or on their way. So shut the hell up, your not special. Then you go on to boost your ego, then more, and more... then some, oh fuck it already, you get the point. All nicely finished up with, "I have a cool job, so I'm right, fuck all of you!".

Really? That's your argument? What the fuck?!
__________________
Caution, I may bite.
Murder.Of.Crows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 10:43 PM   #158
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
I love how he bitches a the hypothetical scenario that Solumina might make fun of his degree in 'entertainment media' as not being a real major, yet he has no problem making the fucking idiotic declaration that the whole body of psychology is not a real science.

I've never met a more hypocritical guy than this douchebag, and I've met a lot of hypocrites in my lifetime.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 08:28 AM   #159
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Deviant you asked for one fact, don't be mad just because I picked something basic, if you want a less basic fact or you want me to elaborate on that one basic fact and how it pertains to things such as emotional disorders and behavioral problems then ask and I will be more than happy to do so.

Also good for you that you work in a field where psychology is a good hobby to have, even though you only seem to have grasped the fundamentals of a very small segment of cognitive theory. Do you know what my field of study is? Psychology.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 12:56 PM   #160
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
But reading non-peer reviewed books is exactly the same as getting a current psychology degree!
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 02:03 PM   #161
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Saya has a point. :-/
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 03:19 PM   #162
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
This thread totally reminds me of the time Aquinas was like "Logic and reason proves God exists!" And Templer was like "STFU, it doesn't." And then Aquinas threw a hissy fit and called Templer a poopie head.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 06:28 PM   #163
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
MoC: Nothing in my "wall of text" even eluded to the fact that I am highly successful in my career or that I even think I am. I have years to go before that can be the case.

Alan: I never made that declaration, no more so than I made the declaration that homosexuals are wrong for being homosexuals. But you are notorious for reading something into what I say that I never said. Maybe that's partially my fault for not wording what I'm trying to say as effectively enough, but I've already admitted that debating is not my best skill. I asked you for examples of functioning Marxism in another thread, and you give me examples like the Velvet Revolution, which was a revolution AGAINST a single party communist system and FOR capitalism. However, while researching the various examples you listed, I have come to the conclusion that Marxism is a vehicle, not a state of being. As I understand it, it is the road between two cities, not the city itself. Marxism is generally thought of as being no different than communism, at least by the majority of people in the US, but if that is truly the case, and until that difference is made clear, it will continue, and the majority of people in the US do not want communism.

Saya: Peer review has its merits but should not be relied on in every instance, or it allows opinion to become accepted as fact. There is tons of misinformation in the world that came into existence due to being accepted by the majority (peer review) as being fact. For example, how many people believe that MLK jr was a democrat, when he was actually a republican, as was his father? How many people think that republicans are historically more racist than democrats? History proves the reverse, but most people believe the opposite.

When I research a topic I deliberately try to look for opposing views from the norm to try to figure out on my own which side is actually right. Usually that requires digging deeper into the history of those who hold an opposing view to find out why they hold that view. I rarely ever accept anything that really matters without looking into it first and drawing my own conclusion.

For me, infant racism is a good example of behaviors and beliefs stemming from instinct. The accepted idea is that racism is something that is learned, but if you read the studies that have been done on infant racism, you might find that not being racist, or rather, being indifferent to race, is the behavior that actually has to be learned.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 06:46 PM   #164
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
Saya: Peer review has its merits but should not be relied on in every instance, or it allows opinion to become accepted as fact. There is tons of misinformation in the world that came into existence due to being accepted by the majority (peer review) as being fact. For example, how many people believe that MLK jr was a democrat, when he was actually a republican, as was his father? How many people think that republicans are historically more racist than democrats? History proves the reverse, but most people believe the opposite.
MLK was part of the social justice movement, and never advocated for either party or candidate, because both in the end were racist. He was however a suspected communist, his, friend fellow activist and advisor Rustin was a gay Communist. In his autobiography however, he says he liked JFK, voted for him and had he lived would probably have supported him.

He criticized the Republican party for blocking civil rights legislation, and actually the reason the really really crazy Bible thumping Christians such as Jerry Falwell are Republican was because they were outraged that the Democrats ended segregation. Rewriting MLK as a war supporting Republican seems to be the trend, but it isn't supported. So basically what you're saying is, you want to be free to read anything you want and believe it because its in a book and its not conventional knowledge, so it must be true.

Quote:
When I research a topic I deliberately try to look for opposing views from the norm to try to figure out on my own which side is actually right. Usually that requires digging deeper into the history of those who hold an opposing view to find out why they hold that view. I rarely ever accept anything that really matters without looking into it first and drawing my own conclusion.
Peer reviewed journals do this too. They review the kind of crap you read and point out what's wrong with it. We do this in class too with our text books. Again, you don't get to vet information to get something published.

Quote:
For me, infant racism is a good example of behaviors and beliefs stemming from instinct. The accepted idea is that racism is something that is learned, but if you read the studies that have been done on infant racism, you might find that not being racist, or rather, being indifferent to race, is the behavior that actually has to be learned.
Then riddle me this, Batman. Race is largely a social construct. In races that have obvious differences, like between white and black people, yes there's something noticable there, and a young kid is probably going to notice that someone is different than those they normally see. But Jews are sometimes considered white, sometimes considered a body of different ethnic groups, and also since the Holocaust widely believed to be a singular race. Africans we usually lump all together as black see themselves as many different races, and most white people probably couldn't point out the difference between Persian and Arab, Japanese and Okinawan. So how does a infant, who thinks that things cease to exist when they can no longer see it, going to think that black people are lazy?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 06:47 PM   #165
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
I never made that declaration
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x
There is no hard physical evidence to support that psychology is anything more than theory.
And if you actually knew shit instead of just spouting off whatever you wanted and assuming you're right, you'd know that it was the marxist SSM that started massive protests against the old stalinist government, and that the communist newspaper Pravda joined in the opposition of the communist govermnent. You seem to think that marxism is a homogeneous unquestioning unity to the soviet union, when in fact revolt against any government is quintessential to marxism. You pretend you're going to know more about this shit than someone who studies this for a living, and you're talking about an event that happened in '68 but I bet you have never even heard about the term New Left.
Why don't you admit that marxism is an area you know nothing about, so why try to make stupid assertions that doesn't take but two minutes to prove wrong?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 06:59 PM   #166
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
For me, infant racism is a good example of behaviors and beliefs stemming from instinct. The accepted idea is that racism is something that is learned, but if you read the studies that have been done on infant racism, you might find that not being racist, or rather, being indifferent to race, is the behavior that actually has to be learned.
Got a source for those studies? Either the people writing whatever articles you are reading have been seriously misrepresenting the data or you're talking about something that I have never heard of being published.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 07:01 PM   #167
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
Got a source for those studies? Either the people writing whatever articles you are reading have been seriously misrepresenting the data or you're talking about something that I have never heard of being published.
I found a newsweek article that said white babies stare a bit longer at pictures of black faces than white faces. RACISTS.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 08:11 PM   #168
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Yeah those are the ones I'm familiar with.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 09:16 PM   #169
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
Sorry Alan, my mistake. You must have been referring to a different Velvet Revolution. I couldn’t find any reference to a Velvet Revolution taking place in 1968. The only information I could find involved a Velvet Revolution that took place in 1989 in Czechoslovakia, in revolt against the communist government.

Quote:
The Velvet Revolution (Czech: sametová revoluce) or Gentle Revolution (Slovak: nežná revolúcia) was a non-violent revolution in Czechoslovakia that took place from November 17 to December 29, 1989. Dominated by student and other popular demonstrations against the one-party government of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, it saw to the collapse of the party's control of the country, and the subsequent conversion from Czech Stalinism to capitalism.
So are you saying that’s not the same revolution that you are referring to? There is information about an event called the Prague Spring, which took place in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. I didn’t read the entire article, but it seems to have been a failed attempt to do what the Revolution in 1989 was successful in doing.

I’m not trying to pretend I know more about Marxism than you, that would be stupid. I’m just trying to understand it. So are you saying that my current interpretation is also incorrect? If it’s not a state, and it’s not a vehicle to such a state, then I’m confused.

Sure, Solumina, here are a couple just off the top of my head.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...2_racefrm2.htm
And, a longer article (6 pages) here which gives much more detail:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...criminate.html

I could dig up more if you’d like. I haven’t had a lot of time recently to devote to all this research though, so I’m mostly pulling from bookmarks.

Saya, back then both democrats and republicans could be considered racist warmongers. President Eisenhower, a republican, was one of the first who pushed for civil rights. He pushed to desegregate the military, but thought that desegregation of schools should be left up to the individual states to decide. He did however send in military forces to ensure that black students were allowed into schools. Prior to the 60's most blacks voted republican, not democrat, and MLK never officially endorsed any candidate because he believed strongly that it wasn't right. JLK pulled strings to get him released from jail, most likely in return for his vote. He also had MLK's phones tapped because it was suspected that MLK was in bed with the communists - something that neither democrats nor republicans liked.

JFK on the other hand, voted against the civil rights bill, until he realized that blacks meant votes. The KKK was always dominated by members of the democratic party far more than republicans ever were, and people like Jerry Fallwell would actually more likely be considered dixiecrats than republicans. Are you familiar with dixiecrats? They were a short-lived political party formed by Strom Thurmond - a very outspoken racist DEMOCRAT, who felt that democrats weren't being racist enough. (Funny thing, he had a black daughter who he paid all his life to keep her mouth shut about it, which she did until he died). Dixiecrats became republicans, but only in name, their views remained the same. Growing up in the south, democrats were always viewed as being far more racist and bible thumping than republicans, and they were usually the ones with far more money and power, which is not surprising, they had their churches behind them paying for their racist shit spewing. Reagan, one of the most hated presidents on the left today, was a democrat before becoming a republican, and it's my speculation that he only switched to republican to get the popular vote. (He's also the reason that monopoly laws are no longer enforced, unless congress decides they should be enforced, which they do selectively).

And yes, I believe that everyone should be free to read and say whatever they want and draw their own conclusions. That is why the first amendment exists. Would you rather people be forced to read only what the government allows them to read? All information, if intended to be taken as fact, should be thoroughly vetted, double and triple checked for truth and accuracy, before ever being published UNLESS, and only unless, its intended to be fiction and nothing but fiction. Why would you want to publish information as fact without it first being thoroughly researched? Opinions aren't fact.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 09:51 PM   #170
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
Sure, Solumina, here are a couple just off the top of my head.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...2_racefrm2.htm
This one says flat out that "babies raised with frequent exposure to people of other races don’t develop this early bias" meaning that it is not intrinsic and is simply a reaction to something being new and unknown. This one also says that babies spend more time looking at people of their own race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
And, a longer article (6 pages) here which gives much more detail:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...criminate.html
This one starts off talking about kids who are at a point in their cognitive development where they absorb the view of those around them like little sponges so anything that they believe and hold to be true can be attributed to the people around them and that part really just indicates that that white liberal Texans may be a little more racist than they would like to think. When it gets to talking about babies they say that babies spend longer looking at people of a different race, directly contradicting the previous article.

Both articles really hold nothing of value, the only thing that they can demonstrate is that babies aren't any more color blind when it comes to people than they are with blankets or rattles, that doesn't indicate any sort of racism.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 10:25 PM   #171
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
Both articles really hold nothing of value, the only thing that they can demonstrate is that babies aren't any more color blind when it comes to people than they are with blankets or rattles, that doesn't indicate any sort of racism.
Okay, so you don't think the part about the test with kindergartners and the colored shirts holds any value? or the part where they discuss teaching kids not to speak about race has actually resulted in kids thinking that mentioning race is wrong? or the part where they conclude these tests they've done indicates that children gravitating to people of their own race is a product of evolution, serving as a sort of security mechanism, holds any value either?

Did you read the entire article? It's 6 pages.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 11:05 PM   #172
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
Did you read the entire article? It's 6 pages.
Yeah I did, 6 pages isn't exactly a huge amount to go through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
Okay, so you don't think the part about the test with kindergartners and the colored shirts holds any value?
Not in the way that they interpret it. Kids like to sort, they like to find ridged order and when none naturally exists they like to artificially construct order. This is nothing new or groundbreaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
or the part where they discuss teaching kids not to speak about race has actually resulted in kids thinking that mentioning race is wrong?
Again they are using something to make statements about racism when that isn't actually what the data shows, that is just what the researcher was looking for. If parents don't talk to their kids about the difference between cats and dogs then kids will not think it is an okay thing to talk about. Kids look to parents for examples of what is and is not acceptable, not just with regards to race but with regards to pretty much everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
or the part where they conclude these tests they've done indicates that children gravitating to people of their own race is a product of evolution, serving as a sort of security mechanism, holds any value either?.
But they don't have conclusive results that indicate this, they have tests that indicate that children have an innate ability to tell the difference between colors and that by the time they are regularly parroting their parents they seem to have racial preferences, but nothing indicated where those preferences come from and there is a plethora of potential sources.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2012, 11:29 PM   #173
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Then riddle me this, Batman. Race is largely a social construct. In races that have obvious differences, like between white and black people, yes there's something noticable there, and a young kid is probably going to notice that someone is different than those they normally see. But Jews are sometimes considered white, sometimes considered a body of different ethnic groups, and also since the Holocaust widely believed to be a singular race. Africans we usually lump all together as black see themselves as many different races, and most white people probably couldn't point out the difference between Persian and Arab, Japanese and Okinawan. So how does a infant, who thinks that things cease to exist when they can no longer see it, going to think that black people are lazy?
I didn't even notice this one until I went back.

Uhm, Saya, Race is not a social construct, it is a biological construct. While it's true that today most people have a smattering of multiple races in their ancestry to some degree, your nation or city of origin does not determine your race, it only determines - at most - your cultural background. The reason that most people can't tell the difference between a Japanese person and someone from Okinawa is because they're both Japanese. Persians and Arabs are both Arabs, for the most part at least. And the holocaust does not make all Jews the same race, though it did most definitely thin out the gene pool.

There are very significant differences between races, that go far deeper than the color of one's hair or skin. Bone structure, muscular structure, susceptibility to various illnesses, etc. If memory serves, I think its a basic 4 races that make up the human SPECIES, which is homo sapien. Yes, genetically there are far more similarities than differences, but the differences that do exist are still significant none the less.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 05:54 AM   #174
Raptor
 
Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,419
I haven't been here in quite awhile and I'm supposed to be doing some very boring work so I'll have a go at the god and science stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by x-deviant-x View Post
Just because you cannot see it, or touch it, or witness it's existence, does not mean it does not exist. Everything we've learned from science, at one point, was disbelieved or unknown until proven.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, there are currently accepted ideas that, in the past, were viewed as incorrect. That's how things should work; acceptance comes after evidence. If you want to use the same standards here then any form of god should not (and does not) appear in scientific understanding of the universe given the lack of evidence. Validation of an idea requires more than a lack of contrary evidence.

This seems to be the key issue here - your demand for evidence against god because it hasn't been "disproven". Scientifically, this situation still leads to atheism and a "god does not exist" result. The others here have already said that. I was going to make my own attempt to explain why it leads to that result but it's faster to copy and paste something that hopefully does a good job:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Article
To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.
Link

Following on from that point about proving things, I also think that you look down on "theory" in a way that doesn't recognise its merits. It might be worth pointing out that your example of a fact was mathematics, which, for practical reasons, can be far more rigorous than the other sciences to the point where some think that it should be in a separate class and not under the science umbrella.

Short version:
- No evidence of god, no need for god in science
- Scientifically, god does not exist (statement not absolute)

I do understand using "god" as a term for the universe but it can be confusing considering how most people will interpret it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan Hawking
In A Brief History Of Time I used the word "God" like Einstein did as a shorthand for the laws of physics. However, this is not what most people mean by God, so I have decided not to use the term. The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a God.
Raptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 01:48 PM   #175
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
I do have to make a correction. I was talking about the '68 spring to highlight the New Left, but in my haste to make my post I meshed the Prague Spring with the Velvet Revolution. My point was that the Velvet Revolution emerged from the left itself, the same way the students in Tiananmen Square were still singing the International against the ossified communist party.
My point still stands, but I made a crucial mistake when writing it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 AM.