Are not compatible.  The leftist position can be summed up as follows:


Quote:

“After a period of hundreds of thousands of years, evolving under different climatic conditions, encountering different challenges such as the Ice Ages, suffering different epidemics, subjected to different catastrophes and good fortune, all races magically ended up equal.”

The vehement denial of any differences between races by the left can be summarised in the folllowing absurd statement:


Quote:

“All creation, including plant and animal life, is subject to the laws of heredity. Every organ of the human species is likewise governed by the laws of heredity. The human brain stands alone as the only object of creation whose functioning is unaffected by heredity and is controlled strictly by environment.”

Thus it seems irrefutable (though you are welcome to try) that the prevailing orthodoxy of the day is based on wishes, and not reality.

Yeah, Ive always found it strange the position that the brain itself can somehow escape being to some extent hereditary but the entire rest of the body can't.

perhaps there is a clue as to why leftist ideologues disproportionately suffer from selective blindness in the following reserach.


Quote:

Brain imaging reveals why we remain optimistic in the face of reality For some people, the glass is always half full. Even when a football fan's team has lost ten matches in a row, he might still be convinced his team can reverse its run of bad luck. So why, in the face of clear evidence to suggest to the contrary, do some people remain so optimistic about the future? In a study published today in Nature Neuroscience, researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) show that people who are very optimistic about the outcome of events tend to learn only from information that reinforces their rose-tinted view of the world. This is related to 'faulty' function of their frontal lobes. People's predictions of the future are often unrealistically optimistic. A problem that has puzzled scientists for decades is why human optimism is so pervasive, when reality continuously confronts us with information that challenges these biased beliefs. "Seeing the glass as half full rather than half empty can be a positive thing – it can lower stress and anxiety and be good for our health and well-being," explains Dr Tali Sharot. "But it can also mean that we are less likely to take precautionary action, such as practising safe sex or saving for retirement. So why don't we learn from cautionary information?" In this new study, Dr Sharot and Professor Ray Dolan from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, together with Christoph Korn from the Berlin School of Mind and Brain have shown that our failure to alter optimistic predictions when presented with conflicting information is due to errors in how we process the information in our brains. Nineteen volunteers were presented with a series of negative life events, such as car theft or Parkinson's disease, whilst lying in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, which measures activity in the brain. They were asked to estimate the probability that this event would happen to them in the future. After a short pause, the volunteers were told the average probability of this event to occur. In total, the participants saw eighty such events. After the scanning sessions, the participants were asked once again to estimate the probability of each event occurring to them. They were also asked to fill in a questionnaire measuring their level of optimism. The researchers found that people did, in fact, update their estimates based on the information given, but only if the information was better than expected. For example if they had predicted that their likelihood of suffering from cancer was 40%, but the average likelihood was 30%, they might adjust their estimate to 32%. If the information was worse than expected – for example, if they had estimated 10% – then they tended to adjust their estimate much less, as if ignoring the data. The results of the brain scans suggested why this might be the case. All participants showed increased activity in the frontal lobes of the brain when the information given was better than expected, this activity actively processed the information to recalculate an estimate. However, when the information was worse than estimated, the more optimistic a participant was (according to the personality questionnaire), the less efficiently activity in these frontal regions coded for it, suggesting they were disregarding the evidence presented to them. Dr Sharot adds: "Our study suggests that we pick and choose the information that we listen to. The more optimistic we are, the less likely we are to be influenced by negative information about the future. This can have benefits for our mental health, but there are obvious downsides. Many experts believe the financial crisis in 2008 was precipitated by analysts overestimating the performance of their assets even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary." 'Understanding the brain' is one of the Wellcome Trust's key strategic challenges. At the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, clinicians and scientists study higher cognitive function to understand how thought and perception arise from brain activity, and how such processes break down in neurological and psychiatric disease. Commenting on the study, Dr John Williams, Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health at the Wellcome Trust, said: "Being optimistic must clearly have some benefits, but is it always helpful and why do some people have a less rosy outlook on life? Understanding how some people always manage to remain optimistic could provide useful insights into happens when our brains do not function properly."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/wt-bir100611.php

So, Wes, are you suggesting that those who dogmatically-adhere to the worship of the Growth Fairy and the benefits of the free markets of unbridled capitalism are kidding themselves - and that they're in for the biggest shocks when the GFC really hits!?

Or, are you trying to suggest that negative right whingers are superior because they are inherently fearful and pessimistic!?

Hint: you can't argue this both ways!

Equitist wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:

So, Wes, are you suggesting that those who dogmatically-adhere to the worship of the Growth Fairy and the benefits of the free markets of unbridled capitalism are kidding themselves - and that they're in for the biggest shocks when the GFC really hits!? Or, are you trying to suggest that negative right whingers are superior because they are inherently fearful and pessimistic!? Hint: you can't argue this both ways!

I'd suggest that anybody who dogmatically adheres to anything are kidding themselves.
But, this is the race/multiculturalism forum, not economics.  What I am really suggesting in this instance is that those who argue such nonsense as 'race doesn't exist' or that any such differences are insignificant, are arguing on ideological, rather than logical grounds.

I'll just take the opportunity to point out that YOU brought up superiority, not me.

LOL, Wes...in that case, I'd suggest you take your sense of superiority and...er...do with it what you will...

;)

Equitist wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 1:46pm:

LOL, Wes...in that case, I'd suggest you take your sense of superiority and...er...do with it what you will... ;)

I'll just take the opportunity to point out that YOU brought up superiority, not me.

... wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

Are not compatible.  The leftist position can be summed up as follows: Quote: “After a period of hundreds of thousands of years, evolving under different climatic conditions, encountering different challenges such as the Ice Ages, suffering different epidemics, subjected to different catastrophes and good fortune, all races magically ended up equal.”

I doubt that sums up the leftist position at all, but in any case you are really talking about completely different concepts. Evolution is just about how life changes over time and has no bearing on human concepts about equality. I don't see anyone claiming all humans are genetically identical.


... wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

The vehement denial of any differences between races by the left can be summarised in the folllowing absurd statement: Quote: “All creation, including plant and animal life, is subject to the laws of heredity. Every organ of the human species is likewise governed by the laws of heredity. The human brain stands alone as the only object of creation whose functioning is unaffected by heredity and is controlled strictly by environment.” Thus it seems irrefutable (though you are welcome to try) that the prevailing orthodoxy of the day is based on wishes, and not reality.

I don't know of anyone who thinks environment is solely responsible for affecting the brain. Genetics & environment both play a role in determining personality, for example.

Quote:

I don't know of anyone who thinks environment is solely responsible for affecting the brain. Genetics & environment both play a role in determining personality, for example.

of course they both play a part, but how do you reconcile that with the notion that different races do not have different common behavioural traits?  If genetics play a part in determining behaviour, those sharing similar genes will exhibit similar behavioural patterns.  This would account for the greater occurrence of violent crime by those of african descent compared to those of european or asian decsent, but leftists deny this exists, despite the mountain of evidence from all over the world.

Quote:

I doubt that sums up the leftist position at all, but in any case you are really talking about completely different concepts. Evolution is just about how life changes over time and has no bearing on human concepts about equality. I don't see anyone claiming all humans are genetically identical.

lets take aboriginals for example.  Existing for 50,000 years completely separate from other cultures, and thus subject to completely different pressures.  
How does it fit with evolutionary principles that they have exactly the same abilities and aptitudes than anyone else, despite only being exposed to the circumstances that gave rise to these abilities in the last 200 years?  200 years is not long enough for them to genetically adapt.  THIS is why the average aborignal IQ is around 65 - there was no need for complex computations in the environment they lived in, so no such abilities evolved.  How does this reconcile with the leftist notion that they have the same level of mental ability as europeans or asians?

... wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:07pm:

of course they both play a part, but how do you reconcile that with the notion that different races do not have different common behavioural traits?  If genetics play a part in determining behaviour, those sharing similar genes will exhibit similar behavioural patterns.  This would account for the greater occurrence of violent crime by those of african descent compared to those of european or asian decsent, but leftists deny this exists, despite the mountain of evidence from all over the world.

The problem is separating what causes what. Genetics often can predispose certain type of characteristics, say aggression. This by no means that people don't have the ability to influence their behaviour even if they have aggressive tendencies.

In order to be relatively certain that genetics was the primary driver for aggression in people of African descent you would need to eliminate or minimise the other variables from the environment / culture.

Quote:

Kytro wrote I don't know of anyone who thinks environment is solely responsible for affecting the brain. Genetics & environment both play a role in determining personality, for example.

The whole post-structuralist or postmodern deconstructionist movement is based on the environment being the sole cause of conditioning the human being.
This list includes, among thousands of others, Derrida, Foucault, and Butler. These three are very popular in the academe.

Kytro wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

... wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 2:07pm: of course they both play a part, but how do you reconcile that with the notion that different races do not have different common behavioural traits?  If genetics play a part in determining behaviour, those sharing similar genes will exhibit similar behavioural patterns.  This would account for the greater occurrence of violent crime by those of african descent compared to those of european or asian decsent, but leftists deny this exists, despite the mountain of evidence from all over the world. The problem is separating what causes what. Genetics often can predispose certain type of characteristics, say aggression. This by no means that people don't have the ability to influence their behaviour even if they have aggressive tendencies. In order to be relatively certain that genetics was the primary driver for aggression in people of African descent you would need to eliminate or minimise the other variables from the environment / culture.

J Philippe Rushton has done a lot of research to that end.  


Quote:

The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43. I have corroborated these results using the most recent INTERPOL yearbook (1990). The rates of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population reported for 23 predominantly African countries, 41 Caucasian countries, and 12 Asian countries were: for murder, 13, 5, and 3; for rape, 17, 6, and 3; and for serious assault, 213, 63, and 27. Summing the crimes gave figures per 100,000, respectively, of 243, 74, and 33. The gradient remained robust over contrasts of racially homogeneous countries in northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, or of racially mixed but predominantly black or white/Amerindian countries in the Caribbean and Central america.  In short, a stubborn pattern exists worldwide that requires explanation.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race%20and%20Crime.pdf

I don't have time at the moment to go through the research, but you always need to be careful with correlation. Correlation isn't causation and sometimes correlated facts can be due to another common factor. An example (I'm not saying this is a fact, just a demonstration of principle) would be that around the world those of recent African decent commit more violent crime, but they are also in more likely to be in poverty or areas in conflict.

I'm not claiming one thing is true over another but one cannot deny that situation has a huge impact on behaviour (which can be predisposed one way or another). Experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment show that people's behaviour can be altered.  

The one thing we can be sure of it there is no simple clear explanation and we should always be open to the possibility our assumptions are incorrect or incomplete.

Quote:

From football thugs clashing on the terraces to soldiers killing each other on the front line, most conflict can be blamed on the male sex drive, a study suggests. The review of psychological research concludes that men evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence. It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups, say the researchers. In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children. Professor Mark van Vugt, of Oxford University’s Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, said: ‘A solution to conflict . . . remains elusive. ‘One reason might be the difficulty we have in changing our mindset, which has evolved over thousands of years.’ The findings, which support the ‘male warrior hypothesis’, are published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. The psychologists claim that in all cultures and throughout history, men have sought to get their way by initiating violence. They prefer group-based hierarchies and are identified more strongly with their own groups than women. At a basic level, such ‘tribal’ aggression helped men in a group to obtain more females, increasing their chances of reproduction. ‘We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees,’ said Prof van Vugt. ‘For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory. ‘If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2090226/When-men-war-blame-sex-drive-Males-evolved-aggressive-outsiders.html

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2012/cultural_conflict.xhtml

the problem with using this argument as an attack on 'lefties' is that the mainstream right actually believe the same thing, or concede it is so but just consider it irrelevant.

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

the problem with using this argument as an attack on 'lefties' is that the mainstream right actually believe the same thing, or concede it is so but just consider it irrelevant.

1. the mainstream, whether left or right leaning, are idiots.  Idiots.
2. Do they really believe it, or are they just too cowed to stand against the status quo?

what is a lefty? what is a righty anyway?

now there's a question.

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

what is a lefty? what is a righty anyway? now there's a question.

My current thinking is that I'm not so much a righty as I am an anti-lefty.  A different kind of lefty.  Theres heaps I'd change if I could, but not according to the same idiotic ideology pushed by todays left.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:08am: the problem with using this argument as an attack on 'lefties' is that the mainstream right actually believe the same thing, or concede it is so but just consider it irrelevant. 1. the mainstream, whether left or right leaning, are idiots.  Idiots. /quote] i don't agree. i wouldn't call mainstream conservative or liberal/leftist talking heads idiots. people are conformist herd animals that will go along with whatever position garners them social status and respectability - it's human nature. [quote]2. Do they really believe it, or are they just too cowed to stand against the status quo?

i'd definitely say yes they do. and you have to remember they are the status quo. they're one half of it. if they had never conceded so much ground to the forces that desired to obfuscate and eliminate discussion of the issues this topic pertains to, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. they have nobody to blame but themselves.

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:17am: barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:08am: the problem with using this argument as an attack on 'lefties' is that the mainstream right actually believe the same thing, or concede it is so but just consider it irrelevant. 1. the mainstream, whether left or right leaning, are idiots.  Idiots. /quote] i don't agree. i wouldn't call mainstream conservative or liberal/leftist talking heads idiots. people are conformist herd animals that will go along with whatever position garners them social status and respectability - it's human nature. Remember that story a few days ago 'conservatives lower IQ's than liberals?  That might tie in here - high IQ people would be smart enough to not imperil their position by showing 'unfavourable' views.  But self-preservation isn't the only instinct people feel or act on. [quote]2. Do they really believe it, or are they just too cowed to stand against the status quo? i'd definitely say yes they do. and you have to remember they are the status quo. they're one half of it. if they had never conceded so much ground to the forces that desired to obfuscate and eliminate discussion of the issues this topic pertains to, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Who are we talking about here?  Religious right?  Money men?

i'm just talking about the people you would consider to be 'respectable' conservatives in western societies. the william f buckleys, jonah goldbergs, george w bushs, david camerons, john mccains, the LONGWEEKENDS, etc, those guys.

you know what i mean.

Quote:

Remember that story a few days ago 'conservatives lower IQ's than liberals?  That might tie in here - high IQ people would be smart enough to not imperil their position by showing 'unfavourable' views.  But self-preservation isn't the only instinct people feel or act on.

well no, but i'm n ot really thinking about just the hordes who will lap up any idea you put in front of them - they don't matter. i'm thinking more of the people who put the ideas in front of them. elites, conservative or liberal, are not dumb.

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

i'm just talking about the people you would consider to be 'respectable' conservatives in western societies. the william f buckleys, jonah goldbergs, george w bushs, david camerons, john mccains, the LONGWEEKENDS, etc, those guys. you know what i mean.

Me, being a lefty, don't care for those types. 
But you are correct, they are not idiots - they are assholes.  Assholes who have sold us all out for personal gain.....which is entirely understandable from their point of view, but I don't have to like them for it. 

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Quote: Remember that story a few days ago 'conservatives lower IQ's than liberals?  That might tie in here - high IQ people would be smart enough to not imperil their position by showing 'unfavourable' views.  But self-preservation isn't the only instinct people feel or act on. well no, but i'm n ot really thinking about just the hordes who will lap up any idea you put in front of them - they don't matter. i'm thinking more of the people who put the ideas in front of them. elites, conservative or liberal, are not dumb.

The hordes do matter - of course they matter.  They obviously aren't the 'brains' of the outfit, but they are the enforcers of the orthodoxy. Without them, the elites who formulate these ideas would be powerless.  The hordes are the manistream.  That they are guided by smart people is irrelevant, they themselves are unthinking drones.

so where do we go from here? where do HBD people go?

most people are put to sleep or revolted (or secretly intrigued) by fact tables about heritability, IQ, behavioral genetics, evo psychology, gene-environment evolution, etc. prepare to be called a propagator of '19th century pseudoscience' even if you're citing papers from 2011. many aspects of the whole debate have only become more and more certain, take this landmark for example: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

yet people are still not listening. why is this and what can we do about it?

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:46am:

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Quote: Remember that story a few days ago 'conservatives lower IQ's than liberals?  That might tie in here - high IQ people would be smart enough to not imperil their position by showing 'unfavourable' views.  But self-preservation isn't the only instinct people feel or act on. well no, but i'm n ot really thinking about just the hordes who will lap up any idea you put in front of them - they don't matter. i'm thinking more of the people who put the ideas in front of them. elites, conservative or liberal, are not dumb. The hordes do matter - of course they matter.  They obviously aren't the 'brains' of the outfit, but they are the enforcers of the orthodoxy. Without them, the elites who formulate these ideas would be powerless.  The hordes are the manistream.  That they are guided by smart people is irrelevant, they themselves are unthinking drones.

well agreed, but i just don't think they matter when it comes to changing things that much. you need elites to green light it for them before they start following a certain tune.

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:46am: barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Quote: Remember that story a few days ago 'conservatives lower IQ's than liberals?  That might tie in here - high IQ people would be smart enough to not imperil their position by showing 'unfavourable' views.  But self-preservation isn't the only instinct people feel or act on. well no, but i'm n ot really thinking about just the hordes who will lap up any idea you put in front of them - they don't matter. i'm thinking more of the people who put the ideas in front of them. elites, conservative or liberal, are not dumb. The hordes do matter - of course they matter.  They obviously aren't the 'brains' of the outfit, but they are the enforcers of the orthodoxy. Without them, the elites who formulate these ideas would be powerless.  The hordes are the manistream.  That they are guided by smart people is irrelevant, they themselves are unthinking drones. well agreed, but i just don't think they matter when it comes to changing things that much. you need elites to green light it for them before they start following a certain tune.

Oh hell no.  It's a rare breed of man who marches to the beat of his own drum.  It's all just a battle for the hearts and minds of the drones, and the weapons of choice are academia and the media.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:18am: what is a lefty? what is a righty anyway? now there's a question. My current thinking is that I'm not so much a righty as I am an anti-lefty.

And according to the scientific evidence, you would be right.

You don't have any Aboriginal in you do you, Honky? Aparently they have IQs of 64. The leftists would have you believe it doesn't matter, but one drop of blood and that's it.

I nearly got infected by one of them once, but I think I got away with it.

finally, karnal is here. now we've got ourselves a party.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:21am: barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:18am: what is a lefty? what is a righty anyway? now there's a question. My current thinking is that I'm not so much a righty as I am an anti-lefty.  And according to the scientific evidence, you would be right. You don't have any Aboriginal in you do you, Honky? Aparently they have IQs of 64. The leftists would have you believe it doesn't matter, but one drop of blood and that's it. I nearly got infected by one of them once, but I think I got away with it.

Why would a high IQ be needed to live as aborigines did?  Burn the place, pick over the remains, move on.  Doesn't seem like the kind of environment that would require the ability for complex calculations, so no such ability would confer any significant advantage, thus wouldn't become widespread. 

True, Honky, but I think we've stopped most of them doing things like that.

What do you do for a living?

none of your fn business.

Why do you ask karanal?

Does it require complex calculations?

yes it does. 

But I know, you know, we all know thats irrelevant as evolution isn't an instantaneous thing.  50,000 years and only inveneting a stick suggest they were very well suited to the environment they were in.  But things have changed since then and theyre not nearly so well adapted. 

But all is not lost, evolution begins anew, and they seen to have found their niche living off the scraps white man throws them.  These are exciting times, as we are witnessing the birth of a proud new race - the neo-abos.

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 6:55pm:

yes it does.  But I know, you know, we all know thats irrelevant as evolution isn't an instantaneous thing.  50,000 years and only inveneting a stick suggest they were very well suited to the environment they were in.  But things have changed since then and theyre not nearly so well adapted.  But all is not lost, evolution begins anew, and they seen to have found their niche living off the scraps white man throws them.  These are exciting times, as we are witnessing the birth of a proud new race - the neo-abos.

Exactly. How about your great-great-great-great grandparents, Honky?

Any complex calculations there, or are we witnessing the birth of a new race?

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

... wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 6:55pm: yes it does.  But I know, you know, we all know thats irrelevant as evolution isn't an instantaneous thing.  50,000 years and only inveneting a stick suggest they were very well suited to the environment they were in.  But things have changed since then and theyre not nearly so well adapted.  But all is not lost, evolution begins anew, and they seen to have found their niche living off the scraps white man throws them.  These are exciting times, as we are witnessing the birth of a proud new race - the neo-abos. Exactly. How about your great-great-great-great grandparents, Honky? Any complex calculations there?

Heaps mate.

You must be smart. Mine were bog cutters and potato farmers.

It probably explains why I've always been a bit on the fringes at the Faculty. Still, give it another 50,000 years and my DNA should be much better.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

You must be smart. Mine were bog cutters and potato farmers. It probably explains why I've always been a bit on the fringes at the Faculty. Still, give it another 50,000 years and my DNA should be much better.

Well who knows?  maybe when climate change/nuclear war/the reptoid invasion decimates humanity it'll be the abo  neo-abos who will be best adapted to the new world. 

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 6:49pm:

Why do you ask karanal?

Seriously? You couldn't make fun of the word 'karnal' without changing it?

Those neo-aborigines will be using you like the tool you were meant to be if you survive that reptoid invasion.

Well, they've already invented the stick. Who knows? They might invent a Honky.

History is full of unnecessary innovation, so I don't see why not.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

... wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 6:49pm: Why do you ask karanal? Seriously? You couldn't make fun of the word 'karnal' without changing it? Those neo-aborigines will be using you like the tool you were meant to be if you survive that reptoid invasion.

twas a typo.

*shrugs*

Thanks for another ground breaking insight though. 

haha.

You're welcome.

How'd you hit the 'a' between the 'r' and the 'n' by mistake?

I've done worse though - I once missed the letter 'i' in 'doing' when replying to a pastor. It took me ages to live it down. It was known as the 'typo dong' on that site for ages.

My finger must have hovered after first "A".  It happens often.
My fingers just aren't adapted to this world increasingly reliant on buttons and keypads. I hope this won't result in my seed disappearing from the earth.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:42pm:

haha. You're welcome. How'd you hit the 'a' between the 'r' and the 'n' by mistake? I've done worse though - I once missed the letter 'i' in 'doing' when replying to a pastor. It took me ages to live it down. It was known as the 'typo dong' on that site for ages.

Jesus wept!!!

How many forums do you post on?

Well, I like it. Karanal.

And yes, Honky, if we change from Honky Tonks to the technology of the stick I wouldn't want to be your Centrelink caseworker. Your gripes would go something like this:




Triple My Pension & Fund My Dental Care

The Griping Goes Up Not Down Always Up

I Want Your Bonus

I Am A Victim Of Disability Discrimination

Still, no one's discussed the complex skills required to use the stick yet. It took Tom Hanks a long time to work out how to spear a fish in Castaway. Robinson Crusoe would have learnt too, but he had his trusted man Friday to do it for him.

Or look what the stick did in the early encounters with the white man. One of them killed Captain Cook. Another speared Arthur Phillip - just enough to cause an incredibly painful shoulder injury but not kill him: payback for kidnapping blacks.

The souvenir industry relies on the belief that the technology of the stick was a marvel of traditional ingenuity. The point of all those Chinese-made boomerangs is that they're clever - and you can burn a harbour bridge onto them and show both worlds.

Everyone needed complex skills in the hunter-gatherer economy. Today, driftnet fishermen catch all the fish. Abatoir workers kill all the meat. The complex skill of hauling in a catch and putting a bolt through the head of a steer is done by a small few.

Back in the good old days, you provided food or stories or magic (or whatever it was you did) or you lost your status in the community.

These days you get a pension.

Karnal wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

Still, no one's discussed the complex skills required to use the stick yet. It took Tom Hanks a long time to work out how to spear a fish in Castaway. Robinson Crusoe would have learnt too, but he had his trusted man Friday to do it for him. Or look what the stick did in the early encounters with the white man. One of them killed Captain Cook. Another speared Arthur Phillip - just enough to cause an incredibly painful shoulder injury but not kill him: payback for kidnapping blacks. The souvenir industry relies on the belief that the technology of the stick was a marvel of traditional ingenuity. The point of all those Chinese-made boomerangs is that they're clever - and you can burn a harbour bridge onto them and show both worlds. Everyone needed complex skills in the hunter-gatherer economy. Today, driftnet fishermen catch all the fish. Abatoir workers kill all the meat. The complex skill of hauling in a catch and putting a bolt through the head of a steer is done by a small few. Back in the good old days, you provided food or stories or magic (or whatever it was you did) or you lost your status in the community. These days you get a pension.

Well, off you go then, Akhmed'bimbo'lah, and spear your own fish, slaughter your own steer and kill your own goats (as you do).

You preach as if you didn't go to the butcher for your dinner. The noble savage with his stick can't manege it. See, PB, you are superior to some people. Jimmy Black can make it only as far as the petrol station. Where are his famous survival skills suitable to the urban jungle that is Oz? He can't use even his special ed sticks no more.

This thread is so dumb

... wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

Are not compatible.  The leftist position can be summed up as follows: Quote: “After a period of hundreds of thousands of years, evolving under different climatic conditions, encountering different challenges such as the Ice Ages, suffering different epidemics, subjected to different catastrophes and good fortune, all races magically ended up equal.” The vehement denial of any differences between races by the left can be summarised in the folllowing absurd statement: [quote] “All creation, including plant and animal life, is subject to the laws of heredity. Every organ of the human species is likewise governed by the laws of heredity. The human brain stands alone as the only object of creation whose functioning is unaffected by heredity and is controlled strictly by environment.”

Thus it seems irrefutable (though you are welcome to try) that the prevailing orthodoxy of the day is based on wishes, and not reality.[/quote]The Scientific or "Leftist" as you call it ,Please go to america if you want to use their stupidity,is that a Race is a contest between Athletes or horses or camels or dogs .

As far as evolution is concerned ,and the 100 odd years of evolutionary science since ,NO Human Racial differences EXIST.period.

see the use of the word "race " is a political ,not a scientific construct.

The Human race doesn't exist ,its known by us educated types as the Human Species ,HOMOSAPIEN !

do they teach biology in Western Australian schools ? Or did you emigrate from Queennsland?

This dear one emmigrated from the light.

Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Children are from God.

Stick-wielding Pakistanis are from another place. I forget where.

philxx wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:23am:

... wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:39pm: Are not compatible.  The leftist position can be summed up as follows: Quote: “After a period of hundreds of thousands of years, evolving under different climatic conditions, encountering different challenges such as the Ice Ages, suffering different epidemics, subjected to different catastrophes and good fortune, all races magically ended up equal.” The vehement denial of any differences between races by the left can be summarised in the folllowing absurd statement: [quote] “All creation, including plant and animal life, is subject to the laws of heredity. Every organ of the human species is likewise governed by the laws of heredity. The human brain stands alone as the only object of creation whose functioning is unaffected by heredity and is controlled strictly by environment.” Thus it seems irrefutable (though you are welcome to try) that the prevailing orthodoxy of the day is based on wishes, and not reality.

The Scientific or "Leftist" as you call it ,Please go to america if you want to use their stupidity,is that a Race is a contest between Athletes or horses or camels or dogs .

As far as evolution is concerned ,and the 100 odd years of evolutionary science since ,NO Human Racial differences EXIST.period.

see the use of the word "race " is a political ,not a scientific construct.

The Human race doesn't exist ,its known by us educated types as the Human Species ,HOMOSAPIEN !

do they teach biology in Western Australian schools ? Or did you emigrate from Queennsland?
[/quote]

BiDil Receives FDA Approval as First Racially Targeted DrugPrinter-friendly format By: by Sharon H. Fitzgerald


Quote:

Dr. Theodore Addai chief of cardiology at Nashville General Hospital and Meharry Medical College.  The Food and Drug Administration on June 23 approved BiDil, a drug treatment for cardiovascular disease that specifically targets blacks. In a statement, the FDA says the drug represents "a step toward the promise of personalized medicine."

http://nashville.medicalnewsinc.com/bidil-receives-fda-approval-as-first-racially-targeted-drug-cms-478

But...If No racial differences exist, how can there be such a thing as racially targetted medicine?  It simply does not compute.

Might wanna rethink the groupthink buddy.

... wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

philxx wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 7:23am: ... wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 12:39pm: Are not compatible.  The leftist position can be summed up as follows: Quote: “After a period of hundreds of thousands of years, evolving under different climatic conditions, encountering different challenges such as the Ice Ages, suffering different epidemics, subjected to different catastrophes and good fortune, all races magically ended up equal.” The vehement denial of any differences between races by the left can be summarised in the folllowing absurd statement: [quote] “All creation, including plant and animal life, is subject to the laws of heredity. Every organ of the human species is likewise governed by the laws of heredity. The human brain stands alone as the only object of creation whose functioning is unaffected by heredity and is controlled strictly by environment.” Thus it seems irrefutable (though you are welcome to try) that the prevailing orthodoxy of the day is based on wishes, and not reality. The Scientific or "Leftist" as you call it ,Please go to america if you want to use their stupidity,is that a Race is a contest between Athletes or horses or camels or dogs . As far as evolution is concerned ,and the 100 odd years of evolutionary science since ,NO Human Racial differences EXIST.period. see the use of the word "race " is a political ,not a scientific construct. The Human race doesn't exist ,its known by us educated types as the Human Species ,HOMOSAPIEN ! do they teach biology in Western Australian schools ? Or did you emigrate from Queennsland?

BiDil Receives FDA Approval as First Racially Targeted DrugPrinter-friendly format By: by Sharon H. Fitzgerald


Quote:

Dr. Theodore Addai chief of cardiology at Nashville General Hospital and Meharry Medical College.  The Food and Drug Administration on June 23 approved BiDil, a drug treatment for cardiovascular disease that specifically targets blacks. In a statement, the FDA says the drug represents "a step toward the promise of personalized medicine."

http://nashville.medicalnewsinc.com/bidil-receives-fda-approval-as-first-racially-targeted-drug-cms-478

But...If No racial differences exist, how can there be such a thing as racially targetted medicine?  It simply does not compute.

Might wanna rethink the groupthink buddy.[/quote]

Do they have Pakistani medicine too?

Mebbe.

You're not....sick are you?   :'(

So all the world's problems are caused by oversexed males?

:-?

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

:-?

Sorry, I was referring to an earlier post but omitted to quote it:

... wrote on Jan 24^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

Quote: From football thugs clashing on the terraces to soldiers killing each other on the front line, most conflict can be blamed on the male sex drive, a study suggests. The review of psychological research concludes that men evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence. It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups, say the researchers. In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children. Professor Mark van Vugt, of Oxford University’s Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, said: ‘A solution to conflict . . . remains elusive. ‘One reason might be the difficulty we have in changing our mindset, which has evolved over thousands of years.’ The findings, which support the ‘male warrior hypothesis’, are published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. The psychologists claim that in all cultures and throughout history, men have sought to get their way by initiating violence. They prefer group-based hierarchies and are identified more strongly with their own groups than women. At a basic level, such ‘tribal’ aggression helped men in a group to obtain more females, increasing their chances of reproduction. ‘We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees,’ said Prof van Vugt. ‘For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory. ‘If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2090226/When-men-war-blame-sex-drive-Males-evolved-aggressive-outsiders.html http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2012/cultural_conflict.xhtml

I have spoken at length about the problems that arise when men can't get laid on those threads you love som much in the womens forum. But that's undersexed or not at all sexed males.  Oversexed males are happy, so they're not gonna rock the boat.
Sure it creates problems - but all the worlds problems?  You'd like that wouldn't you - if somehow women can escape the blame for the mess they played the lead in creating.  I'm not interested in one-upmanship, or a battle of the sexes.  All I care about is the truth.

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

I have spoken at length about the problems that arise when men can't get laid on those threads you love som much in the womens forum. But that's undersexed or not at all sexed males.  Oversexed males are happy, so they're not gonna rock the boat. Sure it creates problems - but all the worlds problems?  You'd like that wouldn't you - if somehow women can escape the blame for the mess they played the lead in creating.  I'm not interested in one-upmanship, or a battle of the sexes.  All I care about is the truth.

You are interested in reclamation of the masculine by raging against all things that deviate from your definition of the feminine.

This is what I'm interested in:

http://0.tqn.com/d/taoism/1/0/0/-/-/-/yinYang.gif


Restoring the balance. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCWv87Zz62k

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:13am: I have spoken at length about the problems that arise when men can't get laid on those threads you love som much in the womens forum. But that's undersexed or not at all sexed males.  Oversexed males are happy, so they're not gonna rock the boat. Sure it creates problems - but all the worlds problems?  You'd like that wouldn't you - if somehow women can escape the blame for the mess they played the lead in creating.  I'm not interested in one-upmanship, or a battle of the sexes.  All I care about is the truth. You are interested in reclamation of the masculine by raging against all things that deviate from your definition of the feminine.

Masculine and deminine are not literary characteristics and so they are not matters of 'interpretation'.

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

Mebbe. You're not....sick are you?   :'(

No, my friend. I find my good self in perfect health, as Gud wills it.

I do not wish to take same medicine as a Hindu or Jew.

Christian is okay.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:24am: ... wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 11:13am: I have spoken at length about the problems that arise when men can't get laid on those threads you love som much in the womens forum. But that's undersexed or not at all sexed males.  Oversexed males are happy, so they're not gonna rock the boat. Sure it creates problems - but all the worlds problems?  You'd like that wouldn't you - if somehow women can escape the blame for the mess they played the lead in creating.  I'm not interested in one-upmanship, or a battle of the sexes.  All I care about is the truth. You are interested in reclamation of the masculine by raging against all things that deviate from your definition of the feminine. Masculine and deminine are not literary characteristics and so they are not matters of 'interpretation'.

Masculine and feminine are fluid. They are most certainly open to interpretation. What isn't?

Men in fear of emasculation attack the feminine itself or use it as a weapon in attacks on each other.

Nah, masculinity is at one end of the spectrum, with femininity at the other. Individuals fall somewhere in between the 2 ideals.  The ideals themselves don't move, it's the relative numbers on any given part of the spectrum that do. ie an excess of girly men or manjawed femos skew the perception of the ideals.

All the ball busting dykes in the world can't make this feminine:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/R1CQr0qG_1I/AAAAAAAAB2k/8qP-PJNIXO0/s1600-R/Leonidas1.jpg

and all the girly men in the world can't make this masculine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Helen_of_Troy.jpg/220px-Helen_of_Troy.jpg

... wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 6:15pm:

Nah, masculinity is at one end of the spectrum, with femininity at the other. Individuals fall somewhere in between the 2 ideals.  The ideals themselves don't move, it's the relative numbers on any given part of the spectrum that do. ie an excess of girly men or manjawed femos skew the perception of the ideals. All the ball busting dykes in the world can't make this feminine: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/R1CQr0qG_1I/AAAAAAAAB2k/8qP-PJNIXO0/s1600-R/Leonidas1.jpg and all the girly men in the world can't make this masculine: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Helen_of_Troy.jpg/220px-Helen_of_Troy.jpg

I was going to accept your challenge regarding the pictures but realised in trying I'd be aspiring to be a ball busting dyke.

It kills the appeal.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Masculine and feminine are fluid. They are most certainly open to interpretation. What isn't? Men in fear of emasculation attack the feminine itself or use it as a weapon in attacks on each other.

What do  'women in fear' do when their femininity is threatened? Do they attack masculinity or do they use femininity to attack each other (bitching)?
Or what?

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:04pm:

What do  'women in fear' do when their femininity is threatened?

When their femininity is threatened? It would be more accurate to say the threat to women is having the masculine idea of femininity being forced upon them.


Quote:

Do they attack masculinity or do they use femininity to attack each other (bitching)? Or what

Is being bitchy feminine, Enid Jane?

I jest.

Yes, I think that's exactly what they do.

Quote:

annie anthrax wrote It would be more accurate to say the threat to women is having the masculine idea of femininity being forced upon them.

So does this work in reverse, when men have the feminine idea of masculinity forced on them?

What is the feminine idea of the masculine?

That being powerful and assertive is bad and we must feel guilt for it.

Assertive is good. Powerful, better. Women can be both without being masculine.

No need for guilt. The guilt comes from trying to keep the power exclusively in the hands of men. Sharing is good.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:15pm:

Is being bitchy feminine, Enid Jane? I jest.

Ah!! you are displaying typical emasculated male behaviour - attacking with the weapon of feminising the 'other'.

Not a male trait, then, after all - unless you are an emasculated bloke pretending to  be  a woman.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

Quote: annie anthrax wrote It would be more accurate to say the threat to women is having the masculine idea of femininity being forced upon them. So does this work in reverse, when men have the feminine idea of masculinity forced on them?

It's fluid, innit.  Or as the poetess Tea Towel pot it in her The Rules,

1.The female makes the rules.
2.The rules are subject to change by the female
at any time without prior notification.
3.No male can possibly
know all the rules.
Attempts to document the rules
are not permitted.
4.If the female suspects
that the male may know some or
all of the rules,
she must immediately change some or
all of the rules.
5.The female is never wrong.


Etc etc

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

Assertive is good. Powerful, better. Women can be both without being masculine. No need for guilt. The guilt comes from trying to keep the power exclusively in the hands of men. Sharing is good.

yes, they can - without usurping any of mans power base.  There's more than one form of power and they work in different ways.  The power of men and women coexist in synergy, in a zero-sum game.  Mens power is wielded over other men, decided by whos got the biggest guns or the strongets arm (coercive power), but the ultimate prize still is, and always will be the women.  All women need to do to have "power' is to learn to utilise what they intrinsically have.  They do not also need the super-strong arm of the law, the bureaucracy, and a legion off beta male slaves.  The power is theirs already, yet ironically the more they crave the male source of power, the spirit of masculinity, the further they stray from the source of their intrinsic feminine power.  Sucked in ball busters. 

Quote:

Not a male trait, then, after all - unless you are an emasculated bloke pretending to  be  a woman.

Then it'd still be a male trait wouldn't it, smarty pants?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:07pm:

Quote: Not a male trait, then, after all - unless you are an emasculated bloke pretending to  be  a woman. Then it'd still be a male trait wouldn't it, smarty pants?

Hence the word 'unless'. You are not familiar with it?

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:03pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 9:31pm: Quote: annie anthrax wrote It would be more accurate to say the threat to women is having the masculine idea of femininity being forced upon them. So does this work in reverse, when men have the feminine idea of masculinity forced on them? It's fluid, innit.  Or as the poetess Tea Towel pot it in her The Rules, 1.The female makes the rules. 2.The rules are subject to change by the female at any time without prior notification. 3.No male can possibly know all the rules. Attempts to document the rules are not permitted. 4.If the female suspects that the male may know some or all of the rules, she must immediately change some or all of the rules. 5.The female is never wrong. Etc etc

Yeah, "fluid" is right out of the postmodern lefty handbook.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

Yeah, "fluid" is right out of the postmodern lefty handbook.

I got it out of my trusty, well-worn pocket edition.

Soren wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 10:51pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 10:07pm: Quote: Not a male trait, then, after all - unless you are an emasculated bloke pretending to  be  a woman. Then it'd still be a male trait wouldn't it, smarty pants? Hence the word 'unless'. You are not familiar with it?

If I were an emasculated male, I would still be a male. With male traits.

Quote:

Such reactions go to show that science rejection is an instinctive, emotional and ideological response to evidence that appears to threaten certain deeply-entrenched worldviews.

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

This phenomena isn't isolated to one discipline, but against any inconvenient truth.  I expect a significant proportion of the people who complain about climate change 'deniers' ignoring science, act in a similar fashion regarding other taboo subjects such as this one.